(Original Source: http://abdurrahman.org/comprel/thecorrectreply.pdf)

By Ahmad ibn Taymiyah

PART 1. THE UNIVERSAL NATURE OF MUHAMMAD’S PROPHETHOOD

A. THE PURPOSE OF WRITING AL-JAWAB AS-SAHIH

SYNOPSIS

The Christians had attempted to establish the truthfulness of their religion, at the hands of Paul of Antioch, the Bishop of Sidon, in a treatise entitled The Eloquent and Renowned Treatise Proving the True Belief and the Upright Opinion. This treatise reached a large number of the senior figureheads of Christendom of the time, all of whom praised it and held its contents to valid and truth.

The treatise attempts to establish six points, which include the claim that Muhammad was not sent to them but only the Pagan Arabs. Also, they claimed that Muhammad praised their religion. Similarly, that previous religions bear testimony to the tenets and beliefs that they hold, that Christ perfected religion and hence they are not in need of any new message, and that they are actually Monotheists.

The treatise was actually written after meetings with the intelligentsia and religious leaders of Christendom and summarizes what various Christians in all the corners of the globe, in their varying colors and languages have agreed upon concerning the status of Muhammad.

In truth, the arguments they have adduced are in fact against them, not for them. As the story unfolds, it becomes evident that the Christian religion is innovated and paganistic in essence. Some of what the Innovators and Apostates from Islam fell into has parallels to that which the Christians fell into, and hence understanding the true nature of Christianity helps in understanding the true nature of the misguidance of the Innovators and the disbelief of the Apostates.

A. THE PURPOSE OF WRITING AL-JAWAB AS-SAHIH

There is none worthy of worship but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Praise to Allah, the Lord of the universe, the Merciful, the Compassionate, the Master of the Day of Judgment.

Praise to Allah who created the heavens and the earth and made the darkness light. Those who disbelieve in their Lord wander astray.

Praise to Allah who did not take a son, who has no partner in governance, nor has any associate from lower creation whom he has exalted in greatness. Praise to Allah who sent down upon His servant the Book, and did not permit any deviation in it, but established it in order to warn of a severe chastisement from Him, to make the believers who do good works rejoice so that for them there would be a fine reward. And to warn those who say that Allah has taken a son. They have no knowledge of that, nor did their forefathers; dreadful is the word that goes forth from their tongues. In any case, what they speak is but a lie:

“All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has sent down to His slave (Muhammad) the Book (the Qur’an), and has not placed therein any crookedness. (He has made it) Straight to give warning (to the disbelievers) of a severe punishment from Him, and to give glad tidings to the believers (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), who work righteous deeds, that they shall have a fair reward (i.e. Paradise). They shall abide therein forever. And to warn those (Jews, Christians, and pagans) who say, “Allah has begotten a son (or offspring or children).” No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths [i.e. He begot (took) sons and daughters]. They utter nothing but a lie.”(18:1-5)

As for what follows (ammaa ba’d); Allah, may He be blessed and exalted! Made Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets, and perfected His religion for him and for his community. He sent him during an interval between the messengers, at a time when unbelief was manifest and the [correct] paths blotted out. Through him He gave life to the characteristics of faith which had been studied. By him he restrained the people of idolatry, unbelief and doubt from their service of idols, fires and crosses. By him He conquered the unbelievers of the People of the Book - the people of idolatry and doubt - and he erected the lighthouse of His religion which pleased Him.

Through him He celebrated the memory of His servants whom He chose. He elected him, and by him He manifested what the People of the Book had kept hidden. Through him He showed where they had gone astray from the correct path. By him He confirmed the trustworthiness of the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel. In him He disclosed what was not true in them by way of the falsity of corruption and replacement.

For that which Allah censured the Jews and Christians in His Book - like their rejecting the truth which is opposed to their whim; their being too proud to receive it; their envying and harming its people; their adopting the way of error, miserliness, cowardice and harshness of heart; their describing Almighty Allah in terms similar to the faults and failings of creatures; their denial of that [Book] in which He described Himself in which no creature resembles Him; their going to excess concerning the prophets and holy men, making such persons share in the worship due the Lord of the universe; their notion of divine indwelling (hulul) and divine union (ittihad) which makes a created servant become the Lord of the universe; their departing in works of religion from the legal traditions (shari’ah) of the prophets and messengers; their acting in religion simply from whim (hawa), intuition (dhawq), or ecstasy (wajd) in their hearts rather than following the knowledge which Allah handed down in His clear book; their taking their great scholars and worshipers as lords whom they follow in the religion which they have introduced in opposition to that of the prophets (9:31); their opposing what is known by sound reason and correct tradition with what they think comes from divine revelations (altanazzulat al-ilahiyya) and holy inspirations (al-futuhat al-qudsiyya), although they actually stem from the whispering of the Accursed One so that someone who accepts them is among those about whom Allah spoke (67:10; 7:129); and other kinds of innovations and errors for which Allah censured the people of the Two Books - all that is what Allah warned his chosen community about. He made all that befall them a lesson for those who can understand.

The prophet disclosed that the occurrence of these things must befall some of this {Islamic} community, although he had disclosed that in his community there would remain a group established in truth whose enemies and deserters could never harm even until the arrival of the Hour. He taught that his community would not agree upon an error, nor would those of other religious bodies outside it defeat this community; rather it would remain manifest and triumphant, following its rightly guided, triumphant prophet. However, in its midst there must be those who follow the traditions (sunan) of the Jews, Christians, Byzantines and Magians. It is reported in the collections of sound hadith reports from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said:

“You will follow the traditions of those who came before you exactly so that were they to enter a bear’s den, then you would enter it.”

They said, “O messenger of Allah, the Jews and the Christians?” He said, “Who else.”

It is also in the collections of reports from Abu Sa’id that the Prophet said:

“My community will take up the way of acting of the peoples before them, inch by inch, foot by foot.” They said, “O Prophet of Allah, Persians and Romans?” He said, “From what other people than them?”

Among those who outwardly profess Islam there are hypocrites and those hypocrites are in the process of attaining the lowest portion of the Fire, below Jews and Christians. Thus, that for which Allah censured Jews and Christians may be found among the hypocrites associated with Islam. They are those who outwardly profess faith in all that the Messenger brought, but secretly are opposed to that - like the renegades (malahida) and the Batinis. How much more will this be in the case with those among them who openly manifest godlessness (al-ilhad).

Some of that is found among the innovators who, although they profess the generality of the message of the Prophet both inwardly and outwardly, are in confusion about the same things which are confused among the hypocrites. Thus they follow what is doubtful and depart from the solid path, like the Khajarites and other sectarians like them.

The Christians, on [the matter of] the attributes of Allah and His union with creatures, fall into error in which many of these [innovators] share. Among the renegades [from Islam] there are those who are in greater error than the Christians. Divine indwelling (al-hulul) and union (al-ittihad) is of two kinds, universal and particular. Universal hulul and ittihad is like those who say, “Allah in His essence has taken residence in every place,” or “His existence is the very existence of creatures.”

The particularised form is like [the belief of] those who claim divine indwelling and union for a member of the family of the Prophet – like ‘Ali and others - such as the Nusayriyya and people like that. Or it is like those who attach themselves to the descendants of the Prophet such as al-Hakim - as do Druzes and people like them, or like someone who believes these things about one of the Sufi masters - the followers of Al-Hallaj[1] and people like them.

Whoever says that Allah has taken residence in or united with some one of the Companions or relatives [of the Prophet] or one of the shaykhs is in this respect more unbelieving than Christians, who hold for divine union and indwelling in Christ, for Christ is superior to all these others. Whoever holds for a universal and union has fallen into error more universal than that of Christians. This is the case also for someone who holds for the eternity of the souls of human beings, or their deeds, their speech, their sounds, the materials of writings or anything like that. In his holding this, someone has a portion of the view of Christians.

Through an understanding of the real nature of the religion of the Christians and its falsity one can also know the falsity of those views which resemble theirs - that is, the views of the perpetrators of apostasy and innovation. When the light of faith and the Qur’an arrives, Allah destroys that which opposes Him. He said, “Truth has come and falsehood has vanished away. Falsehood is ever bound to vanish” (17:81). Allah has made clear the good and superior qualities of truth, for which reason He established it as true.

One of the reasons we treat this religion and its appearance is that a letter arrived from Cyprus in which there is an argument for the religion of the Christians. In it the scholars (‘ulama’) of their religion as well as the eminent persons (fudala’) of their church. Ancient and modern, plead their case with religious and intellectual arguments; thus it demands that we mentioned by way of answer the final conclusions to which [their arguments] lead and that we make clear their straying from what is correct, in order that thinking people may benefit thereby, and that the Balance (al-Mizan) and the Book with which Allah sent His messengers may prevail.

I will include the exact wording of what they have stated, chapter by chapter, and following each chapter I will mention in response the primary and secondary arguments that pertain to it, both joining argument and settling it. That which they state in this book is the basic support upon which their scholars depend, both in our time and in the previous ages, although some of them may elaborate further than others depending upon the situation. We have found them making use of this treatise before now, their scholars’ hand it down among themselves, and old copies of it still exist.

It is attributed to Paul of Antioch, the monk, bishop of Sidon. He wrote it to one of his friends, and had previously written works about the supremacy of Christianity. He stated that when he travelled to the land of Byzantium and Constantinople, to the country of Amalfi, and to some of the districts of northern Europe and Rome, he met with the leaders of the people of that religion and conferred with their finest scholars. They thought highly of this letter which he called The Eloquent and Renowned Treatise Proving the True Belief and the Upright Opinion.

The contents of this letter are in six chapters.

1) Their claim that Muhammad was not sent to them, but rather to the Arabs of the Jahiliyya, and that this is indicated by what is in the Qur’an and also proven by reason.

2) Their claim that Muhammad in the Qur’an extolled the religion they followed, and his praise for it is something which obligates them to adhere to it.

