A Protestant priest published a booklet, in
which he reasons on the foundations of Islam and Christianity. We have
considered it would be apropos to quote statements from that booklet and answer
them. The quotations are italicized, within quotation marks, and the answers
follow.
The booklet says, for instance, “According to
the teachings of Jesus Christ, Christianity, a volitional religion suitable for
and adaptable to every nation and every community, to their forms of government
and policies, to the regulations, systems and states of their social
structures, and to the countries they live in, can be established in any
country without detriment to the order and policy of that country.”
ANSWER: As a matter of fact, because the
existing Gospels contain very few rules pertaining to mu’âmalât, [that is, laws
and regulations of buying and selling, family matters, conditions, forms, rights
of tenure, employment and payment, political laws, etc.], it will certainly not
damage or impair a nation’s order or policy, as the priest professes. [For they
have no rules to make substitutions with. They have nothing in their repertoire
to offer to others.] However, the world has seen no country as yet where
Christians entered and yet did not make havoc of all its valid systems and
states, homes, orders, lands and governmental organizations. Countless
political law books existent in the libraries of Great Roman Empires, and books
telling about Roman customs and traditions were all destroyed by Christians.
[Christians exercised the same cruelty not only on non-Christian people, but
also on their Christian co-religionists. Please see what Christian historians
write about the cruelties and destructions the crusaders inflicted on the
Byzantines when they entered Istanbul in the name of Christian religion. When
they invaded Spain, they ruined and burned hundreds of libraries, destroyed
thousands of works of art, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Muslims and
Jews; all these performances are tangible
evidences exposing the innocent face of Christianity, which the priest alleges
to be “a religion that does not interfere with other peoples’ policies and
customs and which is presently accepted by everybody.”] It has never been easy
for Christianity to settle in a country. Nor could it be expected to do so.
[Even today, they are spending billions of pounds to Christianize people of
poor and starving countries. They are helping them in various ways. They are
doling out monthly payments to those poor people. Yet they have not been able
to Christianize them so far. Is this priest so oblivious of this fact?]
He alleges in the same booklet, “The kingdom
of Christianity is unlike worldly kingdoms or sovereignties. It is a spiritual
and genuine dominion. Owing to its religious essence, which is spiritual, real,
and peculiar to itself, it is applicable to all sorts of situations and places
natural for people. It neither stoops to Christianize the eminent and ruling
people of a country, nor categorically rejects their inclinations or habits.”
ANSWER: When a religion is applicable to all situations and places
natural for people, it will no longer be necessary to call people to that
religion. For that religion will spontaneously promulgate itself. Therefore,
since it is in the open how assiduously Protestants are endeavouring to spread
Christianity, this claim of theirs lapses automatically. On the other hand,
even if we were to accede to its being a merit not to stoop to Christianize the
eminent and ruling people of a country, what good could be anticipated from not
rejecting their inclinations and [atrocious] habits? Or, are all sorts of
atrocity, in the view of this priest, innate in the natural spirituality of the
Christian religion?
The priest proffers in the same booklet, “The
essential mission of Christianity in this world is not to widen the Christian
nations’ periphery of power, but to deposit the grandeur and sovereignty of
Allâhu ta’âlâ into every individual’s heart, and thus to spread it and make it
acceptable among all communities in all countries.”
ANSWER: Unfortunately, the same priest, who counts on the decrepit
position of Islamic countries versus the wealth and prosperity of Europe as an
evidence to prove that Christianity is superior to and more virtuous than
Islam, an argumentation which he deals with from the eighty-seventh through
hundred and seventh page of the same booklet, now says here that it is not the
purpose of Christianity to widen the periphery of power of a
-279-
nation. Could it be the case that the religion he commends in
those pages is Christianity, and the one he advertises here is some other
religion?
The same priest asserts, “Those who admit the
effectiveness and ascendancy of Christianity and value it will attain a
lasting, sacred tie of brotherbood in addition to wisdom and policy. Being
mature born slaves, on the other hand, they will attain divine blessings and
delights in the hereafter.”
ANSWER: In accordance with this argument of
his, it must be doubtful whether peoples of England, Austria and America are
Christians. For these people have never been seen attached to one another with
ties of brotherhood. They try to do utmost harm to one another for the sake of
political advantages. The hostility between Lutherans and Calvinists or between
any two other Protestant sects is no less vehement than the enmity between
Catholics and Protestants. [Throughout history, Catholics and Protestants have
looked on each other as enemies and disbelievers and ruthlessly destroyed each
other. We have related a few examples earlier in the text. Those who read
history know this fact very well. It is obvious that these statements of the
priest are adoptions from goodnesses such as brotherhood, amity, generosity,
etc., which exist in the Islamic religion and which are written in Muslims’
books. He appropriates the good qualities that belong to Muslims and which he
has read about in Islamic books, and affixes them on Christianity.]
The priest goes on, “If it were true that
Islam were superior to and more virtuous than Christianity, it would
necessarily demonstrate Allah’s dominion in a manner better, higher and more
spiritual than the explanation given above. It would be more adaptable to the
positions and countries of the nations on the earth. It would guide people to
happiness, perfection and justice in the world and infuse into them better
hopes of honour and eternal felicity after departure from his world.”
ANSWER: In the Islamic religion, the dominion
of Allâhu ta’âlâ is the Sharî’at of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. Those who act
upon its rules shall attain infinite blessings in this world and in the
hereafter. And those who do not adapt themselves to it shall be bitterly
disappointed and tormented in Hell. This fact is demonstrated in the most
beautiful manner in Qur’ân al-kerîm and in hadîth-i-sherîfs. If the blessings and felicities promised to be given to
Believers in the hereafter were demonstrated exactly as they were, the human
mind could not comprehend them.
-280-
Because this priest is not aware of what has
been going on in the world but for the four Gospels and the epistles of Peter
and Paul, this queer allegation of his signifies nothing but his nescience. We
would like to remind him that realizing how powerful Islam is in guiding to
happiness, peace and justice requires meticulous study of Islam and the history
of Islamic states. Those who know the facts and events about these two
religions are quite aware that the Christian religion, which is far from
spirituality, have been altered quite a number of times, [e.g. by Paul, by
Councils, and by other priests]. If a person reads literature on the historical
facts about Islam and Christianity, he will see that the truth is quite
contrary to the priest’s allegation.
The priest goes on, “Every Christian accepts
Jesus Christ’s resurrection and ascension after being killed as an atonement
for his (or her) salvation. Christians’ feeling of security against the fear of
death has reached the belief that ‘dying is similar to sleeping in a mosque.’
Christians accept death not as harmful, but as useful. On the other hand, most
Muslims fear death. According to their creed, many promised rewards are
awaiting them in the hereafter, and therefore, especially those lunatics who
rush themselves into battlefields with the zealous aspiration for martyrdom in
a holy war expect that as they die houris will meet them and entertain them in
Gardens of Paradise. All these things are not contrary to our belief.
Nevertheless, the relief and delight seen on Muslims at the lime of death are
based on sensuous desires and pleasures such as delicious dishes of food and
houris, which will be served to them in the hereafter. But Christians’ delight
at that moment originates from their full belief in that they will attain to
the presence of Allâhu ta’âlâ in new bodies clarified from sins. This proves
the fact that Islam is not so heavenly or so spiritual as Christianity.”
ANSWER: According to the Islamic creed
[belief], after death people shall assemble at the place of Mahsher, where
everybody shall be called to account, judged, and taken to Paradise or Hell,
whichever they deserve. There shall be various degrees of thawâb [rewards] and
torment [retributions], depending on people’s deeds. The highest blessing in
the hereafter is for us Muslims to attain to Allâhu ta’âlâ, not only to attain
dishes of Paradise food or houris. [Indeed, whatever Believers do in the world,
they do it for Allah’s sake. The most virtuous deed is the one which is done
with ikhlâs (for Allah’s sake). Muslims never dislike death. They say, “We owe
this life to Allâhu ta’âlâ, and we are ready to return
-281-
it anywhere.” For they have definite belief in the hadîth-i-sherîfs which purport, “If a person does not wish to attain to
Allâhu ta’âlâ, Allâhu ta’âlâ will not wish to attain to him, either. If a
person wishes to attain to Allâhu ta’âlâ, Allâhu ta’âlâ, in turn, will wish to
attain to him,” and “Death is a bridge that will lead the lover to the beloved
one.” Most great men of Islam and many Awliyâ
yearned after death, whereafter they would attain to Allâhu ta’âlâ, to
Rasűlullah, to their teachers, who were among the Awliyâ, and to other Awliyâ.
As their disciples sadly waited on them during their throes of death, they
would advise, “Do not be sorry! There is no weeping for a person who is going
to attain to Rasűlullah and to Allâhu ta’âlâ or who is going from one room to
another in a house.” All these religious superiors left this world with a
sweet, pleasant smile.] This aspect of the matter being unpropitious to the
priest’s wicked purpose, he mentions only the aspect pertaining to the physical
blessings of Paradise, thus, so to speak, buttressing up his opposition. Yet,
with all his adversity and bigotry, he somehow acknowledges that at the time of
death Muslims and martyrs feel more relieved and happier than do Christians.
The omnipotence of Allâhu ta’âlâ is so infinite.
The priest goes on, “In the Bible, Jesus Christ
does not threaten an unbelieving person or king, nor does he command to behave
towards him in a manner as to be an example for others. He commands to obey a
king even if he is an unbeliever.”
ANSWER: Yes, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ commanded to obey even a pagan king. For
it was impossible to make jihâd or to resist against the Roman Empire and the
whole race of Jewry with seventy to eighty followers. Islam, too, prohibits to
oppose the state or laws.
The priest goes on, “The Bible commands to
obey all rulers. In fact, let alone non-Christian rulers, it preaches and
advises to everybody to obey the worldly regulations and laws put by those
emperors who are spiteful and hostile against Christianity.”
ANSWER: It is so astounding that Luther, the
founder of Protestantism, was not aware of the existence of such a principle,
which is known even by this priest. Or, perhaps, he completely disignored it
because he followed no one. For Luther uses an utterly abusive language in his
writings castigating the King of England, Henry VIII. For instance, a passage
from the two hundred and seventy-seventh page of 1808 edition of his book can
be paraphrased as follows: “I am speaking to the cuckold for the salvation of
the people. Why should I not cram that cuckold’s lies
-282-
down his throat while he, a king as he is, disregards the rights
of his own honour and post. O you ignorant block-head! Why are you a mendacious
liar, an extortioner, a thief, and an idiot, though you are the owner of the
state. The administration of England, with all its superiority and abundance,
has now fallen into your hands. ...” As it is seen, Luther, the leader and
founder of Protestantism, let alone obeying or submitting himself to the
authority of King Henry, did not hesitate to write the abovementioned foul
words about him because he disregarded Luther’s innovations although he was not
hostile to Christianity. [After all these, whereabouts is the Biblical
commandment, “Obey rulers even if they are unbelievers”? Why did Luther, the
founder of Protestantism, ignore this Biblical commandment instead of obeying
it?]
It is written in the same blooklet, “By means
of war, Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ established a political state, not a religious
one. Islam permitted holy war only in Medîna-i-munawwara. Like Műsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ was charged with jihâd (holy war). He
held religion and state in unity, and assumed both the task of Prophethood and the office of head of the state.”
ANSWER: Whereas the former half of this passage is completely wrong, the
latter half is correct. The Islamic religion concedes domination or ownership
to no one except Allâhu ta’âlâ. According to the Sharî’at of Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’, all Believers are free. For the principles of mu’âmalât
(matters pertaining to buying, selling, etc.) in this Sharî’at are so
immaculate that better ones could never be ideated. These principles are based
on such steadfast and exquisite essentials that for thousands of centuries from
now they would retain their validity and applicability to thousands of new
colours that civilization might assume, and every possible new matter could be
assimilated to one or more Islamic principles, no matter what the century, its
improvements and requirements might be. Contrary to this priest’s supposition,
Islam does not permit an overpowering, irresistable sovereignty. No statement
could be so ignorantly expressed as the one which purports, “Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ allocated both Prophethood and sovereignty to himself.” For our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ was head of
state throughout his lifetime.[He did not stock property like supreme rulers.
What he had he always distributed to others, poor and rich alike. All through
his lifetime,
-283-
he was never heard to say ‘No’ for something asked from him. If he
had what was asked for, he would give it; if he did not have it, he would be
quiet. He lived in poverty. Yet his ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ poverty was
his personal choice. When he took possession of a rather large amount of money,
he would never even keep it overnight. He would always dispense it. Following
his example, his Ashâb would do the same.] He led a life of contentment, so
much so that it was discovered at his death that he had pawned his armour as a
security for his debt. Before deciding about an important matter such as jihâd,
if there was not wahy-i-ilâhî, he would not act upon his personal opinion, but
would ask the opinions of his Ashâb and then act upon the best opinion,
following the âyat-i-kerîma which purports, “Consult (with others) about your matters.” Up until the times of Luther and Calvin, Popes were the only
dominant authorities in Europe. In the tribunals called the Inquisition, they
excommunicated even kings, brought whomever they liked to the throne, and
dethroned and ruined those kings they disliked. With the interference of
priests’ personal interests and caprices, state administration was atrophied.
Thus, they brought Europe into such a miserable state that all politicians and
statesmen began to clamour that the state would not attain safety without
laicization, that is, unless state administration was separated from
Christianity. Later on, Protestants considered it would be necessary to sever
state affairs from religious matters, and this they did despite the Papal
government. So, freeing state administration from Christianity, they rendered a
service to humanity. If Papal authority had held sway over those states, they
would have perished by now.
On the other hand, history teems with the examples
of the states which gained strength, power and grandeur by adapting themselves
to Islam. The remnants of those celebrated civilizations, e.g. the works of art
remaining from the Andalusian Umayyads in Spain, [whatever survived of the many
which were burned, destroyed, and annihilated by the savage Spaniards], and the
Ottoman[1] masterpieces of architecture, law and literature, still exist in
the continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa.
The booklet writes, “Islam commands Muslims to
be strong and powerful. Therefore, instead of spreading among righteous people
who wish to approach to Allâhu ta’âlâ, it has lured and
---------------------------------
[1] The Ottoman State was founded in 699 [A.D. 1299], and abolished in 1340 [A.D. 1922].
-284-
captivated people who are fond of power and wealth. As a result,
Islam’s adherents are not impressive of the adherents of a spiritual religion.
Islam has maintained its complicated state from the very beginning.
Christianity, on the other hand, owing to its incorporeal sacredness, has
cautioned its believers against pompous and temporal grandeur. Since the
beginning of Christianity, Christians have encountered various difficulties and
suffered subduing enemy aggressions. This has deterred the pursuers of worldly
advantages and interests from joining Christianity.”
ANSWER: The truth is quite the opposite of what the priest writes. Among
the Ashâb-i-kirâm who became Muslims in Mekka-i-mukarrama before Hijrat
(Hegira), there was not a single person fond of worldly pomp or wealth. Most of
them were indigent, poor people. On the other hand, notables of Qoureish, who
were Islam’s enemies, were wealthy, powerful, and fond of the world. As is
written in the twenty-sixth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, according to
Christian creed, during the Jewish Passover Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, after having
his last dinner with his Apostles on the evening previous to his death, told
them that he would be killed and that one of them would betray him to the Jews.
Upon this the Apostles were terrified with the feeling of suspicion as to which
one of them could commit such treason. When Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was arrested by
the Jews, his Apostles, who were with him, left him. That night Peter, who was
the closest friend of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, denied to know Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
three times, that is, each time the rooster crowed.
During the lifetime of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’, there were chieftains, notable
tribesmen, rich people among the Ashâb-i-kirâm. These people did not behave in
such a manner as would risk their Islamic manners or belief. For their
acceptance of Islam had not been for the sake of ephemeral worldly property.
All the Ashâb-i-kirâm willfully sacrificed their property and lives for the
sake of the Islamic religion. It is manifest which of them, Islam or
Christianity, comprises more rectitude and spirituality. It is clearly understood
from these examples we have given which of them allured those people who chased
worldly power and interests.
The priest goes on, “Islam’s not distinguishing religion from
State brings up several of its shortcomings. Each of these shortcomings, in
comparison to Christianity, has held people in a chain of contradictions with
respect to their religious needs. This
-285-
sums up to mean that Islam is not an elevated religion. Now we
shall begin to explain some of the dangers that may arise from mingling religion
with politics.”
ANSWER: As we have stated earlier, this protesting priest is continuously
in error by confusing Islam with Christianity, which is a collection of the
Gospels attributed to Matthew and John and a series of epistles ascribed to
Peter and Paul. The dangers he is going to explain, therefore, originate from
the same source.
The priest goes on, “Christianity not only spread wider than
Islam, but also it did not open wars against those who would not accept it, nor
did it treat them so as to hurt their values of chastity and honour.
Christianity has always guided its believers to goodness and abundance.”
