CHAPTER III

ANTHROPOMORPHIC CONCEPTIONS OF GOD

No one can read the Qur'an with attention without being struck by the bold literalism of its descriptions of heaven and hell; for Muhammad's graphic power of description is never used to more purpose than when he is describing the sensual delights of heaven or the physical tortures of the damned. The descriptions of the enjoyments promised the faithful in paradise, as given in the Qur'an and Traditions, are exceedingly minute, and rivers of wine which inebriate not, together with the Huris with large black eyes, fill up the main outlines of the picture. Hell, on the other hand, is a place where “the damned shall have garments of fire fitted unto them” and where “boiling water shall he poured upon their heads; their bowels shall be dissolved thereby and their skins, and they shall be beaten with maces of iron.” (Qur'an Al-Hajj 22:19-21.) The food of the unhappy inhabitants of this place of torment will be “matter mixed with blood,'' whilst serpents and scorpions will sting and torment their victims. “Muhammad's fancy could not reach beyond the common bodily burning for sage and fool alike which many a martyr has been able to support with a smile; the torment of the mind finds no place in his Gehennom, nor that most exquisite of punishments inferred in the words,' He that is impure, let him be impure still.'” ¹²

It is not strange that, with such conceptions of heaven and hell floating in his mind, 'Muhammad should have carried the same literalism into his descriptions of the Deity Himself. Thus the Qur'an contains many passages which speak of God's face, hands and eyes, and represent Him as sitting upon a throne, which, says the commentator Husain, has 8,000 pillars, and the distance between each pillar is 3,000,000 miles!” These passages have caused no little difficulty to the commentators whose favorite method has been to accept them without comment. The famous remark of Malik ibn Anas with regard to God's sitting upon the throne may be taken as a classic example. He says:—“God's sitting upon the throne is known; how it is done is unknown; it must be believed; and questions about it are an innovation.” It is worth noting here that the whole Muslim doctrine of tanzil or descent of a literal book, which was written upon a literal table in heaven, seems to demand a literal throne as its depository. Once let a literal throne be posited, and it becomes, manifestly, only a step to the idea of a corporeal Deity. Islam seems to have taken that step, and, as we shall show below, seems to conceive of God as having a material form and shape. Yet Muslim theologians have been greatly puzzled about the matter, as may be seen from the remark of the eminent jurisconsult at-Tirmidhi, who, having been asked about the saying of the prophet that God descended to the lowest of the seven heavens, replied. “The descent is intelligible; the manner how is unknown; the belief therein is obligatory; and the asking about it a blamable innovation.” ¹³

The Mut'azilas and other heterodox sects repudiated all such literalism, it is true, and interpreted all such anthropomorphic terms in a spiritual sense, but they were severely reprobated by the orthodox doctors, and not a few of them paid the penalty of their rashness with their lives. During their own exercise of power at Baghdad they in turn persecuted the orthodox. Of their severity a good illustration is furnished by Jalalu'd-din as-Syuti who tells us that the Khalifa al-Wathiq summoned the Traditionist Ahmad bin Nasru'l-Khufa'i to Baghdad, and questioned him regarding the creation of the Qur'an, which he denied, and the vision of God at the day of judgment. Ahmad replied, Thus goes the tradition:—

«سَتَرَوْنَ رَبَّكُمْ يومَ الْقِيامَة كَمَا تَرَوْنَ هَذَا الْقَمَرَ».

“Ye shall see your Lord on the day of judgment as ye see the moon.” Al-Wathiq said, Thou liest; to which Ahmed replied, Nay, it is thou that liest. The Khalifa added, What! will He be seen as a circumscribed and corporeal form which space can contain and the eye observe? Then the Mut'azila leader arose and slew the offending Ahmad with his own hand. ¹⁴ Yet the orthodox party finally triumphed. and every good Muslim is, consequently, bound to believe that God will be seen literally on the day of judgment. This belief is based upon the distinct words of both the Qur'an and the Ahadith. Thus, in the former we read:—

«وُجُوهٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ نَّاضِرَةٌ. إِلَى رَبِّهَا نَاظِرَةٌ».

“Faces on that day shall be bright, gazing on their Lord.” (Qur’an Al-Qiyamah 75:22-23.) The Traditions record many sayings of Muhammad concerning the vision of God which are of a grossly literal nature, and leave no room for doubt as to what his ideas were on the subject. Thus in the Mishkatu'l-Musabih, Kitibu'l-Fatan, Babu'l-Royatu'llah we read:—

«قَالَ إِذَا دَخَلَ أَهْلُ الْجَنَّةِ الْجَنَّةَ يَقُولُ اللَّهُ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى تُرِيدُونَ شَيْئًا أَزِيدُكُمْ فَيَقُولُونَ أَلَمْ تُبَيِّضْ وُجُوهَنَا أَلَمْ تُدْخِلْنَا الْجَنَّةَ وَتُنَجِّنَا مِنْ النَّارِ قَالَ فَيَرفع الْحِجَابَ فَينظُرونَ إلى وجه الله تعالى فَمَا أُعْطُوا شَيْئًا أَحَبَّ إِلَيْهِمْ مِنْ النَّظَرِ إِلَى رَبِّهِمْ».

