The Gospels contain many verses proving the
fact that the belief of trinity is wrong.
[Before citing those verses, it will be useful
to give brief information on the origin of the belief of trinity [three gods],
which was inserted into Christianity afterwards. In all the religions that have
been revealed since Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’, Allâhu ta’âlâ has been the [only]
creator and owner, and His name has been (ALLAH) in all these religions.
Everybody with common sense will know that it is wrong to believe in trinity,
three gods. The fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ is one is stated also in the Gospel
written by Barnabas, one of the Apostles. The Gospel of Barnabas was published
in Turkish in
The third verse of
the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel of
John states: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee
the only true God, and Jesus Christ, who thou hast sent.” (John: 17-3) This
verse announces clearly that Allâhu ta’âlâ is (ONE), who is the owner of real,
eternal life, and that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is a Messenger sent by Allâhu
ta’âlâ.
By commanding through this verse to have
belief in the eternal life, i.e. life in the hereafter, in the existence and
unity of Allâhu ta’âlâ, and in Prophets, the Gospel
of John enjoins that a doctrine running counter to this, i.e. trinity, is an
everlastingly inadmissible falsity. [This verse of John’s declares that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ is a Messenger, a Prophet. Thinking and believing otherwise afterwards means apparent
aberration that will annihilate the eternal life, the everlasting felicity in
the hereafter. In the beginning of the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel of
John Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is quoted as praying as follows on the cross: “And
this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom thou hast sent.” [Verse: 3]. Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ announces here
that Allâhu ta’âlâ is the only being who is to be worshipped, who is worthy of
being worshipped, and he himself (Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’) is His born slave and
Messenger. He informs that eternal life, life in Paradise is impossible unless
it is accepted and believed that Allâhu ta’âlâ is the one Rabb and he (Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’) is the Prophet. This is the
very fact taught by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and all the other Prophets ‘alaihimus-salâm’ alike. That is, it is to
believe in the existence and the unity of Allâhu ta’âlâ and to confirm His Prophets.] Islam, alone, comprehends this belief of
the eternal life to come in its entire and correct sense. Since Christians have
fallen into the abyss of trinity; Jews do not believe in Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’,
[and sordidly traduce that immaculate Prophet, and do not believe in Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, either];
idolaters, [those who do not believe in any religion, atheists] deny all Prophets; there cannot be a real life of felicity,
life of Paradise for them. [As a punishment for their denial of Allâhu ta’âlâ
and His Prophets and their
slanderous and inimical attitude, they shall remain forever in Hell. They shall
lead a grievous, torturous life in Hell.]
It is written in the twenty-ninth and later
verses of the twelfth chapter of the Gospel of Mark that when a Jewish scholar
asked Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ what the first and the most important commandment
was, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ said, “... The first of all the commandments is, Hear,
O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:” “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart,
-198-
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment.” “And the second is like, namely this,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, There is none other commandment
greater than these.” “And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast
said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:” “And to
love him with all the heart and with all the understanding, and with all the
soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more
than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” “And when Jesus saw that he
answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of
God. ...” (Mark: 12-29 to 34)
In the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh and
thirty-eighth verses of the twenty-second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew when
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was asked, “Master, which is the great commandment in the
law?” “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” “This is the first and
great commandment.” (Matt: 22-36, 37, 38) And it is stated in the fortieth
verse that all Sharî’ats and Prophets are
dependent on this commandment. [The fact that Allah is one is written clearly
in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The word ‘Father’ means ‘Rabb’, ‘Owner’,
and ‘Lord’. It does not mean biological father.]
[Furthermore, the epistles that have been
annexed to the Bible and are therefore considered to be its components contain
statements expressing that Allâhu ta’âlâ is one.
The twentieth verse of the third chapter of
Paul’s epistle to the Galatians states: “... but God is one.” (Gal: 3-20)
The fourth, the fifth and the sixth verses of
the fourth chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians state: “There is one
body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;” “One
Lord, one faith, one baptism,” “One God and Father of all, who is above all,
and through all, and in you all.” (Eph: 4-4, 5, 6)
The seventeenth verse of the first chapter of
I Timothy states: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only
wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (I Tim: 1-17)
The third, fourth and fifth verses of the
second chapter state: “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our
Saviour;” “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of
the truth.” “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the
man Christ Jesus;” (ibid: 2-3, 4, 5) The twenty-fifth verse of the Epistle of
Jude states: “To the only wise
-199-
The first commandment, the first injunction in
the Taurah, [in the genuine Injîl (the Bible in its pristine purity)], in all
the heavenly Books, [and in the Sharî’ats of all Prophets], is tawhîd, which means to believe in the existence and unity
of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Had the first and the most important commandment been
trinity, Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ and all the succeeding Prophets ‘alaihimus-salâm’ would have announced it
overtly. None of those Prophets stated
anything like that. This is another proof testifying to the fact that the
doctrine of trinity did not exist originally but appeared afterwards.
[These verses from the New Testament
definitely rescind the Christian doctrine of (belief in three Gods). Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ overtly commands here to believe in Allâhu ta’âlâ, who is one,
and to love Him more than anything else. Paul also wrote in every occasion in
his epistles that Allâhu ta’âlâ is one. If Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ were a God as
Christians believe, he would have said that the primary commandment was to love
him and that there were three Gods.
The Taurah, too, announces the unity of Allâhu
ta’âlâ in many places.
The thirty-ninth verse of the fourth chapter
of Tesniya (Deuteronomy) states: “Know therefore this day, and consider it in
thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth
beneath: there is none else.” (Deut: 4-39)
The fourth and fifth verses of the sixth
chapter state: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is our Lord:” “And thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thine soul, and with
all thy might.” (ibid: 6-4, 5)
The thirty-ninth verse of the thirty-second
chapter states: “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I
kill, and make alive; ...” (ibid: 32-39)
The twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth verses of
the fortieth chapter of (the Book of) Isaiah state: “To whom then will ye liken
me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One [Allah].” “Lift up your eyes on
high, and behold who hath created these things, ...” (Is: 40-25, 26)
The tenth and later verses of the forty-third
chapter state: “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have
chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me
there was no God formed, neither shall there be
-200-
after me.” “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no
saviour.” “... saith the Lord, that I am God.” (ibid: 43-10, 11, 12)
The fifth verse of the forty-fifth chapter
states: “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me, ...”
(ibid: 45-5)
The tenth verse of the second chapter of
Malachi states: “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? ...”
(Mal: 2-10)
Again, in Isaiah, the eighteenth verse of its
forty-fifth chapter reads: “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens;
God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he
created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there
is none else.” (Is: 45-18)
The twenty-first and twenty-second verses
state: “... have not I the LORD? and there is no God beside me; a just God and
a Saviour; there is none beside me.” “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the
ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” (ibid: 21-22)
The ninth verse of the forty-sixth chapter
states: “... I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like
me,” (ibid: 46-9)
Inasmuch as the Old Testament section of the
Holy Bible is included in the Christian belief, it must be interesting to know
what Christians will do about these verses. For these verses reject belief in
any god, no matter what it be called, son or holy ghost or whatsoever, except
(ALLÂHU TA’ÂLÂ). They declare definitely that Allâhu ta’âlâ is one and He has
no partner or likeness. Believing in trinity, Christians deny these verses.]
In the thirty-second verse of the thirteenth
chapter of the Gospel of Mark, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ says, “But of that day and
that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father.” (Mark: 13-32)
It is written as follows in the twentieth and
later verses of the twentieth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew: “Then came to
him the mother of Zeb’e-dee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and
desiring a certain thing of him.” “And he saith unto her, What wilt thou? She
saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right
hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.” “But Jesus answered and said,
Ye know not what ye ask. ...” “... but to sit on my right hand, and on my left,
is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of
my
-201-
Father.” (Matt: 20-20, 21, 22, 23)
[As is stated in the Gospel of Mark, Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ declared that he did not know when the end of the world will
come, and that Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, knows its time. He did not refrain from
saying this publicly. Mustn’t a person who is believed to be the son of Allah
or Allah himself know this? Some Christians tried to explain this
(contradiction) in various ways, but they were not convinced by their own
explanations.]
The verses we have cited from the existing Gospels
and from the Old Testament cry out the fact that the doctrine of trinity is
wrong. For these verses take knowledge and power away from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
and assign them to Allâhu ta’âlâ.
The sixteenth and seventeenth verses of the
nineteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew state: “And, behold, one came and
said unto him, Good Master, what good shall I do, that I may have eternal
life?” “And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but
one, that is, God: ...” (Matt: 19-16, 17) This verse extirpates trinity.
[These statements of Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ are
written textually in the Holy Bible which was published in Istanbul in the
lunar year 1303 [A.D. 1886] by British and American Bible corporations.[1] On the other hand, this seventeenth verse is written as, “Jesus
said unto him: Why do you ask me of goodness? There is one (who is) good,” in
the Holy Bible published in 1982 by the united Bible societies.[2] As it is seen, the expression, The phrase ‘none... but one’ in
the statement “There is none good but one,” has been excised. The statement
about the unity of Allâhu ta’âlâ has been detoured. Thus a new mutilation has
been added to the changes that have been exercised on the Bible throughout
centuries.]
In the forty-sixth verse of the twenty-seventh
chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, as he was on the cross,
cried out: “... E’li, E’li, la’ma sa-bach’tha-ni? that is to say, My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt: 27-46) On the other hand, it is written
in the forty-sixth verse of the twenty-third chapter of the Gospel of Luke that
he cried, “... Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: ...” (Luke: 23-46)
These verses announce without any doubt that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is not divine.