ANSWER: Christians, after invading the Granada city, Christianized its
Muslim and Jewish inhabitants by force, using the tribunals they named the
Inquisition as a means of oppression. Even those who would change their faith
were hurled into fires and burnt alive. [As those unfortunate people crackled
in the furious flames and their lacerating cries and wails reached high up in
the sky, the barbarous Christian Spaniards screamed and danced with joy, all of
them, men and women alike.] If this priest had read about the savageries and
cruelties recounted in the historical chronologies about Andalusians and the
Inquisition, which were written by ecclesiastical historians, he would not have
the daring to invent the false story that “Christians did not treat those who
would not accept Christianity so as to hurt their values of chastity and
honour.” [Actually, the priest’s statement is true in a way. For Christians did
not leave any non-Christians under their administration, annihilating them
after subjecting them to unthinkable, unimaginable methods of barbarism and
torture. In fact, these same methods of annihilation have been applied by
Protestants to Catholics, and by Catholics to Protestants. Thus, in countries
under Christians’ control, no member of any other religion was left alive. In
countries where no one belongs to another religion, Christians’ allegation that
they “did not treat those who would not accept Christianity so as to hurt their
values of chastity and honour,” is mendacity. For there was no one left for
them to hurt the values of. Those who read the histories of crusades written by
fanatical Christian historians will see clearly how mendacious these priests
are. We asked a priest we know what his opinon was on these writings of ours.
We wanted to know how come those Christians, who are alleged to belong to a
-286-
religion whose main principle is to do good to everyone and “When
someone slaps you on one cheek, offer him your other cheek,” did all those
savageries. He could not answer.]
The priest goes on, “Islam commands to always
fight against its adversaries and non-Muslims. It subjects its defeated enemies
to jizya (wealth tax), which means to insult them. Now, which of these two
religions is more virtuous and fitter for the human nature with respect to
mercy and compassion? Wise and reasonable people will see at once which of them
is superior.”
ANSWER: History is in the open. [The priest’s statements are quite
contrary to facts. They are lies, slanders. Muslims fought against those
enemies who assailed Islam and against tyrants and dictators who oppressed
people. The Islamic jihâd is performed either as a defensive operation against
disbelievers and tyrants molesting Muslims and Muslim countries, or as a rescue
operation to save people ruthlessly oppressed under the tryranny and barbary of
cruel dictators, or as a mission to let those unfortunate people hear about the
justice and peace innate in Islam, and its principles guiding to happiness in
this world and the next. In other words, it is performed in order to teach the
religion of Allâhu ta’âlâ to the born slaves of Allâhu ta’âlâ, and thus to
guide them to peace and happiness. In Islam, war is not a means of assailing
other countries and plundering them in order to stock property. In places
conquered after wars, Muslims cannot perpetrate massacres or cruelties like
Christians. It is declared in many places of Qur’ân al-kerîm and in various hadîth-i-sherîfs of our Prophet that Allâhu
ta’âlâ enjoins from these acts. People (in such conquered countries) cannot be
forced to change their religions. Forcing them means to disobey Qur’ân al-kerîm. The two hundred and fifty-sixth âyat
of Baqara sűra, which purports, “There is no compulsion in religion,” is a plain evidence of this. There have been numerous Christians
in those countries where Islam has been dominant for fourteen hundred years as
well as in countries that remained under the Ottoman sway for six hundred and
thirty years. Most of the Christians living in Turkey today are their
grandchildren. If the Ottoman Government had employed the slightest policy of
compulsion, there would be no Christians left in Turkey today. When the
Barbarous Christian Spaniards vanquished the Andalusian Omayyad State and
invaded Spain, they perpetrated a genocide of the Muslims and Jews who fell
into their hands, and then celebrated it as a day of feast, for according to
them there were “no disbelievers left in Spain.”
-287-
These are the cruelties exercised by Christians, who are claimed
to belong to a religion of compassion and mercy that spread peacefully. When
Fâtih Sultan Muhammad Khan[1] conquered Istanbul
in 857 [A.D. 1453], he did not apprehend Byzantines’ property. Nor did he
forbid them from practising their religion. The people, who had been fed up
with the tyrannies of the Christian Byzantine Empire, helped the Ottomans, not
the Byzantine forces, in order to enjoy the Ottoman justice. After the conquest
of Istanbul, Fâtih Sultan Muhammad Khan, let alone demolishing the churches,
helped the patriarchate of Fener (Phanar). As for the Saint Sophia, which was
then in ruins; he had it restored and enlarged, and changed into a mosque
because of necessity. Muslims levied (the tax called) jizya on the non-Muslim
inhabitants of the places they conquered. This (tax of) jizya, which was taken
in return for the tremendous expenses Muslims defrayed in order to protect
their property, lives, chastity and religion, was an insignificant amount, and
it had its special contingencies. It was a (religious) commandment that the
money taken in the name of jizya should be spent for charitable purposes. It
was not as the priest asserts. As a matter of fact, in our day every government
collects various taxes from their people.] These criticisms of the priest’s are
not intended to expose the truth. One must be an idiot not to apprehend that
these statements of his originate from his bigotry and malevolence or are
induced by his greed for money. However, since the savageries displayed during
the crusades and in Andalusia are written in their own books, too, no person
with reason and logic will believe these mendacities and lies of the priest’s.
The priest goes on, “In the time of Ottomans,
who were the predominant Islamic nation, abusive terms were being used about
the non-Muslim subjects. This went on until recently, when it was at last
forbidden and the non-Muslims were granted the same rights as Muslims. This
fact proves that my earlier statements are true.”
ANSWER: The rights which the non-Muslim
subjects equally shared with the Muslims were valid and observed since the
reign of Fâtih Sultan Muhammad Khan. What authority does he think compelled
Fâtih Sultan Muhammad Khan to grant these concessions to the Byzantine church?
All the Ottoman Sultans observed this justice and autonomy conceded to the
church in
---------------------------------
[1] Fâtih
(the Conqueror) passed away in 886 [A.D. 1481].
-288-
order to obey the commandment of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ which we
have cited in the initial pages of our book. What was the State’s need for
employing the Byzantines, who were called Phanariots, as dîwân interpreters in
the Ottoman Foreign Ministry or in the Wallachian and Moldavian princedoms? The
law of equality, which was declared afterwards, was not the proclamation of
something new, but the corroboration of what was already existent. As for the
terms that are said to be abusive; they were being used from earlier times as
rules of etiquette to label ranks and personages. As we have stated earlier,
they were not intended to insult or scorn. Like any other state, the Ottoman
State had its own nomenclature of protocol, and each Sultan had his personal
usage of terminology in his firmans. No one ever thought of interpreting them
as abusive.
The priest goes on, “The Islamic States’
improvement to equity and justice in this respect was not a commandment of Qur’ân al-kerîm, nor was it a natural outcome of being
Muslims. It is a palpable fact that the latest Ottoman Sultans, who were clever
and wise enough to apprehend that their country and people needed progress and
reformation, executed the improvements in the wake of their Christian European
counterparts.”
ANSWER: Such omnifarious equality as the
censuring priest envisions does not tally with Qur’â al-kerîm, nor would it be
agreeable to common sense. The Ottoman State established the equality
prescribed by the (Islamic) Sharî’at not in the wake of European emperors, but
by executing Islam’s commandment, and declared the principles of equality [by
writing the already existing injunctions item by item]. As of today, there has
not yet been a European State to grant to its own people and put into practice
the same extremely vast privileges as was granted by the Ottoman State to the
non-Muslims.
[The cruelties, the barbarous and diabolical
persecutions which Christian states have perpetrated in the Muslim countries
they have invaded recently, are astoundingly gruesome. In the First World War,
the English concentrated the slaves they had captured on the eastern front in
huge camps in Egypt. They forced these Muslim slaves to bathe in large ponds,
which had been impured with copper sulfate before. No sooner had the slaves
returned to their homes than they became blind.
Another method Christians employ for
annihilating Muslims and Islam is their policy of having Muslims kill other
Muslims. Ýn
-289-
the war of Çanakkale, African and Indian Muslims were made to wear
British uniforms on the fronts of Egypt, Yemen and Syria to fight against the
Ottomans, who were Muslims like themselves. Those Muslims were provoked to
fight by the prevarication that they were being taken to help the Islamic
religion and to fight against the enemies of the Islamic Khalîfa. Another
method they employ is unbearably horrid for one to relate. For even cannibals
have not attempted to kill a son, cut off and cook his head, and have his
parents eat it. Please reread the second answer in the seventh chapter! It
depicts the real personality of Europeans, who claim to be the civilized
members of a religion dictating mild and amiable behaviour. It is so
consternating that they have the face to assert, after all, that the Ottomans
granted equal rights to their non-Muslim compatriots in the wake of Europeans.]
The priest goes on, “The Ottoman reforms,
which are generally known as the outcome of the virtuous Ottoman benevolence and
wisdom, are, contrary to the prevalent supposition, due to the honour of
Christianity, not of Islam.”
ANSWER: This passage is very well-written. The Ottoman transmutations,
which were administered in the name of reformations by Reshîd Pasha, who was a freemason,
were inculcated by Christians and masons. [For Christians, or rather,
Protestants, coaxed Mustafâ Reshîd Pasha, the Ottoman Ambassador to London, to
becoming a freemason by offering him brilliant advantages and money. Training
him in masonic lodges, they sent him back to the Ottoman State as an adversary
of Islam and Ottoman. They established masonic societies in big cities. By
means of the heinous plans prepared by such perfidious people, the Muslim
Turks, who were, (and are), the real owners of their country, were lowered to a
secondary class of citizenship, and the non-Muslims were made privileged
citizens. Whereas the Muslims were charged with too big sums of money for most
of them to pay for exemption from military service, the amount demanded from
their non-Muslim peers was no more than a perfunctory sample. While the pure
lads of this country were suffering martyrdom for the sake of their faith,
homeland and chastity, the non-Muslims and freemasons, who were the enemies of
Islam, monopolized all the industries and trades of the country owing to the
treacherous stratagems schemed by Mustafâ Reshîd Pasha and the freemasons
trained by him in collaboration with English and Scotch masonic lodges. By
levying heavy taxes for export and promoting import, Mustafâ Reshîd Pasha
sabotaged
-290-
the Ottoman industry and arts. He had scientific education
abrogated from schools. Europeans, who were the architects of all these
impairments, were not yet satisfied with them; supplying money and weapons for
the non-Muslim Ottoman citizens, they instigated them to rebellion, thus sowing
the seeds of discord, hostility and hatred among the people who had been living
together in peace for half a century. This instigation gave birth to
horrendous, stupefying cruelties, savageries and blood-baths. If the Ottomans
had perpetrated a thousandth of the barbarities they were subjected to by
Bulgarians, Russians, Armenians and Greeks, there would be no Bulgarians, no
Armenians, no Greeks, no Russians on the earth today. The so-called reforms,
which were intended to annihilate the Muslim Turks, were all realized owing to
the destructive plans of Christians.]
Here again, the priest asserts, “In Islam,
political laws and religious rules are not differentiated; both of the systems
take their authorities from the same source. Therefore, an Islamic government
has to keep the religious obligations as effective as individual rights by
protecting them with powerful laws. This, in its turn, is an issue perilous and
detrimental to Muslims’ credal dispositions. For performance of religious
obligations will be acceptable only when it is intended to attain His love, to
approach towards Him, to obey Him. Otherwise, if religious duties are done
because of compulsion, they will not be real obedience or piety; they will be
perfunctory simulations, which can be, in a way, interpreted as hypocrisy and
ostentation.”
ANSWER: It is written both in the Taurah and in the Gospels that there
will be great substantial and spiritual rewards and prizes in return for doing
the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ, i.e. actions called farz, and refraining
from His negative injunctions, that is, prohibitions called nahy. In the
twenty-third chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ warns the
scribes and Pharisees about the divine torment and Hell, and reminds them of
their own wrongdoings in an angry tone. At other places, he promises that those
who believe in him shall be saved and attain blessings in the hereafter. Since
Christians’ worships are based on such threats of Hell and the promised
blessings of Paradise, Christians’ pure belief and unmodified thoughts must be
in jeopardy. For such divergent intentions cannot be reconciled with
worshipping only for the sake of Allâhu ta’âlâ and only in order to approach
towards Him. Whatever answer the priest would give to this challenge of ours,
he may retain it as our answer to him.
-291-
And yet the priest goes on, “The Islamic
religion puts the apostate to death. Chastising those who violate the month of
Ramadân by frankly not fasting in it, Islam compels people to remain adherent
to the religion, and thus to hypocrisy.”
ANSWER: As we have stated earlier, the Islamic religion is not like
Christianity, which was established by Paul and Peter. It is the most perfect
religion, a sampler of all sorts of outward and spiritual virtues and
superiorities. Therefore, the boundaries ordained by Allâhu ta’âlâ protect
Islam’s sublime and beautiful ethic against corruption and violation. Rules of
apostasy are never applied to a Muslim, unless he frankly acknowledges that he
is in a state of disbelief. If a Muslim publicly violates the month of Ramadân
by not fasting, he will be chastised by the (Islamic) government, that is, he
will be punished for publicizing his sin. Yet if he does not publicize his sin,
that is, if he conceals his not fasting, he will not be chastised by the
government. Qur’ân al-kerîm prescribes a
certain punishment and expiation for this sort of sin. [There are cases which
necessitate qadâ only as well as those requiring keffâret (expiation) also.]
The chastisement inficted by the (Islamic) government is the retribution for a
Muslim’s publicizing his sin and making a mischievous example for others. Such
chastisements are for Muslims. The Islamic State does not interfere with
Christians’ worships. There is not any chastisement for them concerning their
worships. Nor are they oppressed in any way. These chastisements protect
Muslims’ morals and unity against deterioration. The two hundred and
fifty-sixth âyat of Baqara sűra, which purports, “There is no compulsion in religion,” informs that a person belonging to another religion cannot be
forced to become a Muslim. And the eighty-ninth âyat of Nisâ sűra, which
purports. “If they turn
away from tawhîd and hijrat, enslave or kill them whereever you find them,’ informs that those who, after accepting Islam, turn away from
Islam and apostatize, are to be killed. The expression, “Islam compels people
to remain adherent to the religion, and thus to hypocrisy,” is the priest’s
personal fabrication. This statement of his indicates that he interprets Qur’ân al-kerîm as he wishes. [Perhaps he considers Qur’ân al-kerîm to be similar to the Gospels he has
been reading. Yet he is wrong. A person who interprets Qur’ân al-kerîm with his own views will become a
disbeliever. Qur’ân al-kerîm is not a
book to be read in a state of drunkenness and then to pronounce preposterous
judgements. Interpreting Qur’ân al-kerîm requires first of all being a Muslim
-292-
and then being an expert in a number of branches of knowledge and
then being gifted with a special kind of enlightenment, which is a blessing of
Allâhu ta’âlâ.]
The priest goes on, “The following event shows
that the Bible is opposed to chastising renegades or those who ignore fasting:
One day a group of Jesus Christ’s followers said that they wanted to part with
him because they were offended at something. Jesus Christ turned to others and
said, ‘Do you wish to go, too?’ Thus he gave them freedom of choice. One of
them, speaking for them all, said, ‘Who could we go to? You have the word for
the eternal life.’ ”
ANSWER: All the Prophets called
Ulul-azm were personally entrusted with the task of establishing and executing
the ahkâm-i-shar’iyya (canonical laws) which they brought from Allâhu ta’âlâ.
The task which Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was entrusted with was the perfection and
consolidation of the Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, in addition to some
outward worships and beautiful moral qualities. Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ invited
people who had been misled by the Israelites to obeying the rules in the Taurah
and the Bible. The statements, “When Jesus was arrested by the Jews the
Apostles left him and ran away. Peter, who was the most virtuous, denied Jesus
three times in one night,” show clearly how strong the belief of the followers
of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was. It would be senseless to chastise the renegades
among people whose belief was already so weak.
The priest goes on, “The Islamic religion is
composed of political laws and religious commandments. Therefore, many people
accepted the victories and accomplishments of the earliest Islamic States as
strong evidences for the rectitude of the Islamic religion. Should not the
contemporary Muslims say, ‘How can we believe in the rectitude of our religion
despite the fact that as a result of our policy, which is a principal tenet of
our religion, most of the countries and cities which were once under our
control are now in the hands of Christians, and some forty million Muslims are
under their domination?’ ”
ANSWER: It is impossible for Muslims to say
so. For, as we have explained earlier, Islamic States retained their power and
grandeur as long as Muslims adhered fast to their religion and observed its
commandments and prohibitions in the most perfect and beautiful manner
possible. Later on, as they were alienated from the Islamic ethic, their
national moral qualities gradually deteriorated, Islam’s injunctions were
ignored, and there began an
-293-
administration and execution based on personal inclinations.
[This, again, was contrived by Christians and their masonic societies. Using
all sorts of seduction including various promises and gratifications, they
cajoled youngsters who were quite unaware of the Islamic religion, trained them
as traitors hostile to their own religion and country, and then sent them forth
to Islamic countries. These people, who were Muslims in name but Christians in
personality, administered the Islamic States not as prescribed by Islam, but as
they liked and wished. Thus, Islamic countries were broken and Muslims went
under Christians’ domination. In order to achieve their ends, Christians
overtly supported all the enemies of Islam, including pagans. The pagan Mongol
Emperor, Jenghiz Khân, the notorious cruel demolisher of the Islamic world, was
gratified by the Pope, who sent him invaluable gifts and golds. The Pope’s
envoys shuttled back and forth between the Pope and Jenghiz Khân, and served
him as his mentors. For Jenghiz Khân was ruthlessly slaughtering Muslims and endeavoring
to annihilate Islam. Jenghiz Khân’s grandson, Hulâghu, when he captured
Baghdâd, massacred more then eight hundred thousand Muslims and burned Baghdâd,
which was the world’s most beautiful city and center of knowledge. All the
Islamic works of art and religious books were destroyed, the Tigris River
flowed in blood and ink for many days. What was the purpose of the Pope, the
spiritual leader of Christians, who claim to be very merciful, for rewarding
such an enemy of religion? It is blasphemy to help and encourage an unbeliever.