“(The Prophet) said, when the people of Paradise enter Paradise, God most high will say, Do ye wish me to give you anything more? Then they will say, Hast Thou not whitened our faces, hast Thou not caused us to enter Paradise and saved us from hell fire? Then He will raise the veil, and they will look upon God's face, nor shall they be given anything more dear to them than to behold their Lord.” One has only to read the Muhammadan descriptions of the Mi'raj or night journey to heaven in order to learn to what lengths Moslem authors have gone in their endeavours to exalt the Prophet. Nor can these extravagances be put down to the fancy of the chroniclers alone, for they are based upon the authentic traditions of the Prophet. Thus we read, for example, “My Lord came to meet me and stretched forth His hand to greet me, and looked into my face, and laid His hand upon my shoulders, so that I felt the coolness of His finger-tips.” On another occasion Muhammad related how his Lord came to him when he was asleep and:—

«وَضَعَ كَفَّهُ بَيْنَ كَتِفَيَّ حَتَّى وَجَدْتُ بَرْدَ أَنَامِلِهِ بَيْنَ ثَدْيَيَّ».

“He placed the palms of His hands between my shoulders until I felt the cold of His fingers between my breast.” (Mishkatu'l Masabih, Kitabu's-Salat, Babu’l–Masajed wa Mawadha's-Salat.)¹⁵

That this is the orthodox teaching of Islam is clear from the following paragraph from the celebrated author of the Jowhara (pp. 107-112). Where he says:—“It is possible to see God in this world as well as in the next. In this world it has been granted to Muhammad only. In the future world, however, all believers will see him; some say with the eyes only, others with the whole face, others with every part of their whole body.” ¹⁶

There is a famous passage in the Qur'an dealing with the rewards of the faithful, in which the commentators, on the authority of authentic traditions of the Prophet, see a reference to this “vision of God.” It is found in Qur’an Yunus 10:26, and runs thus:—

«لِّلَّذِينَ أَحْسَنُواْ الْحُسْنَى وَزِيَادَةٌ».

“To those who do what is good, shall be goodness and increase.” The term “goodness” here signifies Paradise and the forgiveness of sins, say the commentators; but the “increase” is nothing less than the beatific vision! Thus the author of the Khalasatu't-Tafasir, commenting on this passage, (p. 334), says:—

حسنیٰ سے مراد جنت اور مغفرت ۔۔۔ اور زیادتی دیدار الہٰی"۔

“Goodness signifies paradise and the forgiveness of sins, .... increase means the vision of God.” 'Abbas, commenting on the same passage, says:—

«الْحُسْنَى: الجنة. وَزِيَادَةٌ: يعني النظر إلى وجه الله».

“Goodness (which means) Paradise; and increase, that is, looking upon the face of God.”

It may possibly be retorted that all the passages mentioned above may be matched by similar passages from the Bible which likewise speaks of God's face, hands, and so on. This is, in a sense, true, but the grossly literal interpretation of such passages in the Bible is amply safe-guarded by clear and precise statements regarding the being of God which leave no alternative but to interpret all such passages in a purely spiritual and allegorical sense. Thus, for example, we have the express statements of Holy Scripture that “God is a spirit” (John 4:24) and “No man hath seen God at any time” (John 1:18) whilst in another place (Colossians 1:15) He is called the “Invisible God.” Even in the theophanies of the Old Testament the needful corrective is provided in the express statement that it was the “Angel” of the Lord who walked and spoke with men. How different is this from the wild exaggerations and mad speculations of the Moslem commentators based upon the express words of Muhammad, who seems to have pictured both God and the devil as possessed of a material form. Concerning the latter a well-known saying of the prophet has been preserved to the effect that:—

«وَوَقْتُ صَلاةِ الصُّبْحِ مِنْ طُلُوعِ الْفَجْرِ مَا لَمْ تَطْلُعْ الشَّمْسُ فَإِذَا طَلَعَتْ الشَّمْسُ فَأَمْسِكْ عَنْ الصَّلاةِ فَإِنَّهَا تَطْلُعُ بَيْنَ قَرْنَيْ شَيْطَانٍ»

“The time of the morning prayer is from the opening of the dawn until the rising of the sun; but when the sun rises abstain from prayer, for verily it rises between the two horns of Satan”!! (Mishkatu'l-Masabih, Kitahu's-salat, chapter II, part I.)