---------------------------------
[1] The Holy
Bible, 1978, National Publishing Comp., U.S.A.
[2] Turkish
Bible, UBS-EPF-1982-7 M-53, N.T., p. 21
-202-
[If Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had been the same as
the Rabb, he would not have asked for help from anyone. He would not have said,
“I trust my soul to Thine hands.” Will a God die? Will a God ever ask for help
from others, or become sorry or aggrieved? A God must be eternal, permanent,
alive [hayy], immortal, and must not need anyone. It is written clearly in the
Old Testament that this is so.
It is written in the twenty-seventh and
twenty-eighth verses of the fortieth chapter of Isaiah: “O Israel, ...” “Hast
thou not known? hast thou not heard? that the everlasting God, the LORD, the
Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? There is no
searching of his understanding.” (Is: 40-27, 28)
It is stated in the sixth verse of the
forty-fourth chapter: “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer
the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no
God.” (ibid: 44-6)
And it is written in the tenth, eleventh and
twelfth verses of the tenth chapter of the Book of Jeremiah: “But the LORD is
the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the
earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his
indignation.” “... The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even
they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.” “He hath made
the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath
stretched out the heavens by his discretion.” (Jer: 10-10, 11, 12)
As is concluded from these verses in the Old
Testament, Allâhu ta’âlâ is one and has infinite power. He is Allah, to whom
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ entrusted himself and asked for help as, according to the
Christian cult, he was being crucified [may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us against
saying or believing so]. While believing in the divinity of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, Christians not only acknowledge at the same time that he died,
but also believe that after death he will enter Hell as an atonement for
people’s sins. They put forward the eighteenth and the nineteenth verses of the
third chapter of Peter’s first epistle as an evidence for proving that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ will enter Hell.
Rahmatullah Efendi ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’
explains this Christian belief and priests’ writings and answers in this
respect in his book Izhâr-ul-haqq, and states: In a meeting the famous
priest Martiros said: “No doubt, Jesus had accepted to be human like us. For
this reason, he would have to put up with all the
-203-
calamities and afflictions that have and would come unto human beings.
As a matter of fact, he did put up with them all. To this effect he entered
Hell and was tormented. As he went out of Hell, he took along all of those who
had entered Hell before him out with him.” There are credal differences among
Christian sects in this respect. A person in whom they believe as such is at
the same time, according to them again, an omnipresent God who dominates over
and owns all.]
It is stated in the fourteenth and later
verses of the twentieth chapter of the Gospel of John: “Jesus showed himself to
Mary of Magdala. And he said unto her: Do not touch me. For I have not ascended
near my father yet. But go to my brothers [Apostles] and tell them: I am
ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (Paraphrased
from John: 20-14 to 17)
It is understood from these verses that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ uses the terms son and Father not only when he is concerned.
They are a metaphorical pair used as special expressions in the dialect or
language he spoke. According to the literal meaning of these words Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ is the son of Allâhu ta’âlâ, yet by saying, “my God and your
God,” in the same verses, he acknowledges that Allâhu ta’âlâ is ilâh. Moreover,
he considers the Apostles on the same status as he is and makes them his
partners.
[After saying, “to my Father and your Father,”
he adds the phrase, “to my God and your God,” in order to explain the former
phrase and to say that they are the born slaves of one Allah. Thus the Apostles
become partners to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in being born slaves (of Allâhu ta’âlâ).
If Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ were to be accepted as a God on account of his saying
“to my Father” about Allâhu ta’âlâ, then it would be necessary to accept each
of the Apostles as a God partner to him because he says “to your Father.”
During the life time of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ none of the Apostles accepted him
as a God or called him the son of God. This epithet was given to him a long
time after his death — according to Christians — ascension to heaven. And this
shows that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is not Allah. He is not ibn-ullah, that is, the
son of Allah, either. He is only abd-ullah. That is, he is the born slave of
Allah.]
It is written in the twenty-eighth verse of
the fourteenth chapter of John that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ said, “... for my
Father is greater than I.” (John: 14-28) Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ states that Allâhu
ta’âlâ is greater than he is. Christians’ calling Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ ‘God’
means denying a very obvious fact, [which is also
-204-
acknowledged even by today’s Gospels despite all the
interpolations including trinity].
[The Bible’s translations into Greek and Latin
were rendered without understanding and therefore with many mistakes. This fact
is quite conspicuous in trinity. For the word ‘father’, in Hebrew, does not
only mean ‘one’s own father’. It also has the meaning ‘great, respectable
person.’ For this reason, Qur’ân al-kerîm uses the expression, “His father called Âzer,” about Âzer, who
was the paternal uncle of Ibrâhîm ‘alaihis-salâm’. For his father, Târűh, was
dead. He had been raised by his uncle and called him ‘father’ as it was
customary in his time. It is written in the Old Testament part of the Bible
also that the father of Ibrâhîm ‘alaihis-salâm’ was Târűh.[1] In English as well, originator or designer of something as well
as any person who deserves filial reverence is called ‘father.’ By the same
token, the word ‘Son’, in Hebrew, is more often than not used to mean a person
who is younger than or inferior to another person and who is at the same time
attached to him with excessive affection. As we have stated earlier, it is
written in the ninth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew:
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”
(Matt: 5-9) As it is seen, the word (Son) means (beloved born slave of Allah).
No Christian has used this verse or many other similar verses as grounds for
the divinization of the people for whom these terms are expressed. Then, in the
original Bible the word (Father) was used to mean a blessed being, i.e. Allâhu
ta’âlâ, and the word (Son) was used to mean His beloved born slave. A great
majority of Christians, who have come to their senses only recently, have been
saying, “All of us are God’s born slaves, children. God is the Rabb, the Father
of us all. The words (Father) and (Son) in the Bible should be construed as
such.” It is a proven fact that when the original Hebrew version of the Bible
was translated, many a word was given a wrong meaning, like the words (Father)
and (Son). Details pertaining to this fact are soon to follow.]
In the twenty-fourth verse of the fourteenth
chapter of the Gospel of John, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is reported to have said:
“... and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.”
(John: 14-24) And the tenth verse: “... the words that I
---------------------------------
[1] “And Te’rah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Ha’ran his son’s son, and Sa’rai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; ...” (Gen: 11-31)
-205-
speak unto you I speak not of myself: ...” (ibid: 14-10)
The twenty-second verse of the second chapter
of the Acts of the Apostles states: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus
of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you...” (Acts: 2-22)
The twenty-sixth verse of the third chapter
states: “Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless
you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (ibid: 3-26)
The thirtieth verse of the fourth chapter
states: “... and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy
child Jesus.” (ibid: 4-30) It becomes apparent through these verses that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ is a Prophet and he spoke
the wah’y of Allâhu ta’âlâ.
It is written in the eighth, ninth, and tenth
verses of the twenty-third chapter of the Gospel of Matthew that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ stated: “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master,
even Christ; and all ye are brethren.” “And call no man your father upon the
earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” “Neither be ye called
masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” (Matt: 23-8, 9, 10) As these
verses indicate, the word ‘Father’ has been used in its figurative meaning and
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is not a divine being, but a teacher, educator, and
corrector, that is, he is a Prophet.
The thirty-sixth and later verses of the
twenty-sixth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew state: “Then cometh Jesus with
them unto a place called Geth-sem’a-ne, and saith unto his disciples, Sit ye
here, while I go and pray yonder.” “And he took with him Peter and the two sons
of Zeb’e-dee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.” “Then saith he unto
them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch
with me.” “And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed,
saying, O my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless
not as I will, but as thou wilt.” “And he cometh unto the disciples, and
findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one
hour.” “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is
willing, but the flesh is weak.” “He went away again the second time, and
prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I
drink it, thy will be done.” “And he came and found them asleep again: for
their eyes were heavy.” “And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the
third time, saying the same words.” (Matt: 26-36 to 44)
-206-
Did the Gospels contain no other evidence to
disapprove Christians’ slandering Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ by divinizing him, the
above-given statements of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ saying that he himself is a born
slave and the Father is Allâhu ta’âlâ, who is one, would suffice to do it. If
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had been the only son of God and had come to save humanity
as Christians presume, would he have been grieved, sad with the fear of death?
Would he have prostrated himself, prayed and invoked, “Let this cup pass from
me”? [Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in the Gospels calls himself ‘human’. Christians,
while knowing this fact on the one hand, have fallen into such an illogical
belief as (human=God) on the other.]
Christians have deduced the doctrine of
trinity from the words (Father) and (Son), and fabricated such a wrong belief
as unprecedented in history. Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ never called himself ‘son of
God’; on the contrary, he called himself ‘ibn-ul-insân (human)’ in many places.
[If he had really been the son of God, he would not have called himself
‘human.’ For a person says his own name, not another name, when he is asked.]
Christians’ fallacy of trinity was a result of
some vague expressions in the Gospel of John. As it is widely known, the Gospel
which is ascribed to John was written a long time after the other Gospels, and
it was written in Greece. There are many spurious statements in the Gospel of
John. In fact, Rahmat-ullah Efendi states in the introductory section of his
book Izhâr-ul-haqq that the Gospel of John is full of metaphorical expressions, and
that it contains very few parts that one could understand without explanation.
Besides, most of the statements of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ are written in forms of
succinct metaphors and exemplifications like enigmas. They are such statements
that even his disciples could hardly understand without interpretation or
explanation. On the other hand, the thirty-ninth verse of the fifteenth chapter
of the Gospel of Mark reads as follows: “And when the centurion, which stood over
against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly
this man was the Son of God.” (Mark: 15-39) Now let us see Luke’s account of
the same event: “Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God,
saying, Certainly this was a righteous man” (Luke: 23-47) This statement in
Luke shows that the statement, “Truly this man was the Son of God,” in Mark,
means, “Indeed he was a pious man.”