Helping and encouraging a cruel tyrant, on the other hand, is cruelty itself.
They have been striving to destroy and annihilate the Islamic civilization for
thirteen hundred years. And now they are trying to put forth the stranded
situation Islamic countries are in as a proof for Christianity’s meritorious
superiority over Islam. Even the insane would sneer at them. So, Muslims were
alienated from Islam, and Islamic states, with the deterioration of their
essential principles, collapsed and perished.] Inversely, as long as Christian
states remained adherent to Christianity, they remained in confusion. When
these states abandoned Christianity and inclined towards atheism, they began to
imitate the Islamic religion in their policies and thus became strong and
powerful. Histories, which are the open testimonies of this state, will
continue to show this fact to the whole world till doomsday. No matter how
dexterous Islam’s enemies may be in mendacity, misrepresentation and calumniation,
these equitable witnesses
-294-
will refute them and publicize their lies all over the world.
The priest goes on, “The appearing of Jesus
Christ is a very important turning point in God’s dominion. This dominion
abrogated some rites peculiar to past religions, e.g. circumcision.
Disregarding circumcision, it valued consecration of the heart and
beautification of morals, that is, extermination of wicked qualities. Muslims,
on the other hand, are still practising circumcision, thus trying to keep up a
custom which God annulled through the Bible.”
ANSWER: The fifth chapter of the Gospel of
Matthew quotes Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as saying, “Do not think I have come to
demolish the Sharî’at. I have come to perfect the Sharî’at, not to demolish it.
For the truth I am to tell you is that not even a letter or a dot of the
Sharî’at shall be annihilated unless heaven and earth perish.” On the other
hand, it is stated in the Taurah that one of the most important commandments of
the Sharî’at of Műsâ’ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is circumcising the children. In fact,
the Taurah quotes Allâhu ta’âlâ as commanding to Ibrâhîm (Abraham)
‘alaihis-salâm’, “Execute circumcision. For Paradise is not accessible without
circumcision.” All Prophets coming
between Ibrâhîm ‘alaihis-salâm’ and Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ acted upon this
commandment. As a matter of fact, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ himself was circumcised.
The Gospels do not even contain a word concerning the abrogation of
circumcision. When we asked this protesting priest which one of the Gospels
abrogated the Sharî’at [by annulling the injunction of circumcision] despite
the Biblical verse, “... not even a letter or a dot of the Sharî’at shall be
annihilated...,” which we have quoted above, his answer was no more than
putting forward a few passages from the Epistle to Galatians written by Paul,
who had not even reached the time when Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had lived. For
sixteen years this notorious person, Paul, perpetrated various persecutions and
torments to the Believers of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, including the excoriation of
one of the blessed Hawârîs. Later he claimed to believe in Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
as a result of a dream, which, again, was his own fabrication. Now we ask this
censuring priest: For what reason was that notorious Jew’s word preferred to
the definite and open commandment of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, and why was
circumcision abandoned? Muslims observe the sunnat of circumcision because our Prophet commanded them to preserve the sunnat of
Ibrâhîm ‘alaihis-salâm’ and obey this commandment of Allâhu ta’âlâ in the
Taurah. This performance of Muslims consists in obeying the
-295-
divine will of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Christians’ abandoning circumcision,
on the other hand, means disignoring the commandment of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’,
which is also enjoined in the Taurah, and obeying Paul, the cruel hypocrite.
[Paul says in the seventh and eighth verses of
the second chapter of his Epistle to Galatians, “But contrariwise, when they
saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel
of circumcision was unto Peter;” “(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to
the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the
Gentiles:)” (Gal: 2-7, 8) Peter, the closest friend who was always with Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, commands circumcision and observes it himself. Then appears a
Jew, who never saw Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in his lifetime and who oppressed
bitterly for sixteen years the Nazarenes who believed in Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.
This Jew fabricates a lie and says, “I have been given the Bible of
uncircumcision. Let those people other than Jews not be circumcised.” And this
lie is observed as an injunction of the Christian religion. Supposing an
ordinary person came forward and said that he had been revealed or inspired
that such and such a thing should be done in such and such a manner, and a
so-called religion accepted his words as an essential document. A person with
discretion would not believe in the heavenliness of that religion.]
Another criticism that Christians stir up against
Islam is based on the fact that Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs are in the
Arabic language. The priest says, “Since Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs are in
Arabic and no studies have been done to translate it into other languages,
Muslims who do not understand Arabic are deprived of knowing the meaning of Qur’ân al-kerîm. All the duâs and dhikrs are in
Arabic. Muslims recite prayers without being aware of what they are saying.
When people of other nationalities accept Islam and attempt to penetrate the
inner realities of Qur’ân al-kerîm, they are encumbered with the burden of learning Arabic.
Furthermore, because every Muslim is obligated to visit Mekka and Medina at
least once in his lifetime, the land of Hidjaz has gained ascendancy over other
lands. The obligation of hajj has become a burden, a trouble for people living
in far away countries.”
ANSWER: An observation of the Old and New
Testaments would be enough to answer his first objection. The Old and New
Testaments were subjected to numerous interpolations each time they were
translated into another language. Allâhu ta’âlâ revealed
-296-
His Qur’ân al-kerîm in the Arabic language in order to protect it against such
interpolations. This will suffice as an answer to the priests’ criticism.
Their second objection, that is, their
criticism about hajj, has already been answered earlier in the text. Repetition
would be unnecessary. The Islamic ’Ulamâ explicate in their works the hikmats[1] in the revelations of Qur’ân al-kerîm in the Arabic language and in hajj. Yet, in order to be blessed,
we shall give here one of their explanations concerning the realities in the
restraint against translating Qur’ân al-kerîm and the obligation of visiting Mekka-i-mukarrama and
Medîna-i-munawwara, since it has to do with our subject:
As it is known by people of wisdom and
knowledge, people living in various different climates of the earth were
originally born from the same father and mother. They are like different
generations of a great empire who have increased in number in process of time,
parted into numerous tribes, and forgotten about their original relations. The
disagreements and controversies among these various tribes emanate from the
ideological and credal differences among them, which in turn are the natural
proceedings of linguistic and customary differences. Since love of one’s
country is an inborn quality, everyone naturally loves his own country, as a
result of which different people love different countries and therefore have
different interests and benefits. When the objective is to remove or offset
these differences, which are in the long run harmful to all the tribes and
nations in general, there will be no other way than diminishing the sources of
difference and assimilating these nations to one another. That is:
1 — For eliminating the harms of linguistic
differences, which are the causes of disagreements, it is necessary to
establish a common language among them.
2 — For alleviating the harms of customary and
systematical differences among them, which are the major sources of
disagreements, and for bringing them together in unity, they must be knitted
together by means of the same customs and systems.
3 — Love of one’s country, which is a
spiritual dormancy, must be canalized towards concentricity, that is, people
must be made to love one common country. The inner essence and purpose of the
principles laid by the Islamic religion is to eliminate the
---------------------------------
[1] The
inner, esoteric reasons, the ultimate divine causes.
-297-
disagreements among people and to tie them together with common
aims of happiness and benefits. Qur’ân al-kerîm was revealed in the most beautiful of all the human languages,
namely the Arabic language. [‘Arab means beautiful. Hence Lisân-ul-’Arabî means
the most beautiful language.] By means of the farz and other worships, all
nations and tribes have been made equal. And by the obligation of hajj,
Mekka-i-mukarrama and Medîna-i-munawwara have been made (Umm-ul-awtân), that
is, sacred places, for all the Muslim nations. A Muslim will easily learn the
Arabic language if he is drilled in reading Qur’ân al-kerîm and taught Arabic lessons at a very early age. Thus he will
exchange ideas with Muslims all over the world. [For there will be a common
language between them now.] On the other hand, by means of common systems of
behaviour, such as azân (or adhân), namâz, fasting, zakât, hajj, especially the
rukns (obligatory actions) in namâz, the namâz performed on Friday, namâz
performed in jamâ’at (congregation), following the imâm (person who conducts
the namâz in congregation), Islam brings tribes with different customs closer
to one another and guides them to a common system of belief and worships. And
Mekka-i-mukarrama, the Islamic center where Muslims come together, is their
common sacred place. It is a religious duty, a debt to love it, to preserve and
protect it. For hundreds of thousands of people from eastern, western, southern
and northern parts of the world, who have never seen one another before, nor
would it otherwise be possible for them to see one another, come together in
Mekka-i-mukarrama for the performance of the farz of hajj, exchange knowledge
and ideas, consolidate their religious creed and love, and are welded together.
So, the real aim of Islam is to make all peoples and tribes brothers by uniting
them in the same beautiful system of belief, worships and ethics. People who
obey Islam, [wherever and] in whatever age they live, will attain honour,
happiness and success as long as they obey it. Thus, it is doubtless, in a
short time six hundred million Muslims on the earth will regain their
centuries-old powerful and honourable status and, being full of brotherly
affection for one another, they will fill the whole world with peace and
happiness.
Amidst all the slanders directed by Christians
to the Islamic religion, this priest asserts, “In Islam, jihâd-i-fî-sebîlillah
(holy war only for Allah’s sake) is farz. On the other hand, there is no
commandment for jihâd in Christianity. This case is an evidence for the virtue
of Christianity.”
-298-
ANSWER: The commandment of jihâd is stated clearly in all the books of
the Old Testament. We have already quoted the statement of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’,
“I have not come to demolish the Sharî’at. I have come to perfect the Sharî’at,
not to demolish it.” This statement bears the meaning that he will also perfect
jihâd, which exists in the Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Christians refuse
this commandment of jihâd enjoined by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. There are very many
verses conveying the commandment of jihâd in the Old Testament. It is worth the
time spent mentioning them here.
It is stated in the tenth and later verses of
the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, “When thou comest nigh unto a city to
fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.” “And it shall be, if it make
thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people
that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve
thee.” “And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee,
then thou shalt besiege it:” “And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into
thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:”
“But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the
city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt
eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.” “Thus
shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are
not of the cities of these nations.” “But of the cities of these people, which
the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive
nothing alive that breatheth.” (Deut: 20-10 to 16)
The account given to this effect in the
thirty-first chapter of Numbers can be summarized as follows: “Commanded by
Allâhu ta’âlâ, Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ formed a twelve thousand strong army to
fight against the Medians. Defeating the Medians, they killed all the men and
enslaved their women and children. They took away all their animals, flocks and
property as booties, and burned all their towns and sites.” (paraphrased from
Num: 31-7 to 10) If you need detailed information on the facts we have
summarized here, please consult the book Numbers of the Old Testament. It is
stated in the Old Testament that Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ appointed Yűshâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ (Joshua) as his successor before his death. And he (Yűshâ),
obeying the Taurah’s commandment, killed many millions of people. Those who are
interested will find detailed information from the first chapter through the
thirty-first chapter of the book Numbers.
-299-
The eighth and later verses of the
twenty-seventh chapter of 1 Samuel state, “And David and his men went up, and
invaded the Gesh’u-rites, and the Gez’rites, and the Am’a-lek-ites: ...” “And
David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the
sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel, and
returned, and came to A’chish.” (1 Sam: 27-8, 9)
It is written in the eighth chapter of II
Samuel that Dâwűd (David) ‘alaihis-salâm’ slaughtered twenty-two thousand
Syrian soldiers, and in the tenth chapter that he killed forty thousand
horsemen of the Aramaians. (2 Sam: 8-5 and 10-18)
It is written in the eighteenth chapter of I
Kings that Ilya (Elijah) ‘alaihis-salâm’ had four hundred and fifty people
killed because they had claimed to be Baal’s Prophets. (1 Kin: 18-1 to 40)
It is written in the fourteenth chapter of
Genesis that when Ibrâhîm ‘alaihis-salâm’ received the news that the kings who
had been attacking Sodom and Gomorrah had enslaved Lűt ‘alaihis-salâm’ and
pillaged his property, he convened his soldiers in order to save his brother
and others, pursued the pillagers up to Dan, conducted a night raid, killed all
the pillagers, rescued his brother, Lűt ‘alaihis-salâm’, repossessed all the
property pillaged, and took them all back, including the women. (Gen: 14-11 to
16)
Paul states in his epistle to the Hebrews that
David, Samuel and other Prophets, who had
formerly been weak people barely escaping the edge of the sword, mustered power
and courage, forced the enemy armies to run away, and conquered lands. (Heb:
11-32, 33)
As it is understood from all these, past Prophets ‘alaihimus-salâm’ were also commanded to
make ghazâ and jihâd against disbelievers. Yet Islam’s jihâd-i-fî-sebîlillah,
unlike emperors’ wars, is not made for the satisfaction of mundane intentions
and sensuous desires or for achieving fame and honour. It is performed to
glorify the blessed name of Allâhu ta’âlâ, to make all people attain the right
and true way, and to save people from cruelty and persecution. Now we would
like to ask Protestants: Were the holy wars made by the Prophets we have mentioned above permissible,
approved acts according to Allâhu ta’âlâ, or did they incur Allah’s wrath
because they were forbidden? If they say they were permissible and approved,
they will have rebutted their own assertion. If they say they were forbidden,
this time Paul, who is sacred to them, will be a liar on account of his
-300-
writings about Dâwűd ‘alaihis-salâm’. In this case, the Old
Testament, which is confirmed to be true and authentic by Christians, will have
also been belied. In addition, thousands of innocent people will have been
slaughtered as a result of a Believer’s wrongdoing. After all, how will Dâwűd
‘alaihis-salâm’ attain salvation in the hereafter? For the fifteenth verse of
the third chapter of John’s first epistle states, “... and ye know that no
murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” (1 John: 3-15)
It is written in the eighth verse of the
twenty-first chapter of the Apocalypse (Revelation), “But the fearful, and
unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and
sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” (Rev: 21-8)
[WARNING: At it is seen at various places in our book, (Could Not Answer), it is written in all the Pentateuchal and Biblical books
possessed by Christians that “After death people shall resurrect, be called to
account, and remain eternally in the blessings of Paradise or in the fire of
Hell.” Hundreds of millions of Christians in America and Europe, including all
statesmen, scientists, professors, commanders, believe in these Gospels and go
to church for worship every week. Some people in Turkey, because they do not
read any Islamic literature and therefore know nothing of Islam, call it
(modernism) to imitate Europeans and Americans, and (regression) to be a
Muslim. However, these people do not work like Europeans and Americans in
science, medicine, mathematics or technologies. What they imitate in them is
only atrocities such as arranging mixed parties of music, gambling and
drinking, spicing their voyeuristic desires in beaches, and annoying their
neighbors by turning up the volume of their radio or television to the highest
point. Because Islam prohibits such excesses, they call Muslims reactionaries.
According to them, any boy or girl who joins them in their eccentricities,
illiterate and quite unaware of science and arts as he or she may be, is
modern, illuminated. On the other hand, a learned, virtuous, decent, true
Muslim who is a university graduate and is therefore well-informed in arts and
trade, pays his taxes, obeys the laws, and is kind to others, will be
reactionary if he does not join their immoderations. These self-imposed modern
and illuminated people are beguiling young people to indecency and sloth, and
thus to afflictions in the world and eternal torment in the hereafter. They are
causing breakage in family homes. In
-301-
short, as it is seen, according to these people, only those who
imitate Europeans’ dissipations and immoralities are illuminated and modern.
Since those Europeans and Americans, who believe in Paradise and Hell like
Muslims, are not regressive in their view, they must be calling Muslims
regressive only because Muslims do not practise their immoralities. Being
irreligious, these people do not imitate Europeans’ and Americans’ pious
aspects, and this, in turn, makes them regressive in their own criteria. This
book of ours proves that a Muslim is illuminated and always up-to-date, and a
non-Muslim is retrogressive.]
As for the nonexistence of the farz of jihâd
in the religion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’; Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ invited people to
his religion only for three years, which was too short a period to spare time
for jihâd-i-fî-sebîlillah. Naturally, it would have been impossible to perform
jihâd against the Roman Empire with five to ten men plus a few women. In fact,
when Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ knew that the Jews were nursing a grudge against him,
he became anxious. As is written in the thirty-sixth and later verses of the
twenty-second chapter of the Gospel of Luke, during the day previous to the
evening when he would be arrested, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ said unto his companions,
“... But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip:
and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” (Luke: 22-36)
“And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said, unto them, it
is enough.” (ibid: 22-38) And those swords were no good because as he was being
arrested that evening his companions left him and disappeared. All these
explanations make it as clear as the sun that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had no
intentions to surrender without self-defence, that he would have used the sword
to defend himself if it had been possible, and his not making jihâd against his
enemies was due to lack of physical means of fighting. Since Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ did not plainly enjoin his followers from jihâd, and inasmuch
as he is the consolidator, not the abolisher, of the Sharî’at of Műsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, it is obvious that the commandment of jihâd existent in the
previous Sharî’at must have been valid in his Sharî’at, too.