Another authentic saying of Muhammad which contains grossly anthropomorphic conceptions of God, and at the same time teaches the boldest doctrine of fate, is preserved in the Mishkat, and runs as follows:—

«َقَالَ: إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَلَقَ آدَمَ ثُمَّ مَسَحَ ظَهْرَهُ بِيَمِينِهِ فَاسْتَخْرَجَ مِنْهُ ذُرِّيَّةً فقَالَ: خَلَقْتُ هَؤُلَاءِ لِلْجَنَّةِ وَبِعَمَلِ أَهْلِ الْجَنَّةِ يَعْمَلُونَ. ثُمَّ مَسَحَ ظَهْرَهُ بيده فَاسْتَخْرَجَ ذُرِّيَّةً فقَالَ: خَلَقْتُ هَؤُلَاءِ لِلنَّارِ وَبِعَمَلِ أَهْلِ النَّارِ يَعْمَلُونَ».

“He (Muhammad) said, Verily God created Adam; afterwards He stroked his back with his right hand, and brought out from him descendants and said, These I have created for Paradise, and they will do the works of the people of Paradise. Afterwards He stroked his back with His hand and brought out descendants and said, These I have created for the fire (of hell), and they will do the works of the people of the fire.” (Kitabu'l-Iman, Bahu’l-Qadar.)

From the above quotations, and they could be multiplied, it is difficult to see how Islam can escape the charge of gross anthropomorphism. It seems, indeed, a natural corollary to the exceedingly minute and literal descriptions of heaven and hell which are found in both Qur'an and Hadith. There can be no doubt that these descriptions, which all orthodox Muslims interpret literally, help to fix the idea of a localized God; and the exceedingly graphic account of Muhammad's celebrated night journey to heaven, where he is in turn introduced to Adam, Moses, Jesus and other Prophets, and at last is ushered into the presence of the Deity Himself to plead for a reduction in the prayers commanded his people, contributes not a little to the idea of a God far removed from His creatures and seated upon a literal throne in the highest heaven.

The practical fruits of this conception of the Supreme are clearly seen in the Muhammadan idea of worship. The “Lord of the Throne” has ordered prayers five times a day; it is, then, the believer's duty to obey, and, however irksome the task or weary the round, perfect obedience alone can secure a blessing. It matters not that the prayers are not understood; the Prophet has affirmed that they are “the Key of Paradise,” and he who is wise will enter in. The idea of communion with God is thus necessarily absent, and nowhere, we make bold to say, in either Qur'an or Traditions is there a sentence to compare with the words of the Apostle John, “Our fellowship is with the Father.” ¹⁷ “God is love, and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him.”¹⁸ The God of the Bible is “not far from each one of us,” ¹⁹ and He “dwelleth not in temples made with hands” ²⁰ either in heaven or on earth “for in Him we live and move and have our being.” ²¹ When our Moslem brethren learn the great lesson taught by Jesus that, “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth,” ²² then, and not till then, will true spiritual worship take the place of mechanical routine, and heart fellowship with a God near at hand supersede the chilling conception of a Deity seated upon a distant throne in heaven. Then, too, will Moslems learn to conceive of the Sonship of Christ as a spiritual doctrine, and will find in the Trinity a solution to many of the dark enigmas which surround the Being of God.

CHAPTER V

GOD IN HIS RELATION TO SIN AND SALVATION

ONE would think, after a study of God's relation to Man as unfolded in the Muhammadan doctrine of fate, that Islam could have no doctrine of sin or plan of salvation; for if all human actions have been decreed and necessitated ages before the creation, then it would seem to logically follow that all distinctions between virtue and vice are at an end, and that the terms reward and punishment cease to have any meaning. Yet, far from this being the case, it is one of the paradoxes of Islam that it has a detailed doctrine of sin, and an elaborate scheme of rewards and punishments. What Carlyle called the “wearisome, confused jumble” and, may we add, the hopeless inconsistency of the Qur'an is nowhere more manifest than in its teaching concerning sin and salvation. On the one hand, as we have seen, Muhammad taught a bold doctrine of fate which robbed man of all freewill and left him a piece of passive clay in the hands of the Potter, and yet, on the other hand, he found himself unable to suppress the longings of the human heart for reconciliation with God, or to quench its belief in the reality of Man's responsibility and freedom. The gross inconsistency of the whole doctrine of fate has been forcibly expressed by the immortal 'Umar Khayyum in his Rubaiyat, where he says,

“Oh Thou, who didst with pitfall and with gin
Beset the road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with predestined evil round
Enmesh, and then impute my fall to sin.”