It is written in the
ninth verse of the fifth chapter of
-207-
the Gospel of Matthew that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated: “Blessed
are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matt: 5-9)
On the other hand, in the forty-fourth and forty-fifth verses he is quoted to
have said, “... pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: ...” (ibid:
5-44, 45) [In these verses, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ uses the expression ‘children
of God’ for those who make peace and forgive and the word ‘Father’ for Allâhu
ta’âlâ. It is obvious that these expressions are figurative. Likewise, the Holy
Bible (The Old and New Testaments alike) uses such expressions as ‘the son of
the devil’, ‘the son of Satan’ for wicked and sinful people.]
The thirty-ninth and later verses of the eighth
chapter of the Gospel of John state: “They answered and said unto him, Abraham
is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would
do the works of Abraham.” “But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you
the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.” “Ye do the deeds
of your Father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have
one Father, even God.” “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would
love me: for I preceded forth and came from God; neither came I from myself,
but he sent me.” “Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot
hear my word.” “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father
ye will do. ...” (John: 8-39 to 44).
In this context, the Jews’ saying, “We were
not born from fornication. We have a father. And he is God,” does not mean,
“our father is God.” Their purpose is to object to the fact that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ does not have a father by stating that they are the descendants
of Ibrâhîm ‘alaihis-salâm’. Since the Gospel of John is documentary according
to the Christian faith, we use it as testimony [for our argument]. With respect
to these verses of John, i.e. that the Jews claim to be the sons of God and Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ rejects their claim and calls them ‘sons of the devil”, these
expressions are apparently metaphorical.
The ninth verse of the third chapter of the
first epistle of John reads as follows: “Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin; ...” (1 John: 3-9) The tenth verse states: “In this the children of
God are manifest, and the children of devil: ...” (ibid: 3-10) And it is stated
at the beginning of the fifth chapter: “WHOSOEVER believeth that Jesus is the
Christ is born of God: and everyone that loveth him that begat loveth him also
that is begotten of
-208-
him.” “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we
love God and keep his commandments.” (ibid: 5-1, 2)
The fourteenth verse of the eighth chapter of
the epistle to the Romans reads as follows: “For as many as are led by the
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Rom: 8-14)
The fourteenth and fifteenth verses of the
second chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Philippians read as follows: “Do all
things without murmurings and disputings:” “That ye may be blameless and
harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and
perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;” (Phil: 2-14, 15)
[The sixth and seventh verses of the
forty-third chapter of the Book of Isaiah state: “I will say to the north, Give
up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters
from the ends of the earth;” “Even every one that is called by my name: for I
have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.’ (Is:
43-6, 7)
The expressions used in these verses of the
Holy Bible, such as (son of God), (sons, or children, of God) are metaphors,
and Allâhu ta’âlâ cannot be called (Father) by giving these expressions their
literal meanings. Christians also interpret the word (Son) in these verses as
(beloved born slave of God) and do not attribute divinity to any of the people
mentioned in them. So far, all Christians accept the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ is
the only Ruler. Yet when it comes to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, they swerve from the
right way.]
Misunderstandings have taken place not only
concerning the word (Father), but also in the word (Son). As a matter of fact,
the Gospel of Luke, while mentioning the genealogy, fathers of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ (may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from believing or saying so) in
the twenty-third and later verses of its third chapter, states that he was the
son of Joseph, and lists the fathers of Joseph, finally saying, “... the son of
Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” (Luke: 3-23 to 38)
Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ is not the son of Allâhu ta’âlâ in the actual sense of the
word. Luke attributes Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ to Allâhu ta’âlâ because he was
created without parents and Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ to Joseph the carpenter because
he was born only without father. [Christians accept Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as a
god because God’s spirit was breathed into him. Nevertheless, they attribute
Joseph the carpenter as a father to him. Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was born without a
father. On the other hand, Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ was created
-209-
without any parents at all. Accordingly, they ought to accept Âdam
‘alaihis-salâm’ as a god greater than Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. No Christian has
ever said ‘god’ about Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’.]
The word (Son) exists in the Old Testament
section of the Holy Bible, too. For instance, it is written as follows in the
twenty-second verse of the fourth chapter of Exodus: “And thou shalt say unto
pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:” (Ex: 4-22)
It is written as follows in the ninth verse of
the thirty-first chapter of the Book of Jeremiah: “... for I am a father to
Israel, and E’phra-im is my firstborn.” (Jer: 31-9) [If the word ‘son’ entailed
godhood, Isrâil and Efrâyim would have become a god each a very long time
before Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Furthermore, they have been attributed the
appellation of ‘the first son’, which means that they should have attained
divinity long before another son who came later.]
The fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter of
Samuel II states as follows about Suleymân (Solomon) ‘alaihis-salâm’: “I will
be his father, and he shall be my son. ...” (2 Sam: 7-14)
The first verse of the fourteenth chapter of
Deuteronomy states: “You are the children of the LORD, your God: ...” (Deut:
14-1) The nineteenth verse of the thirty-second chapter reads: “And when the
LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his
daughters.” (ibid: 32-19) The second verse of the first chapter of the Book of
Isaiah states: “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath
spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled
against me.” (Is: 1-2) The first verse of the thirtieth chapter reads: “Woe to
the rebellious children, ...” (ibid: 30-1) The eighth verse of the sixty-fourth
chapter reads: “But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou
our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. (ibid: 64-8) The tenth verse
of the first chapter of Hosea reads: “Yet the number of the children of Israel
shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it
shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not
my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living
God.” (Hos: 1-10)
Here, [and at many other places we have not
mentioned, all the Israelites, and also many other people, are called (sons of
God). If the expression (son of God) actually meant, (son of God), that is, if
it were not a metaphor, the Israelites and] the
-210-
Israelite Prophets, such as
Isrâîl [Ya’qűb], Efrâyim, Suleymân, and others ‘alaihimus-salâm’, and Âdam
‘alaihis-salâm’ should have been gods. But Jewry, being fully cognizant of
their native language, Hebrew, understood very well that such expressions as
(son of God), (the first son), (sons) and (daughters) were metaphorically used,
and thus they did not fall into error [by divinizing these Prophets]. After the Hawârîs (Apostles), however,
copies of the Bible and preachings and admonitions of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, in
pages here and there, were obtained by this person and that haphazardly, and
were translated into other languages. And the translators, in their turn, being
ignorant and unaware of the subtleties and the stylistic registers in the
Hebrew language, translated whatever they saw, word for word without
understanding (the message). Those who saw these translations afterwards did
not dare to use the words in the translations in connotations other than their
literal meanings. All these eventuated in void arguments, wrong, absurd
theories, entirely unreasonable, implausible and bizarre doctrines.
Some hundred years after Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
there appeared a different creed, a different sect with a different Gospel in
every country. While rewriting the codices of the Bible, fanatics affiliated
with each sect, with a view to propagating their own sect and disproving other
sects, inserted some words suitable with their purposes. So many copies of the
Bible, and so many resultant controversies among Christians, appeared that in
the Nicene Council alone fifty different copies of the Bible that were being
read by Christians were rescinded. Hence, none of the four Gospels have the
documentary capacity. Yet, as the Christian faith is based on these four
Gospels, we, too, base our argument on their testimony in order to convince
Christians.
The Taurah, the part of the Bible called Old Testament, contains no document to testify to the Christian doctrine of
trinity. [This fact is also avowed by some priests we have met.] Their
strongest proof, the Gospel of John, which is the most dubious and complicated
of the Gospels, consists of a few ambiguous statements in the details contained
in the other Gospels. For instance:
They deduce divinity from the twenty-third
verse of the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John, where Îsâ ‘alaihis-
-211-
salâm’ states: “... ye are of this world. I am not of this world.”
(John: 8-23) They give such explanations as, “He descended from heaven and
changed into a body,” for their attributing godhood to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. The
meaning of this verse is: “You are busy with worldly connections. I am not.”
This statement cannot be interpreted as divinity. Besides, the Gospels contain
verses contradicting this verse.
The nineteenth verse of the fifteenth chapter
of the Gospel of John states: “... ye are not of the world, but I have chosen
you out of the world.” (ibid: 15-19) The sixteenth and eighteenth verses of the
seventeenth chapter state: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the
world.” (ibid: 17-16) “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also
sent them into the world.” (ibid: 17-18) These statements contradict the verse,
“I am not of this world,” in the eighth chapter of John (verse: 23).
In these verses, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ holds
himself and his disciples equal. And the statement, “You are of this world,”
means, “You aspire after this world.” Such figures of speech and idioms are
used in every language. (In fact, the English language teems with similes,
metaphors, synecdoches, metonymies, allegories, symbolisms, hyperboles,
litotes, ironies, innuendos, rhetorical questions, etc.) The Arabic language,
on the other hand, has the expressions (Ibn-ul-waqt), (Eb-ul-waqt),
(ebnâ-i-zamân), and (ebnâ-i-sebîl), which mean, respectively, (son of the
time), (father of the time), (sons of the time), and (sons of the way). [Time
or way cannot have a son. These are all symbolic expressions.]
Another evidence which Christians put forward
in their endeavour to validate trinity is the thirtieth verse of the tenth
chapter of the Gospel of John. This verse quotes Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as having
said, “I and my Father are one.” (John: 10-30) This statement cannot be
interpreted as divinity or identity, either. For, supposing that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ really made this statement, he was a human being with a (self)
when he said it, so it is impossible for him to have united with God.