Protestants assert in this publication of theirs
that, “Muslims, as a requirement of their religion, which stigmatizes
non-Muslims as the enemies of God and religion, look upon them as their
enemies. They wish and endeavour to make them Muslims by force or to take them
under their domination and thus to levy (the tax called) jizya on them.”
-302-
ANSWER: Yes, any religion or sect contradictory to the belief of tawhîd
(unity of Allah) is detestable and repulsive in Islam’s view. Owners of such
misbelief are said to be the enemies of Allâhu ta’âlâ and His religion. Yet,
[as we have stated earlier in the text], it is forbidden to compel them to
become Muslims. The priests’ statements in this respect are merely intended to
malign Muslims. Muslims hate only those non-Muslims who bear hostility against
the Islamic religion. There have been hatred, animosity, hostility, conflicts
and fights between Muslims and such people. But what are the grounds for the
hatred and emnity and all those history-making vehement fights and bloodbaths
among the Christian sects themselves? Pages of history books teem with
narrations of the cruelties and barbarisms Christians inflicted on the people
of the countries they captured. They try to destroy and annihilate people
belonging to other religions. Approximately three hundred years before the
Hegira, Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and presently began to
perpetrate his barbarisms, cutting off Jews’ ears and condemning them to exile
in various countries. Later, he deported the Jews out of Alexandria, demolished
all their temples, carried out an extensive genocide, and seized their
property. The Sephardic Jews also were subjected to innumerous types of torment
by Christians. [We have already touched upon the cruelties inflicted on the
Jews in Spain.] In the Tolouisse city of France, Christians took an Easter day
as an occasion for smacking on the face the Jews they met on the streets. In
other cities of France, Jews were pelted with stones on the same Easter day. It
is a fact that most of the Jews were killed by the stones ruthlessly hurled,
and the people were provoked to do all this savagery by the authorities of the
city. So far, there has been seven Jewish deportations from France.
Also, the Hungarian Jews suffered various
types of torment inflicted by Christians. Some of them were burned alive.
Others were thrown into the sea to drown.
In England, on the other hand, the Jewish
people, finding the torments inflicted on them too painful to endure, preferred
killing one another lest they should fall into the hands of their torturers.
Members of a Catholic society, which had been
established under the name (Oturafe) in Spain, burned alive thousands of people
most of whom were Jews and the rest were some rich Christians suspected of
apostasy, and the officially invited guests were kings and other high-ranking
officials. It is a historically recorded fact that as these wretched people
begged, cried and
-303-
wailed for mercy the spectators, i.e. priests, officials and
women, laughed and clapped their hands.
Throughout the period of twelve [now fourteen]
hundred years since the rising of Islam there has not been a tiniest event of
cruelty inflicted by Muslims on Christians or Jews similar to the cruelties
perpetrated by Christians. If there is any, let them divulge it. If they mean
the three or four hundred Christians killed during the events that broke out in
Lebanon in 1277 [A.D. 1861], these events were provoked by the Jesuits who had
come to Lebanon and Damascus from France in order to sow seeds of sedition and
mischief. This fact is clearly seen in the legal proceedings that are on record
in the Ottoman Archives and which were conducted on the spot in cooperation
with a European committee. The Christians were slaughtered by Druses, the
Lebanese mountaineers who had come to Lebanon for this purpose. The Ottoman
State sentenced to death those felons legally proven to be guilty in this case.
In addition. Ahmad Pasha, who had been a successful vizier before but happened
to be the governor of Damascus at the time when these hapless events broke out,
was found guilty for failing to carry out his military duty and was executed by
shooting publicly.
[It is written in the twelfth book of (the
Turkish) Türkiye Târihi (History of Turkey), “When Rushdu Pasha, an interpreter,
was in office as the Sadr-i-a’zam (Grand Vizier), there was aggravated
animosity between the Druses and the Catholic Maronites. Eventually, the former
being provoked by the English agents and the latter by the French, they
attacked each other. Hurshid Pasha, governor of Lebanon, and Ahmad Pasha,
governor of Damascus, fell short of restraining the battle waged and directed
by the aforesaid two States. Napoleon III was awaiting the exacerbation of the
battle, in which case he fancied he would seize an opportunity to invade
Lebanon. Fortunately, the Ottoman intervention prevented the problem from
becoming worse.”
The greatest share in the settlement of these
Damascene tumults fell to the lot of Emîr Abd-al-qaadir ibn-i-Muhyiddîn
al-Hasanî,[1] a virtuous, great
’âlim, the famed hero of Algeria. This high person, a true Muslim, cooperated
with the other Muslims in the defence of Christian districts. He rescued many
Christians among whom was the Consul of France from the hands of Druses,
---------------------------------
[1] Sherîf
Abd-al-qaadir passed away in Damascus in 1300 [A.D. 1882].
-304-
gave sanctuary to a number of Christians in his government house,
and financially helped the poor and needy ones. French authorities, who were
formerly his arch enemies, conferred to him France’s greatest medal of honour.
Thus, obeying the commandment of Allâhu ta’âlâ, he protected and helped the
French and Christian people against whom he had conducted innumerable combats
before. Upon this event, Fuad Pasha, the Foreign Minister, was appointed
Plenipotentiary with absolute military, administrative, political and financial
powers and was assigned the duty of suppressing all sorts of sedition and
effecting the required reforms. Fuad Pasha presently moved to Beirut and thence
to Damascus, where he punished the instigators and the Druses who joined the
events. He paid seventy-five million kurush to the injured party, i.e. the
Christians, in compensation for the loss incurred. When Ahmad Pasha, his most
beloved friend, was sentenced to death by Dîwân-i-harb (Court Martial), Fuat
Pasha said, “I have not killed any living being, not even a chicken all through
my life, and now, see what Allâhu ta’âlâ has made me do.” Has there ever been a
Christian State with a similar example of justice? Instead of justice, they
have perpetrated and waged cruelty and supported those who waged cruelty.
Details of this event are lush with illustrations of Islam’s justice, yet
relating them one by one would overflow the capacity of our book. We refer
those who are interested to history books.]
While the self-complacent Christians claim
that they have avoided having recourse to physical media or force and that they
emphasize only the spiritual aspect of the matter such as loving Allâhu ta’âlâ
and showing love and compassion to one’s neighbours, the inhumane treatments,
the savageries and cruelties they laid on one another stay recorded in history
books. Upon reading about these savageries and cruelties committed by
Christians, one may, let alone hating Christians, regret being human.
A European historian gives an estimated number
of the people whom Christians massacred in the name of Christianity, and adds
some historical facts pertaining to the time when those massacres were
perpetrated. In order to present a memento to our Muslim brothers, we have
paraphrased some passages from his book:
In 650 [A.D. 1251] a priest named Novatianus,
who took office as the Pope some time later, and another clergy, Cornelius by
name, had a row with each other in Rome. Meanwhile another
-305-
row, namely a struggle for position, was kicked up between two
Carthaginian priests, Siprin and Nevât. In the fights that consequently broke
out between the supporters of both parties numerous people were killed.
Although the death-toll is not precisely known, an estimated two hundred
thousand would be anything but an exaggeration.
During the reign of Constantine I, as soon as
Christians found an opportunity to avenge themselves on their enemies, they
killed Emperor Galerius’s young son Kottidin and a seven-year-old son and a
daughter of Emperor Maximinus. Abducting the Emperor’s wife and the mothers of
these two children from the palace, they dragged them along the streets of
Antioch. Then they threw them all into a river, where they drowned. Emperor
Galerius’s wife was executed in Salonica and her corpse was thrown into a
river. Many people were killed during these commotions. Their number is
estimated to be around two hundred thousand.
Two priests established a sect called Donat in
Africa and put up resistance against the Roman Church. During the insurrections
launched by these priests an estimated four hundred thousand people were killed
their heads being smashed with clubs, since the priests would not approve
killing with the sword.
All history books write about the
controversies and clashes that burst in Christian countries upon the Nicene
Council’s decision that Father and Son, two of the persons of trinity, were in
full substantial unity. The conflagrations and insurrections caused by this
decision burned the whole Roman Empire, various times, and continued for some
four hundred years. Hundreds of dynasties destroyed and afflicted during these
confusions being excluded, solely the number of killings is about three hundred
thousand.
Around sixty thousand people were destroyed
during the disturbances of Anganoglest and Angolater.
During the reign of Theodora, the wife of
Emperor Teokyil, one thousand Manichaeans were slaughtered because they
represented good and evil as two distinct beings. The abetter of this massacre
was the priest who heard Theodora’s confession. He had told her that her
entering Paradise would be possible only after killing all the members of the
blasphemous sect. The number of people killed by crucifixion, strangulation and
impalement had reached twenty thousand already. Yet the priest had found this
number insufficient for Theodora’s attaining Paradise.
-306-
The number of people killed in the fights and
struggles for bishopric and patriarchate, which have taken place in every
century all over the world, is twenty thousand at the least.
During the two-hundred-year crusading expeditions,[1] the number of Christians killed by Christians is estimated to be
two million, yet we shall say one million for moderation’s sake. During the
crusades, again, at least one hundred thousand Christians were slaughtered by
the priests called (Muqallid-is-suyűf) who were plundering and pillaging the
towns along the Baltic shores.
When the Pope declared war against Lanokduk,
around one hundred thousand people were slaughtered, burned, and their ashes
were left in the open for a long time.
The number of people killed in the wars made
against emperors since the time of Pope Gregory VII is fifty thousand.
The people killed during the skirmishes caused
by the matter of Western renegades in the fourteenth century are fifty
thousand.
Soon after these events two priests named
Johos and Cirum (Jerome) were burned alive, and the consequent combats yielded
one hundred and fifty thousand Christians slaughtered.
The events of Merbondol and Gaberir may seem
insignificant when compared to this important event. Yet the massacres
perpetrated in these events are extremely truculent: Some people were burned
alive, suckling babies were thown into burning fire, young giris were raped and
then butchered into pieces, old women were blown up with gunpowder inserted
into their vaginas. The number of people killed in these savageries reaches
eighteen thousand.
If we put aside the number of people, priests
and princes beheaded to carry out the laws put by the priestly judges within
the period between the Popes Leo X and Clement IX, people who were guillotined
without any apparent reasons, people who were burned alive in various
countries, great numbers of people whom executioners were tired of beheading in
Germany, France and England, the number of people slaughtered in the thirty insurrections
issuing from the controversies upon Luther’s statements, “There is no such
thing as the Eucharist or uniting with God. And Baptism is a lie,” those killed
in the massacre of St. Bartholomew and in other massacres perpetrated in
Ireland
---------------------------------
[1] Crusading expeditions commenced in 490 [A.D. 1096], and continued until 670 [A.D. 1271].
-307-
and elsewhere, reaches well beyond three million. In addition to
the dynasties and eminent families thrown into poverty and destitution, at
least two million innocent people were killed.
The number of people killed, crucified and
burned by the ecclesiastical societies called inquisition are five million and
two hundred thousand.
As for the aborigines killed in the name of
Christianity in America; the number given by the author of this history book is
five million, yet the bishop of Lascas states that it was twelve million.
As a result of the seeds of mischief sown by
the ecclesiastical missionaries sent forth to Japan to promulgate Christianity
there, insurrections and civil wars broke out and three million people died.
The death-toll in all these events is almost
twenty-five million people.
The historian publisher of this book, after
acknowledging that the numbers he has given are well below the actual numbers
of the people killed, adds, “To those Europeans who read my book: If you have a
record of your genealogy in your home, review it. It is for certain that you
will find either victims killed or murderers who killed, in religious fights,
among your ancestors. It is stated in the declaration issued by the British
Parliament on the twenty-fifth day of June in 1052 [A.D. 1643] that in Ireland
alone the number of Protestants slaughtered by Catholics was one hundred and
fifty-four thousand.” Here we end our paraphrasing from the history book.
As Catholics inflicted these cruelties and
persecutions on other people, especially on Protestants towards the end of the
Middle Ages, Protestants, of course, did not offer their other cheeks. Nor did
they spare any effort in their race of bloodshedding. Thomas, an
Anglo-Catholic, states in the forty-first and forty-second pages of his book Mir’ât-i-sidq (The Mirror of Faith), which was printed in 1267 [A.D. 1851],
“Protestants, as soon as they appeared, pillaged six hundred and forty-five
hospices, ninety schools, twenty-three hundred churches, and one hundred and
ten hospitals, and killed thousands of the old and poor inmates. In addition,
they exhumed corpses and stole grave-clothes.” He says in the fifty-second
page, “Protestants laid down more than a hundred unjust and unmerited laws
against Catholics. As a requirement of these laws, members of the
-308-
Catholic sect could not inherit property from Protestants. After
the age of eighteen, a non-Protestant would not be given any land property.
Catholics were not permitted to open schools. A Catholic priest caught while preaching
would be imprisoned. Their taxes were increased. Those who performed Catholic
ceremonies were fined. If they were priests, the fine would be seven hundred
rupees plus imprisonment. Those who went out of England were killed there and
their property was usurped. Those Catholics who did not attend certain
Protestant rites were fined. In addition, no Catholic rites were permitted, and
their weapons were confiscated. They were not allowed to ride horses. Priests
who would not become Protestants, and also those who offered them sanctuary in
their homes, were killed. Catholics would not be accepted as witnesses.
England’s Queen Elizabeth I,[1] in order to spread
and promote Protestantism in England and to undertake its spiritual leadership,
endorsed all sorts of cruelty and injustice imposed on Catholics. [And she took
the lead in these cruelties.] She had two hundred and four eminent people
executed. She had ninety-five Catholic bishops killed in dungeons. Some rich
Catholics were sentenced to life. Protestants would lash the Catholics they met
in the streets. In fact, Estorat, the Queen of Scotland, was kept in a dungeon
for a long time and then executed because she was a Catholic. Again, during the
reign of Elizabeth I, Catholic scholars and clergy were forced to board ships,
whence they were thrown into the sea and drowned. In order to force the
Catholics in Ireland to become Protestants, the Queen sent an army against
them. Their churches were burned. The notables were killed. Those who ran away
into forests were hunted like wild beasts. Even the ones who accepted
Protestantism did not escape the massacre. In 1643, the Parliament sent
officials to seize the Catholics’ property and land. This condition continued
until the time of King James II, who showed mercy to the Catholics in 1687.
Angered by this, the Protestants presented a petition undersigned by forty-four
thousand people to the king. Their request was the maintenance of the laws of
cruelty. Yet the Parliament refused this demand of the Protestants. Upon this,
one hundred thousand Protestants came together and set fire to the Catholic
churches and Catholic districts in London, so that thirty-six fires were seen
in one district.”
---------------------------------
[1] Elizabeth
I died in 1012 [A.D. 1603].
-309-
Thus, despite the admonitions of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, who enjoined, “If they slap you on the right cheek, offer them
your left cheek, too. If someone asks you for your coat, give him your cloak,
too. Love your enemies, and if they invoke evil on you, pronounce a benediction
over them. If your brother hurts you, forgive him up to seventy times. Love
your neighbour like loving yourself,” all these horrendous and savage events
took place among Christians, who claim to believe in the religion of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ who was not commanded to make jihâd.
The jihâd commanded by the Islamic religion is
not a cruel or savage deed like the ones mentioned above. Muslims’ preparation
for jihâd is intended to prevent the cruel Christians from assailing Islamic
countries and to save people from the torments of cruel governments. Jihâd is
made to bring obstinate tyrants who elude justice and right to reason by means
of power and force, to glorify the blessed name of Allâhu ta’âlâ, and to spread
Islam’s beautiful ethics everywhere.
There are certain modes and obligations that
must be observed when making jihâd:
1 — Before beginning the war the disbelievers
are invited to accept Islam in a proper language. In other words, it is
explained in a plain language that the Islamic religion is the most perfect and
the most meritorious religion, that Allâhu ta’âlâ is One, that He does not have
a likeness or a partner, and that Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ is the true Prophet sent by Him. If they accept this invitation,
they will become Believers and also brothers of other Believers.
2 — If the disbelievers do not wish to attain
this blessing and happiness and prefer to remain in aberration purported in the
seventy-fourth âyat of Shu’arâ sűra, “We found our fathers doing so,” they are not compelled to change their religion. They are invited
to stay in their motherland on condition that they will pay a very low yearly
tax called jizya (1.5 or 2.5 or 3 dirhams of silver), which is a fee for
staying in the (now) Islamic country and enjoying all sorts of safety such as
property, chastity and lives and, above all, freedom of worship. If they
concede to this alternative, they shall practise their religious rites as
freely as Muslims do. And their chastity, blood, and property, exactly like
those of Muslims, shall be in the protection of the State. A Muslim cannot intrude
upon their privacies or even look at their women. He cannot usurp even a penny
from them. He cannot abuse them, not even verbally. They shall share equal
rights in the courts of justice
-310-
which carry out the principles of justice prescribed in Qur’ân al-kerîm, and not a slightest amount of
injustice shall be done to them. Thus they will get along well with the
Believers. In the Islamic law courts a shepherd and a governor are equal.