In studying the Muhammadan doctrine of God in His relation to sin, one is struck with the almost complete divorce between religion and morals which it reveals. It is not so much righteousness which God requires as ceremonial purity. Inner sanctification is little urged, but the performance of a mechanical routine of allotted works is all important; thus sin is not so much the violation of an eternal moral law of righteousness as the infraction of some arbitrary command. This is seen in the character of the Moslem trader, who often scrupulous to a fault in the observance of the daily prayers, will yet often continue meanwhile to lie and cheat without any sense of the inconsistency of his conduct. Generally speaking, the European who lies and cheats makes no pretence of piety at all; and his conduct at least has the merit of consistency.

One has only to take up a collection of the traditions of the Prophet, or a law-book of Islam, such as the Hidayah or the Fatawa Alamgiri, in order to see to what an extent the purely ceremonial has usurped the place of the spiritual, and how few are the calls to inner sanctification compared with the number of injunctions to the proper fulfilment of certain mechanical observances. All this has an important bearing upon the Moslem idea of God, and leads the worshipper further and further away from real spiritual worship. No better illustration of what we have written above could be obtained than that afforded by the liturgical prayer service of Islam. We have no hesitation in saying that, in that service, it is a scrupulous attention to every detail of a minute and often ludicrous ritual which is the first great requisite. Let the worshipper be ever so sincere, his motives ever so transparent, yet the efficacy of his prayer—which to the great majority of Moslems must be made in an unknown tongue—depends upon the correct performance of certain lustrations and genuflections, the slightest infraction of which will mar the efficacy of the whole prayer. Upon this point the teaching of the Prophet is explicit that,

«إنَّ اللهَ لَا يقبَل صَلَاة بِغَيْرِ طُهُورٍ».

“Verily God accepts no prayer without ablution,” and,

«مَنْ تَرَكَ مَوْضِعَ شَعَرَةٍ مِنْ جَنَابَةٍ لَمْ يَغْسِلْهَا فُعِلَ بِهَا كَذَا وَكَذَا مِنَ النَّارِ».

“He who leaves the place of the hairs impure and does not wash them it will be done for him in like manner with the fire (of hell).” It is striking that the necessity for moral purity is scarcely ever alluded to, whilst, on the other hand, all Moslem books of the description alluded to above contain page after page of minute instructions for the right performance of the prescribed ablutions. Prayer, in short, becomes a mere mechanical act as distinguished from a mental one; thus in a dozen places of the Mishkat —to mention but one well-known collection of Traditions—it is clearly laid down that water will wash away sin. We can find space for only one illustration here; the reader may see others for himself in the chapter on Ghusl (bathing). In the Kitabu't-Taharat, part I, we read:

«إِذَا تَوَضَّأَ الْعَبْدُ الْمُسْلِمُ أَوْ الْمُؤْمِنُ فَغَسَلَ وَجْهَهُ خَرَجَ مِنْ وَجْهِهِ كُلُّ خَطِيئَةٍ نَظَرَ إِلَيْهَا بِعَيْنَيْهِ مَعَ الْمَاءِ أَوْ مَعَ آخِرِ قَطْرِ الْمَاءِ فَإِذَا غَسَلَ يَدَيْهِ خَرَجَ مِنْ يَدَيْهِ كُلُّ خَطِيئَةٍ كَانَ بَطَشَتْهَا يَدَاهُ مَعَ الْمَاءِ أَوْ مَعَ آخِرِ قَطْرِ الْمَاءِ فَإِذَا غَسَلَ رِجْلَيْهِ خَرَجَتْ كُلُّ خَطِيئَةٍ مَشَتْهَا رِجْلَاهُ مَعَ الْمَاءِ أَوْ مَعَ آخِرِ قَطْرِ الْمَاءِ حَتَّى يَخْرُجَ نَقِيًّا مِنْ الذُّنُوبِ».

“When a Moslem servant or a believer performs his ablutions and washes his face, all the sins which he had looked upon with his two eyes come out from his face with the water or with the last drop of water; and when he washes his two hands, all the sins which his two hands have committed come out from his hands with the water or with the last drop of water; and when he washes his two feet all the sins towards which his two feet have walked come out from his feet with the water or with the last drop of water, until he comes forth cleansed from (his) sins.”³¹

The formal and legal character of Islam is nowhere more clearly seen than in its treatment of the subject of sin. This failure to recognize the true character of sin which is such a prominent feature of Moslem theology may be directly traceable to its perverted idea of God. In Islam God is depicted, not so much as a righteous Judge upholding the majesty of the law, as a fickle despot whose good-will can be gained by the punctilious observance of certain mechanical laws. Even the simple repetition of the famous ninety-nine names is sufficient, as we have already seen, to secure salvation. Another tradition, preserved by Tirmidhi and Nasai, relates that the Prophet said:—

«مَنْ قَرَأَ كُلَّ يَوْمٍ مِائَتَيْ مَرَّةٍ: «قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ» مُحِيَ عَنْهُ ذُنُوبُ خَمْسِينَ سَنَةً».