[Christians, who indicate this verse as an evidence to prove the divinity of
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ ought to read on to see what comes after the verse. It is
written as follows in the thirtieth and later verses: “I and my Father are
one.” “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.” “Jesus answered them,
Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do
ye stone me?” “The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee
not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself
God.” “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods?” “If he called them gods, unto
-212-
whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;”
“Say ye unto him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world,
Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” “If I do not the works
of my Father, believe me not.” “But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe
the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in
him.” “Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their
hand.” (ibid: 10-30 to 39) People who saw Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ himself did not
say be was a god. On the contrary, they attempted to kill him on account of
this figurative word. Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, whom Christians accept as a creative
god who always has existed and will exist eternally, flees from the Jews. What
kind of a god is he who runs away from his creatures?
Another point here is the thirty-fourth verse,
“I said, Ye are gods,” which Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ quoted in order to prove his
statement, “I and Father are one.” It is written in a footnote of the copy of
the Bible we have that this verse is the sixth verse of the eighty-second
chapter of the Zebűr (Psalms) in the Old Testament. The final part of this
verse reads as follows: “... and all of you are the children of the most High.”
(Ps: 82-6) According to the facade meaning of this verse and the statement made
by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, in addition to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, people who are
addressed as, “You are gods”, become gods. We wonder if any Christian has ever
accepted them as gods. Christians, who have posed the statement, “I and Father
are one,” of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as a testimony for his divinity, reject the
gods who are declared in the continuation of the discourse, thus becoming
sinners and rebels by disagreeing with Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, whom they recognize
as a god. Will a god lie? If you ask Christians why they do not accept that
part, they will say, “Well, that statement is figurative. The statement, ‘You
are gods,’ cannot be taken in its literal sense.” If you ask, “Isn’t the
statement, ‘I and Father are one’, of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ figurative?”, they
will answer, “Jesus the Lord is divine. This is the basic doctrine of
Christianity.”] Another explanation which Christians make of these statements
in the Gospel of John is that “Jesus Christ is not only a perfect human being
but also a perfect god.” Yet, since the human properties cannot be separated
from man, actual unity of man and god is out of the question. Moreover, Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ uses this expression not only for himself, but also for the
Hawârîs (Apostles).
Here are some verses
from the seventeenth chapter of the
-213-
Gospel of John: “... as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,
that they also may be one in us: ...” (John: 17-21) “And the glory which thou
gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (22) “I
in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the
world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved
me.” (23) The expression ‘being perfect in one’ in these verses means
‘stringent obedience to religious commandments and doing pious deeds,’ in which
case nothing pertaining to divinity will even occur to one’s mind.
Another document which Christians have
recourse to as an evidence for trinity is the following episode narrated in the
eighth and later verses of the fourteenth chapter of the Gospel of John:
“Philip saith unto him, Lord shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” “Jesus
saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known
me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou
then, Shew us the Father?” (John: 14-8, 9)
This argument is false from two different
points of view:
Firstly: It is a fact admitted by Christians
as well that it is impossible to see Allâhu ta’âlâ in the world. In fact, this
ma’rifat (of seeing) is interpreted as ‘knowing’ in the introduction of the
book Izhâr-ul-haqq. Knowing the Messiah does not mean knowing physically. Hence
Christians deduce that it is knowing the Messiah as regards divinity and
unification. This deduction is mandatory according to Christians who believe in
trinity. Yet this deduction is wrong, too. For deduction should not be contrary
to logical proofs and authentic narratives. This deduction is contrary to
logical proofs. For, as we have mentioned earlier, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ holds
the Hawârîs equal to himself.
As it is known by historians, the doctrine of
three hypostases, or trinity, is not something new; it is a credo adopted from
polytheistic cults. As the number of gods increased so as to attract the
attention of the nescient populace and stir up feelings of alertness in them,
notables of a polytheistic community would arrange the gods in order of
superiority, appointing some of them as chiefs and others as their inferiors.
They decided to keep the investigation of this arrangement as a secret among
themselves. Zerdusht (Zoroaster or Zarathustra), [the founder of magi, the
basic religious system of ancient Persia], chose two of their idols, Yezdân
(Ormuzd or (Ahura Mazda) and Ehremen (Ahriman), as two hypostases, and
established an unprecedented system of
-214-
belief which was based on a curious conflict between Yezdân the
god of light and good and Ahriman the god, or spirit, of darkness and evil.[1]
Maz-hâr Jân-i-Jânân,[2] a great Indian savant, states in his fourteenth letter:
“Brahminism was a heavenly religion. It was degenerated afterwards.” The
expression ‘three hypostases’ was first heard from these people (Brahmins).
[It would be more correct to call it a
philosophy, or a doctrine, instead of a religion. It is understood that it was
founded by the mutilation of a heavenly religion seven hundred years before Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’. The agent of this mutilation is Brahma. (In Sanskrit) Brahma
means holy word. This expression has been used for Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in
Christianity. When Christians are questioned about the divinity of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, their first evidence to prove it is some verses in the first chapter
of the Gospel of John, which are, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God” [John: 1-1], and “And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the father,) full of grace and truth.” [ibid: 1-14] An exact
analogue of Brahminism.] Likewise, members of the Brahministic caste believe in
a deity who became a reality in the name of (Brahma). According to their doctrine, a most
perfect, ever silent god is the real essence of all. Yet this god does his work
through two other gods: Vishnu and Siva (or Shiva). They say that they are one
god manifesting in a triad.
According to Brahmins, (Brahma) is the
creator of all and the world. He does all the work of creating, and his symbol
is the sun. Vishnu is reason. He is a god protecting all. He rules over the
time lived in. His symbol is water. And Siva is the god of life and death. He
rules over the time lived in and future. Justice and vengeance are his
responsibility. His symbol is fire. [Brahmins believe that their god Vishnu
lives in heaven. The other gods tell Vishnu that some demons have appeared on
the earth and deranged the quietude and order of the earth, and therefore he
must be born incarnate on the earth for the chastisement of those demons.
Vishnu accepts this suggestion and incarnates as Krishna, the warrior, being
born from a virgin of a warrior family in order
---------------------------------
[1] This corrupt religion is still followed by Pharisees, who read the Zoroastrian book Zend-Avesta.
[2] Jân-i-Jânân
was martyred in 1195 [A.D. 1781] in Delhi.
-215-
to purge the earth of evils and demons. The virgin has dreamt of
this event beforehand. Krishna learns all knowledge in sixty-four days. He
works as a shepherd. He travels far and wide. He displays wonders in places
where he travels. Upon seeing this, Brahmins accept him as a deity that has
descended to earth in a human figure. Many other myths are told about Krishna
by the votaries of Brahma.
Likewise, Buddhists accept Buddha as a deity.
According to Buddhists, Buddha lived in heaven before descending to earth. He
looked for a place to appear on earth and eventually decided to be born as a member
of the Sudhodana family. (The myth is as follows:) His mother, fasting as she
is, falls asleep on the roof of the palace, and has a dream. In her dream a
white elephant emitting haloes all around itself descends from heaven and, to
her astonishment, enters her womb from her right flank. Many symptoms are seen
towards Buddha’s birth. His mother leaves her town and delivers her divine son
under a tree. Buddhism teems with things which reason or logic could never
accept. Brahminism, Buddhism, and the Christian credo, trinity, are analogous,
similarities between them, such as a god’s entering a virgin and being born
from her and people’s accepting him as a deity. Here are some of them.
1 — According to Christians, Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ died, and resurrected three days after death. Krishna, too,
resurrected after death, and ascended to heaven.
2 — Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ resurrected from his
grave, and Buddha from his coffin.
3 — Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ said beforehand that
he would be killed, saved the souls in dungeons, that is in Hell, and after
resurrecting from his grave sat on the right hand side of God. And Buddha said
he would withdraw from the world and go to nirvana.
4 — When Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ went up to
heaven, he took over and began to control all the matters of the universe.
Likewise, Buddha established the sultanate of heavens and began to dominate
over the universe.
5 — The Gospels unanimously enumerate the
fathers of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ up to Dâwűd (David) ‘alaihis-salâm’, whom they
call the first Melik (King, Ruler). Likewise, Buddha’s genealogy is said to
begin with Makavamat the first Ruler.
Trinity and metempsychosis, i.e. belief in the
transmigration of
-216-
a dead person’s soul into a new body, existed not only in Indian
religions, but also in the ancient Egyptian religions. The best known of the
Egyptian deities is (Amonra). His symbol is the sun. He was
believed to have created this world with his will and speech. (Osiris), his
assistant, is their second deity. Osiris came down to earth, underwent various
afflictions, and was killed. He resurrected and ascended to heaven with the
help of (Isis), their third deity. Thus Osiris became the god of the dead.
Also, in ancient Egypt, kings, or Pharaohs, were believed to be the sons of
Amonra (the sun).
Ancient Egyptians believed that when a person
died he was called to account by Osiris.]
The inventor of the doctrine of three
hypostases in the west is the philosopher Time (Timaios), who lived in the city
of Lokres some five hundred years before the Christian Era. He was one of the
pupils of Pythagoras. He learned this doctrine of three hypostases [beings,
bases]. [Pythagoras was born on the Island of Samos in 580 B.C. It is narrated
that he died in Metaponte in 500 B.C. There are differing narratives as to the
dates of his birth and death. He came to the Kroton city of Italy when he was
young yet. Thence he travelled to various places, having long stays in Egypt
and the Middle East. During his stay in Egypt he acquired extensive knowledge
about the ancient Egyptian religions and cults. Learning the belief in three
gods and metempsychosis from the Egyptians, he accepted them. Another thing he
learned in Egypt was Hendese (geometry). The theorem known as Pythagoras’
proposition (theorem) today was known pragmatically in Egypt in those days.