3) Their claim that the message of the preceding prophets, like the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospel and other messages than these, bear witness to their religion in that what they hold concerning the divine hypostases, the trinity, divine unions and other matters is true and correct. They must firmly adhere to it. Since divine religion (shar’) extols rather than opposes it [their belief] and reason does not object to it, it is not permissible for them to renounce it.

4) [Their claim] that their professing that [religion] is reasonable, that what they hold concerning the trinity is demonstrable by rational argumentation and that revealed religion is in agreement with its principles (al-usul).

5) Their claim that they are monotheist, excusing what they say in such expressions as those of the divine hypostases which manifest a multiplicity of gods by holding that those are of the same type as the texts among Muslims in which anthropomorphism (al-tashbih) and corporality (al-tajsim) are evident.

6) [Their claim] that Christ came after Moses bringing the final limit of perfection; there is no need, after the end point has been reached, for an additional divine law beyond the [ultimate] goal. Rather, what comes after that is unacceptable as a religion.

We will show - to Allah be praised and strength - that all which they adduce as religious argument, whether from the Qur’an or from the books preceding the Qur’an, as well as reason itself is an argument, not for them, but against them. The generality of what they produce as arguments from the prophetic texts and from what is reasonable is in itself a proof against them and manifests the corrupt nature of their teaching, as do other prophetic texts and the criteria formed by rational standards of proof.

This is the case with most of what the innovators (ahl al-bida) call upon as proof in the books of Allah. In those texts there is that which clearly shows that no argument for them can be found in the books; rather, the texts themselves are a proof against them. Such matters have been stated in the refutation of the innovators, the sectarians and others affiliated with Islam (ahl al-qibla). Generally they only deal in obscure expressions to which they cling obstinately and in which they suppose there is proof. To these things they add whatever is connected with their whims while they avoid clear cut, direct and unambiguous expressions.

This is the state of all people of falsehood, as Allah said: “They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord has come to them” (52:23). They are in ignorance and wrongdoing (33:72-73), but believers are those whom Allah has absolved from ignorance and wrongdoing. They are the followers of the prophets, for the prophets were sent with knowledge and justice (48:28). Allah has disclosed that he [the Prophet] was not erring and ignorant, nor straying and following whims. He did not speak from whim, but only spoke the revelation handed down to him by Allah (53:1-4).

Guidance contains beneficial language, and the religion of truth includes right action and is based on justice (57:25). The basis of uprightness (al-’adl) in the truth about Allah is the worship of Allah alone, allowing no one else to share in that worship. As Luqman told his son, “Shirk is great wrongdoing” (31:13).

In the collections of sound hadith it is reported from ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’ud that when the verse “Those who believe and have not obscured their faith by wrongdoing” (6:82) was revealed, it bothered some of the companions of the Messenger, and they asked, “Which of us has not ourselves done wrong?” The Messenger answered, “It is not as you think; it [the wrongdoing] only means shirk. Have you not heard the saying of the upright servant, ‘Shirk is great wrongdoing?’“

Whenever the followers of the prophets - who are the people of knowledge and justice - have been in discussion with unbelievers and innovators, the statements of the people of Islam and the sunna have always proceeded from knowledge and justice, not from guesswork and what their own minds imagine. The Prophet has said about this: “The judges are three - two judges in the Fire and one judge in the Garden. The man with the knowledge of the truth who has judged in opposition to it is in the Fire, as is he who judged people through ignorance.” Abu Dawud and others have related this report.

If he, who judged among people in matters of property, homicide and honour without being knowledgeable and impartial is consigned to the Fire, how much more so will he be who passes judgment on sects and religions, on the principles of faith, on divine affairs and universal questions, with neither knowledge, nor fairness? Yet this is the situation of the innovators and sectarians who cling tightly to doubtful obscurities while they claim clear and accurate judgments from the texts of the prophets. They cling to the common factor that is apparently the same in analogies and opinions, but do not pay attention to the differences [among them], which prevent their being connected together and regarded as the same. This is like the situation of the unbelievers and the rest of the innovators and sectarians who make the creature resemble the Creator, and the Creator the creature. They have coined an evil similitude about Allah and a contemptible opinion.

The false religion of Christians is nothing but an innovated religion that they invented after the time of Christ and by which they changed the religion of Christ. Not only that, they strayed away from the law (shari’ah) of Christ to what they innovated. Then, when Allah sent Muhammad, they rejected him. Thus their unbelief and error came to be of two aspects - that of changing the religion of the first messenger and of rejecting the second messenger. It is like the unbelief of the Jews who changed the legal prescriptions of the Torah before Allah’s sending Christ, and then they rejected Christ.

We will show, Allah willing, that what the Christians hold by way of the trinity and [divine] union has not been indicated by anything in the books of Allah - neither by the Gospel nor by any other. Rather, they all indicated what is contradictory to that. Neither has reason indicated that; rather, sound reason - as well as the texts of the prophets - have indicated the contrary of that. Similarly, [we will show] that the generality of the laws of their religion were invented and innovated, and were not legislated by Christ.

Their rejection of Muhammad is their form of unbelief that is evident to every Muslim, like the Jews’ rejection of Christ. The Christians’ unbelief is more profound than that of the Jews, although they have gone to great lengths to pronounce the Jews unbelievers. They are far more deserving of being declared unbelievers than are the Jews. The Jews claimed that Christ was a lying magician, and even said that he was the child of fornication. The Christians claim that he is Allah who created the first and the last, and that he is judge of the Day of Judgment. The two peoples have thus gone to the limits of contradiction and mutual opposition and antithesis. Each group condemns the others on matters for which [the condemnation] is usually deserved (2:113).

Muhammad Ibn Ishaq stated from Muhammad Ibn Abi Muhammad, the mawla of Zayd Ibn Thabit, from ‘Ikrima or Sa’id Ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas that when the delegation of Christians from Najran came to the Messenger some Jewish rabbis approached them and they all argued in the presence of the Messenger. Rabi’ Ibn Harmala said “You don’t have anything [of truth],” and he disbelieved in both Jesus and the Gospel. One of the Christians from Najran said to the Jews, “You don’t have anything [of truth],” and he rejected the prophethood of Moses and disbelieved in the Torah. Then Allah sent down the verse in which He says about the two peoples, “The Jews say that the Christians follow nothing, yet both are readers of the scripture” (2:113).

He [Muhammad] said, “Each reads in his book the confirmation of that whereby he disbelieves.” That is, the Jews reject Jesus, although they have the Torah in which there is confirmation of Jesus that Allah placed on the tongue of Moses. In the Gospel there is the answer of Jesus confirming Moses and that which he brought in the Torah. Each group rejects what its opponent’s holds.

Qatada said that when the Jews said, “The Christians follow nothing,” he [Muhammad] said, “Yes, the earliest Christians followed something but then they innovated and split into sects.” When the Christians said that the Jews follow nothing, he said “Yes the early Jews followed something but they innovated and split into sects.” Thus the Jews reject the religion of the Christians and say “They follow nothing,” while the Christians reject all of that by which the Jews are distinguished from them, even the things legislated in the Torah which Christ did not abrogate but commanded them to perform. The Jews reject most of that by which the Christians are distinguished from them, so that they even rejected the truth that Jesus brought.

Although the Christians went to excess in pronouncing takfir upon the Jews and transgressed beyond the proper limits by the excess and error which they innovated, nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Jews became unbelievers when they rejected Christ (3:55; 61:14). The unbelief of Christians in rejecting Muhammad and in opposing Muslims is greater than the unbelief of the Jews in simply rejecting Christ. Christ only abrogated a little of the legislation of the Torah, and the rest of his law referred back to it. The greater part of the religion of Christians, however, they invented after [the time of] Christ.

Thus in the Jews’ simple rejection of Christ there was no opposition to the law, as there was when the Christians rejected Muhammad who brought an independent Book from Allah, none of whose legislation was a mere reiteration of another law (29:51).

The Qur’an, although it is greater than the Torah, is of similar origin, and for this reason learned men among the Christians used to consider Moses and Muhammad together. The king of the Christians, the Negus, said upon hearing the Qur’an, “The spirit which visited Moses has come upon you.” Similarly, Waraqa Ibn Nawfal, who was one of the educated Christian Arabs, said upon hearing the teaching of the Prophet, “This and that which Moses brought were taken from the niche.”

Similarly, Allah Himself has linked the Torah and the Qur’an: “But when there came to them the Truth from our presence, they said: ‘Why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?’ Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Moses of old? They say: ‘Two magics that support each other.’“ (28:48)

“Two magics,” that is, the Torah and the Qur’an, and in another reading, “They say, ‘Two magicians,’“ that is Moses and Muhammad. “And they say. ‘In both we are disbelievers.’ Say: Then bring a Scripture from the presence of Allah that gives clearer guidance than these two [that] I may follow it, if you are truthful.” (28:48-49)

But there has never been a book sent down from Allah more rightly guided than the Qur’an (28:50). And these [disbelievers in the two books] are the Christians.

In his treatise the author of the Christians’ Letter stated that he [his Muslim friend] asked him to make a careful investigation of what various Christians - the followers of Christ - people of various languages, dispersed to the four corners of the world, from east to west and from north to south, residing on the islands of the Sea [the Mediterranean], dwelling on the continent which stretches to the setting of the sun - believe concerning him [Muhammad]. The bishop, a religious leader of the Roman [Byzantium] empire, met with members of their intelligentsia and their rulers. He conferred with their scholars and their finest people on what he knew about the opinion of people whom he had met on islands of the Sea before his arrival at Cyprus. To them he had preached about their religion, and discussed what they believed about him Muhammad], and what they themselves had debated about him.

B. THE NATURE OF PROPHETHOOD

SYNOPSIS

The Missionary’s argument is ambiguous by nature and requires carefully selected diplomatic modes of reasoning. By attempting to use as evidence texts from the Qur’an in order to legitimize his own innovated religion, he falls into a great dilemma. Is he affirming the truthfulness of Muhammad and that of the Qur’an by his use of the texts of the Qur’an to legitimize his own religion? And does he consider that the Qur’anic texts are sufficient in and of themselves for establishing truth? For if this is the case then this demonstrates that his own religion is false by necessity. Or is he covering up a devised and orchestrated play of deceit by preying upon the ignorance of the average Muslim and trying to hoodwink him into believing that the Qur’an affirms and legalizes the innovated Christian religion?