3 — If the disbelievers refuse the second
alternative, too, and attempt to fight against the Believers, then the jihâd
shall be performed against them, again by observing the rules of justice and
modes prescribed by Islam.
These are the principles of justice and
moderation which Islam commands to observe in regard to jihâd. Now we consign
it to the conscience of people of wisdom and reason to apply the above-given
criteria to the histories of Muslims, and of Christians, then form a judgement.
As will be inferred from the information given
above, Islam’s rapid spreading is by no means due to such substantial agencies
as power and ambition for earthly property. Islam’s spreading so rapidly is
rooted in its becoming a true and irrevocable religion, in its genuine and
all-inclusive justice, [in its commanding knowledge, work, mercy, beautiful
morals, and in its being a religion quite congruous with the human species. For
those who obey and precisely adapt themselves to Islam soon attain welfare and
spiritual repose; as we have stated in the initial pages of our book, this fact
is admitted and acknowledged even by priests, who say, “Yes, after accepting
Islam, the Arabs, who had been heathenish Bedouins formerly, ameliorated
spiritually, made progress in knowledge, arts and civilization, and brought the
whole world under their sway in a very short time.” Would that they had reason
enough to see the fact that all these improvements of Muslims originate from
their obedience to Islam, the final and the most perfect religion, and
following Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, the last Prophet. This would lead them to happiness.]
Were changing one’s faith so facile a job as
to be accomplished only by the threat of the sword, all those wars which took
millions of lives between Catholics and Protestants would not have taken place
at all. Although there was a great deal of credal similarity between them,
neither did the Catholics’ compulsion and oppression make the Protestants
abandon their credo, nor were the Protestants’ savage cruelties able to sever
the Catholics living on the isle of Ireland from their religious doctrines.
As for the allegation that “Some people
accepted Islam lest they should be forced to pay jizya”; as we have explicated
earlier
-311-
in the text, for many long years Protestants have been striving
assiduously to convert people in Muslim countries to their religion and the
amount of the salary they offer for accepting Protestantism ranges between a
small bag of silvers minimum and five thousand kurushes. With all these
endeavours, how many conscientious and religiously well-informed Muslims can
they name they have been able to make Protestants so far? Therefore, nothing
could be so idiotic, so ignorant and so contumacious as the profession,
“Christians accepted Islam in order to save the five-to-ten kurushes which they
were to give yearly as the tax called jizya.”
[One thing the priests forget about or try to
overlook at this point is that Islam, while levying the jizya on the non-Muslim
citizens, enjoins the (alms called) zakât and ’ushr on the Muslims. And the
zakât and ’ushr to be paid by the Muslims, in its turn, is several times the
amount to be paid in the name of jizya by the non-Muslims.
Before concluding the subject of jihâd, it
will be useful to touch upon an important point: If a state or nation is too
modest and unnecessarily polite, it will incur the avarice of its enemies and
give the impression of an easy prey for them. Mistaking this modesty and
politeness for vulnerability and cowardice, the hostile states will become
aggressive. History teems with the examples of our discourse. If it were not
for the commandment of making preparations for jihâd in Islam, Muslims’
enemies, who are all around them, would attack them in order to annihilate
Islam. Today, also, the world’s governments allot a major part of their budget
for their defence and war industry. This policy is followed even by countries
stricken with famine, dearth and poverty. This policy is indispensable for the
State’s permanence and the country’s defence. Christians, who put forward the
nonexistence of the commandment of jihâd as a proof for the superiority of
their religion, attacked Islamic countries and other weak nations, invaded
them, and tyrannized and exploited them for many years. Especially England,
France, Germany, Spain and Italy perpetrated these tyrannies and exploitations
in the most barbarous way. Then, what is the value of the assertion that
Christianity does not command jihâd? We ask the priests this question.]
Another objection which Protestant Christians
raise against the Islamic religion is based on the matter of unforgivability of
felonies. They make the following allegation in one of their
-312-
booklets: “In matters concerning the individual’s private
relations, the Bible has placed more emphasis on the necessity of love,
patience with trouble, and forgiveness than did the Sharî’at of Műsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’. Accordingly, Islam should have afforded a much more sublime
merit than that of Christianity in respect of forgiving the guilty individual.
In punishing the guilty, it is more relentless than, let alone the Sharî’at of
Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, the laws put by Jews as a result of their
misinterpretation of his Sharî’at. It not only represents lex talionis as
permissible, but also tolerates vengeance. The third âyat of Sűra-i-Isrâ
purports. ‘If a person
is killed unjustly, we shall give power and authority of aggression to the
inheriting trustee of that murdered person.’ The hundred
and seventy-eighth âyat of Sűra-i-Baqara purports, ‘O Believers! Retaliation [for those
who have been killed deliberately] has been enjoined as a farz upon you. Retaliation is carried out as
a free person for a free person, a slave for a slave, and a woman for a woman.’ This is a noteworthy point. For Qur’ân al-kerîm, unlike the Taurah, has not made any
explanations to forestall the misusage of such an important law. Therefore,
people belonging to some Islamic tribes misunderstand these âyats and think
that this permission of Qur’ân al-kerîm comprehends not only the murderer but also any one of the
murderer’s relations, and consequently more often than not an innocent person
gets killed in lieu of the murderer. The Taurah, in contrast, protects lex
talionis against such wrong interpretations by openly forewarning, ‘Sons shall
not be killed in lieu of fathers, and fathers shall not be killed instead of
their sons. Every (murderer) shall be killed only on account of his own
felony,’ in the sixteenth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter of Deuteronomy. In
addition to the retaliation for murder, Qur’ân al-kerîm commands retaliation for slight woundings. The sixtieth âyat of
Hajj sűra purports, ‘If a Believer responds in kind to some harm inflicted on him and
then is wronged again, Allâhu ta’âlâ will help him.’ Through such commandments as these, Qur’ân al-kerîm, contrary to the Bible’s advising
patience with troubles, love and forgiveness, encourages Muslims to display
their grudge against one another. The Ottomans, who had realized that such
things would be cruelty and infringement of others’ rights, eventually
discontinued the execution of the commandment in the thirty-eighth âyat of
Mâida sűra, which purports, ‘To visit divine retribution on the male thief and the female
thief, cut off their [right] hands.’ ”
-313-
ANSWER: Through these statements of theirs, the priests raise objections
to the contrasts between the Bible and Qur’ân al-kerîm, which they exemplify as follows: “Whereas the Bible contains
verses pertaining to forgiveness and love, Qur’ân al-kerîm, let alone comprising such verses, authorizes the victim’s
inheritor (to revenge); the âyat about retaliation, for instance, not putting
certain limitations for this authority, is vulnerable to misusage, and the
sixtieth âyat of Hajj sűra is at loggerheads with the Biblical dispensation,
which advises to endure hardships, to forgive those who harm you, and to love
them.”
We have mentioned earlier in the text some of
the âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs concerning forgiveness and love. Therefore we consider it would
be unnecessary to repeat them here. However, the âyat-i-kerîma about
retaliation cannot be confined within the boundaries misrepresented by the
priest. Its discourse continues. These priests must have been lost in a reverie
of making a truth out of a legerdemain. The hundred and seventy-eighth âyat of
Baqara sűra, as a whole, purtports: “O Believers! It has been enjoined as a farz on you to
retaliate [for those killed deliberately]. Retaliation is to be executed as a free
person for a free person, a slave for a slave, and a woman for a woman. One of
the brothers, [inheritors or protectors], may waive the retaliation in return for
a certain amount of blood money [diyet] that he will take from the murderer.
The amount taken [diyet] should not be too much, but it should be calculated in
accordance with the current customs and traditions. And the murderer should pay
the diyet due to the victim’s protector in a proper manner. This forgiveness of
retaliation in return for diyet is a facility and mercy conferred on you by
your Rabb (Allahu ta’âlâ). If a person, after taking this diyet, carries on his
hostility and struggle against the murderer’s kin, there shall be painful
torment for him in the hereafter.”
As is seen, retaliation, together with its
prescribed form of relinquishment in return for diyet, is one of the clearly
explained commandments in Qur’ân al-kerîm. The Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ did not contain the tenet
of waiving retaliation in return for blood money. Forgiving retaliation in
return for diyet is a facility and a blessing for Muslims.
The priest suppresses the facility with
respect to retaliation in Qur’ân al-kerîm. First of all, this âyat-i-kerîma expresses an open injunction
against resumption of hostility and struggle against the murderer or his kins,
and a divine intimidation which is intended
-314-
to discourage the victim’s kins from doing so. Resorting to
stratagem, the priest quotes only the part befitting his purpose of the
âyat-i-kerîma concerning the victim’s inheritors and kin, witholding the
initial and final parts. Because most Christians are unaware of the Gospels,
they have resorted to this same stratagem with the presumption that Muslims,
too, are ignorant in their own religion. The thirty-third âyat of Isrâ sűra
purports, “Do not kill anyone, [be it a Believer or
a zimmî], without any
rightful reason to do so, Allâhu ta’âlâ has made this harâm for you. If a
person is killed unjustly, we shall give power and authority to the killed
person’s inheritor who is his protector [for the execution
of the commandment of the Sharî’at. If the inheritor wishes, the murderer shall
be killed as a requirement of retaliation; or he may forgive the murderer in
return for diyet. He has a choice between these two alternatives.] But his protector or inheritor, who has
been seconded with this permission of Allâhu ta’âlâ, must not exceed the limits
of retaliation.” This âyat-i-kerîma, warning the
victim’s protector or inheritor against excess, advises to choose forgiveness.
The power given to the inheritor or protector is the choice between suing the
murderer for retaliation and notifying the judge that he waives retaliation in
return for diyet. The non-Islamic blood feuds and successive killings that were
widespread among tribes who were quite oblivious of the rules of Qur’ân al-kerîm, e.g. Albanians, Circassions, some
Arabic clans, cannot be ascribed to this âyat-i-kerîma. Such unjust bloodsheds
are primeval customs peculiar to uncultivated tribes.
So this is the essence of retaliation and its
forgiveness as prescribed in Qur’ân al-kerîm. Because the four Gospels do not have a tenet in the name of
retaliation, every murderer, every thief, every felon must be pardoned
according to them. If it is possible to lead a civilized social life with so
lenient a law, we have no say. Yet, since we have not seen a Christian country
where such a principle is in application, we would rather take no heed of these
priests’ paralogisms.
As for the Pentateuchal verse mentioned; the
Taurah is in agreement with Qur’ân al-kerîm not only in its rule about murder, but also in rules pertaining
to all types of homicide. The hundred and sixty-fourth âyat of En’âm sűra
purports, “No sinner
would take on the responsibility for someone else’s sin.” The hundred and seventy-ninth âyat of A’râf sűra purports, “These people are like beasts; in fact,
they are lower than beasts.” The priests’
discourses are directed to a class of people who, as is intimated in
-315-
this âyat-i-kerîma, do not even have the skill to answer them. And
yet the acts to be imputed to priests are not only lies and slanders. They have
written books against the Islamic religion and in these books attempted to
disprove open facts.
When it is known what reasons occasioned the
revelation of the sixtieth âyat-i-kerîma of Hajj sűra, which advises to respond
to malefaction in kind, it will become evident that its import is not as this
protesting priest interprets and that this priest is totally unaware of the
knowledge of Tafsîr.
Some time during the four months traditionally
forbidden for the Arabs to fight, the Meccan unbelievers came to fight the
Believers. Afraid to fight in the forbidden months, the Believers tried to
dissuade the unbelievers from the combat; but try as the Believers would, the
disbelievers would not give up fighting. So the combat began and, because Allâhu
ta’âlâ helped the Believers with His Divine support, it ended in the Believers’
victory. Yet the Believers’ hearts were remorseful for having violated a
forbidden month by fighting in it. Upon this, the aforementioned âyat-i-kerîma
was revealed, relieving the Believers of their deep sorrow and penitence.
Hence, the sixtieth âyat of Hajj sűra, contrary to the priest’s supposition,
does not enjoin retaliation for minor woundings, nor does it command to answer
malefaction with malefaction. It gives the Believers permission to fight back
even in a forbidden month if the unbelievers purposely choose it to exploit the
Believers’ credal abstention and thus debilitate them. In addition, it
comprises a divine help which Allâhu ta’âlâ bestows upon Believers. For, if Qur’ân al-kerîm made virtue and superiority dependent
solely on forgiveness and love and did not give such permissions, Muslims would
be compelled either to abandon the rules of their holy religion or to lie and
slander, as this priest is now doing. For no civilization would be possible and
no nation could survive under the dispensation of a cult that comprised nothing
but forgiveness and love. The most curious example of this natural fact is the
Christian world, where people, quite countercurrently with the Biblical
admonitions, “Be patient with troubles, love and forgive,” bear grudge against
one another. History has clearly shown to us how baleful an effect these
Biblical admonitions of patience with troubles, love and forgiveness have had
on Christians’ general conduct. We have already related some of the cruelties
Christians imposed on one another in contradiction with these Biblical
commandments at various occasions in the text. Another source of astonishment
in
-316-
this subject is that the priest feels sorry for the innocent
person who is killed only because of his kinship to the murderer as a result of
some tribes’ misinterpretation of the âyat-i-kerîma mentioned above. Yet, while
regretting on the one hand that such a misdeed should betide to man, he adheres
to a creed on the other hand that as a result of a venial sin committed
inadvertently by Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’, millions of his descendants that came to
the world for six thousand years, including all the Prophets ‘alaihimus-salâm’ of that period, will be
punished on account of the ‘original sin’ committed by their first father,
being tormented in Hell fire, which must be innumerous times as bad as being
killed. Not only that; the creed this priest holds bears the meaning also that
Allâhu ta’âlâ, who created all the universe from nothing, was unable to forgive
this sin committed, had to send His only son to the world by creating him
through hadrat Maryam, and had him crucified after various insults against His
son’s wishes. In other words, while disapproving man’s being the agent of a
deed which means punishing the murderer’s kin instead of the murderer himself,
he accepts the creed which represents Allâhu ta’âlâ as the agent of the
cruelties we have cited above.
Suspension of the commandment of chastening
the male and female thieves by cutting off their hands was not an Ottoman
policy. It had been discontinued by the previous Islamic States centuries
before the Ottomans. Likewise, punishments for such guilts as drinking wine,
false witness, calumniating a chaste woman and fornication were not being
executed for a long time, with a few exceptions. For execution of such
punishments depended on certain conditions. The punishments were impracticable
in the absence of these conditions. The abovementioned acts and the conditions
for the exeution of their respective punishments very seldom concurred in
Islamic countries. The reasons for this are the heavy punishments Qur’ân al-kerîm prescribes for those who commit these
guilts. In an Islamic regime even judges do not have the authority to forgive
these guilts. These punishments, which are called (hadd), are administered
publicly. Such articles have made these punishments so formidable that anyone
would hardly dare to commit these sins.
[The hundred and seventy-ninth âyat of Baqara
sűra purports, “O you owners of wisdom. Retaliation contains life for you.” Some people may protest this and say, “Could there ever be life
in killing a man?” Being afraid to be killed in return, people will shy
-317-
away from killing someone else. Fear of death will deter them from
killing a human being. And when there is no killing, there will be life for a
society, for a nation; this is what is meant by the âyat-i-kerîma.
As it is very well known by students of law
today, execution of laws is impossible without a penal code. And this penal
code, in its turn, consists of fines, imprisonments, and death penalties. While
all the world’s lawyers are crying out this fact today, would it be done to be
opposed to the punishments prescribed by Allâhu ta’âlâ? Communism, a regime
which is repulsive to all sorts of human nature, has spread through exceedingly
barbarous punishments, which are still being carried on to maintain it. By the
same token, priests, men of knowledge and science have turned away from the
unreasonable and illogical principles of Christianity. Some of them, who have
had the chance to know Islam, have become Muslims willingly. Yet those who have
not had the lucky chance to know Islam have turned atheists and Marxists, which
by and by gave way to such degenerated formations as hippies, gangs and
anarchists among young people. These youngsters are now being feared far and
wide in Europe.
Selling of churches have been one of the news
headlines in recent newspapers and periodicals. The purchasers are mostly
Muslims, who change the churches they have bought into mosques. The majority of
church-goers are elderly people. There is no doubt that the ecclesiastics would
establish the Inquisition once again were they given the authority and power to
do so. Christianity has far and away lost its impetus in Europe. Missionaries,
therefore, are trying to promulgate it in Africa and other underdeveloped
countries.
We would like to stress one point once again:
the punishment inflicted on the convict is like the amputation of a gangrenous
limb in the body. If the limb is not cut off, gangrene will infect the whole
body. Likewise, if the guilty person is not punished, the entire society will
suffer harm. Harm in which only one person is involved is normally preferable
to harm that will permeate through the whole community, especially when
deterring the latter is singularly dependent upon waging the former.