Whoever recites (the words) 'say, He is one God ' two hundred times each day, the sins of fifty years will be blotted out from him.” (Kitab Fazailu'l-Qur'an.) ³² The pernicious doctrine that the performance of certain ceremonial works will blot out sin is repeatedly taught, and a pilgrimage to Mecca is held up as a certain passport to heaven.

A saying of the Prophet preserved by both Muslim and Bukhari, and recorded in the Mishkat in the chapter on the names of God, well illustrates the strange moral confusion which existed in the mind of Muhammad on the subject of sin and its pardon. The tradition runs as follows:—

«قَالَ رسولُ اللهِ صَلعَ إِنَّ عَبْداً أذنب ذَنْبًا فَقَالَ رَبِّ أَذْنَبْتُ فَاغْفِرْه فَقَالَ رَبُّهُ أَعَلِمَ عَبْدِي أَنَّ لَهُ رَبًّا يَغْفِرُ الذَّنْوبَ وَيَأْخُذُ بِهِ غَفَرْتُ لِعَبْدِي ثُمَّ مَكَثَ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ ثُمَّ أَذْنَبَ ذَنْبًا فَقَالَ رَبِّ أَذْنَبْتُ ذَنْباً فَاغْفِرْهُ فَقَالَ أَعَلِمَ عَبْدِي أَنَّ لَهُ رَبًّا يَغْفِرُ الذَّنْبَ وَيَأْخُذُ بِهِ غَفَرْتُ لِعَبْدِي ثُمَّ مَكَثَ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ ثُمَّ أَذْنَبَ ذَنْبًا قَالَ رَبِّ أَذْنَبْتُ ذنباً آخَرَ فَاغْفِرْهُ لِي فَقَالَ أَعَلِمَ عَبْدِي أَنَّ لَهُ رَبًّا يَغْفِرُ الذَّنْبَ وَيَأْخُذُ بِهِ غَفَرْتُ لِعَبْدِي فلْيَفْعَل مَا شَاءَ».

“The Prophet said, Verily a certain servant (of God) committed, a grievous sin and said, O, My Lord, I have sinned forgive it. His Lord said, Doth my servant know that he hath a Lord who forgives the sins and also punishes; I have forgiven my servant. Afterwards he delayed as God wished, and then again he sinned a grievous sin and said, O, My Lord. I have sinned grievously; forgive it. He said, Doth my servant know that he hath a Lord who forgives the sins and also punishes; I have forgiven my servant;. Then he delayed as God wished and again sinned grievously and said, O, Lord I have sinned grievously again, forgive it for me. Then He said, Doth my servant know that he hath a Lord who forgives the sins and punishes them; I have forgiven my servant; therefore let him do what he likes!” ³³ Such teaching constitutes a direct incentive to sin, and we do not wonder that, under the circumstances, Muslims have not felt the need of an atonement or realized the heinousness of sin. Sin which is easily forgiven is lightly committed; but let a man realize, with the Christian, that forgiveness cost the death of Jesus upon the cross, and he will learn to hate and avoid it.

The fact is, one searches in vain in the authoritative writings of Islam for any reasonable or consistent theory of salvation. To the cry of the human heart which realizes its own sinfulness and cries out, “What must I do to be saved?” Islam makes no satisfactory reply. In that reply, indeed, one can see the utter incompleteness and inadequacy of the Moslem idea of God. Without a true and worthy view of the character of God, it is not strange that Muhammad should have failed to conceive of a scheme of salvation worthy of Deity. His answers to the question “What must I do to be saved?” are as numerous as they are mutually inconsistent. Thus it would be an easy matter, did space permit, to quote texts showing that salvation will be administered on a strict basis of justice, when man's every act will be weighed in the scales and judgment given accordingly. Other texts teach just as unequivocally that every man's salvation, Muhammad's included, depends absolutely upon the mercy of God. The Traditions, again, in contradiction to the Qur'an, teach that the intercession of Muhammad is the great hope for sinners; and, finally, there is the great doctrine overshadowing and nullifying all others that the final destiny of every man for heaven or for hell was decreed and fixed long before the creation of the world. A gloomy creed indeed.