The Missionary is ignorant of the true nature of prophethood, and hence maintains his silence, neither affirming Muhammad and nor rejecting him as a Messenger and Prophet of Allah.

Either he will affirm that he was a truthful and righteous man, or a great statesman, or a true leader, or one who excelled in morals. But on the issue of Muhammad’s prophethood he maintains diplomatic silence. If he were to make his position clear on this issue, he would not be able to approach any Muslim with any sound argument. Either he affirms Muhammad, who is known to have made the claim to prophethood, in which case his own religion is falsified. Or he rejects Muhammad, in which case he has even more reason to reject his own religion and reject Christ, since the prophethood of Muhammad, his integrity and truthfulness, and miraculous works (through the power of Allah) has come to us through successive transmissions in every generation and has been documented to a greater extent and degree than that of Christ.

Therefore, the Christian Missionary is bankrupt by nature, neither possessing sound argument and nor, in the majority of cases, possessing sincerity of purpose.

The Christian Missionary also does not understand the true nature of the call of Christ and the predominance of pagan worship amongst the Greeks and Romans, whom Christ summoned to the worship of Allah, Monotheism. This is because his religion is an innovated religion, the tenets, rituals and symbols of which were decided by men - a few hundred years after the departure of Christ. Neither does there exist a consensus for these innovated tenets or rituals and nor any successive transmission. Rather, his religion is but fashioned from the pagan concepts of the Romans and Greeks, who accepted Christ as their Lord, but within the contexts and confines of their pre-existent pagan beliefs and idealisms.

The sending of Muhammad marked the call to the worship of Allah, Monotheism, as did the sending of Christ and his call to the Roman, Greek pagans.

B. THE NATURE OF PROPHETHOOD

Said the scribe in the bishop’s words:

They said, “We heard that a man appeared from amongst the Arabs named Muhammad who said that he was a Messenger of Allah and that he was bringing a Book which he said was handed down from Allah.” I said to them, “If you have heard of this Book and this person, and have gone to the trouble of obtaining among yourselves this Book which he brought, then why do you not follow him, especially as it says in this Book ‘If anyone seeks something other than Islam as a religion, it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter?’” (3:85). They answered, “For various reasons, among which is that the Book is in Arabic, which is not our language. But it says in the Book, “We have sent down an Arabic Qur’an perhaps you may understand” (12:2; 26:195; 2:151; 3:164; 28:48; 36:6). When we saw these verses we knew that he was not sent to us but to the Arabs of the Jahiliyya of whom they say “There was not sent any messenger or warner before him.” He did not obligate us to follow him, because there were sent messengers to us before him who preached to us and warned us in our own languages through our religion to which we hold fast until today. They handed on to us the Torah and the Gospel in our language, as this Book that the Messenger brought bears witness (14:4; 16:36; 30:47). This Book also makes it clear that he was only sent to the Arabs of the Jahiliyya (3:85).”

This passage is taken verbatim from the first chapter. This chapter does not oppose him [Muhammad], neither confirming him nor rejecting him. Rather, they claim that in this Book [the Qur’an] itself did not say that he was sent to them, but rather to the Arabs of the Jahiliyya and they hold that reason also prevents his having been sent to them.

In answer, we will begin by pointing out that Allah disclosed that he was sent to them and to all mankind and jinn. We will show that he never said that he was not sent to them and that there is nothing in this Book to indicate that. We will show that they have argued from verses whose meaning they have misunderstood. They have omitted many unambiguous texts in his Book which show clearly that he was sent to them. This is similar to what they have done to the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms and the teachings of the prophets - they have omitted many clear texts and have clung to a few obscure ones whose meaning they do not know.

It is obvious that the discussion of the veracity or falsity of a claimant to prophethood must precede the discussion of the general and specific elements of his prophethood, even though it may occur that one of the two be known before the other. But these people claim [to know] specific characteristics of his prophethood and state that the Qur’an indicates such things. We will answer their claims in order, chapter by chapter.

The discussion concerning anyone who taught mankind that he was a messenger of Allah to them - as did Muhammad and others who said they were messengers of Allah like Abraham, Moses, and prophets like them and as did the lying, would be prophets like Musaylima al-Kadhdhab and Al-Aswad al-Ansi ought to be based on two principles:

1) That what he said in his message and his command is known, and that what he disclosed and what he commanded be known. That is, did he say he was the messenger of Allah to all people or that he was only sent to a specific group, and not to all others?

2) That we know whether he is truthful or lying.

On these two principles a detailed faith is achieved i.e. knowledge of the truthfulness of the prophet and knowledge of what he brought. A summary faith is achieved by the first of these principles - that is, a prophet’s trustworthiness in what he brought - like our faith in previous messengers. The truthfulness or falsity of a prophet may be known before one knows what a prophet said. Conversely, what he uttered may be known before it is learned whether he was trustworthy or false.

In this book of theirs these people have built their arguments on what the Messenger stated; they claim it is a proof that they have no obligation to follow him, and that it commands the religion which they follow at present, even after its abrogation and corruption. After that they mention independent arguments for the correctness of their religion, and then they state what they reject as objectionable about him [Muhammad] and his religion. Thus we begin by presenting an answer to what they have argued from the Qur’an, just as they have presented it in their treatise.

These people have claimed that Muhammad was not sent to them but to the Arabs of the Jahiliyya. This claim has two alternatives: either they hold that he himself did not claim that he was sent to them and that only his community has made that claim, or they hold that he claimed that he was sent to them, and that he was lying in his claim. Their claim in the beginning of this book demands the first alternative.

About other works it may be said that they have suggested the other alternatives [that he was lying]. Here they do not really deny his messengership to the Arabs, but only reject his having been sent to them. As for his mission to the Arabs, they make no firm statement about confirming or rejecting it, although it is evident that their formulation demands a confirmation of his messengership to the Arabs.

Actually they confirm what agrees with their view while rejecting that which opposes it.

We will show that their argumentation is not correct in anything of that which the Prophet brought. Subsequently we will address two questions. We will show that in the Qur’an there is no proof for them, nor does it contradict itself or any of the previous books of the prophets. That from which they argue is an argument against them, and even if Muhammad had not been sent, it would not have been in any respect an argument for them. How could it have been an argument for them when the Book that Muhammad brought is in agreement with the rest of the teaching of the prophets, as well as with sound reason, in showing the falsity of their religion - their view of the trinity, divine union, and other things.

This is in contrast to Muslims, for their argumentation against the People of the Book - the Jews and Christians - is consistent with what was brought by the prophets before Muhammad. But the argumentation of the People of the Book is not acceptable if they argue from what Muhammad brought. The reason is because Muslims admit the prophethood of Moses, Jesus, David, Solomon, and the other prophets, and according to them they must put faith in every book which Allah revealed and in every prophet whom Allah sent. This is the basis of the religion of the Muslims. Whoever disbelieves in one prophet or in one book is, according to them, a disbeliever. Among them whoever even insults any of the prophets is a disbeliever worthy of death (2:136; 3: 2:177; 2:285).

“The Book” is a generic term for every book revealed by Allah, and includes the Torah and the Gospel, just as it includes the Qur’an (2:285; 21:5; 42:15). In these passages Allah has stated that this Book which He has revealed is a guidance for the Allah fearing who believe in the unseen, who undertake the prayer (al-salah), who pay the poor tax, who believe in what Allah has revealed to him [Muhammad] and in what He has revealed to those before him, and who are certain of the afterlife. He has encompassed these people with prosperity, and no one will be among the prosperous unless he be from those whom Allah called “those who believe in what was revealed to you [Muhammad] and what was revealed to those before it” (2:4).

It is not permitted for any Muslim to reject a single thing of what was handed down to those who preceded Muhammad, but any argumentation from that demands that three prerequisites [be fulfilled].

1) Its being established as [having come] from the prophets.

2) The correctness of its translation into Arabic or into the language in which it appears - e.g., Greek or Syriac. The language of Moses, David,

Jesus etc., of the Israelite prophets was Hebrew and whoever says the language of Jesus was Syriac or Greek is in error.

3) Exegesis of the passage and knowledge of its meaning.

Muslims have not rejected a single one of their arguments by denying what any one of the prophets said. They may, however, reject the transmitter [of the prophetic statement] or they may misinterpret what has been handed down from the prophets by some other meaning that they desire. Even though Muslims may err in rejecting some transmitted information or in their interpretation of something handed down from the prophets, it is like someone among them or among the people of the other religions who errs in respect to something of what was handed down from him whose prophecy he accepts or in interpreting that which was handed down from him.

This is different from rejecting the prophet himself; blatant (sarih) disbelief is not the same as that of the People of the Book. Their intention is only achieved by rejecting some of what Allah has revealed. When someone rejects one word of what a person who declares himself to be a messenger of Allah has disclosed, that person’s argumentation from the rest of his teaching is invalid, and their argument for what they are trying to prove is untenable. The reason is that someone who says he is the messenger of Allah either is truthful in his calling himself messenger of Allah and in everything else that he discloses from Allah, or he is false if he lied in even one word from Allah.

If he is truthful in that manner [in his claiming to be the messenger of Allah], he is prevented from lying concerning Allah in a single thing that reached him from Allah. Whoever lies about Allah, even in one word, is someone perpetrating falsehood against Allah and is no messenger of Allah. It is clear that whoever perpetrates a lie against Allah is a lying pseudo-prophet, and it is not permissible to make an argument from the information he has disclosed from Allah. It can be known that Allah did not send that person. If he said that something was merely a statement [of his own] and it was correct, it could be accepted, not because he received it from Allah or because he was a messenger from Allah, but rather just as something true is acceptable from idolaters and other unbelievers. If idol worshipers speak what is true concerning Allah, like the affirmation of the idolatrous Arabs that Allah created the heavens and the earth, we do not accuse them of lying on such a matter, even though they are unbelievers. Thus if an unbeliever holds that Allah is Living, Omnipotent, a Creator, we do not reject him for [holding] this opinion.

