Imām-i Fakhr-ud-dīn Rāzī rahmatullāhi aleyh,
a great Islamic scholar, and the author of the book (Tafsīr-i kebīr) and many other valuable books, gives the following account in
his interpretation of the sixty-first āyat-i-kerīma of Āl-i-Imrān sūra:
I was in the city of Hārezm. I heard that a
priest had come to the city and was trying to spread Christianity. I went to
him. We began to talk. He asked me, What is the evidence showing that Muhammad
alaihis-salām is the Prophet? I gave the
following answer:
Fakhr-ud-dīn Rāzī As there are
narratives reporting that Mūsā, Īsā and other Prophets alaihimus-salām displayed wonders and miracles, so it has been
reported that Muhammad alaihis-salām displayed miracles. These reports are in
forms of narratives. You either accept or refuse reports coming in forms of
narratives. If you refuse them and say that a miracle does not prove a persons prophethood, then you should also deny the
other Prophets whose miracles
have been reported to us through narratives. If you admit the truth of the
reports coming through narratives and believe that a person who has displayed
miracles is a Prophet, then you should
accept also that Muhammad alaihis-salām is a Prophet. For Muhammad alaihis-salām displayed miracles, which have been
reported to us through authentic narratives called (Tawātur). Since you believe other Prophets prophethood because of the miracles reported through narratives, you
should believe that Muhammad alaihis-salām is the Prophet!
The priest I believe that Īsā alaihis-salām is
a god, not a Prophet.
[God means mabud (that which, or who, is, or
is to be, worshipped). Anything which is worshipped is called a god. The name
of Allāhu taālā is Allah, not God. There is no ilāh (god) besides Allāhu
taālā. It would be a very vile mistake to say God
Fakhr-ud-dīn Rāzī We are talking
about prophethood now. We have to
settle the question of prophethood before
passing on to divinity. Moreover, you are wrong to say that Īsā alaihis-salām
is a god. For a god has to exist always. Material beings, objects, things that
occupy spaces cannot be gods. And Īsā alaihis-salām was matter, human. He
came into existence from nonexistence and was, according to you, killed. He was
a child and grew up. He ate and drank. He spoke as we do. He would go to bed,
sleep, wake up, and walk. Like any other human being, he needed a number of
things to live. Could a person in need ever be Ghanī (who is in possession of
everything)? Could something that came into existence from nothing, exist
eternally? Could something that changes be everlasting, eternal?
You say that Īsā alaihis-salām ran away and
hid himself but the Jews arrested him and hanged him. You say that Īsā
alaihis-salām was very sad then and had recourse to various ways to escape.
If he had been a god or if a piece of God had entered him, would not he have
defended himself against the Jews and even destroyed them? Why did he feel sad
and look for a place to hide himself? I would swear on the name of Allah that
this paradox appals me. How could a reasonable person make or believe these
statements? Reason testifies against these statements.
You have three different assertions:
1 You say that he is a visible, substantial
god. To say that the god of the universe is Īsā alaihis-salām, the
substantial god incarnate, would mean to say that the Jews killed the god of
the universe, since (you believe that) they killed him (Īsā alaihis-salām).
In that case the universe must have been deprived of its god, which is
impossible. Furthermore, is it possible for a weakling whom the Jews arrested
and killed unjustly to have been the god of the universe?
Another fact reported through narratives is
that Īsā alaihis-salām worshipped Allāhu taālā very much and was very much
fond of praying. If Īsā alaihis-salām were a god, he would not worship or
pray. For a god will never worship himself. [On the contrary, others will
worship him.]
This is another evidence showing that the
priest is wrong.
2 You say that God has entered him
completely and (therefore) he is the Son of God. This belief is wrong. For God
cannot be an object or an attribute. It is impossible for God to
-376-
enter an object. If God were an object He would enter another
object. When something enters an object it will become an object and the
components of the two objects will be mixed with each other. And this, in its
turn, will mean Gods being broken. If God were an attribute, then He would
need a space, a place, which would mean Gods needing something. And he who
needs something cannot be a god. [What was the reason for Gods entering Īsā
alaihis-salām? His entering Īsā alaihis-salām without any reason to do so
would mean terjīh-i-bi-lā murej-jih, which, as we have explained while proving
the unity of Allāhu taālā, is out of the question.]