Islam’s penal discipline of cutting off (the
thief’s) hand is not applied in every event of theft. There are certain
conditions for it. This punishment is inflicted on a person who has stolen in
one attempt ten dirhams of silver or equal value of durable property which is
valuable according to all religious cults from a place
-318-
where no one other than the owner has the right to enter without
the owner’s permission, no matter whether the owner of the stolen property is a
Muslim or a non-Muslim, and yet on condition that the country where the theft
has taken place is Dâr-ul-Islâm (country under Islamic administration). Ten
dirhams of silver equals
Another objection which Protestant
ecclesiastics lodge against Islam is based on Islam’s permission to keep
slaves. These priests say, “The Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ not only had
alleviated standards for slavery, but also committed captives under the
protection of law. Yet it allowed the buying and selling of captives. The
essence of Christianity, on the other hand, is quite contrary to slavery, and
therefore it has abrogated the institution of slavery wherever it has been
dominant.”
ANSWER: This objection of the priests’ covers
not only Islam, but also the Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, which Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ was entrusted with the task of perfecting. This makes it
doubtful whether they are Christians. For the existing Gospels do not contain a
single letter pertaining to prohibition of slavery. For this reason, the Mosaic
rule should necessarily maintain its validity in the Sharî’at of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, too. Yet if these priests, as two Europeans educated with
modern ideas, consider slavery as an inhuman institution and want it to be
abrogated, then they should have based their argument on the illogicality and
wickedness of slavery without mixing religion into the matter. Therefore, since
this objection of theirs does not have to do with religion, it would be
unnecessary to answer it. On the other hand, because what Christians know in
the name of slavery
-319-
is quite incommensurable to slavery as held by Islam, it will be
useful to make some brief explanation:
As we all know, the institution of slavery has
existed since the first appearance of mankind on earth. All nations have
maltreated their slaves, and no nation has held the slave and the master equal.
The Ancient Greek laws of slavery (Sklabos) are still written in books. In the
Romans, on the other hand, the tyrannies, cruelties, insults and savageries
inflicted on slaves have not been repeated by any other nation. Their books
contain detailed laws pertaining to slaves (sclavus, servus). This tradition
has also existed in Asia and Africa since very ancient times. Europeans have
been the most exorbitant profiteers of slavery. This trade was first begun by
the Portuguese in the fourteenth century of the Christian era. Later, when
America was discovered, while Christian missionaries on the one hand vacated
the American continent by annihilating the red skinned aboriginals; the
Portuguese, the English and the French on the other hand abducted negroes from
Africa, forced them to get on board their ships, and sold them as slaves in
America, thus earning millions of dollars. In fact, ships were constructed for
this specific purpose, and the poor people were crammed into their holds. It
being next to impossible to breathe freely, more than half the number of slaves
died on the way. Yet the remaining number would be enough for their owners to
make as much money as they wished. At times, being unable to endure this
humiliation, the negroes would attempt rebellion. There were loop-holes
specially opened on the deck floor through which to fire and kill the
rebellious negroes from above them. Queen Elizabeth of England, who was the
promoter of Protestants, legitimized and buttressed trade of slaves. Louis X,
King of France, caused this trade to become quite widespread. Yet in America,
Pennsylvanian people tried to prohibit this trade. Twelve years after this attempt,
this trade of slaves was prohibited in Denmark, and then in England by the
injunctions issued in 1807, 1811 and
-320-
of negroes were being sold and bought on the American continent,
and innumerable Christians were earning millions of dollars through them. Most
Europeans today, when they hear the word ‘slavery’, regretfully remember the
negroes living in humility and destitution in America. [And yet it was
Christians, alone, who primed all this misery and perpetrated all sorts of
unimaginable tortures on these poor people.]
Europeans’ wish for the abrogation of slavery
in Islamic countries originates from their wrong supposition that it is like
slavery as practised in their own country and America. In actual fact, the only
difference between slavery and freedom among Muslims is that slaves are
transferred from one owner to another in exchange for a certain price. Slaves’
service is no different from that of an employee who works for a certain wage.
The only trouble which slaves have to undergo in the Islamic system involves
learning, education, and training. In an Islamic State, the captives obtained
in a war are never killed. Nor are they left to die of hunger and thirst in the
battlefield. After the war, as the victorious ghazâ Muslims are given their
shares of the booties, they get their shares of slaves and jâriyas,[1] too. Then, they either use their slaves and jâriyas as servants,
or sell them to others. As is seen, Islam’s slaves are not comparable to those
free people and their children whom Christians abducted by trickery and
compulsion from Africa and Asia. According to Islam, it is a grave sin to
abduct free people or to use them as slaves. In the Islamic system, slaves have
attained high ranks in knowledge and politics. Some of them have even become
Grand Viziers. Most of the female Sultans in the gorgeous Ottoman dynasty were
originally slaves. There were thousands of Muslims who had chosen slaves as
their sons-in-law, or jâriyas as their wives, and thus made them their
inheritors. When a Muslim bought a slave or a jâriya, he would have to
undertake all sorts of responsibility pertaining to his or her food, drink,
clothes and other needs, all his or her civil rights and treat him or her
tenderly. He could never beat them, abuse them, or give them work that would be
too heavy for them to do. According to Islam, emancipating a slave is the
greatest worship. There are some extremely grave sins which will be pardoned
only after emancipation of a slave. Another custom which was very widely practised
among Muslims
---------------------------------
[1] Female slaves are called jâriya. Muslims treat them as if they were their sisters or other relatives.
-321-
was emancipating a slave and marrying him off after seven to eight
years of service. Could all these situations and facts be compared to those of
the slaves in Europe and America?
[Before terminating our discourse on this subject,
we would like to remind the priests of another important fact. The kith and kin
of the slaves possessed by Muslims applied for the ransom of their relatives by
paying the money prescribed for the exchange. Yet, as a result of the mercy,
compassion and humanity which Muslims had shown to them, the slaves refused to
go back home with their relatives who had ransomed them. They preferred the
slavery with Muslims to the freedom with their parents and relatives. There was
certainly a reason for this. The father and uncle of our Prophet’s slave, Zeyd bin Hârisa, came to take him
back home and requested our Prophet to give Zeyd
to them, saying that they were ready to pay any sum of money demanded in return
for him. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wasallam’ did not demand any money. He said to Zeyd bin Hârisa ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ that he was free and might go along with his father and uncle if he liked.
Zeyd bin Hârisa said he would not leave our Prophet and insisted on this despite all the earnest request and beggings
of his father and uncle. There are many examples of the same sort. We would
like to know how the priests would answer this?]
Another objection Christians raise against the
Islamic religion is based on its principles pertaining to polygamy, that is, marrying
up to four women, and divorce. Christians say, “The Sharî’at of Műsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ does not contain any law prohibiting the taaddud-i-zawjât
(polygamy). And it gives clear permission for divorce. On the other hand, the
Bible of Jesus Christ categorically prohibits both of them. As for Qur’ân al-kerîm; it gives permission to marry more
than one women. The third âyat of Nisâ sűra purports. ‘Marry two, three, four of those women
who are halâl for you.’ According to this âyat-i-kerîma, one
can marry up to four women. In addition to this, the Islamic religion permits
men to buy jâriyas whenever they wish. And this, in its turn, is incompatible
with the status allotted to women by Allâhu ta’âlâ or their position as men’s
copartners and assistants. This principle lowers women to servitude. Marrying a
couple of women is detrimental to a happy married life. For it not only
prevents husband and wife from knowing each other, but also eradicates safety
and happiness in the family.”
Here again, the priests prove true to their
habits of fallacy and mutilate the âyat-i-kerîma, quoting only the part that
will suit
-322-
their sly purposes. In its complete contextuality, the third âyat
of Nisâ sűra purports, “If you fear that you may not be able to observe the rights of
orphan girls [in case you marry them], then marry two, three, four of those
women who are other than these (girls) and who are halâl for you (to marry). [That is, do not marry more than four women.] If you fear that you may not be able to
establish justice among these women, choose one of them. Or prefer the jâriyas
you have. If you are contented with this one wife or the jâriyas, you will be
closer to abiding by justice.” As it will be
inferred from the meaning conveyed by this âyat-i-kerîma, among the earlier
tribes, [especially the Arabs], there was not a limited number of women that
one could marry and therefore one man could marry five, ten, or twenty women.
The Islamic religion has reduced this number to four. And this right has been
restricted within certain stipulations.
When the hardships in establishing equity
among one’s wives are taken into consideration, a wise person who is afraid of
doing injustice will by no means marry more than one women. In other words, the
Islamic religion, while expressing an outward permission of marriage up to four
women on the one hand, adds the proviso of justice on the other hand, thus
tacitly cautioning against marrying more than one. In fact, when asked how to
manage this equity among one’s wives, our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ answered. “If you drink a glass of
water from the hands of one of them, you should drink another glass of water
from the others’ hands, too.” Inasmuch as it would be extremely difficult for a
person to apply this rule, the Islamic religion recommends that one should
marry one woman.
The priests’ statement that “the Gospels
prohibit to marry more than one woman” is contradictory with what is stated in
the Gospels. Today’s Gospels do not contain any injunction saying, “Do not marry
more than one woman.” Yet it is stated in the third and later verses of the
nineteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, “The Pharisees also came unto him,
tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife
for every cause?” “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that
he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.” “And said, For
this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:
and they twain shall be one flesh?” “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one
flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
(Matt: 19-3, 4, 5, 6) This verse cannot be interpreted as
-323-
a prohibition of marrying more than one women. Yet, because wife
and husband are virtually accepted as one body, it must be taken as an
admonition against excessiveness in divorce. Accordingly, these priests are
challenging not only the Islamic religion but also the Sharî’at of Műsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ of which the task of perfection was assigned to Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, which, in its turn, comes to mean their renunciation of the
religion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.
So is the case with divorce. The Gospels
enjoin against divorcing one’s wife for reasons other than fornication.
Nevertheless, since we doubt the authenticity of the existing Gospels, we
cannot admit that this prohibition is exactly one of the âyats of the original
Bible revealed to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. We have some proofs for this:
1 — This subject is written in a curious verse
seen in the Gospel of Matthew. The nineteenth chapter goes on as follows in its
seventh and later verses: “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to
give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” “He saith unto them, Moses
because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but
from the beginning it was not so.” “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit
adultery.” “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his
wife, it is not good to marry.” “But he said unto them, All men cannot receive
this saying, save they to whom it is given.” “For there are some eunuchs, which
were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were
made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs
for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him
receive it.” (Matt: 19-7 to 12)
In this passage, the answer to the first
question explains the reason for the permission to give a written declaration
of divorce, and states that Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ granted permission to give a
written declaration of divorce to one’s wife because of the obduracy of hearts.
This explanation implicitly imputes a misdeed to both Műsâ and Îsâ
‘alaihimus-salâm’. For this answer comes to mean that Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
issued injunctions independently of Allâhu ta’âlâ and granted permission to
divorce on account of the hardness of the hearts of Israelites though there was
no such permission originally. On the other hand, because hardness of a
-324-
heart could not account for a divorce, the so-called explanation
lapses into the shameful position of imputing such a ludicrous answer to Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’. Another point of perversity is this: As Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
talks to the Pharisees, the disciples allegedly interrupt him and say, “If one
cannot divorce one’s wife for reasons other than fornication, then marriage is
not auspicious.” For the Apostles knew very little of the books of earlier Prophets, whereas Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was fully
cognizant of them. It is astonishing for the Apostles to make such a
remonstrative statement to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. For it means that the rule laid
down by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is apparently so illogical, so unnatural and so
preposterous that his own disciples, let alone enemies, raise an objection to
him. Another oddity is this: When the disciples protest, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’,
supposedly, likens the state of not marrying to that of emasculated people,
divides them into three categories, and details that some of them are born
eunuchs, some have been emasculated by people, and others have chosen
emasculation in order to attain to the creation of heavens. It is natural for
emasculated people not to marry, and it makes no difference whether they accept
marriage or reject it. Furthermore, telling about kinds of and reasons for
emasculation apropos of nothing is something that would be done in an entire
delirium. Such foibles could never be attributed to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, an
exalted and highly honoured Prophet. His very
high position is unquestionable.
2 — It is obvious that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’,
who continuously said, “I am here to perfect the Sharî’at, not to demolish it,”
would not change such an important principle in the Sharî’at of Műsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’.
3 — This subject, which is written in the
Gospel of Matthew, is also dealt with in the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Mark.
Only, Mark does not contain such things as the disciples’ question, their
remark that it would be “better not to marry,” or the detailed information on
kinds of eunuchs. If this narrative given in the Gospel of Matthew were a
commonly acceptable general report, Mark, who wrote the former part of this
event narrated in Matthew, would have written also the latter part, i.e. the
Apostles’ question, its answer, and details on emasculation.
4 — There is expressive difference between the
statements in both Gospels. For the second and later verses of the tenth
chapter of the Gospel of Mark reads as follows: “And the Pharisees came to him,
and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?
-325-
tempting him.” “And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses
command you?” “And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement,
and to put her away.” “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness
of your heart he wrote you this precept.” “But from the beginning of the
creation God made them male and female.” (Mark: 10-2 to 6)
On the other hand, it is written in the eighth
verse of the nineteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, “... Moses because of
the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it was not so.” (Matt: 19-8) These two expressions differ in two
ways: First, whereas the expression given in the Gospel of Matthew suggests the
meaning that Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ gave permission to divorce, the statements
quoted in Mark give the impression that Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ commanded divorce.
Second, according to Matthew’s way of expression, there was no place for
divorce in the original form of the Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, but Műsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ gave them permission to divorce because of their hard hearts.
Mark, on the other hand, uses the expression ‘from the beginning of the
creation’ instead of ‘from the beginning.’ Accordingly, the expression in Mark
bears the meaning that Allâhu ta’âlâ created them as male and female in the
beginning of the creation. And this, in its turn, is contradictory to the
expression used in Matthew.
5 — [According to Biblical information], Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ was proud of being a descendant of Dâwűd ‘alaihis-salâm’. Since
Dâwűd ‘alaihis-salâm’ had had various wives, it runs counter to reason to admit
that he prohibited to marry more than one women.
With these evidences we prove the fact that
the verses cited above are not genuine Biblical âyats revealed to Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ by Allâhu ta’âlâ, but they have been inserted into the Gospels
later. If the priests have any evidences to prove to the contrary, let them go
ahead and divulge their evidences. Another cause of consternation for our part
is that this objection against Islam’s permission to divorce is raised by
Protestants. For it is an historical fact that no controversy or disagreement
concerning divorce took place among Christians before the fourth century of the
Christian era, and they acted upon the Mosaic law up until that time. In the
fourth century a bishop named Saint Augustine forbid divorce once and for all.
The Catholic Church still observes this prohibition. [St. Augustine, one of the
Latin Catholic Church
-326-
fathers, died in the Tunisian city of Bone in A.D. 430.] From time
to time, ecclesiastical authorities gave special permissions of divorce to some
European Christian kings. Yet because these permissions were given for
political reasons, they were not taken into account by the Church. The
ecclesiastics still maintain their views that divorce is unjustifiable.
Protestants were opposed to the Catholic
Church’s disapproval of divorce. Luther, who disagreed with the Catholic Church
in every subject, followed the same route in this subject, too, and unleashed a
free licence of divorce. Then, Protestants’ disapproval of divorce would mean
to disavow Luther, the founder of their own religion.
In order to confuse and mislead Muslim women,
this priest has gone to a great deal of trouble to explain in detail that
polygamy and divorce, instead of being useful and beautiful at least in some
cases, always cause innumerable harms. Since he leaves off traditional proofs
and tries to arouse confusion by misusing mental proofs, we shall countermine
his plotted slanders mentally:
As every climate has its particular nature and
effects, so peoples and tribes living in a particular climate have some certain
national traditions and customs peculiar to themselves. Living with these
customs and traditions throughout centuries, they have become so staunchly wont
to these customs and traditions that it is impossible for them to abandon them.
For most of these customs are the requirements of their natural traits kneaded
with the air and water of that climate. Making them abandon these customs,
therefore, is like changing the nature of something. By the same token,
polygamy and divorce was a long-lived traditional custom among the peoples of
hot equatorial countries. Those who had the necessary assets married many
women. This practice went on till the time of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’. Qur’ân al-kerîm was revealed and reduced the number of
wives (to be had at the same time) to four at the most. With the stipulation of
justice, this number has been implicitly reduced to one. Accordingly, it is one
of the miracles of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wasallam’ to have transmuted the Arabic people, who had been used to
marrying very many women, and to have accustomed them to marrying up to four
women, [which means to make them abandon their deeply rooted customs]. However,
because their characters and natural dispositions are unlike those of
Europeans, their marrying more than one women will not cause so much of a
problem as the priests expect. For marriage is
-327-
entered into for three purposes:
1 — To produce offspring:
2 — To avoid committing a transgression
against someone else and fornication, to lead a chaste life;
3 — To lead a well-organized family life, to
protect one’s property and possessions.