They (such pieces of information as this theorem) had come to Egypt from
Babylon, which was at that time very advanced in ’ilm-i-nujűm (astronomy),
mathematics and astrology. And Babyloneans, in their turn, had been taught
these branches of knowledge by the great Prophet Idris[1] ‘alaihis-salâm’.
Pythagoras went to Babylon and learned them well. On his returning to the city
of Kroton he opened a school, and established a new way, or a new sect, named
after him. His votaries have fabled many myths about him and claimed that he
was a prophet, and some of them
have professed his deity.
Pythagoras said that
the essence of being was numbers
---------------------------------
[1] The name of this great Prophet is mentioned in Qur’ân al-kerîm. Christian scholars mostly equate his name with Enoch.
-217-
(arche). He accepted numbers up to ten as sacred. He accepted the
numbers of one, two and three as the three essences. Pythagoreans claim that
the number one is the unchangeable and eternal source of the universe and
therefore the first hypostasis, the number two is feminine and all the world
has come into existence through her and she is the second hypostasis, and the
number three is the third hypostasis representing the eternal triad in the
universe. They assert that these three hypostases are the essence of the world
and of the universe. They interpret the essence of universe as (body, life and
soul). They say that the universe consists of three worlds, namely (the
natural, the human, and the divine worlds). According to the Pythagoreans, as
everything is made up of three, creation originates from this triad, which is
made up of the creative will, the current of stars, and the ever improving
universe. There is detailed information in the book (
Time states in his book Rűh-ul-âlam (Essence of the Universe): “First of all, creatures have a
fikr-i-mithâl-i-dâimî (the eternal ideal pattern), which is the first word, the
first hypostasis, which is spiritual, not substantial, and therefore, cannot be
comprehended by mind. The second grade is the madde-i-ghayr-i-muntazima, which
is the second word pronounced, the second hypostasis. The third grade is the
world of son, or meaning, which is the third hypostasis. All the universe
consists in these three classes. The son wanted to make a beautiful god, and
made a god which was a creature.” These statements, complicated and
incomprehensible as they were, reached Plato. [There is a narrative stating
that Time was one of Plato’s teachers. For Plato says that his great master
Socrates and Time had been together in a gathering. Time had three works,
namely (Mathematics), (Life of Pythagoras), and (Essence of the Universe). Two of them were lost. His book (Essence of the Universe), the one
which was not lost, should have busied philosophers very much. For there is not
much difference between the idea derived from the first six chapters of this
book and the idea in Plato’s speech on Time
-218-
Plato modified this idea coming from Time.
Plato proposed existence of three gods. He said:
The first one is Father. He is the highest one
and the creator; he is the father of the other two gods. He is the first
hypostasis.
The second one is the primordial, visible god,
who is the representative of Father, who is invisible. It is named (Logos),
which means word, reason, (account).
The third one is the Universe.
According to Plato, the essence of beings is
meanings [ideas]. [The word idea, which Plato refers to, means entity,
conception, archetype. In Platonic philosophy it means the unchanging,
eternally existing pattern of which all classes of beings are imperfect copies.
Plato divides the universe into two worlds. The first one is the perceptible
world of senses. The other one is the real world, that is, the world of ideas.
While the real world, or the world of ideas, is eternal, the world of senses
continuously changes.] The existence of ideas is not dependent upon our mind or
imagination, but they exist in an immaterial life peculiar to them. Plato
refers each reality or idea to higher realities. Thus all realities and ideas
are referred to the absolute (ONE). This ONE, which is (goodness) consisting of
many high realities, is God himself. Other high ideas or realities are in His
command. Lower ideas are (evils) and are the devil himself. Other low, evil
ideas are in His command.
[Plato said that what he accepted as (ONE),
who comprised ideas in Himself and whom he called ‘goodness’ and believed to be
identical with God, was the (Father god), who had motion and life and who was
the father of the universe. This is the first hypostasis. Father god, that is,
the unity of ideas, created a spirit, which gave matter its systematic order
and which was quite different from matter. This is the son of Father. This
spirit is a being which intermediates between the creator and the creature, and
is the second hypostasis.
Plato, as well as all the other ancient Greek
philosophers like Pythagoras and Time learned their views and observations
about the spirit which they called ‘the second hypostasis’ by reading the books
of (the Prophets) Âdam and Shiet
(or Shis) ‘alaihimus-salâm’, or from religious scholars who had read and knew
those books, and attempted to explain them with their insufficient knowledge
and short range mentalities, thus distorting them.
-219-
Plato states in his Menon speech that the soul is immortal, that
it has come to earth various times, and that it has seen everything in this
perceptible (world) and in the imperceptible (hereafter). In his Phaidros
speech he divides the soul into three parts: The first is mind, which has been
inclined towards ideas. The second and the third are the parts pertaining to
aspirations and sensations. One of them follows the mind and leads to goodness,
i.e. to God, and the other leads to evil corporeal desires.] Carcass, or body,
is a dungeon wherein soul has been hurled after a preliminary sojourn in the
incorporeal world of ideas. [Thus mankind, composed of soul and body, came into
existence.] The goal of ethics is to free the soul from the shackles tethering
it to the dungeon of body, Seframk says that the way to happiness is in
attaining virtue and perfection. Plato says, “Perfection of happiness fully
exists in virtue. Virtue and perfection are the health, salvation and balance
of soul. For attaining happiness, it will be enough to endeavour only for
attaining virtue without thinking of worldly advantages or aspiring for the
rewards in the hereafter.
According to the philosophy of (Rawâqiyyűn), “Goodness alone is virtue, and evil alone is sinful. Health,
illness, wealth, poverty, and even life and death are neither good nor bad. It
is up to man to make them good or bad. Man has to believe in the preordination
of Allâhu ta’âlâ, that is, in destiny, and commit his will to the will of
Allâhu ta’âlâ. Humanity is like a flock (of sheep). Their shepherd is the
common reason, or (Logos), which is the creative power of nature. All men are
brothers. Their common father is (Zoz), or (God). Zoz is the soul of all universe.
He is eternal, one. Other gods are his component parts. [Philosophy founded by
Zeno and followed by some Greek philosophers is called Rawâqiyyűn (Stoicism).]
Followers of the philosophy of (Ishrâqiyyűn) inculcate peace and mercy; so much so that the pleasure that a
person takes in doing good to someone else is more than the pleasure felt when
one is done good to, they say. [This philosophy is called (Illuminism), which
is an extension of the way followed by Pythagoreans and Platonists. The founder
of neo-Platonism is Plotin, who adopted Plato’s theory of ideas.] The
statement, “The flavour in giving is more than the flavour in taking”, which
the existing copies of the Bible attribute to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, is identical
with the main principle of the philosophy of Ishrâqiyyűn. [This means to say
that stoicists and illuminists present the pieces
-220-
of information they acquired from religious books and religious
scholars in a manner as if they were their own views and findings. The great
Islamic savant Imâm-i-Muhammad Ghazâlî ‘rahmat-ullâhi ’aleyh’[1] expounds this fact in detail in his books (Al-munqizu min-ad-dalâl) and (Tahâfut-ul-falâsifa).
The philosophical school founded by Plato
lived for seven or eight centuries together with its tenets. The views of this
school of philosophy extended beyond Italy, having its most dramatic impact on
the Alexandrian school in the third century.] Plato’s doctrine of three
hypostases, along with his other philosophical views, had made its way into the
schools of Alexandria and was being taught there, when Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
appeared. In fact, even Philo, a renowned Judaic scholar in Alexandria at that
time, wished to see this doctrine of trinity among the other tenets of the
religion of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. With this desire he said, “The Taurah
declares that the world was created in six days; it is true. For the number
three is half of six. And the number two is one-third of six. This number is
both masculine and feminine. God married reason and had a son by reason. This
son is the world.” Philo called the world ‘kelima-i-ilâhiyya (divine word)’,
which was a name he ascribed to angels, too. This was an effect of Platonic
philosophy. [Platonic philosophy, which was later renamed as neo-Platonism and
went on its way, dealt the severest blow on the Nazarene, or Îsâwî, religion.
In other words, the third century of the Christian era, when neo-Platonism was
at the zenith of its power, was at the same time the period in which
Christianity was the religion of the Roman Empire. Adherents of that philosophy
defiled this religion of tawhîd (unity), which was based on the existence and
oneness of Allâhu ta’âlâ and the prophethood of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Later on idolatry, too, was inserted
into this religion. Saint Augustine, who lived in the fourth century of the
Christian era, (354-430), tried to Christianize Plato. Augustine’s views about
God, soul, and the universe, which he proposes in his book (de Trinite), which
he wrote with a view to proving trinity, are quite identical with Platonic
philosophy. Using Plato’s statement, “Reason, will, and sensation make up a
human being,” as a testimony for proving trinity, he says, “Though the Three
Persons in Trinity seem to be disparate, they make up one God.” He alleges that
Plato and his disciples realized the true God. Taking Plato’s philosophy of
ideas as a fulcrum, he argues that the
---------------------------------
[1] Ghazalî
passed away in Tűs in 504 [A.D. 1111].