3 You say that he is not a god but a part of
God has entered him and settled in him. If the part which (is supposed to have)
entered him were a component part of God, then God should have completely lost
His capacity of being God with the departure of that component part. If that
part did not have any function in Gods being God, then it should not have been
a part from God. Hence, God has not entered him.
Now, what is your other evidence to prove that
Īsā alaihis-salām was a god?
The priest He is a god because he resuscitated
the dead, opened the eyes of people who were blind from birth, and cured the
disease called leprosy resulting in itchy patches on the skin. Only God could
make such things.
Fakhr-ur-dīn Rāzī Could it be
asserted that when there is no evidence for the existence of something it must
be nonexistent? If you say that absence of evidence proves non-existence of the
thing whose existence would otherwise be inferred from the evidence, it will mean
to say that the Creator of the universe did not exist before creating the
universe, that is, in the eternal past. And this inference, in its turn, is
quite wrong. For the universe [all creatures] is an evidence for the existence
of the Creator.
If you say that absence of evidence does not
necessarily mean nonexistence of the thing whose existence were to be inferred
from the evidence, you will have accepted the existence of the Creator in
eternity, when creatures did not exist yet. On the other hand, if you say that
God entered Īsā alaihis-salām in eternity, when he was nonexistent, you will
need evidence to prove it. Otherwise, you will have accepted it without
evidence. For Īsā alaihis-salām was created afterwards. His nonexistence in
eternity shows nonexistence of evidence. Since you believe
-377-
without evidence that God entered Īsā alaihis-salām, how do you
know He did not enter me, you, animals, plants, stones? Why dont you believe
without evidence that He entered all these things?
The priest It is obvious that God entered Īsā
alaihis-salām and He did not enter you, me, or other beings. You, I, or other
beings did not display such wonders. We infer from this that He entered him,
and not us or other beings.
Fakhr-ud-dīn Rāzī You assert that
Īsās alaihis-salām displaying miracles is an evidence for Gods having
entered him. Why do you say that absence of evidence, that is, not displaying
miracles, shows that God should not have entered. You cannot say that God will
not enter you, me, or other creatures because we do not have wonders or
miracles. For we have already proved that absence of evidence does not
necessarily mean that something does not exist. Accordingly, Gods entering
something does not have to do with the appearing of wonders and miracles. Then,
you will have to believe also that God has entered me, you, cats, dogs, mice.
Now, could a religious system which leads to believing that God has entered
these humble creatures ever be a true religion?
It is more difficult to make a viper or a
serpent from a rod than it is to resuscitate a dead person. For a rod and a
serpent are in no way similar. You believe that Mūsā alaihis-salām
transformed the rod into a viper and yet do not call him God or Son of God.
Why do you call Īsā alaihis-salām God or ascribe divinity to him?
Unable to find an answer to this argumentation
of mine, the priest had to remain silent. This chapter has been translated from
the (Turkish) book (Seādet-i Ebediyye).
O priest! We wish that you explain the belief
systems of these two religions to philosophers who do not belong to either
religion or to other wise and reasonable people, ask them which of these two
religions they find logical, factual and beautiful, and be true to your advice,
One should compare the two religions, and then accept the one which is
beautiful, which you suggest in your book (Ghadā-ul-mulāhazāt).
Allāhu taālā, alone, will grant guidance and
assistance.
In order to mislead Muslims and Christianize
them, priests wrote many books. The Islamic Ulamā wrote answers to the lies in
these books, and thus protected Muslims from falling into the
-378-
pit of Christianity. One of these answers is the Turkish book (Īzāh-ul-Merām), which was written by Abdullah Abdī bin Destan Mustafā rahmatullāhi
alaihimā and was published in Istanbul in 1288 [A.D. 1871]. He was from
Manastir (Bitolj), and passed away in 1303 [A.D. 1896].