However, anyone who has lied about Allah in even one word and said that Allah revealed it to him - when Allah did not reveal it to him - that person is one of the liars nothing of whose statements which they claim to have received from Allah may be used as argumentation.

They are like other people in whatever they say other than that, and even like other liars similar to them. If the truth of their statement is known from a source other than them, this is acceptable for establishing an indication of its correctness, rather than for their having said it. But if its correctness is not known from a source other than them, there is no proof for it in their saying it after it is established that they have lied about Allah.

Therefore, if these people affirm the Messengership of Muhammad and hold he was trustworthy in the Book and the Wisdom which he received from Allah, they must place faith in everything in the Book and the Wisdom which is proven to be from him, just as faith must be placed in everything which the [other] messengers brought.

If they reject him in even one word or if they doubt his truthfulness in it, they are prevented by that from affirming that he is a messenger of Allah. If they do not affirm that he is a messenger of Allah, then their argumentation from what he said is like their arguing from statements of the rest of those who are not prophets or even of those who are liars or whose truthfulness is doubtful.

Obviously a person who is known to have spoken lies about Allah in what he claims to have received from Him or whose veracity is doubtful is not known to be the Messenger of Allah or that he is truthful in all of what he says and [claims] to have received from Allah. If that is not known about him, it is not known that Allah revealed a thing to him.

On the other hand, if his falsity is known, it is known that Allah did not reveal a thing to him, nor did He send him. In this way the falsity of Musaylima al-Kadhdhab, Al-Aswad al-Ansi and Tulayha al-Asadi is known, just as is known the falsity of Mani and similar lying false prophets.

If his truthfulness is doubted in even one word - if it is possible that a single word be incorrect either intentionally or inadvertently - then it is not possible at the same time to confirm him in the rest of what reached him from Allah. Conformation in what someone discloses from Allah is only [possible] if he is a faithful messenger who lies neither intentionally nor inadvertently. Everyone whom Allah sent must be truthful in every thing which he receives from Allah and lie neither intentionally nor accidentally.

This is a matter on which all people - Muslims, Jews, Christians and others - agree. They agree that the messenger must be truthful and that he lie neither intentionally nor accidentally. Without that [infallibility] the goal of prophethood is not attained (7:104-5; 10:15; 16:101-102; 69:44-47). This is elaborated elsewhere.

The point here is that their arguing from even one word of what Muhammad brought is inadmissible in any respect. If he was a truthful messenger in everything which he disclosed from Allah (and everyone knows that what he brought is opposed to the religion of the Christians), it is necessary that the religion of the Christians be false. If they hold that one word of what he brought is false, it is necessary that he [cannot be] for them a truthful prophet receiving information from Allah.

Whether they say that he is a just ruler, a scholar, an upright man, or whether they make him a great saint among the very greatest saints, however much they extol him or praise him when they see his dazzling virtues, his obvious favours and his spotless Law, when they reject or doubt him in one word which he brought, they have rejected his claiming to be a messenger of Allah and [his claim] to have received this Qur’an from Allah. Someone who was false in his claiming to be the messenger of Allah is not one of the prophets or messengers. The statement of anyone who is not one of them is no proof at all, but his situation is the same as other people like himself.

If the truth of what he says is known by detailed argument, his statement is accepted because his truthfulness is known from a source other than himself, not because he said it. If the truth of the statement is not known [from external reasons], it is not acceptable. Thus it is clear that someone who does not profess about a person who has stated that he is the messenger of Allah and infallibility preserved from establishing intentional or inadvertent error cannot properly use any statement of that individual as argument.

This principle disproves the view of the insightful among the People of the Book, and against the ignorant among them it is even more confounding. Many or most intelligent People of the Book extol Muhammad for his calling the people to [affirm] the Oneness of Allah, for his prohibition against the worship of idols, for his confirming the Torah, the Gospel, and those sent as messenger before him, for his manifesting the wonder of the Qur’an which he brought, for the good qualities of the Law which he brought, for the superior characteristics of the community which believed in him, for the signs, proofs, miracles, and favours which were manifested at his and their hands.

Nevertheless, in spite of this they hold that “he was sent to others than us,” or else that he was [merely] a just ruler with a just government, and that he attained kinds of knowledge like those of the People of the Book and others, and that through his knowledge and his rituals he laid down and systemized for them a Law just as their own leaders had imposed on them the canons and laws which they possessed. Whenever they say this, they do not thereby become believers in him, and simply from their saying that it is not permissible for them to use a thing of what he said as an argument.

It is known by overwhelming transmission that which all groups of people from all religious traditions admit as true, that is, that he said that he was a messenger of Allah to all people, and that Allah sent down upon him the Qur’an. If he was truthful in that, anyone who rejects him in a single word has rejected the messenger of Allah, and whoever rejects the messenger of Allah is an unbeliever. But if he was not truthful in that, then he was not Allah’s messenger, but rather a liar. It is not possible to use as an argument anything in the statement of someone who lies concerning Allah by saying “Allah sent me with this [message]” when Allah did not send him.

If they say that their intent is to point out that his teaching is internally contradictory, some of it contradicting the rest, they should be told that this would require that he not be a true prophet, and thus it would be improper for them to use any statement of his as an argument to the extent they do.

If we show that the elements of his teachings are mutually confirmatory and similarly that his teaching confirms that of the prophets before him and that the teaching of all the prophets agrees with sound reason, then [it should be granted that] nothing of known truth is contradictory to revealed religion or to reason. If this is accepted, we then say to someone who holds that he was a messenger sent to the Jahiliyya Arabs but not to the People of the Book that it is necessarily obvious to everyone who is acquainted with his affairs - which are known by a successive transmission which is more strongly consecutive than what is transmitted from Moses, Jesus, and others, through the Qur’an which he transmitted from him and his sunna which has been successively handed down from him, and the sunna of the rightly guided khalifas.

That he stated that he was sent to the People of the Book, Jews and Christians, just as he said that he was sent as a messenger to those without a Book. He stated even that he was sent to all the children of Adam, to Arabs and to Byzantine, Persian, Turkish, Indian, Berber, Ethiopian non-Arabs, and to all other nations. He even stated that he was sent to both the two races - the human race and that of the jinn.

All these are clear issues successively handed down from him, upon whose transmission from him his Companions are agreed. This is despite their great number and their dispersal into various regions and situations - those who accompanied him were in the tens of thousands.

Their actual number cannot be counted and is known only to Allah alone.

The followers (al-tabi’un), whose number was many times that of the Companions, handed that down from them. After that it was transmitted century after century until our time with its great number of Muslims and their dispersal into the eastern and western regions of the earth. This occurred as he had foretold beforehand in a sound hadith:

“I knit my brows towards earth and I saw its eastern and western regions; the possession of my community will include that which I see when I squint.”

The point is that Muhammad himself called the People of the Book - Jews and Christians - to put faith in him and in what he brought, just as he called the Arabs and other nations who had no book. It was he who disclosed from Allah that whoever of the People of the Book and others did not believe in him was an unbeliever who would land in hell and receive an evil fate. It was he who commanded jihad against them and he himself and his representatives who summoned them [to Islam].

Therefore their saying in this book, “He did not come to us but to the Arabs of the Jahiliyya” cannot be sustained - whether by that they meant that Allah sent him to the Arabs and not to them, or whether by it they meant that he claimed that he was sent to the Arabs and not to them. All religious groups have known that Muhammad summoned Jews and Christians to put faith in him, and declared that Allah sent him to them. He commanded jihad against whomever of them did not believe in him. In spite of all this, if it is said, “He was not sent to us but to the Arabs,” this is an evident lie no matter whether the person believes or receives him [Muhammad]. The point here is that he himself summoned all the people of the earth to place faith in him, and called the People of the Book, just as he called those without a book.

The Jews were his neighbors in Hijaz, in Madina, and its environs, and at Khaybar. The Muhajirun and the Ansar all believed in him without sword or fighting; when he manifested to them proofs of his prophethood and indications of his truthfulness, they believed in him, although insults for the sake of Allah befell those who believed in him.

This is well known from the biography of the Prophet. Many Jews and Christians - some in Mecca and some in Madina and many from elsewhere than Mecca and Madina - believed in him. When he came to Madina, he made a pact with those Jews who did not believe in him. Then when they broke the pact, and he exiled some of them and killed others for making war upon Allah and His messenger. He fought against them time after time. When he fought the Banu Nadir, Allah revealed the Surat al-Hashr about them. He fought the Qurayza the year of the clans and Allah mentioned them in the Surat al-Ahzab.

Before that he fought the Banu Qaynuqa. After this he had the people of the Bay’at al-Ridwan - who pledged allegiance to him under the tree - raid Khaybar. They were 1,400 people. Allah conquered Khaybar for them, where the Jews had been residing as farmers. Allah revealed theSurat al-Fath in which he mentioned this incident. When this was situation of the Jews with him, how can it be said that he was sent only to the idolatrous Arabs?

Muslim has extracted a hadith report from Anas that the Messenger of Allah wrote to Khusraw, Caesar, Negus and to every important leader, summoning them to Allah. (This was not the Negus for whom he [Muhammad] mourned to his companions on the day he died. He went out with them to the prayer room and lined up and did Salah for him. Rather, it was another Negus who reigned after him).

Muslim extracted from Abu Haritha a report in which the Messenger of Allah said:

“I was given preference over the prophets in six things: I was given comprehensiveness in utterance, I was delivered from fear, I was permitted booty, for me the earth was made a pure mosque, I was sent to mankind in its entirety and with me the prophets were concluded [sealed].”