-221-
Word is creative and that the Word is Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’. Augustine, who is esteemed and accepted as a saint amongst
Christians, acknowledges that such Christian tenets as trinity, good, and evil
exist in their exact identities in Plato’s philosophy. In addition, he cites
Plato’s views as a document for proving trinity. The views of a person who died
350 years before the Christian era are identical with the tenets of
Christianity: a hard question for Christians to answer. This concurrence shows
that Plato was contemporary with Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, which is the truth. And
this truth is explained in the 266th letter of the book (Mektűbât) by the great Islamic ’âlim Imâm-i-Rabbânî Ahmad Fârűqî[1] ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh.”
Furthermore, Saint Thomas, one of the
ecclesiastical personages of the eighth century of the Christian era,
endeavours to prove the Christian tenets, particularly trinity, by taking the
philosophy of Aristotle, who was Plato’s disciple. This book of ours is too
small for us to mention all the ecclesiastical saints who were the true
defenders of the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Yet we shall touch upon an
illuminatory fact, which will give our readers a more realistic insight into
the matter: Throughout the Middle Ages, even after the realization of the
Renaissance in Europe, opposing the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, or
refusing it, or even slightly contradicting it was requited with penalty of
death by the ecclesiastical tribunal called Inquisition. We wonder how today’s
trinitarian Christians should explain this? It is certain that philosophy of
Plato (Platonism), philosophy of Rawâqiyyűn (Stoicism), philosophy of
Ishrâqiyyűn (Gnosticism), and other Greek schools of
philosophy had a major role in the formation of the tenets of Christianity.
This fact is explained in detail and with proofs in the book titled (The Influence of Greek Ideas on
Christianity), by Dr. Edwin Hatch.]
As is understood from the above statements,
such concepts as purging the heart of wicked traits, attaining happiness by
adopting beautiful moral habits, acquiescing in destiny, having tawakkul
(putting your trust in Allâhu ta’âlâ), accepting human beings as the sons and
children of Allâhu ta’âlâ, and Allâhu ta’âlâ as the common father of all, do
not belong exclusively to the Gospels. Hundreds of years before the Gospels
they were being discussed among Greek philosophers, [and various philosophers
were trying to explain them in various ways. For they had been taught about
---------------------------------
[1] Imâm-i-Rabbânî
passed away in Serhend in 1034 [A.D. 1624].
-222-
heavenly religions by Prophets]. It is certain that the statements referring to trinity did not
exist in the former heavenly religions or in the genuine copies of the Bible,
but they were fabricated by Greek philosophers and were inserted into the
Gospels that were written after the spreading of Christianity in Greece and
Alexandria.
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was born in a place where
people lived up to the principles of the religion of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.
Until his Ascension,[1] he acted upon the
sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. The commandments that were assigned to the
Israelites he observed with them. He preached in Synagogues and instructed the
tenets in the Taurah (Torah). To those who had wandered from the religion of
Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ he preached the religion of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, and
taught them the manners of observance as prescribed in that religion. He
cherished those Israelites who held fast to that religion. Like Jews, he was
baptised in the river of Erden (Jordan) by Yahyâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ (John
the Baptist). [The river of Jordan is in Palestine and is
It was towards the termination of the second
century of the Christian era that the expression ‘Three Persons’ emerged among
Christians. Because this doctrine was thoroughly at loggerheads with the
religion preached by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, those who believed in Three Persons
concealed their belief from Christians for some time; but they strove to
disseminate it in a clandestine way. Meanwhile, upholders of trinity [three
gods], with a view to popularizing the course they had taken, published the
Gospel of John and the so-called Apostolic epistles, e.g. the Pauline epistles,
---------------------------------
[1] Until
Allâhu ta’âlâ raised him, alive as hewas, up to heaven.
-223-
which were written after the Apostles. This gave birth to a number
of controversies, disputes, and strifes amongst Christians. Both the unitarian
Christians, i.e. those who believed in the oneness of Allâhu ta’âlâ, and the
trinitarians embarked upon an assiduous endeavour to popularize their own credo
and to get the better of the opposite side, and scribes on both sides daily
wrote Gospels and innumerable pamphlets and epistles that were attributed to
the Apostles. Eventually the contentions escalated to their zenith, and the
Christian world was divided into two major groups by the beginning of the
fourth century of the Christian era. A number of Christians professed that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ was God Himself without a dissimilitude. Their leader was St.
Athanasius, the Bishop of Istanbul. Other Christians, on the other hand,
asseverated that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was the most elevated of creatures, a Prophet sent down by Allah, and yet a born slave of
Allah. Their leaders were a monk named Arius and Eusebius, the Bishop of Izmit
(Nicomedia). [Before them Yűnus Shammâs, the Bishop of Antioch, had declared
that Allâhu ta’âlâ is one, and many people had come round to the right course.
But later trinitarian priests had begun to worship three gods and tried to
spead this doctrine. Thus the number of trinitarians had increased.] The
clashes between trinitarians and those who retained their belief in the fact
that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is the born slave and Prophet of Allâhu ta’âlâ caused mental disturbance among the populace.
State administration, on the other hand, could no longer be carried on
properly. Upon this, the Emperor, Constantine the Great, decided to put an end
to these tumults and convened an ecumenical council in Nicea in 325 (A.D.)
Eminent Christian clergy joined this council. After many long debates, the
Athanasians gained ascendancy. Three hundred and nineteen priests concurred
with full divinty of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, which meant that he was the unique
son of God, the offspiring of God, a God from God, a Light from Light, a true
God from the true God. The following statements have been derived and
paraphrased from the twenty-third chapter of the eighth book of the history of
(Nîsfűr) and from the fifth volume of the history of (Baruniyus), which give an account of the Nicene Council: “During the debates
between the Arians and the Athanasians, two members of the assembly, i.e. two
bishops named Karizamet and Mizuniyus, passed away. When the Council ended,
they resurrected from their graves, signed under the written decision of the
Council, and died again.” In those times, when it was easy to
-224-
resuscitate the dead with the point of a pen, even the
ecclesiastical historians, who are expected to be trustworthy, succumbed to the
zeal of telling such lies as this one. Inserting a multitude of other similar
oddities into the Nazarene [Îsewî] religion, they beat about these mockeries in
order to, so to speak, popularize such a religion in the name of truth.
[At the end of the Council of Nicea, with the
efforts of Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, and Athanasius, Arius was
declared to be a heretic and was condemned. Arius was born in Alexandria in
St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria in 296.
He achieved fame with his views on trinity, which he proposed during the
Council of Nicea in 325. He became the Bishop of Alexandria in 326. He was
passionately opposed to the Arian sect and to the fact that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
was human and Prophet. He was condemned
by the supporters of Arius in a Council held in Sur city (Tyre) in 335. Four
years later he was made Bishop again at the Council of Rome. He died in
Alexandria in 373. He wrote books against Arianism. St. Athanasius’ day is
celebrated on 2 May.]
According to the minutes of the Council of
Nicea, in that century there were numerous Gospels everywhere and it was
impossible to tell which ones were correct and which ones were false. In this
Council various discussions were made on fifty-four of these copies of the
Bible. Upon reading these copies of the Bible, the priests who were present at
this Council saw that fifty of the Gospels were unfounded and rejected them. It
was decided that four copies were genuine and the others null and void. Since
then [325 A.D.], no copy except these four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)
has been credited, and those others that had existed, have been done away with.
More than two thousand clergy attended this Council, and most of them agreed
with Arius
-225-
and believed that Allâhu ta’âlâ is One and Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is
His born slave and Messenger; yet because Athanasius was the Bishop of
Istanbul, most of those who occupied Bishoprics sided with Athanasius, [for
fear of losing office]. Thus Arius and his adherents secured themselves against
the jeopardy of being deprived of their posts at the cost of defeat, in such a
highly important area as religion, where matters must be settled correctly
after minute examinations. Upon this, Arius was excommunicated. Later,
Athanasius was deposed from the Bishopric, and Arius was invited to Istanbul.
[However, as we have stated earlier, he died before arriving in Istanbul.
Constantine the Great had already accepted the Arian sect.] After Constantine’s
death in
[According to the book (Qâműs-ul-a’lâm), “Emperor Theodosius absolutely prohibited Arianism. He ordered
that the adherents of this sect be killed.”]
The doctrine of trinity was established and
adopted in the Council of Nicea; yet Rűh-ul-Quds (The Holy Spirit,
or Ghost) was still an uncertain issue. The Holy Spirit, too, ought to be given
an import. So this issue also was settled in the Council that was held in
Istanbul in
The position of the Holy Spirit having been
thus decided upon, it was now hadrat Maryam’s turn. The Council that assembled
in Ephesus in
-226-
Christ”, which won him the infamous nickname ‘Esharyűtî Yehűdâ
(Judas Iscariot)’.
[Nestorius was a Syrian priest. He was
appointed the Patriarch of Istanbul by Theodosius II. He was extremely cruel to
the followers of Arius. He had the houses they used for their assemblages
burned, together with their inmates. He was opposed to the expression ‘Mother
of God=Theotekos’, which was used to mean hadrat Maryam. He knew a monk he
could trust. His name was Anasthasius and lived in Antioch. He invited this
monk to Istanbul and had him make speeches everywhere. Anasthasius said, “Let
no one call Mary the Mother of God, for Mary was a human being, and it is
impossible for God to be born by a human being.” His speeches exasperated his
adversaries, Cyrillos (Lucaris) and his adherents. Cyrillos reported the
speeches of Nestorius and his adherents to the Pope, Celestine I. The Pope,
already jealous of Nestorius’s aggrandized influence, and indignant for not
having been asked what his opinion was concerning hadrat Maryam, convoked a
Council in
Nestorius had three assertions:
1 — Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ embodies two distinct
personalities: divine and human.
2 — These two qualities do not unite physically.
Their unity is incorporeal.