One of the names given to God in Islam is “al-'Adl” “the Just.” In another place He is called “ar-Rahim” “the Merciful”; but Islam fails to explain how the Supreme can be, at the same time, both just and merciful. Justice demands the punishment of sin, and no scheme of salvation which does not provide for this can be either reasonable or true. On the other hand, room must be left for the exercise of the mercy of God, so that both these attributes of the Almighty find full expression. Islam in failing to satisfy these two conditions has failed to satisfy the hopes of its votaries, and, in spite of a way “made easy” for believers, history shows us that the best and noblest of the Prophet's followers have approached the grave in fear and uncertainty. Thus of the Khalifa 'Ali it is related that a friend visited him and said, “How does the Prince of Believers to-day?” To which the Khalifa replied, “Like a poor sinner living the lot which has been assigned to him, and waiting its dreadful termination.” Concerning 'Umar Ibn'Abdu'llah, one of the Companions, we are told that he was wont to fast the entire day, and spend whole nights in prayer. On such occasions he would be heard by his neighbours shrieking out in the stillness of the night hours, “Oh my God! The fire of hell robs me of sleep! Oh pardon me my sins. The lot of Man in this world is care and sorrow, and in the next judgment and the fire. Oh! Where shall the soul find rest and happiness?” ³⁴

Islam brings no assurance of salvation because it offers no substitution for the sinner, and provides no remedy for sin; yet the human soul cries out for a propitiation, and longs for some assurance of forgiveness. The Biblical doctrine that “without shedding of blood there is no remission” ³⁵ finds a ready response in the human heart, and in the Shi'ah doctrine of the expiatory death of Hasan and Husain we see the expression of a deep-rooted conviction of the human soul.

When Islam is able to conceive of God as Love, then, and not till then, will the Moslem come to perceive the sweet reasonableness of the atonement of Christ. Islam admits the doctrine of original sin, and believes that through Adam's sin all men became transgressors; why, then, should Moslems think it unreasonable that by the obedience of one, Jesus Christ, all men should be made righteous? This the great central truth of the revelation made by God in the Injil, nay rather it is the Injil, and in it millions have found peace. Let the Moslem reader, then, turn to the Holy Bible for God's revelation of Himself, and he will find that He is not an inscrutable Despot punishing man for the sins which He Himself compelled him to commit, but a loving Father who desires not the death of one of His creatures, and in words of sweet persuasiveness invites all to turn to Him and live. This God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and it is only by the way of the cross of Jesus that sinful man can approach the holy God. On that cross the claims of justice were met, and the way prepared for the exercise of divine mercy, so that now whosoever will may come and take of the water of life freely. He who would know God must know Jesus Christ, the Word of God, for “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him.” (John 1:18.) “He that hath seen me” said Jesus “hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). “I am the way, and the truth and the life: no one cometh unto the Father but by me.” (John 14:6.)

PRINTED AT THE S.P.C.K. PRESS, VERPRY, MADRAS — 1903

CHAPTER II

MUHAMMAD'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE BIBLE

ONE of the first things which arrests the attention of. the careful reader of the Qur'an is the great reverence with which Muhammad invariably spoke of the Bible. The divine origin of the Torah, Zabur and Injil is again and again acknowledged, and those books are ever spoken of in terms of highest praise. Thus they are variously termed ‘The Word of God’, ‘The Book of God’, ‘A Guide and a Mercy’, ‘A Light and Direction to Men’, ‘The Testimony of God’, ‘Guidance and Light’, and so on. Their inspiration, the Prophet declared, was exactly of the same kind as the inspiration of the Qur'an itself. Thus we read, ‘Verily we have revealed to thee as we revealed to Noah and the Prophets after him, and as we revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon.’ ⁴

In another passage Muhammad warns men against making any invidious distinctions between the Qur'an and those Scriptures which preceded it. Thus we read, ‘Say ye, We believe in God, and that which hath been sent down to us, and that which hath been sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which hath been given to Moses and to Jesus, and that which was given to the Prophets from their Lord. No difference do we make between any of them; and to God are we resigned.’ ⁵

Not only did Muhammad speak of the Bible in terms of deepest reverence, but he everywhere treated it as trustworthy, and as ‘light and guidance’ for the people of his own day, no less than for those who had preceded him. Thus he is recorded in the Qur'an as appealing to the Torah to settle certain controversies regarding food which had arisen between him and the Jews. One such instance is recorded in these words, ‘Bring ye then the Torah and read it, if ye be men of truth.’ ⁶

On another occasion a discussion arose as to the punishment to be meted out to certain Jews who had been found guilty of adultery. Then, the Tradition proceeds,

فَقَالَ لَهُمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «مَا تَجِدُونَ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ فِي شَأْنِ الرَّجْمِ»؟

‘The Apostle of God said to them, “What do you find the Torah in the matter of stoning (adulterers)”?’ The Torah was then brought, and Muhammad gave judgement according to the law laid down in that book.’