When a woman cannot have children, the first
reason for marriage will lapse and it will cause loss of generation. If the
wife has a chronic illness or is too infirm (to carry out her conjugal duties)
and the husband is strong and healthy, the second reason for marriage lapses,
too. This gives birth to a very grave mischief, i.e. fornication. Finally, if
the wife is extravagant, dissolute, disobedient, treacherous, bad-tempered and
insolent, the third reason for marriage will become void. So the man will
remain in wretchedness, torture and frustration till the end of his life. Many
a rich and honest Christian has a barren, old, extravagant or ill-tempered
wife, and cannot divorce her and marry another. Thus he regrets being a
Christian a thousand times daily. In Islam, on the other hand, the husband has
the right to divorce his wife if he finds that she is not suitable for him. If
his wife is suitable for him, they will live together happily till the end of
their lives. This is the case with most Muslims. In Islamic countries,
therefore, no Muslim has ever regretted being a Muslim.
Another very subtle point is this: Before
marriage Christian couples talk to each other and go out together. Therefore,
marriage takes place only after both parties have examined each other’s
character and behaviors and decided to marry each other. But during this
togetherness both parties are extremely cautious, trying to look pleasant and
conceal the negative aspects of their characters, thus doing their best to
deceive each other. In addition, being young and inexperienced, they are misled
by their feelings and sensuous desires and, as a result, knowing each other
does them no good. The unpleasant events seen after marriage in most Christian
families are evidences of this fact. In every country, especially in European
countries, there are very few of those men who are strong and potent and yet
spend all their lives with their wives without establishing relations with
other women. And this is quite natural. Because their culture does not prohibit
seeing and talking to other women, men take their wives out to balls,
[theatres, movies and other places of music, dancing and drinking], or to visit
friends and acquaintances. It being against their rules of decorum to sit with
one’s wife at such places, every
-328-
man delivers his wife to another and takes another’s wife. Then
they begin dancing, which mostly end up in betrayal. The human nature is apt to
get tired of things in process of time. No matter how pretty, how good-tempered
a person’s wife might be, in the course of time there would be gradual decrease
in his affection and fervour for her. At such places it would be inevitable for
a husband or a wife to feel attracted to other people of opposite sex. Because
women and men in Christian countries live in mixed societies, seeing and talking
to one another all the time, there are very few men and women who have spent
their lives without committing fornication at all. Sitting together with women,
seeing and talking to one another without reserve or any feeling of shame with
the pretext of respecting them and observing their rights, they are, on the
contrary, pushing women into these dangers, depreciating and lowering them, and
exploiting them as sources of trade. On the other hand, the chaste, honourable
and bashful wives of Muslims are always respectable in the eyes of their
husbands [as well as in the eyes of other people], and their husbands will
never let them fall into such dangers or disesteems. As every person would
reserve his favourite and most precious belongings for himself, Muslims feel
they should protect their wives, who are more valuable, more respectable and
dearer than anything else to them, even from birds flying high up in the sky.
This feeling originates from the exuberance of affection. Europeans have
already lost their feelings of morals and honesty in this respect. It is
accepted as a mockery, as a ludicrous imbecility for a man to be jealous of his
wife or for a woman to be jealous of her husband. When a person is said to be
jealous, he will be accepted as boorish and stupid.
People who have benefited exclusively from
this disgracefully inhuman state that Europe is in, are those who have become
priests. It is natural, therefore, for priests to wish this state to go on
being so. We know a person who had been born from Christian parents and brought
up as a Protestant in Germany but, because he had enough sense of chastity not
to take his sisters to balls and hand them over to others, left his home,
Germany, and Christianity, and came to Istanbul, where he was honoured with Islam.
Today he is working as a high-ranking official in the Ottoman State.
As it is known by people who have seen Europe,
in many sophisticated families there is an outward unity and agreement between
husband and wife. When they have guests in their home
-329-
and when they visit their acquaintances, they are so kind to each
other that you would think they were extremely affectionate and faithful to
each other. But, later, as the families gradually establish closer intimacy
with each other, what the husband and the wife really think of each other will
become evident. That is, they are so tired of each other that they do not even
want to see each other. In fact, in some families the husband and wife will
enter into an agreement not to interfere with each other’s affairs. Thus both
the husband and the wife will have various lovers with whom to lead a
promiscuous sex life. Moreover, since none of the parties can remarry so long
as the other party is alive, they look forward to each other’s death. Sometimes
one of them attempts murder to get rid of the other. Prohibition of divorce has
given many harms to the European nations. For this reason, in 1206 [A.D. 1792]
a law was passed to sanction divorce in France where it had been forbidden. At
last divorce was permissible. In 1816, after repeated efforts of priests, the
permission for divorce was cancelled. In the years 1830 and 1848 [A.H. 1264],
state officials, lawyers and scholars did their best for the ratification of
divorce, but their efforts came to naught because of the intrigues carried on
by the ecclesiastics. Europeans, who consider slavery to be incompatible with
humanity and have waged praiseworthy struggles and efforts for the abrogation
of slavery, have been curiously unsuccessful in their endeavours to extirpate
the slavery of not being able to divorce one’s wife, though its various harms
with regard to property, progeny and chastity are becoming more and more
conspicuous day by day. Supposing an elderly man had a young wife who went out
immodestly dressed and had relationships with other young men as she chose and
this man were suspicious of the sexual indulgences but unable to prevent her;
would not this man spend all his life in sorrow and affliction, with the
children born from this woman running about in front of his eyes every day and
causing him an everlasting feeling of inferiority and lamentation over the
choking thought of having to leave his property to someone else’s offspring?
What on earth could be more torturous for a person? Or supposing a chaste young
woman were married off to an impotent old man against her will or to someone
she did not like at all; this woman would spend all her youth in excruciation.
In addition, a civilized society would be deprived of the offspring which
otherwise she would have brought forth; this is something at loggerheads with
ultimate divine wisdom and civilization. Now, if this woman, despairing that
she ever would
-330-
get out of this situation as long as her husband lived, were
carried away by the thought of devising a plot to make away with her husband as
soon as she had the opportunity, of if she, being tempted by the sensuous
desires of her young construction and sapped by permanent suffering and sorrow,
loses her chastity, would not these priests be responsible?
When men and women get together, sit and and
talk freely to one another, dance with one another with women in dresses
exposing their necks, bosoms and arms and all sorts of ornaments and jewels,
how many men and women can help looking at each other? Because Muslim women do
not go out often, talk to other men, keep company with them or become so
familiar as to make jokes with them, they are not vulnerable to such dangers.
Even if a Muslim’s wife is ugly and ill-tempered, he will be contented with her
because he does not see another woman. Likewise, however intolerable a Muslim
woman’s husband may be, she will tolerate him and get along with him because
she does not see, sit and talk with another man. Thus they will not attempt
anything that will incur harm and disaster. For a person who has senses of
jealosy and shame it would be impossible to lead a peaceful life in any
religion except Islam. As we have stated earlier, every nation has their own
traditional customs, and it would be impossible for them to give them up.
Therefore we would not attempt to describe the flavour in chastity and shame to
the protesting priest. For this is a conscientious flavour. While a normal
person will not even share with someone else a glass that he likes very much
and always uses for drinking water, we can never understand how anyone could
ever destroy his wife, who is a part of himself and his secret treasure where
he has entrusted his offspring, by throwing her before lascivious people who
are captives of their own lusts.
[In Christian countries women and girls roam
around with naked heads, bosoms, arms and legs, tempting men to indecencies, to
fornication. As the wife cooks, launders and does the cleaning in the house,
her husband finds a naked woman at work or in the streets, enjoys himself and
even commits fornication with her. In the evening he comes home, pensive and
exhausted. Plunged into lewd fancies, he does not even look at his wife, whom
he at one time liked, chose, loved and married. The wife, on the other hand,
disillusioned to be deprived of the affection and recreation she deserves after
a whole day’s housework, has neurotic fits. Thus the family home is broken
apart. The
-331-
man, who has been going out with a woman he found in the streets,
drops her like dirty underwear and finds another woman. Consequently, thousands
of women, men and children are destroyed every year. Some of them become
immoral, others end up in anarchy, driving a whole nation into decline. The
harm given to youngsters, to people, to the State by women who go about naked
and with strong smells of perfumes and wantonly ornaments is worse and more
threatening than that of alcohol or narcotics. Allâhu ta’âlâ has commanded
women and girls to cover themselves up lest His born slaves should fall into
disasters in this world and vehement torments in the hereafter. Unfortunately,
some people, because they have been captivated by their nafses and lusts, call
the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ fundamentalism and the depraved and eccentric
practices of Europeans modernism. Some of these so-called modern and
illuminated people procured diplomas for one another and shared some critical
positions among themselves. They are hooting like owls and attacking Islam at
every occasion. With this easy heroism they are collecting applaud and
substantial aid from Christians, Jews and Communists, who are our historical
enemies, thus becoming more powerful and deceiving youngsters by using all
sorts of tricks. May Allâhu ta’âlâ give these so-called modern and illuminated
people common sense! May He grant them the reason enough to see clearly between
right and wrong!]
Some people answer this as follows: “At one
time due care and attention were paid to the education and training of women.
After completely learning her duties as a wife, a woman can very well attend
any sort of assembly. Thus there will be no fear of her losing her chastity.
For knowledge is dominant over the nafs.” Supposing the person who makes these
statements were a thirty year old, strong and decent man, and his wife an ugly
but very decent woman, and they were both at a dinner given by their
acquaintances. It happened so that the man, sitting beside an extremely pretty,
coquettish and attractive woman, established some intimacy with her, and his
wife sitting near a young man and clinking glasses with him, became too
familiar with him. In this case, would it be possible for the husband and wife
to protect themselves from sly, malicious thoughts? Knowledge and education
will curb the natural human aspirations to a certain extent. But the sensuous
desires dormant in human nature will erupt as soon as they are given the
favorable milieu, pushing aside the education given. Here is a beautiful saying
from Sa’dî-i-
-332-
Shîrâzî:[1] “Could it ever be
believed that a hungry misbeliever would imagine himself sitting alone at a
meal table in Ramadân?”
Yes, if the man is a eunuch, you can trust
him. But those who are eunuchs metaphorically, that is, those who claim to have
freed themselves from the sensuous desires of their nafs, must be exempted from
this. For there have been many priests who have emasculated themselves
metaphorically and yet whose actions have belied their statements. [The whole
world knows about the indecencies which those priests who have emasculated
themselves metaphorically have committed when left alone with women coming to
them for confession. In daily newspapers we often see pictures of dancing
priests who assume monastic garbs during the day and attend parties at night.]
Yes, those who have trained and curbed their nafs completely for Allah’s sake
are no doubt trustworthy people. If such a physical self-sacrifice were seen on
priests who make themselves seem like pious and trustworthy people, then there
would be no saying against the spiritual effectiveness of Christianity.
The same priest, in one of his booklets,
censures the Islamic belief that “Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was not killed but was
elevated up to heaven alive,” and says, “This belief is contrary not only to
all history books but also to the generally accepted narrative. For it is
written in the four Gospels that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ displayed some miracles as
he was killed. How could it ever be justifiable to deny a narrative that has
reached us from the Apostles, who were the eye-witnesses of the events?”
ANSWER: As everybody knows, a narrative that
happened in the past can be trusted and believed confidently by the people of a
later generation only if the narrators themselves saw the events and were
people who could never have agreed on a lie. Now, when Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was,
according to the Christian credo, arrested by Jews, all the disciples who were
with him ran away, with the exception of Peter, who walked after him instead.
And Peter, in his turn, told the same lie three times as the rooster crowed
three times, saying that he did not know Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. When the person
mistaken for Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was crucified, no one was present there, none
the least of the Apostles. It is written in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark that
a few women watched the event from a distance. Since John does not contain any
statements to this effect, the priest must be wrong
---------------------------------
[1] Sa’dî
Shîrâzî was martyred in 691 [A.D. 1292].
-333-
when he says, “...it is written in the four Gospels,” and “...the
Apostles, who were the eye-witnesses of the events.” In other words, there is
not a generally accepted narrative in this respect. On the other hand, history
books, which the priest puts forth as documents, are based on sources that have
not been confirmed to be true by generally accepted narratives, and therefore
they are not dependable. Here are the Biblical accounts of the matter:
It is stated in the fiftieth and later verses
of the twenty-seventh chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, “Jesus, when he had
cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.” “And, behold, the veil of
the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did
quake, and the rocks rent;” “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of
saints which slept arose,” “And came out of the graves after his resurrection,
and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matt: 27-50, 51, 52, 53)
Norton, a Western writer, states in his book that this is an open lie, and puts
forward evidences to prove his argument. In his book, which otherwise praises
and defends the Bible, Norton gives the following account: “This story is a
lie. The most evident proof for this fact is that Jews, who were deeply
distressed by the destruction of Jerusalem, fabricated some wonderful episodes
concerning Mesjîd-i-aqsâ, and this episode was one of them. Afterwards an
idiot, considering that this episode would go with the time of the crucifixion
of Jesus, wrote it on one of the page margins of the Hebrew version of the
Gospel of Matthew only for the sake of blessing, and later on another idiotic
scribe, as he made another copy of the Gospel, included it in the Gospel. And
the translator of this new copy translated this passage exactly as it was.”
[Consequently, this new translation became the formal religious book of the
church.]
There are various evidences to prove that the
story which the priest relates in the name of miracle is ungrounded:
1 — According to the writings in the Gospel of
Matthew, on the second day following the crucifixion the Jews came to Pilatus,
the Roman governor in Jerusalem, and said, “O sir! That mendacious person said
when he was alive that he would resurrect three days after his crucifixion. So,
command your men to wait on the grave lest his disciples steal him away and
then say that he has resurrected. Otherwise the final heresy will be worse than
the first one.” [ paraphrased from Matthew: 27-62 and on]. According to the
twenty-fourth verse of the twenty-seventh chapter of Matthew, Pilatus and his
wife were inwardly opposed
-334-
to the killing of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Succumbing to the Jews’
insistence, Pilatus had to give them the permission. If miracles had been seen,
the Jews would possibly not go to Pilatus afterwards and make the statement
quoted above. For it is stated in Matthew that the curtain of al-Aqsâ was torn
apart, the rocks were split, the graves were opened, and the dead were openly
going about in the city of Jerusalem. It is an easily discernible fact that the
Jews could not have used such terms as ‘mendacious’ or ‘misleader’ about Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ in the presence of Pilatus after he and his wife, in addition
to already being against the killing of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, had seen so many
miracles, or, at least, he would have reprimanded them had they said so.
2 — When the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles
and the Apostles began to speak various languages, it is written in the second
chapter of Acts, the people were bewildered and three thousand people
immediately believed in Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Dead people’s going out of their
graves and going around in Jerusalem, tearing of the curtain in the temple,
quaking of the earth and rifting of the rocks would have been more of a source
of bewilderment to people than the Apostles’ speaking several languages. If it
were true that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had shown himself and displayed miracles,
thousands of people would have believed in him then. But the Gospels do not
contain even any expression implying at least that one person believed in him
during the occurrence of the so-called miracles. [This argument proves that
what is written in Matthew is not the truth.]
3 — Mark and Luke only state that the curtain
of the statue was torn. They do not refer to such incidents as the earthquake,
rifting of the rocks, opening of the graves, or resurrecting of the saints and
going around in the city. On the other hand, in the Gospel of John, which is
well-known for its far-fetched exaggerations of the miracles of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, there is no reference to any of these incidents, neither to
the tearing of the curtain of the temple, nor to the earthquake or the
sequential rifting of rocks, nor to the saints’ resurrecting and going about in
the city. If these events were true, Mark, Luke and John would apparently not
remain silent in this respect.
4 — According to Matthew’s account, none of
the Apostles was present at the crucifixion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. But Mary
Magdalene, who had been following him from Galilee, Mary, the mother of Jacob
and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee were present there and watched
from a distance. (Matt:
-335-
According to Mark, none of the Apostles were
present, but Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of Jacob and Joses, Salome and a
number of women who had come to Jerusalem with her were all there. (Mark:
15-40, 41)
According to Luke’s account, when Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ was arrested all people who knew him and also those women
coming from Galilee were present there. In addition to this, some of the city
folk gathered there to watch the event. All these people, seeing the insults Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ was subjected to, walked behind Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, “bewailed
and lamented him.” (Luke: 23-27)
These writings in Luke are contradictory to
those in Matthew and Mark. According to Matthew and Mark, those who were
present at the crucifixion of [Judas Iscariot instead of] Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
were only a few women, who watched from a distance. A few people’s testimony of
having witnessed an event from a distance cannot be accepted as a document
strong enough to form a basic religious tenet, not at least in the eyes of
reasonable people. Luke’s expression, ‘Some of the city folk’, shows that those
people knew him but did not believe in him. For terms ‘disciples’ and
‘Apostles’ are used everywhere in the Gospel of Luke. Its using the expression
‘Some of the city folk’ here, therefore, indicates that none of the disciples
were there.
On the other hand, the Gospel of John says
nothing concerning the existence of disciples or women crying and lamenting
him, but only states that his most beloved disciple, his mother, his sister,
and Mary Magdalene were present at the scene (John: 19-25, 26). In addition to
the other Gospels’ accounts, it states that on the cross Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
saw his disciple and his mother with him and said to his mother, “... Woman,
behold thy son.” “Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from
that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” (John: 19-26, 27)
This incident is not referred to in the other
Gospels. There is no doubt that the event of crucifixion did take place. Yet if
people believing in Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had been at the scene of the event to
give an account of the event, there would not be any discordance among the
Gospels as to the occurrence of this event and they would all write about the
event exactly as it had happened.