The Prophet said, “The prophet is sent to his people specifically and I was sent to the people in general.” Allah said: “Say (O Muhammad): ‘I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth.’“ (7:158)

And:

“We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as a giver of glad tidings and a warner to all mankind but most of men know not.” (34:28)

In the Qur’an, in very many places there is mention of his summoning the People of the Book to faith in him. In it Allah even states the disbelief (kufr) of those of the Jews and Christians who disbelieved, and in it He commanded that they [the Muslims] should fight them (4:171-73: 5:17; 5:72-77; 9:29-32).

These indications and others many times as many are among that which make it clear that he himself reported that he was a Messenger of Allah to the Christians and other People of the Book. He summoned them [to Islam] and waged jihad against them.

This is not an innovation that his community invented after him, as Christians did after Christ. Muslims do not permit a single person after Muhammad to change a thing of his Law - to permit what he forbade, to forbid what he permitted, to necessitate what he eliminated, to eliminate what he necessitated. Rather, what is permissible (al-halal) among them is what Allah and His messenger permitted, and what is forbidden (al-haram) is what Allah and His messenger forbade.

Religion is what Allah and His messenger legislated, as opposed to the Christians, who introduced after Christ innovations which were not legislated by Christ nor were mentioned by any passage from the gospels of the earlier books of the prophets. They claim that what their great leaders legislated for them by way of religion was passed on to them by Christ. This is an area over which the three communities - Muslims, Jews and Christians - have disputed, just as they have disputed about Christ and other things.

Jews do not permit Allah to abrogate anything of His legislation.

Christians permit their leaders to abrogate Allah’s legislation by their opinions. Muslims, however, believe that to Allah belongs creation and command. There is no legislation but that which Allah legislated by the tongues of His messengers. To Him [belongs the right] to abrogate whatever He wills, as He abrogated through Christ what He had legislated to the prophets before him. Among the Christians, however, their great men imposed their beliefs and legal prescriptions upon them after [the time of] Christ, as the 380 men who lived in the time of Constantine imposed the creed upon which they had agreed.

They cursed the Arians and others who opposed them. In this creed there are matters that Allah has not revealed in any book; rather it opposes the books which Allah revealed and it opposes sound reason as well.

They have prescribed for them laws and rules that were not found in the books of the prophets nor indicated by them. Some of it is found in the books of the prophets, but their religious leaders added things of their own which were not found in the books of the prophets. They changed much of what the prophets had legislated. The laws and regulations of the Christians, which are handed down from the prophets, partly from the apostles, while many come from the innovation of their great men in spite of their opposition to the legislation of the prophets.

Their religion is the same type as that of the Jews. They [the Jews] had clothed what was true with falsehood, and Christ was sent with the [same] religion of Allah as the prophets before him. It is the service of Allah alone allowing nothing to participate in that worship; it is prohibition from worship of everything except Him. He [Christ] permitted to them some of what Allah had forbidden in the Torah, and he abrogated some of the law of the Torah.

The Romans, Greeks and others were pagans who were worshipping celestial temples and terrestrial idols. Christ sent his messengers to summon them to the religion of Allah. He sent some of them during his lifetime on earth and others after his assumption into heaven. He called them to the religion of Allah and there were some who entered into Allah’s religion. They held to that [religion] for a while and then Satan tempted some of them to change the religion of Christ. They innovated a religion combining the religion of Allah and His messengers - i.e., the religion of Christ - and the religion of pagans.

The pagans used to worship bodily images that cast shadows, for this was the religion of the Romans and Greeks. It was the religion of the philosophers among the people of Macedon and Ephesus, such as Aristotle and the peripatetic philosophers like him and others. Aristotle lived 300 years before Christ and was the minister of the Greek Macedonian, Alexander, the son of Phillip, whose exploits were recorded in the Roman history of the Jews and Christians. He was a pagan who with his people worshiped idols.

He was not named Dhu al-Qarnayn, nor was he the Dhu al-Qarnayn mentioned in the Qur’an. This Macedonian did not reach the land of the Turks or the sons of the dam. He only reached the land of the Persians. Whoever supposes that Aristotle was the minister of Dhul al-Qurnayn mentioned in the Qur’an has erred, and his mistake shows that he is not knowledgeable about the religions of these people and their times.

When the religion of Christ appeared 300 years after Aristotle in the land of the Romans and the Greeks, people followed tawhid up to the appearance of innovations among them. Then they fashioned images drawn on the wall and made these images a substitute for those other images. Others used to worship the sun, moon and stars, and so these began to prostrate themselves before them towards the direction of the sunrise from which sun, moon and stars appeared. They made their prostration towards it [the east] a substitute for their prostration before them [the heavenly bodies].

For this reason came the Seal of the Messengers, with whom Allah concluded messengership. Through him He made manifest the fullness of tawhid, which He had not manifested before him. He commanded that each person take care not to do salah during the rising of the sun or its setting because pagans prostrate themselves before it at that time. If those professing the Oneness of Allah pray at that hour, that would be a type of imitation of them and it could be taken as a pretext for making prostration before it [the sun].

One of the greatest causes of idol worship has been the fashioning of images and the glorification of tombs. In Muslim’s collection of sound hadiths and elsewhere he said from Abu al-Hayaj: “Ali Ibn Abu Talib said to me: ‘Didn’t I send you with what the Messenger of Allah sent me?’ He commanded me that I omit no honoured tomb but to level it, no statue but to efface it.’“

It is in the Collection that the Messenger said during his fatal sickness:

“May Allah curse the Jews and Christians who have taken the tombs of the prophets as mosques.”

Thus he warned against doing what they did. It is in the Collections that five nights before his death he said:

“Those who were before you used to take tombs as mosques. Do not do that. Do not take tombs as mosques, for I have forbidden you that.”

When they mentioned to him the church in the land of Ethiopia and related to him the beautiful things and pictures in it, he said:

“Those people, when some upright man among them dies, they build a mosque on his tomb and they fashion those pictures. Those people are the worst of creation before Allah on the Resurrection Day.”

He forbade a man to face a grave in prayer so that he would not resemble the pagans who prostrated themselves before graves. It is in the Collections that he said, “Do not sit at graves and do not pray towards them.”

Hadith reports similar to that could be mentioned in which there is a stripping of tawhid to Allah, the Lord of the Universe. This is what Allah has revealed in His books; it is with this He has sent His Messengers.

What relationship is there in this to someone who fashions pictures of created things in churches, who extols them and seeks intercession from him whose picture he has fashioned? Hasn’t this been the basis for idol worship among mankind from the time of Noah until now? Prayer towards the sun, moon, and stars and prostration in their direction is a pretext for prostrating before them. Not one of the prophets ever commanded the use of pictures or seeking intercession from their patrons or making prostration towards the sun, moon and stars.

Although it was mentioned about one of the prophets that he fashioned an image for the sake of general welfare, this is one of the matters on which the laws may vary; by contrast, prostration before them and seeking intercession from those represented was never legislated by a single prophet. No one of the prophets ever commanded anyone to pray to someone other than Allah, neither at his grave nor his absence, nor to seek intercession in his absence after his death. By contrast, seeking intercession from the Prophet during his lifetime and on the Resurrection Day, and mediating one’s prayers through him and one’s faith in him, is something commanded by the prophets, as Allah has said (10:18; 16:36; 21:25; 39:1-4; 43:45).

Among the pagans of all peoples there has not been anyone who said, “For created things there are two separate creators, mutually resembling each other in attributes.” No known group of people has ever held this.

Dualists among the Magians and others hold that the universe has issued forth from two principles - light and darkness. According to them light is the praiseworthy Allah of goodness and darkness is the accursed Allah of evil. Some of them hold that darkness is Satan, and this is to make the evil in the world to issue from darkness. Some of them hold that darkness is pre-eternal and everlasting. As well as its being accursed it is not, according to them, similar to light. Some of them hold, rather, that it has come into being in time, that light had a wicked thought and that darkness came into being from that wicked thought.

The people of tawhid say to them: “In spite of your claim that you hate to ascribe to the Lord the creation of evil that is in the universe, you have made Him a creator of the principle of evil.” These people, despite their affirming two [ultimate principles] and their being called Dualists by people, do not hold that evil is similar to good.

Similarly, the Materialists (al-Dahriyya) - the materialist philosophers and others - some of them deny a Maker for the world, like the view manifested by Pharaoh - may Allah curse him! Others among them, like Aristotle and his followers, hold for a Cause of the movement of the celestial spheres which [movement] is attendant upon it. Still others among them, like Ibn Sina and Al-Suhrawardi - the one killed in Aleppo - and the would be-philosophers of the [three] religions like them, hold for the necessity of the essence prerequisite for the heavenly spheres.

The pagan Arabs and those similar to them used to confess a Maker who created the heavens and the earth. The belief of the pagan Arabs was better than the belief of these materialist philosophers, since they believed that the heavens were created by Allah and came into being after they had not been. This is the belief of the masses of the people of the earth among the adherents to the three religions - Muslims, Jews, and Christians - as well as Magians and pagans. But these materialists among the philosophers and others claim that the heavens were pre-eternal, that they had never ceased to be.

The pagan Arabs used to hold that Allah was able to act according to His will and to answer the prayer of one who prayed to Him, but according to these materialist philosophers Allah does not do a thing by His will, nor does He answer the prayer of the one who prays.

Rather, He does not know particulars, nor does He distinguish this supplicant from that. He does not know Abraham from Moses from Muhammad from others of His greatest messengers. There are even those among them like Aristotle and his followers who deny His knowledge absolutely, while others like Ibn Sina and those like him state He only knows universals.

It is obvious that everything existent in external reality is a specific particular. If, therefore, He does not know anything but universals, He does not know a thing of specific existent beings - neither celestial spheres, nor sovereigns, nor anything else of existing beings in their real natures. Among them prayer is the manipulation on the part of a powerful Soul upon the matter of the universe, as say ibn Sina and those like him. They claim that the Inscribed Tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfuz) is the celestial Soul, and that all things coming into being in time on earth occur only from the movement of the spheres, as has been elaborated in the refutation of them elsewhere.