3 — Hadrat Maryam is the mother of the human
Jesus, not of God (Word).
The Christian sect founded by Nestorius was
called Nestorianism. Today most of the Nestorians live in Syria.
So the tenets and most important principles of
a religion which Protestants and other Christians claim has been sent by God
can be established by the concourse of a few hundred clergy. These
-227-
clergy can freely accept or reject a theory propounded as a
religious tenet, or make the changes or alterations they think necessary in
their religion. Thus Christianity has become a religion that no one with common
sense could accept. It is for this reason that many European men of knowledge
and science renounce Christianity and a great majority of them are honoured
with Islam.][1]
After these convulsions, there arose the
question whether it was permissible to worship pictures, statues and idols. For
the religion of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had forbidden to worship pictures or
statues. Therefore, during the early days of the Îsâwî religion all the
Apostles and their disciples avoided worshipping pictures and statues.
[Christianity spread over European countries such as Italy and England.] Having
been heathens before, the aboriginals of those countries were inclined to
worshipping idols. [For they used to make idols and icons for each deity they
believed. So the most common and the most improved art among them was making
statues, that is, sculpture.] As Christianity spread over these countries, some
priests gave permission to revere and worship [spurious] pictures which were
made and ascribed to hadrat Maryam the mother of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Other
Christian societies were opposed to this for being incompatible with the
essence of religion, and thus disputes and contentions started. The tumults
lasted until the 787th year of the Christian era. In 171 [A.D. 787], in the
Council that assembled in Nicea, it was decided to worship sham pictures and
icons [that were mendaciously posited as pictures of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and
hadrat Maryam]. Those who did not approve worshipping or revering pictures,
idols [or statues], on the other hand, did not acquiesce in this decision.
Controversies and conflicts continued till
[Ever since the adoption of Christianity by
the Roman Empire, the Roman Church, taking pride in the fact that Rome was the
place where Peter and Paul had been killed, had
---------------------------------
[1] Please see our book Why Did They Become Muslims, available from Hakîkat Kitâbevi, Fâtih, Istanbul, Turkey.
-228-
maintained its braggadocio as the kernel of the entire
Christendom.] In 446 [A.D. 1054], the Eastern Church unleashed itself from the
Roman Church, thus pioneering a new sect disparate from the Roman Catholic
Church. The Eastern Church disagreed with the Roman Church in most of its
principles. For instance, the Eastern Christians reject the Pope’s spiritual
position, that is, that he is the successor of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and Peter’s
representative, that the Holy Ghost carries out the orders of Father and Son
and the grade of i’râd in the hereafter. They perform the Eucharist with
leavened bread. They approve priests being married. The hatred that the Eastern
Christians felt against the papacy and their consequent disunion was an alarm
loud enough to wake the popes from their apathy; but they were too conceited
and too vain to take any warning. On the contrary, the popes’ arrogance and
vanity and the cardinals’ unawareness and indifference kept on increasing. Thus
Protestantism emerged in 923 [A.D. 1517], which meant a second splitting of the
Roman Catholic Church. In the year 1510 (A.D.), the Pope, Liyman X (Julius II),
following the old custom, gave the duty of hearing the German people’s
confessions to the Dominican monks. This predilection nettled the Augustinian
monks. They chose a Catholic priest named Luther as their leader. [Martin
Luther is German. He was born in 1453, and died in Eisleben in 953 (A.D.
1546).] Luther rejected the Pope’s hearing confessions, and proposed
ninety-five principles, which formed the Protestant tenets. Most of the German
Rulers followed Luther. Protestantism, as founded by Luther, acknowledges no
source except the Gospels. It does not accept the Pope, either. It rejects such
things as entire withdrawal from the world, matrimonial prohibition for the
clergy, and hearing a confession.
Some time after Luther, Calvin came into the
limelight and effected some reforms in Protestantism. He established an
altogether novel Christian sect. [Jean (John) Calvin is French. He was born in
1509, and died in
-229-
Afterwards, the sects founded by Luther and
Calvin were disunited into various subsections. At least five hundred different
Christian sects holding the name Protestantism exist in Germany and England
today.
As these historical details show, today’s
Christian tenets, such as trinity and three hypostases, making worships matters
pertaining to the heart and soul alone, and consequently not worshipping in a
manner as prescribed by the overt commandments of the Bible, are not true,
dependable Biblical commandments. They are things fabricated afterwards because
of various doubts or for differing purposes or established by the clergy at
ecclesiastical assemblies. Great credal discrepancies have come into existence
between Catholics and Protestants in the essentials of Christianity, such as
the sacrament of (the Eucharist), the Pope’s being caliph of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ and the representative of Peter, sacredness of the past saints,
i.e. the Apostles, various diets and feasts, bogus pictures of Mary with, as it
were, Jesus in her arms, worshipping portraits and icons, priests’ redeeming
sinners from their sins and selling people places in Paradise [in return for a
certain amount of money]. The disparities between them have reached such an
extent that each party deserves Hell according to the other. According to some
other priests, on the other hand, inasmuch as the allegation of deserving Hell
made by each party against the other is an inspiration of the Holy Spirit as is
believed by both Protestants and Catholics, both parties are true to their
allegation. [Both Catholics and Protestants deserve Hell.]
The controversies about the Three Hypostases
that started two hundred and fifty years after the beginning of Christianity
and which have continued among various churches up to our time are beyond
calculable numbers. Nevertheless, all Christian sects agree in the doctrine
that God is an Essence composed of Three Persons, which are (Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit). Each sect holds a different belief as to the natures of these
three Essences, the nature of their unity and how they are related with one
another. According to some of them, by ‘three hypostases’, ‘three attributes of
One Essential Person’ is meant, not ‘three distinct Persons’. According to
some, the hypostasis of knowledge is (Logos), which has united with Christ’s
body. It is a perfect unity, like the uniting of water with wine. According to
the Melekâniyya (Melchite) sect, it is like the shining of the sun on
crystalline glass.
-230-
According to the Nestorians, God has changed into flesh and blood
and become Christ. According to the Ya’qűbiyya (Jacobite or Monophysite) sect,
it is God’s appearing in man. This sort of appearing is like the appearing of
an angel in human guise. According to other sects, God has united with man like
the uniting of the nafs (self) with the body. Thus, things that could never be
accepted by reason or logic have been inserted into the [Nazarene] religion of
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. It has been proven by the ’Ulamâ (savants) of Islam’s
knowledge of Kalâm and by owners of sagacity that these creeds are wrong. Those
who need more scientific details about the matter may have recourse to the
books of those savants. Being unable to answer the responses and objections
directed to them in the knowledge of Kalâm, Protestants have had no other way
than saying, “This is one of the divine secrets which the human mind falls
short of comprehending.” It goes without saying what this answer would be worth
in the eyes of reasonable people.
Notwithstanding all these facts, some
outstanding Protestants have asserted that Qur’ân al-kerîm (May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from believing or saying so) is not
a true heavenly book because the doctrine of trinity does not exist in Qur’ân al-kerîm. It is like the case of a hashish
addict who enters a jeweller’s shop and asks for some hashish. Upon the
shopkeeper’s answering that they do not hold any sort of narcotics and that all
their wares are precious articles like jewels, he says, “Then you are not a
real tradesman.” This statement of Protestants, like their other statements, is
of no value.
It is being noticed that this doctrine of
trinity is being spread systematically among Muslims by Christian missionaries.
And it is being seen with regret that some unlearned Muslims are being deceived
by them; for instance, especially when they want to discipline their children
by intimidating them, they use such expressions as ‘Allah the Father’ and
‘Allah the Grandfather’, pointing to the sky as if Allâhu ta’âlâ were in the
sky. It is declared clearly in the Ikhlâs sűra of Qur’ân al-kerîm that it is never permissible to call
Allâhu ta’âlâ Father or Grandfather. Allâhu ta’âlâ has not been procreated or
begotten. He is free from being a father, a son, or a grandfather, and from
place. Allâhu ta’âlâ is not in the sky, so one should not point to the sky when
mentioning His name. Allâhu ta’âlâ is always Omnipresent and Omnicompetent. He
governs and owns all. The credo that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ went up to heaven and
sat on the right hand side of
-231-
Allah and that Allâhu ta’âlâ is in heaven is a
doctrine that has been interpolated into Christianity later. We Muslims must be
extremely vigilant in this matter, and in all such matters alike. We must
refrain from words and deeds that may damage, and even destroy our îmân
(belief). We must teach about belief and disbelief, words and deeds that cause
disbelief to our children and relations, and help them refrain from such acts
and words. We must not let them see television programs or motion pictures
propagating Christianity or read books of that nature. We must tremble, shudder
with the fear lest our most valuable belonging, îmân, may be marred. We must
teach our children our blessed religion, Islam, in its pristine purity, as it
was handed on to us by our forefathers, who detained it at the sacrifice of
their lives, their blood. We must train and educate believing youngsters who
will protect this religion and, when necessary, will sacrifice their lives for
its sake, and we must entrust Islam only to such youngsters who have îmân.