These incidents throw a flood of light upon the Bible of Muhammad’s day. They show that he, at any rate, knew of no corruption for they reveal him as willing to abide by the arbitrament of the Torah in his discussions with the Jews. Further, they show that he knew nothing of any doctrine of abrogation; for he recognized the Law of Moses as still binding on his Jewish contemporaries.

The Jewish and Christian Scriptures are again and again referred to in the. Qur'an as ‘Light and guidance’. That being so, one is not surprised to find the Prophet advising his followers to seek the advice and teaching of the ‘People of the Book’ when in religious doubt. Such advice is significant, and shows, as no other language could, the estimation in which the Prophet of Islam held the Bible. The passage referred to is as follows: ‘None have we sent before thee but men inspired, ask of those who have the Books of Monition, if ye know it not.’ ⁷

The Jalalain explain the term 'those who have the Books of Monition’ as ‘the learned men of the Torah and Injil’: whilst 'Abbas also says it means ‘the People of the Torah and Injil’. ⁸ Further comment is needless.

Muhammad's estimate of the Bible may also be gathered from the fact that he clearly taught the observance of the Old and New Testaments by the Jews and Christians of his day. Several passages indicating this are to be found in the Qur'an. Thus, for example, in Surah al-Ma'ida 5:68 we read, ‘O People of the Book, ye have no ground to stand on, until ye observe the Torah and the Injil and that which hath been sent down to you from your Lord.’

Another passage which clearly demonstrates that the Bible was neither corrupted nor abrogated is the following: ‘And in the footsteps of the Prophets caused we Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow, confirming the Torah which was before him. And we gave him the Injil with its guidance and light, confirmatory of its preceding Torah: a guidance and warning to those who fear God; and that the people of the Injil may judge according to what God bath sent down therein.’⁹ Here the Injil is referred to as a God-given guide, not, be it noted, to be superseded by the Qur'an, but a touchstone by which the Christian contemporaries of Muhammad were to judge between right and wrong, truth and error. Moreover, those who would not so use the Injil were denounced as sinners in the sight of God, for the passage continues thus, ‘And whoso will not judge by what God hath sent down—such are the perverse.’ ¹⁰

Yet another passage inculcating the observance of the precepts of the Bible is the following, ‘And if they (the People of the Book) observe the Torah and the Injil and what hath been sent down to them from their Lord, they shall surely have their fill of good things from above them, and from beneath their feet.’ ¹¹

The three passages quoted above leave no room for doubt as to the Prophet's view of the Bible. We find him, not at the beginning of his career, but several years after his flight to Madina, inculcating, in language void of all ambiguity, the observance of the Old and New Testaments by the Jews and Christians of his time. They were to observe them, and to judge by them; they were grounded on nothing, that is, their whole religious profession was vain and futile, unless they obeyed the divine laws as given by Moses and Jesus; whilst for those who did obey, the divine approval and blessing are promised. Could language demonstrate more clearly the fact that in the judgement of Muhammad the Bible extant in his time was neither corrupted nor abrogated.

Muhammad, it is true, in his discussions with the Jews, often accused them of false exegesis of their Scriptures, of quoting passages out of their context, or of hiding the truth. This the latter still do when arguing with Christians concerning the claims of Jesus the Messiah. A misunderstanding of such passages of the Qur'an has led some modern Muslims to imagine that Muhammad accused the Jews of wilful corruption of the Torah. A careful study of such passages, however, will make it abundantly clear that such was not the case. Had the Jews acted as alleged by these Muslims the Prophet could never have used the language we have already quoted. We propose, therefore, in the next chapter, to examine in detail some of the principal passages of the Qur'an which are supposed by some to prove the corruption of the Bible. It will be found in every case that, not corruption of the actual text, but corruption of the meaning, in other words false exegesis, is all that was intended by the Prophet.

CHAPTER IV

MODERN CHARGES OF CORRUPTION BASED

ON THE BIBLE

THOSE Muslims who profess to believe that the Bible has been corrupted by Jews and Christians not only go to the Qur'an for their so-called proofs, but they further busy themselves in trying to cull from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures illustrations to prove their charges.  lt is our purpose in this chapter to deal with some of these, and to show that such a method of attack involves the use of a two-edged weapon, which is as likely to injure the user as the one attacked.

It is obviously impossible, in the limits of one small volume, to deal seratim with all the passages of the Bible which have been quoted by various Muslim writers in order to prove their pet theme; we propose, rather, to examine a few specimen passages illustrative of the various methods which have been employed in attacking the integrity of the Bible; and it will not be difficult to show that, if exactly the same principles be applied to the Qur'an, the latter book would likewise have to be abandoned by all honest Muslims.