The point here is that the pagans do not establish alongside Allah another Allah equal to Him in deeds and attributes. They did not even hold that the stars, sun, and moon created the earth, or that idols created a single thing of the earth.

Whoever supposes that the people of Abraham al-Khalil used to believe that the stars or the sun or the moon was the Lord of the universe or that al-Khalil when he said, “This is my Lord,” meant by that that the Lord of the Universe is clearly mistaken. The people of Abraham rather, used to admit a Maker, but used to commit shirk in worshipping him like other idolaters.

Allah disclosed about Abraham (26: 69-101) that he was an enemy to all that they were worshipping except the Lord of the Universe. He disclosed about them that on the Resurrection Day they will say, “By Allah, we were truly in manifest error when we made you equal to theLord of the Universe” (26:79-98). They were not acting worthily towards the Maker, but they strayed from Him and made partners to Him in worship, love and prayer, as Allah has said elsewhere (43:26-27).

He [Abraham] said, “I have turned my face to Him who created the heavens and the earth as a hanif a Muslim, and I am not one of those who commit shirk.” He did not say, “One of those who raise Allah to irrelevance (mu’attilin).” His people were committing shirk, and were not making Allah distantly transcendent like the accursed Pharaoh.

However, they were not acting worthily towards the Maker, but they strayed from Him and made partners to Him in worship, love and prayer, as Allah said (2:165; 6:1; 17:22; 25:68; 26:213). In what He related about the people of Noah, He said: “And they have said: ‘You shall not leave your “gods”, nor shall you leave Wadd, nor Suwa’, nor Yaghuth, nor Ya’uq, nor Nasr (names of the idols); “And indeed they have led many astray. And (O Allah): ‘Grant no increase to the Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers, and disbelievers, etc.) save error.’“ (71:23-24)

Ibn ‘Abbas and other scholars have said that these “gods” were upright individuals among the people of Noah who when they died, people devoted themselves to their tombs, and then fashioned statues of them and worshipped them. Thus it is among the Christians aboutChrist in the book, The Secret of Peter - who is called Simeon (Sam’an), Cephas (al-Sufa), and Peter (Butrus). The four names represent one person among them. From him there is a book about Christ in which are the secrets of [divine] sciences. According to them all of this comes from Christ. That which Christians do forms the basis for idol worship. Thus said their great scholar who they call “the Golden Mouth” [John Chrysostom] - and he is one of their greatest scholars - when he mentioned the birth of great sins from the small. He said, “In this way idol worship invades upon that which preceded it - when people honor individuals and extol one another, the living and the dead, beyond the level they should.” Allah said: “Say (O Muhammad): “Call unto those besides Him whom you pretend [to be Allahs like angels, Isa (Jesus), ‘Uzair (Ezra), etc.]. They have neither the power to remove the adversity from you nor even to shift it from you to another person.” Those whom they call upon [like ‘Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), ‘Uzair (Ezra), angel, etc.] desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah), as to which of them should be the nearest and they [‘Isa (Jesus), ‘Uzair (Ezra), angels, etc.] hope for His Mercy and fear His Torment. Verily, the Torment of your Lord is something to be afraid of!” (17:56-57)

A group of scholars has said that the people were praying to angels and prophets like Elijah, Christ and the others. Allah has made it clear that these are His servants just as you are His servants, they hope in His mercy just as you hope in His mercy, they fear His punishment just as you fear His punishment, they draw near to Him just as you draw near to Him (3:79-80).

Allah has announced that whoever takes the angels and prophets as lords is an unbeliever even though he believes they are created. No one ever held that all the angels and prophets shared with Allah in the creation of the earth, but Allah said: “And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners [to Him].” (12:106)

Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid and others have said, “Ask them who created the heavens and the earth and they will say ‘Allah’ But they worship other than Him.” This is similar to Allah’s statement (31:25). Elsewhere Allah has disclosed about the idolaters that they hold that the creator of the world is One despite their taking “gods” beside Him whom they worship and their taking intercessors before Him or their drawing near to Him through them.

In this way their exaltation of the cross, their permitting pork, their honoring monasticism, their abandonment of circumcision, their omission of purification from ritual uncleanness (al-hadath) and impurity (al-khubth), their not necessitating the complete washing (alghusl) after sexual intercourse, nor the simple ablution - they do not oblige one to avoid a single ritually contaminating thing in prayer, neither excrement, urination nor any other contaminating thing - all these laws of theirs they have invented and innovated after Christ.

Their priest and their people obeyed these [laws] and cursed whoever opposed them so that anyone among them who held firmly to the pure religion of Christ came to be defeated and persecuted before Allah sent Muhammad. Most of the laws and the religion that they hold are not found to be stipulated by Christ.

Among Muslims, however, everything upon which they have attained evident consensus is known both generally and specifically to have been handed down from their Prophet, and it is known that no one after him introduced it either by his own creative application (ijtihad) or in any other way. What they declare firmly by consensus of the community of Muhammad is found to be taken from their prophet.

That on which their consensus is supposed but is not firmly stated contains some things upon which that supposition may be in error, and there may be dispute among them about it. Furthermore, there may be a text of the Messenger to support this saying and it may be in accordance with this saying. On some things of this kind the supposition of consensus is correct, and it may include something whose proof that it is a true tradition from the prophet is hidden or knowledge of it is [only] among some people. That is because Allah has perfected religion in Muhammad as the seal of the prophets. He made it manifest and communicated it as the clear pronouncement.

His community thus has no need for anyone after him to change a thing of his religion. Only that which he brought is needed for knowledge of his religion. His community does not agree on an error; moreover, there will not cease to be in his community a group grounded on the truth until the Hour arrives.

Allah sent him with guidance and the religion of truth to make it conquer over all religions. He made it conquer with proof and clear argument, and He has made it conquer by power and spear. Until the arrival of the Hour, there will never cease to be in his community a group manifesting [the truth].

The point here is that whatever the community agrees upon in evident consensus it knows in general and in specifics that it is handed down from their prophet. We do not bear witness to infallibility except for the sum of the community. Among the many sects of the community, however, there are innovations opposed to the Messenger, some of which are of the type of innovation of the Jews and Christians. There is rebelliousness and disobedience in them, but the Messenger of Allah is innocent of that, as Allah has said (6:159; 26:216).

The Messenger said, “Whoever prefers something other than my sunna is not of me.” This is similar to the consensus [of Muslims] that Muhammad was sent to all people - People of the Book and others. If they have received this from their prophet, and it is something handed down among them by successive transmission, they know it by necessity.

It is similar to their consensus on facing the Ka’ba the Sacred House, in their salah. This consensus of theirs for [the direction of prayer] is based upon successive transmission from their prophet, and is mentioned in their book. Similarly, the consensus upon the necessity for the five prayers, the fasting during the month of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to the Ancient House [the Ka’ba] which Abraham the Friend of the Compassionate One built and called his people to pilgrimage, the pilgrimage of the prophets and even the pilgrimage of Moses Ibn ‘Imran and Yunus Ibn Matta and others, their consensus on the necessity of ablution from ritual impurity and the prohibition of disgusting things, the obligation of purity of prayer - all this is among what they have received from their prophet, and it is handed down from him by successive transmission and is mentioned in the Qur’an.

Among Christians, however, the prayers that they say are not handed down from Christ, nor is the fast that they make handed down from him. Rather, they first made the fast forty days, then they increased it by ten days and moved it to spring, but this has not been handed down among them from Christ. Similarly, nothing in their pilgrimage to his sepulchre and Bethlehem and the church of Saydnaya was handed down from Christ. Similarly, even the generality of their feasts like the feasts of the Qalandas, Christmas, the Epiphany - and it is the most sacred - the feast of Thursday, the Feast of the Cross which they began at time of the appearance of the cross when Helena the Harranian innkeeper, mother of Constantine, made it known two hundred years after Christ, the feast of Thursday, Friday and Saturday at the end of their fast, other feasts which they derive from the affairs of Christ, and their feasts which they have innovated for their great persons - all of these are innovations of theirs which they have invented without the sanction of a revealed book. They have even built churches in the name of someone they extol, as in the Collections from the prophet: “If some upright man among them dies they build a mosque on his grave on which they draw those pictures. On the Day of Resurrection they will be the worst of mankind before Allah.” As Allah has said (7:29; 9:18; 24:36; 72:18).

C. QUR’ANIC TESTIMONY FOR THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE PROPHETHOOD OF

MUHAMMAD

SYNOPSIS

The Christians had distorted the religion of Christ, changed it, split into sects and remained in that state until the coming of Muhammad, whom they denied and thus became Unbelievers.

This is similar to the state of the Jews concerning Christ himself. Muhammad made his call open and invited the People of the Book to Allah and Monotheism.

In his denial of Muhammad, the unfortunate Missionary does not realize that this in itself warrants denial of Christ himself, since the transmission of the Prophethood of Muhammad, his call, his teachings and his warning to those who reject him, the Qur’an and the everlasting message of Allah, is exponentially greater than that of Christ’s transmission. However, the Missionary is but led to stubbornness and unfounded and baseless arguments when unable to responding to this decisive logic.

When it is established that the call of Muhammad was universal and not restricted to the Pagan Arabs alone, the Bankrupt Missionary claims contradiction in the Qur’an – namely that how can both a universal and an exclusive call co-exist in the Qur’an. An unintelligible claim, the Missionary does not realize that selective preaching of the Prophets (to various peoples) separated over time, does not necessitate the exclusivity of the call (to any one group amongst them). As Christ graduated the extension of his call, so did Muhammad. He called upon thePeople of Book and the Children of Israel in particular. Then he called the Pagan Arabs. And he also declared his message for anyone whom the Qur’an reached. Hence, there is no contradiction, save in the Missionary’s own reasoning. And had we accepted that there is a contradiction, then a contradiction cannot exist in a Book revealed by Allah. Hence, if we accept that there is a contradiction, then the Missionary’s argument of a legitimate Christian religion and scripture by using the texts of the Qur’an is invalid, since the Qur’an cannot be considered to be from Allah. Hence, the Missionary revolves in both Brownian and circular motion, attempting to bite his own tail with specious reasoning.