Before terminating our discourse on trinity,
we shall give information about Paul, who is accepted as one of the greatest
saints in Christendom. Paul had the most prominent role in separating
Christianity from Judaism and converting it into a religion mixed with Greek
and pagan elements. H.G. Wells states in the hundred and twenty-ninth and the
hundred and thirtieth pages of his book (A Short History of the World) that Paul is the most outstanding figure in the establishment of
Christianity. His account of Paul can be paraphrased as follows: “This man had
not seen Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’; nor had he heard his preaches. [Being a Jew of
Tarsus], his name was Saul formerly. Then he converted to Christianity and
changed his name to Paul. He had an extremely earnest interest in the religious
trends of his time. He was perfectly informed with Judaism, Mithraism, and all
the religious and philosophical schools of Alexandria. He inserted many
philosophical and religious terms and tenets peculiar to them into
Christianity. He pretended to be striving to promulgate the way, the religion
of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, which was called God’s Spiritual Kingdom of Heavens and
which God liked because it guided to Paradise. He did not accept Jesus as the
Messiah promised to Jewry. Instead, he considered him to be a sacrifice whose
death would be the expiation for the salvation of mankind. This belief
originated from heathen cults, wherein the salvation of humanity depended on
human sacrifice.”
Being a horrendous
enemy of the Nazarenes, Paul gathered a
-232-
horde of rovers around himself, and with them raided the houses of
the Nazarenes in Jerusalem, dragging out whomever they caught inside, men and
women alike, and imprisoning them in dungeons. He asked the Jewish rabbis to
write letters (of permission) that the Nazarenes living in Damascus and in
neighboring cities be caught and sent to Jerusalem. The rabbis gave him letters
authorizing him to do so.
All sorts of persecution and torture,
including massacres, proved futile in the Jews’ efforts to hamper the spreading
of the Nazarene religion. Luke says in the ninth chapter of Acts of the
Apostles, “And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the
disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,” “And declared of him letters
to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they
were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.” “And as he
journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a
light from heaven:” “And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto
him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” “And he said, Who art thou, Lord?
And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: ...” (Acts: 9-1 to 5)
After these verses, Luke narrates how the voice told a certain disciple,
(namely An-a-ni’as), that he (Paul) would render great services to the Nazarene
religion. Then Paul declared his conversion to the Nazarene religion. He
changed his name from Saul to Paul. He feigned to be a fervent Nazarene, thus
taking up an internal position to change, defile the Nazarene religion, which
he had not been able to annihilate by means of all sorts of persecution and
oppression. Wherever he went, he said that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had given him
the duty of guiding non-Jewish people to the Nazarene religion. By telling many
other lies, he attached the Nazarenes to himself. He was accepted as the
apostle for non-Jewish people. He began to spoil the creeds and worships of the
Nazarenes. Up until that time the Apostles and other Nazarenes had been
following the Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and doing their worships as
prescribed by his canon. Paul asserted that by the killing of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
on the cross, [which is a Christian belief], the Sharî’at of Műsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ had been nullified, and so it was no longer valid. He announced
that from then on salvation for all people depended on believing in Jesus the
Son of God. He called Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ Son of God and Prophet alternately. He withstood Peter, the most
prominent of the Apostles of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Peter, who had continuously
-233-
accompanied Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, was saying that the Nazarene
religion had not abrogated but perfected Judaism. As a proof for this fact, he
indicated Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ statement, “Think not that I am come to destroy
the law, or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfill,” which is quoted in the seventeenth verse of the fifth
chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. Paul made all sorts of food and drink
permissible for the Nazarenes, and caused them to cease from many sorts of
worships, such as circumcision. This fact is written clearly in the New
Testament. Paul states in the seventh verse of the second chapter of the
epistle which he wrote to Galatians, “But contrariwise, when they saw that the
gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the
circumcision was unto Peter;” (Gal: 2-7) This means to say that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’,
as he is alive, intimates the injunction of circumcision to Peter, his
companion, and says that this is a commandment of the Bible. Peter obeys this
commandment and teaches it to everybody who accepts the Nazarene religion. And
Paul, too, confirms that Peter has been told so. But he changes this after Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ leaves the world.
A person named Paul who has never seen Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ appears, and rejects a commandment of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
transmitted by another person who has seen Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm. He states in his
epistle that Peter, the first caliph of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, was with two other
Apostles, James and John, who, too, heard Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ enjoin
circumcision. He states that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, after ascending to heaven,
has shown himself to him and enjoined uncircumcision. And afterwards this
statement of his is accepted as a religious injunction by all Christians. On
the other hand, the injunction transmitted unanimously by Apostles who have
seen Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in person and who have been his companions is
rejected. A single person makes a statement and asserts that it was inspired to
him, in his dream or as he was awake, and then this statement of his is
accepted and practised as a religious tenet. What a rational basis for
Christianity: it depends on reported inspiration from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’!
Dr. Morton Scott Enslin accepts that Paul’s
credo is quite disparate from the creed of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. His account of
the matter in the hundred and eighty-second page of the second part of his book
(Christian Beginnings) can be paraphrased as follows:
“It has been understood definitely that
Christianity, as established by Paul, greatly differs from the Îsâwî (Nazarene)
religion as taught by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Later, Paul and his
-234-
colleagues who had interpreted the Bible erroneously were censured
harshly. The inner meaning of movement of (Back to Jesus) was (getting away
from Paul). Many old Nazarenes and Jews joined this movement and reprehended
Paul, but this movement did not yield much fruit. If Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had
seen all the things that were being done in a church in the city of Corinth
fifty-four years after his departure from the world, he would have said, ‘Is
this the result of my endeavours, of my invitation in Galilee?’ Had Paul not
done those changes in the Îsâwî (Nazarene) religion, there would be no
Christianity.” [Corinth is a city in Greece.] Paul not only made a discrepancy
between Jews and Christians by rendering Christianity a disingenuous credo and
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ a savior god, but also declared the Sharî’at of Műsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ to be (accursed). This case is entirely counter to the rule
that not even a letter of the Sharî’at can be changed, which is written in the
Gospels, [e.g. Matthew: 5-19].
Christianity, founded by Paul, spread to
various countries and was accepted by Jewish communities and by non-Jewish
pagan nations alike. For Paul had brought Christianity extremely close to
Paganism. The demolition of Mesjîd-i-Aqsâ in Jerusalem and the evacuation of
the true Nazarenes and Jews living there in the seventieth year of the
Christian era delivered the Îsâwî (Nazarene) religion a blow from which it
never recovered again.
Another noteworthy fact here is that Paul
could never get along well with most of the Apostles and often quarrelled with
them. Paul was apposed to Peter, who is called the greatest saint in
Christendom by all Christians. He professed this in the eleventh verse of the
second chapter of his epistle to Galatians. And in the thirteenth verse he
accused Barnabas of having been taken in by hypocrites. Nevertheless, of the
Apostles, he liked Barnabas best. According to the final part of the fifteenth
chapter of Acts of the Apostles, Barnabas suggested that they (Paul and
Barnabas) visit the Nazarenes in the other cities taking John along with them,
but Paul refused. This issue caused a fiery dispute between Barnabas and Paul,
which ended up in Paul’s abandoning Barnabas.
A close examination of Paul’s life and
statements will clearly reveal his recurrent efforts to revile, downgrade, and
contradict the Apostles. Many Christian clergy have looked upon Paul as the
founder of Christianity. For according to these clergy Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and
his Apostles adhered to Judaism, that is, to the
-235-
Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, with respect to belief and
worship. Paul assailed this bitterly. He separated Judaism and Christianity
from each other and discarded all the Judaic acts of worship. Thus a religion
quite different from the teachings of the Apostles came into being. This
religion, being based on Paul’s ideas, was quite extraneous to the Nazarene
religion which the Apostle Peter tried to preach. Priests, while accusing us of
false charges on account of our stating these facts, accept Paul as a Christian
(Saint). As a matter of fact, Paul’s epistles, which are at the final section
of the New Testament of the Holy Bible, constitute a component part of the Holy
Bible. The Book of Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, consists of Paul’s
biography. When this and Paul’s epistles are taken into consideration, it will
be seen that the space allotted for Paul in the Holy Bible is not smaller than
the space allotted for the four Gospels. And Christianity is essentially based on
the things which Paul wrote in these epistles of his. An example of these is
this belief: “Wrongdoing and death for soul and body are the consequences of
Âdam’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ eating from the forbidden fruit. All people, who are the
descendants of Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’, came to the world smeared with the
depravity of this (original) sin. God has sent a part of His Essence, His only
Son, to the world, thus redeeming (people) of the sin which they had since Âdam
‘alaihis-salâm’.” We spoke with a priest on this subject, and asked him, “If
God had sent His only Son earlier, millions of people would have been purified
of the innate depravity caused by the original sin and come to the world in an
extremely pure state; would it not have been better?” The priest answered,
“Then the divinity of Jesus Christ would not have been realized, nor would his
value have been appreciated.” This answer of the priest’s reminded us of the
paradox that Christians, who on the one hand are said to have appreciated the
value of Jesus Christ, have on the other hand held the belief that “He shall
enter Hell (for the expiation of people’s sins).” We asked him about it. He
denied it. We showed him several passages from the New Testament, which another
priest had shown to us and told us that they were evidences to prove it. He
read them. Yet he (could not answer). He thought for a
rather long time. At last he said that he was the deputy bishop and did not
understand Turkish well, adding “This verse is a medjâz (allegory).” We knew
then that he understood Turkish well enough to know such a (technical) word as
medjâz.
Paul wreaked
vengeance on the Nazarene religion by turning
-236-
the Nazarene religion, a true religion, into Christianity, a false
religion. Yet Christians still call him (Paul the Apostle) and accept him as
one of the most prominent Christian saints. They build their religious tenets
pertaining to belief and worship on the words of a person who never saw Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ and never sat in his blessed presence. And they profess that
such a religion is the latest and the most perfect religion sent by Allâhu
ta’âlâ. On the other hand, Muslims, who are well aware of Paul’s acts of
treason against the Nazarene religion, call surreptitious, double-faced,
perfidious people ‘Paul the Serpent’.
“Why should we blame the sun if the blind do not see.”]