-336-
5 — According to the Gospel of Matthew, Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ was subjected to various insults in the governor’s house, he
was stripped of his clothes, a scarlet robe was put on him, a crown plaited
with thorns was put on his head, a reed was handed to him, they spat at his
face, hit him on the head, and, as he was taken out the door for crucifixion,
they found a man named Simon of Cyrene and had him carry the cross. When they
came to the place called Golgotha[1] (or Calvary), which
means skull, he was given vinegar mixed with aloes. When he said, “My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me,” on the cross, one of the bystanders dipped a
sponge into vinegar and stretched it out to him with a reed. (Matt: 27-28 to
48)
Mark’s account is as follows: He was whipped
with a lash, a crown of thorns was put on his face, purple clothes were put on
him, he was spat at on the face, beaten on the head, subjected to insults, and
taken out. A man named Simon of Cyrene, father of Alexandre and Rufus, came
from the country and was passing by. They had him carry the cross. When they
came to the place called Golgotha, they gave him wine mixed with murr-u-sâfî
(myrrh, burseraceae), which he refused. When he was on the cross, passers-by
shook their heads, railed on him, and said, “Ah thou that destroyest the
temple, and buildest it in three days,” “Save thyself, and come down from the
cross.” Two thieves, who were crucified with him, reproached him and swore at
him. Later, on the cross, when he said, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken
me,” one of the people being there dipped a sponge into vinegar and gave it to
him to drink. (Mark: 15-17 to 36)
According to Luke’s account, “Pilatus (Pilate)
first sent Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ to Herod (Antipas). When Herod saw Jesus, he was
very much pleased. For he had heard very much about him. For a long time he had
been looking forward to seeing him to see a miracle of him. But Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ would not answer his questions. Herod, with his soldiers, insulted
him, mocked him. He made him put on a bright-coloured garment and sent him to
Pilate, who, in his turn, delivered Jesus to the Jews. As they took him along,
they caught Simon of Cyrene, who was on his way back from his field, put the
cross on his back and bid him to carry it behind Jesus. Meanwhile, a big crowd,
among whom were people and women who were crying and beating themselves in
their sorrow for him, was following behind him. Jesus turned to
---------------------------------
[1] A
skull-shaped hill near Jerusalem.
-337-
them and said, ‘O thee, who art the maidens of Jerusalem. Do not
cry for me. But cry for thineselves and for thine children. For those days are
coming soon; the days when people without children shall be said to be
fortunate. Then they shall begin to say to the mountains: Come and fall on us;
and to the hills: Come and cover us. For when a green tree is subjected to all
this treatment, what would befall a dry log.’ Then, when he was crucified, he
said, ‘O Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.’ The
soldiers, mocking him, approached and offered vinegar to him. One of the two
culprits who were crucified with him swore at him and said, ‘If you are the
Messiah, then save yourself and us.’ But the other culprit replied, chiding his
friend. Upon this Jesus said unto him: ‘Today you shall enter Paradise with
me.’ “ (Luke: 23-7 to 43)
It is written in the Gospel of John: “Then
Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.” “And the soldiers platted a
crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,”
“And they said, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote him with their hands.”
(John: 19-1, 2, 3) “When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him (in
these clothes), they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith
unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.” “The Jews
answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made
himself the Son of God.” “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the
more afraid;” “And went again into the judgement hall, and saith unto Jesus,
Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no reply.” “Then saith Pilate unto him,
Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee,
and have power to release thee?” “Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power
at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that
delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.” “And from thenceforth Pilate
sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go,
thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against
Caesar.” (ibid: 19-6 to 12) Then John goes on and relates how Pilate, upon
these remonstrations, took Jesus out and delivered him to the Jews, and how
Jesus, carrying his cross, “went forth into the place called the place of a
skull, which is called in the Hebrew Gol’go-tha:” (verses 16-17)
[The differences between the accounts of the
event given in the four Gospels are seen as clearly as the sun. Concerning this
event, which the priest claims has been authenticated by a
-338-
generally accepted narrative, the four Gospels trusted by
Christians are at loggerheads with one another. Who could deny this fact?
Accordingly, where is the generally accepted narrative asserted by the priest?]
6 — According to the thirty-seventh verse of
the twenty-seventh chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, when Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
was crucified, a placard with the statement, “THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE
JEWS,” was hung over him.
According to the twenty-sixth verse of the fifteenth
chapter of the Gospel of Mark, the phrase “THE KING OF THE JEWS” was written on
the placard.
According to the thirty-eighth verse of the
twenty-third chapter of the Gospel of Luke, the placard contained the
statement, “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS,” in Hebrew.
According to the nineteenth verse of the
nineteenth chapter of John, Pilate wrote the expression. “And Pilate wrote a
title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING
OF THE JEWS.” “This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus
was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek,
and Latin.” “Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The
King of the Jews; but that he said, I am the King of the Jews.” “Pilate
answered, What I have written I have written.” (John: 19-19, 20, 21, 22) [These
Biblical inconsistencies as to what was written on the placard hung over the
crucified person who today’s Gospels claim was Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, [may Allâhu
ta’âlâ protect us from believing or saying so], show us that the person who was
crucified was not Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.]
7 — It is written in the fifteenth chapter of
the Gospel of Mark that it was three o’clock when Jesus was crucified. When the
time became six o’clock, darkness fell all over the world until nine o’clock.
(Mark: 15-25, 33)
It is written in the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke that it was about six o’clock when he was crucified, and darkness fell all
over the world until nine o’clock. (Matt: 28-45; Luke: 23-44) John, on the
other hand, does not refer to time or the falling of darkness.
8 — It is written in the Gospel of John that
on Saturday they broke the legs of the two people who had been crucified with
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ lest they should remain any longer on the cross, and when
they came to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ they saw that he was already dead and
therefore did not break his legs. (John: 19-32,
-339-
33) The other three Gospels do not contain this part.
9 — There are great differences among the
existing Gospels in such matters as the resurrection of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
after being crucified according to the Christian credo and his displaying
miracles. Because we have already explained these matters in the chapter
dealing with (the four books called Gospels), those who
wish to renew their information may reread that chapter. (Chapter 4)
A close study of these inconsistencies will
show that such matters as the crucifixion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, his
resurrecting and showing miracles are viewed with scepticism among Christians.
Eminent Christian scholars have not been able to put forward any evidence
strong enough [to refute the pure Islamic belief that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was
not crucified; he was elevated up to heaven without being killed; the person
crucified was a Jew who resembled him; or] to eliminate this scepticism among
Christians, nor have they been able to answer any of the questions asked by
Muslims so far. If Christians say, “The Gospels themselves are of documentary
value for us with all the inconsistensies in them,” then the whole argument
will become null and void. For it would be senseless to discuss an issue with a
person who denied open facts and persisted in his misbelief.
It is quite possible for a judicious person
who does not believe in a heavenly book to deduce from the existing Gospels
numerous evidences to prove the fact that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was not killed or
crucified and that the person crucified was someone else. Furthermore,
supposing someone came forward and, in response to the priest’s statement, “A
narrative stated unanimously in all the four Gospels cannot be refuted,” said,
“Being crucified, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ succumbed to the bitter pain and fainted.
Those who saw him in this position thought he was dead and hastily took him off
the cross lest he should remain on the cross on Saturday. One of his disciples,
Joseph by name, took him to a lonely place and buried him there. After a while,
he recovered and stood out of his grave. One of his disciples gave him a robe
of linen, which was a gardener’s garb. He put on this robe and showed himself
in this attirement to Mary Magdalene. Later he met his disciples and spoke with
them. After a while, he died again at a lonely place, either from the wounds
caused by the crucifixion or from some other disease;” now, how would this be
answered? As a matter of fact, as it is inferred from the verse in the Gospel
of Matthew, which reads, “The Jews went to Pilate and said: Command them
-340-
to keep guard for three days by the grave; otherwise, his
disciples may steal him away at night and then announce that he has
resurrected,” such doubts existed at that time, too. As we have explained in
the chapter dealing with (the four books called Gospels), the Gospel
of Matthew was written forty to fifty years after ascension of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ to heaven. As Matthew wrote his Gospel, he may have included
this widespread rumour into his Gospel, and the other writers of Gospel may
have written such rumours in their books without inquiring into the matter.
There are various evidences to this effect.
First evidence: The statement, “The Jews and
the guarding soldiers went together and sealed the stone, thus safeguarding the
grave,” which the Gospel of Matthew adds for prudential considerations,
augments, let alone eliminating, the doubts.
Second evidence: According to the account
given in the twentieth chapter of the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene saw Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ after his resurrection and thought he was a gardner. (John:
20-14, 15) Again, according to the account given at the end of the nineteenth
chapter of the Gospel of John, Joseph of Arimathea took the corpse of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, wrapped him in linen clothes, found a garden at the place of
crucifixion, and put him into a grave there. (ibid: 19-38, 39, 40, 41) Now, why
shouldn’t it be possible, for instance, that the person who had been mistaken
for Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ may have lain unconscious for a while in the grave,
then recovered, and removed the stone on the mouth of the grave, — or one of
the disciples may have done it for him —, and taken off his shroud and put on a
gardner’s attirement?
Third evidence: It is written in the
twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel of Luke that when Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
resurrected from his grave and showed himself to his disciples, they were
bewildered and frightened, thinking it was a ghost or a spectre. Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ said to them: Why are you bewildered? Why do you suffer anxiety
in thine hearts. Look at my hands, my feet. I am, myself. Touch me with thine
hands and look at me. For a ghost does not have flesh and bones, which you see
I have. After saying this, he showed them his hands and feet. As they were
still in bewilderment, he said: Have you got something to eat? They gave him a
piece of fried fish [and some honey in the comb]. He took it and ate it in
front of them. (Luke: 24-36 to 43)
According to this narrative, the person who
was crucified did not die on the cross. He recovered, became hungry, and ate.
This
-341-
narrative contradicts the miracle of resurrection (of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’) after death.
Fourth evidence: It is stated (in the Gospels)
that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ spoke to his disciples in Galilee, and that he did not
speak to them in Jerusalem. According to this assertion, he must have feared
the Jews although he had died on the cross and then resurrected. On the other
hand, because Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had died on the cross from the Jews’ point of
view, the Jews must have been looking on the matter of Jesus as a nuisance they
had already gotten rid of. It was possible, therefore, for him to talk to his
disciples in Jerusalem, since there was no reason for him to fear the Jews. It
is obvious that this narrative is another addition to the Bible.
Fifth evidence: It is written in the Gospels
that after his resurrection he showed himself to some people in Jerusalem but
he did not show himself to his disciples or, especially, to his mother (there).
These words imply that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ did not want to meet them and even
tried to keep away from them, which comes to mean that, no longer trusting his
disciples, he first limited his audience to a couple of people. And this, in
its turn, obviously would have been wrong.
Sixth evidence: It is stated that none of the
disciples was present when Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was buried or when he
resurrected, that he was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, and that later he was
seen alive by Mary Magdalene. This narrative may normally bring the following
thought to one’s mind: ‘When Joseph of Arimathea came near the crucified
person, he may have seen that the person was not dead. Fearing that he might
cause the denial of the Biblical verse foretelling that he (Jesus) would
resurrect after dying if he divulged that he was not dead, he may have
concealed what he had seen.” How would the priests answer to eliminate such a
suspense?
Seventh evidence: According to Matthew, Joseph
of Arimathea was a rich man and one of the disciples of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.
(Matt: 27-57) According to Luke, he was a pious person’, “a counsellor; and he
was a good man, and a just:” (Luke: 23-50) This person states that he put the
crucified person into a grave. His putting him into a grave indicates that he
was definitely dead. Since people who say that they have seen him again are
possibly not lying, it may be thought that they may have seen a vision.
Eighth evidence: The person who was crucified
may have somehow freed himself from the cross and thus remained alive,
-342-
and his disciples, upon seeing him, may have thought that he had
resurrected after dying.
In order to prove that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
died on the cross and was buried, priests put forward the following verse
written in the Gospel of Matthew as an evidence: “... so shall the Son of man
be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matt: 12-40) Yes,
the person who was crucified died and was buried. There is no need to prove
this fact. Priests’ putting forward this verse is intended to prove that he
resurrected after dying. Yet the person who was crucified did not stay in the
grave for three days and three nights. It is stated unanimously in the four
Gospels that the corpse was taken down from the cross on Friday evening and was
buried immediately and it could not be found in the grave before sunrise Sunday
morning. It is calculated that the corpse stayed in the grave for two nights
plus one day. Since the corpse did not stay three days and three nights in the
grave according to this calculation, Matthew’s statement is contrary to fact.
Another point is this: If Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had really made this statement,
the disciples should not have had any doubts concerning his resurrection, and
they should have welcomed him as soon as seeing him. On the contrary, it is
written in the Gospels that all the Apostles categorically rejected the reports
of his resurrection. With all these facts, silence would be the only answer
that priests could offer to (Qur’ân al-kerîm), which states that “The person
crucified was not Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’; Judas Iscariot, who had reported where
he was, was mistaken for Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and was therefore crucified, and
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was raised up to heaven.”
According to the Islamic belief, all Prophets ‘alaihimus-salâm’ are innocent. They are
immune from lying and playing tricks. They were making preparations to crucify
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, when Allâhu ta’âlâ, the Omnipotent, gave the person who
had betrayed him the semblance of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ so that the Jews,
believing the person they saw now was Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, crucified the traitor,
instead. Allâhu ta’âlâ immediately raised Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ to heaven. This
belief of Muslims is more logical and more worthy of the Prophetic honour of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.
The hundred and fifty-seventh âyat of Nisâ
sűra purports, “But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made
to appear to them, ... [But someone else was made into his semblance, so they crucified
this person].” (4-157) All the ’Ulamâ (very profound
scholars, savants) of tafsîr (interpretation of
-343-
Qur’ân al-kerîm) have interpreted this âyat-i-kerîma
as that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was not killed or hanged.
The fifty-fifth âyat of Âl-i-’Imrân sűra
purports, “[Recall that] Allâhu ta’âlâ [said] to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’: Surely I take thee from the earth [in the most beautiful manner] and raise thee to the grade of angels.” (3-55) Priests assert that this âyat-i-kerîma contradicts the
hundred and fifty-seventh âyat of Nisâ sűra. They want to put forward the word
(mutawaffîka) as an evidence to prove that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ died. They do
not realize that this word is an adjective and therefore (mutawaffîka) does not
mean, “I shall kill thee.” [The Arabic lexicon (Al-munjid), which was
prepared by a Christian clergyman and printed in a Catholic printhouse in
Beirut, explains the meaning of the word (tawaffâ) as “To fully get what one
deserves,” hence the meaning “To give one what is worthy of one’s honour.” It
is metonymically used in the meaning of “to kill”.] This comes to mean that
this âyat-i-kerîma does not mean, “I shall kill thee and then raise thee.” It
means, “I shall do
what is worthy of thine honour and raise thee to the grade of angels.” Allâhu ta’âlâ decreed to exalt Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, and so He did
exalt him. He did not decree to have him killed by the Jews, and He did not
have him killed, having someone else crucified. For this reason, some ’Ulamâ of
tafsîr ‘rahimahullâhi ta’âlâ’ have interpreted the word (tawaffî) as “to pick,”
and explained the âyat-i-kerîma as, “To protect thee from being killed by the Jews, I shall entirely
pick thee up from the earth.” It is so strange
that Christian sects, while saying that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is the (Son of
God), even (God Himself), accept at the same time that he was killed by
crucifixion. The Islamic religion, on the other hand, states that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ was a human being and a Prophet, and rejects these slanders directed to him. In addition, it
enhances his value by stating that he was raised to heaven and informing that
the Jews’ assertion that they killed him by hanging is wrong and slanderous. We
would like to ask which of these two creeds is worthy of the honour of that
exalted Prophet, Muslims’ creed, or
Christians’ creed? This comparison will show us whose love of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ is more of a true one, Muslims’ love, or Christians’ love.
There are lessons to be taken from Muslims’ [true and pure] belief, which
deters from such lies as would be detrimental to the honour of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, and which Christians furiously strive to disprove. We,
Muslims, are both Műsâwî and Îsâwî because we recognize both Műsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ and Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as Prophets sent
-344-
Because Christian groups believe in the
defiled, interpolated Gospels, which teem with all sorts of abominable lies, [and
which are so common today], they belittle that blessed Prophet with such imputations as, “Jesus was born in
a stable, he was killed by the Jews in a humiliating manner, he entered Hell
and thus was accursed,” which a most indecent person would hesitate to utter
about his enemy. Therefore, they are neither Műsâwî, nor Îsâwî. Since they
accept [and defend] Plato’s heretic philosophy of trinity, it would be more
correct to call them ‘Platonists.’
There are many other mental and traditional
answers that could be given to Christians to prove the fact that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ was not killed or hanged. They are written in detail in the
books (Mîzân-ul-mawâzîn), in Persian, (Izhâr-ul-haqq), in Arabic and Turkish, (Shems-ul-haqîqa) and (Îzâh-ul-merâm), in Turkish, and in the Arabic book (Er-redd-ul-jemîl), written by Imâm-i-Ghazâlî ‘rahmetullâhi aleyh’.
-345-