This approach of the Missionary is due to his attitude towards the Qur’an, which is that of seeking ambiguous passages in order to impose his own devised specific meaning. This, in fact, is the very attitude that the Missionary has towards his own scripture, no more, no less. It is for this reason that the Missionary has left the decisive passages in his scripture related to the

Monotheism of Allah, and embarked upon the ambiguous passages to justify the innovated religion whose genesis occurred centuries after Christ. To further add to the Missionary’s dismay and bankruptcy, it is known that the Jews and Christians were in expectance of a Prophet, whom they thought would assist them against their wars with the Arabs. Hence, significant numbers of them had settled around Yathrib (Medinah) awaiting this Prophet. However, when they noted that the Prophet was not from the lineage of the Jews, but from the Arabs, they fell into arrogant rejection.

And arrogant rejection is the only explanation for the peculiar behavior of the Missionary, who has no sound argument, contradicts himself and his own reasoning and fails to realize, or perhaps pretends not to realize, that his argument necessitates the falsehood of his own religion to the first degree, for whatever objection he raises against Muhammad and the Qur’an then that applies even more so to his own innovated religion, and whatever he seeks as support for his own innovated religion, then that applies even more so in the case of Muhammad and the Qur’an. Which depth has our Missionary reached, and to what has he resorted?

C. QUR’ANIC TESTIMONY FOR THE UNIVERSALITY OF

THE PROPHETHOOD OF MUHAMMED

Our intention here is to show that what Muslims profess is that Muhammad was sent as a messenger to the two races - human and jinn - to the People of the Book and others. They profess further that whoever does not believe in him is an unbeliever deserving of Allah’s punishment and deserving of jihad. This is a matter on which the people of faith in Allah and His messenger agree, because the messenger is the one who brought that and Allah stated it in His Book.

Moreover the messenger made it clear in the Wisdom handed down outside the Book. Allah handed down upon him the Book and the Wisdom. Muslims have not innovated a single thing of that of their own accord, unlike Christians who have innovated much if not most of their religion.

They replaced the religion of Christ and changed it. For this reason the unbelief of the Christians when Muhammad was sent was like the unbelief of the Jews when Christ was sent. Before the coming of Christ the Jews had replaced the law of the Torah and thereby disbelieved. When Christ was sent to them they rejected him and became unbelievers by changing the interpretations of the first book and its legal judgments and by rejecting the second book.

Before Muhammad was sent Christians had already changed the religion of Christ, for they innovated the trinity and divine union [in Christ] and changed the legal prescriptions of the Gospel. These are things not brought by Christ; rather, they are opposed to what he brought. Over these matters they split into numerous sects, with each sect declaring the others unbelievers. When Muhammad was sent they rejected him, and so became unbelievers by changing the interpretations of the first book and its laws and by rejecting the second book. The

Muslim scholars say that their religion is corrupted and abrogated, although at the sending of Muhammad there were a few Christians who were holding fast to the religion of Christ.

However, those who did not change the religion of Christ were all following the truth. This is like someone who at the sending of Christ had been following the law of the Torah would have been holding fast to the truth like the rest of those who followed Moses. When Christ was sent, all those who did not believe in him became unbelievers, and similarly when Muhammad was sent, whoever did not believe in him became an unbeliever.

The point here is to clarify what Muhammad brought by way of the universality of his message, that it was he himself who disclosed that Allah had sent him to the People of the Book and others and that he himself summoned the People of the Book, waged jihad against them, and commanded jihad against them.

After this, whoever of the People of the Book - Jews and Christians - says, “He was not sent to us,” in the sense that he did not say that he was sent to us is an arrogant denier of what is known by necessity, a perpetrator against the message of an evident lie which is known [to be false] generally and in specifics.

For someone to reject this about him would be just as if he were to disavow that he [Muhammed] brought the Qur’an or legislated the five prayers, the fast of Ramadan and the pilgrimage to the Sacred House.

The rejection of Muhammad and what is successively handed down from him is greater than if the followers of Christ’s apostles should deny his sending them to the nations and his bringing the Gospel, or the denial that Moses brought the Torah and rested on the Sabbath.

The transmission from Muhammad is over a short period of time, and those who transmitted [information] from him were many, many times more than those who transmitted the religion of Christ from him, and many, many more times than those who were in contact with the transmission of the religion of Moses. The community of Muhammad has never ceased to be numerous and spread from the eastern parts of the earth to the west, and there has never ceased to be among them one who is victorious in religion and supported by Allah over His enemies.

Conversely, the rule of the sons of Israel came to an end during the period when Jerusalem was destroyed the first time after David, and the number of those who transmitted their religion diminished until it was said that there did not remain any but one who knew the Torah by memory.

Only a small number transmitted the religion of Christ from him, but the Christian’s claim that they were inerrant messengers of Allah like Abraham and Moses. This subject will be discussed, Allah willing, if we get that far, but the point here is to show clearly that if anyone claims that Muhammad used to say that he was not sent to anyone but the pagan Arabs, that person is in the depths of ignorance and error or else at the limits of pride and stubbornness.

This is greater ignorance and stubbornness than one who denies that he used to commit [ritual] purification, ablution from impurities, prohibition of wine and pork, and greater ignorance and stubbornness than someone who denies what has been successively handed down of the affairs of Christ and Moses. Thus may be known the falsity of their statement, “We have known that he was not sent to us but rather to the Arabs of the Jahiliyya.”

If this is known, then the argumentation of these people from [Qur’anic] verses which they suppose to be indications of his exclusive prophetic mission to the Arabs shows that they are not people for whom it is possible to base an argument on the statement of someone according to that person’s intention and purpose. They are among those whom Allah said: “What is wrong with the people that they fail to understand any word?” (4:78)

They are not a people who argue from the Torah, the Gospel and the Psalms according to the intention of the prophets, for the rest of the teaching handed down from the prophets is according to the intent of the prophets. They do not even argue from the teachings of the doctors, the philosophers, the grammarians, the mathematicians or astronomers according to their intentions, for all people agree that the language of the Arabs is one of the most sincere and correct languages of mankind. They are agreed that the Qur’an exhibits the highest degree of clarity, eloquence, and fine composition, and that in the Qur’an are innumerable indications according to the intent of the Messenger in which he states that Allah sent him to the People of the Book and others.

Besides that, there is the information successively transmitted from his lifetime concerning his summoning the People of the Book and commanding them to place faith in him and his waging jihad against them when they disbelieved in him. None of this can be concealed from anyone who has the slightest knowledge of his life. This is a matter with which the world is full, which has been heard by both judge and scoundrel. People - those who believe in him and those who do not - know that he said that he was the messenger of Allah to the People of the Book and others. The evident intention of that is something that can be known with certainty both specifically and generally. When they began supposing that he was saying that he was sent only to the Arabs and that he continued holding that until his death, this is an indication either of the corruption of their viewpoint and their minds or of their stubbornness and pride.

If they have no knowledge of the meaning of those [Qur’anic] verses which they employ as argument for the specifics of his Messengership, it is necessary that they believe one of two matters.

Either the verses have meanings that are in agreement with what he used to say [elsewhere], or else they are among those which have been abrogated. It is known, both generally and in particulars, that Muhammad used to pray towards Jerusalem for about a year and a half after the Hijra. Then he commanded prayer towards the Ka’ba, the Sacred House. Christians agree that in the Laws of the prophets there are abrogating and abrogated [passages], although the verses that they mention are not abrogated.

The point here is that knowledge of the universality of his call to all creation - the People of the Book as well as others - is handed down successively and necessarily certain, as is knowledge of his sending itself, his summoning all creation to believe in him and to obey him, the knowledge of his migration from Mecca to Madina, his bringing the Qur’an, the five prayers, the fast of the month of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to the Ancient House [the Ka’ba], his obligating people to truthfulness and justice, his prohibition of wrongdoing and shameful acts, and other things which Muhammad brought.

Someone may say, “But in the Qur’an there is found that which demands that his Messengership be limited, and there is in it what demands that his Messengership be universal. This is contradictory.”

In answer it must be said that one knows the falsity of this before one has knowledge of his prophethood. It is evident both to someone who believes in him and to one who rejects him that he was one of the greatest people in intelligence, politics, and experience. His intention was to summon all creation to obey him and to follow him. He used to read the Qur’an to all people, and commanded them to communicate it to all nations and to whoever he sought to believe in him, so that he recited the Qur’an before unbelievers and they had to accede to it. If it was like this with a pagan, what must it have been like with a scriptuary!

As Allah said: “And if anyone of the idolaters seeks your protection, then protect him so that he may hear a the word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.” (9:6)

He had made it clear that he was sent to the People of the Book and the rest of creation, and that he was the messenger of Allah to the two races, of mankind and jinn. It was impossible that in addition to this he announced something that would indicate that he was not sent to them. Even the person of lowest intelligence would not do something so contradictory to his desired goal, so how could it be done by him upon whom intelligent people of all the religions agree that he was the most intelligent of people and the finest in diplomacy and law?

Furthermore, even if it were possible that in the Qur’an there were [verses] which indicated that he was sent to the Arabs and also those which indicated that he was sent to the rest of mankind, this would merely be an indication that he was sent to other people than [the Arabs] after he had been sent only to them, and Allah made his summons universal after it had been specific.

There is no contradiction between the two. So how could there be [a contradiction] when there is not a single verse in the Qur’an which indicates the exclusive nature of his messengership to the Arabs? In it there is only the proof of his messengership to them, just as there is proof of his messengership to the Quraysh. There is no contradiction between these two.

In it there is proof of his messengership to the People of the Book when he said, “O People of the Book, believe in that which we have handed down.” (4:47) just as there is proof of his messengership to the sons of Israel when Allah said, “O sons of Israel.” This specifying of the Jews is not inconsistent with [His] making it universal.

In his mission of preaching sometimes to the Jews and sometimes to the Christians, his preaching to one of the two groups and his summoning them is not contradictory to his preaching to the other and summoning them [to Islam]. In his Book there is nothing in his preaching to those of his community who believe and in summoning them in the legal prescriptions of his religion which is contradictory to his preaching to the People of the Book and summoning them. In his Book he commanded them to fight the People of the Book - the Christians - until they should pay the jizya readily when they are overcome. This does not prevent his having commanded them to fight others like Jews and Magians until they readily pay the jizya once they are overcome; rather, this judgment is established concerning the Magians by his Sunna and the agreement of his community.

If it is said that they [the Christians] are not the People of the Book, we say that all of this is among what is known by necessity from his religion before knowledge of his prophethood. So how can this be the case when we are speaking on the supposition of his prophethood, and the prophet does not contradict his own statement? If the knowledge of the universal nature of his call and his message is evident by necessity both before and after knowledge of his prophethood, then this necessary, certain knowledge is not contradicted by anything. This, however, is the concern of those people of innovation - Christians and others - in whose hearts there is doubt; they follow vagueness while they claim precision.

Because of the disputation of Christians with the Prophet by means of obscure [passages] and their straying from the unambiguous, Allah revealed this about them: “He it is who has revealed to you [Muhammed] the Book in which are clear revelations. They are the substance of the Book and others obscure. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue that which is obscure seeking [to cause] dissension by seeking to explain it (ta’wil). None knows its explanation but Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe in it, the whole is from our Lord. But only men of understanding really heed.” (3:7)

By ta’wil is meant the explanation of the Qur’an, the knowledge of its meanings. This is known by those who are of sound instruction. By it is also meant what is the exclusive property of the Lord, who in His knowledge understands to the utmost degree what He promised - the time of the Hour [of Judgment] and similar matters that are not known except by Allah.

The wayward state verses the knowledge of whose interpretations is obscure for them, and then they follow their interpretation of them “seeking to cause dissension by seeking to explain it.” They are not people properly instructed in knowledge who know the interpretation of these [verses], even though the verses which they cite are among the clearest.

This procedure which they follow with the Qur’an is similar to what they follow in the earlier books and the teachings of the prophets in the Torah, Gospel, Psalms and other books. In those books there are so many clear passages on the Oneness (tawhid) of Allah and the servant hood of Christ that they can only be counted with difficulty. In them there are a few phrases that contain ambiguity; they seize upon the few, hidden, complex ambiguities of the earlier books, and omit the many clear, definite, unambiguous passages.

They have followed in the Qur’an the same procedure they followed in the earlier books. Those books, however, confess the prophethood of their authors and of Muhammed. In this they are confounded and contradictory. Thus the falsity of any statements which they make about [the Qur’an] and their lying about it is manifest if they do not put faith in all that He revealed to him.

If they say, “Its teaching is contradictory, and we argue for what agrees with our view, since our intention is to clarify the contradiction,” they are answered from various aspects.

1) In the earlier books those things which are supposedly mutually contradictory are many times what is in the Qur’an, and closer to true contradictions. But it is agreed that there is no real contradiction in those books, only what appears to be so due to ignorance of the true meanings and the intentions of the prophets. It is as it is said:

How many are they who disfigure a sound statement

And damage it by a faulty understanding!

How much more will this be the case with the Qur’an, which is the finest of books!

2) They are seizing upon ambiguities in those books and opposing the unambiguous meaning in them, as they have done with the Qur’an, but more seriously.

3) If what he brought was internally contradictory, then he was not the messenger of Allah, for that which he brought from Allah could not be diverse and contradictory:

“Do they not then consider the Qur’an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradiction.” (4:82)

There must be contradiction in every book that is not from Allah.

Therefore, it is not permitted for them to use anything as argument from any book in which there is contradiction, for such a book is not from Allah. But if there is no contradiction, this proves that there is nothing contradictory in the universal nature of his messengership and that he is a messenger to them. Whatever comes from Allah is not contradictory.

4) We will show that what is stated in it [the Qur’an] of the universal nature of his messengership is not incompatible with his being sent to the Arabs, just as what is mentioned about his warning the clan of his relatives and his commanding the Quraysh is not incompatible with his summoning the rest of the Arabs. The specifying of part of the whole by name, when there is a reason for it which demands that specification, does not indicate that what is outside the thing mentioned is excluded from it. It is this which is called “what is understood to be excluded” (mafhum al-mukhalafa) and “what the address implies” (dalil al-khitab); people are all agreed that specification by name when there is a reason for it demands a non-specifying mention in a judgement which was not understood to be for the individual noun nor even for the description of it. Allah said: “And kill not your children for fear of poverty.” (17:31)

He forbade them to do that because that is what they were actually doing at the time. He had forbidden them in other places to kill anyone wrongly, whether it was a child or not. In that there was nothing contradictory to his specifically mentioning “children.”

5) In this Muhammad would be following the pattern of Christ, for Christ first specified his call and then universalised it. As he said in the Gospel, “I was not commissioned and sent except to the sons of Israel.” In the Gospel he also said, “I was not sent except to this rotten branch.”

Then he made it universal and when he sent his disciples he said to them, “As my Father sent me, so do I send you; so whoever receives you receives me.” And he said, “As I have done for you, so do you for the servants of Allah; travel in the land, and baptize people in the name of the Father, and the son and the Holy Spirit. Let no one of you have two cloaks; carry with you neither silver nor gold, neither staff nor spear.” There are other verses like that in the gospels that they use today which particularize his call and then universalize it, and he is truthful in all that. How can they possibly deny what is in the Gospel about Christ of someone like him?

To clarify the matter one can say that Allah sent Muhammad just as He sent Christ and others - although his [Muhammed’s] messengership was the most perfect and complete, as will be mentioned in its place - and He commanded him to extend his message in accordance with the possibilities to group after group. He commanded him to extend it to his neighbors in place and descent, and then to group after group until his warning reached all people of the earth. As Allah said: “This Qur’an has been revealed to me that I may warn with it you and whomsoever it may reach.” (6:19)

That is, whomsoever the Qur’an reached. Everyone who was reached by the Qur’an had been thereby warned by Muhammed. It is clear that this warning was not limited to those he was addressing in his preaching, rather, he warned them by it, and he warned whomever the Qur’an would reach. Allah commanded him first to warn his own tribe, and that was the Quraysh, when He said, “Warn your tribe of near kindred” (26:214).

He summoned the Quraysh to Allah and commanded them to worship Allah alone, allowing no one to share [in that worship] (106:1-3).

Elsewhere Allah revealed the command to all creation to worship Him (2:21; 51:56; 61:66).

The majority of the sons of Israel - and they were the people of Christ - rejected him [Muhammed] at first. Then Allah commanded him to summon the rest of the Arabs. He himself used to go out with Abu Bakr to the tribes of Arabs, tribe by tribe. The Arabs had never ceased to make the pilgrimage to the House since the time of Abraham. He [Muhammed] came to them in the places where they lived in Mina, ‘Ukaz, Majanna, and Dhu al-Majaz, and never found anyone but that he summoned him to Allah. He said:

“O people, I am the Messenger of Allah to you, commanding you to worship Allah and not to associate anything with Him, to give up whatever of these rivals is worshipped besides Him, to put faith in me, to trust me, and to defend me so that I can disclose that which I bring from Allah. O people, the Quraysh prevented me from announcing the teaching of my Lord. The one who defends me so that I can announce the teaching of my Lord is only he who conducts me to his people, for the Quraysh have prevented me from announcing the teaching of my Lord. O people, say ‘There is no god but Allah.” By this statement you will prosper. By it you will govern the Arabs. By it will the non-Arabs be brought low before you.’“

They were saying, “O Muhammed, do you want to make the “gods” into One Allah? This command of yours is amazing.”

The messenger of Allah did not cease to announce his call and to manifest his message and to summon all mankind to him. They used to persecute him, debate with him, and when they spoke with him they used to reply to him with the most insulting responses. But he was patient with their insults.

When Muhammad returned to Mecca, and it came time for the season of the Hajj, some individuals from Madina made the pilgrimage and Muhammad came to the knowledge of a group of them. He read the Qur’an to them, summoned them to Allah, and disclosed to them that which Allah had sent him. They became convinced and their hearts became assured of his call. They knew what they had been hearing from the People of the Book in respect to their mentioning him by their description of him and that to which they were calling them. They believed in him and put faith in him.

One of the causes of the goodness to which Allah was guiding the Ansar was the information describing him that they used to hear.

When they returned to their people, they began to call them secretly and to inform them of the sayings of the Messenger of Allah and the light, guidance and the Qur’an with which Allah had sent him. They accepted Islam so that the homes in which the people did not accept Islam remained very few indeed. Allah mentioned that in the Qur’an and disclosed that the People of the Book were informing the [pagan] Arabs about him and seeking victory over them through him. The People of the Book were professing, disclosing and predicting his prophethood before he was sent. This is what Allah said in His teaching about the People of the Book (2:87-91).

Allah disclosed that the People of the Book were asking Allah for victory over the Arabs by Muhammad before he was sent - that is, that they would be granted victory through him. They and the Arabs had been fighting and the Arabs were defeating them. They used to say, “The prophet unlearned [in the books] will be sent from the children of Isma’il. We will follow him and we will defeat you severely by him.”

They used to characterize him by his own description and the reports of their doing that are numerous and successively handed down (2:89).

He disclosed that whenever a messenger brought the Jews what they themselves did not desire they would reject some and kill the others.

He disclosed that they incurred “anger upon anger” (2:90), for they did not cease to do those things for which Allah was angry with them. The doubling [“anger upon anger”] may mean to emphasize the anger of Allah against them or possibly what is meant is “two times” - the first anger being their rejection of Christ and the Gospel and the second [their rejection of] Muhammad and the Qur’an.