One of the favourite methods of those who imagine that the Bible has been deliberately corrupted by Jews and Christians is to quote the various readings to be found in the ancient manuscripts of the Bible, or to compare the Authorized and Revised Versions of the English Bible, and then, with a shout of triumph, declare their contention proven. It is necessary here to once again call the reader's attention to Sir Syed Ahmad's definition of the word tahrif as a ‘wilful corruption of the word of God from its true and original purport and intent.’ Now it is obvious that a ‘wilful’ corruption of any word or sentence of Scripture must be done with a purpose. It is impossible to imagine men changing a word here or a word there in the scripture narrative just for the sake of changing; yet very many of the words pointed out by Muslim critics of the Bible as existing in various readings are just words of this class. They may have been copyists’ errors, or they may have been explanatory glosses which inadvertently crept into the text; but whatever they were, there is nothing in them to suggest deliberate falsification. These so-called ‘corruptions’ make no difference whatever to a single doctrine of the Bible, and in most cases no possible object can be conceived for which they would have been made.

If the Bible is to be rejected because of the presence of such various readings, then the Qur'an must be rejected for precisely similar reasons; for the Qur'an itself contains hundreds of similar various readings. The reader should refer to the author's The Qur'an in Islam for a detailed description of the compilation and subsequent recension of the Qur'an; suffice it to state here that, after its compilation by the orders of the Khalifa Abu Bakr, a great number of errors rapidly crept into the reading and recitation of that book, until the Khalifa 'Uthman was forced to the drastic expedient of writing out one copy of the Qur'an and then burning all the rest! The absence of vowel points, however, continued to be a fruitful source of trouble, and soon led again to endless diversity in the reading and interpretation of the Qur'an. Jalalu'd-Din As-Syuti tells us that five copies were made of 'Uthman's recension and sent to the cities of Mecca, Madina, Damascus, Basra, and Kufa, where, some time in the second century of the Hijra, seven noted ‘Readers’ acquired recognition for seven differing ways of reading the Qur'an. Each of these readers, again, is known by two ‘Reporters’.  The names of these Readers are Nafi of Madina, Ibn Kathir of Mecca, Abu 'Amr of Basra, Ibn 'Amr of Damascus, 'Asim of Kufa, Hamza of Kufa, and Al-Kisa'i of Kufa.

Many books containing collections of the  various readings of the Qur'an have been compiled by Muslim scholars. The most famous is the Taidir of Al-Da'na. This scholar not only mentions the various readings of the different Readers referred to above, but also gives the names of the readers through whom each of the seven obtained his information. Al-Razi in his commentary gives the critical reasons that may be urged in favour of or against the different readings. It will be seen, therefore, that the Qur'an; equally with all other ancient books, contains various readings; and all who have studied that book critically with the help of the standard commentaries know perfectly well that the number of such various readings runs into many hundreds. By way of illustration we here propose to give the various readings quoted by Muslim exegetes as occurring in the eight verses of Surah al-Fatihah 1, the opening chapter of the Qur'an, after which, we trust, we shall hear no more from Muslim controversialists of the various readings of the Bible.

From the famous Tafsiru'l-Baidawi we learn that the reading مالك يوم in verse 3 is the reading of ‘Asim and Al-Kisa'i and Ya'qub . . . whilst the other readers have ملك  and the latter is preferable as being the reading of the people of Mecca and Madina. The reader will not fail to note that, in spite of Baidawi's assertion that the reading ملكis to be preferred, yet the current copies of the Qur'an have the other reading مالك. This various reading is also mentioned by the Jalalain.

In the very next sentence of the Qur'an to the one commented on above we have another various reading pointed out by Baidawi who writes:

قُرِئ إياك بفتح الهمزة

'Some read the letter hamza with a fatha instead of a kesra.'

Then, again, the Imam tells us, some read the two nuns in this passage with a kesra instead of a fatha; whilst in verse 6 he points out a startling variation from the received text. The Imam writes thus:

قُرئ صراط من أنعمت عليهم

‘Some read sirat man an'amta alaihim’ in place of the words found in current copies of the Qur'an ‘sirat alladhina an'amta alaihim.’ It would puzzle the great Imam, let alone the Muslim reader of this little book, to tell us which of these readings represents the original words spoken by Muhammad. There is even considerable doubt whether the Prophet spoke either, for one of the greatest of the ‘Companions,’ himself an eminent reader of the Qur'an, lbn Mas'ud, discarded this whole chapter as not being a part of the Qur'an at all!

Jalalu'd-Din has preserved this interesting piece of information, ²⁷ for he tells us that

قال ابن حجر في شرح البخاري قد صحح عن ابن مسعود انكار ذلك فاخرج الحمد

‘Ibn Hajar has said in Sharahu'-Bukhari that Ibn Mas'ud denied that, and cast out Al Hamd (i.e. Surah al-Fatiha, from his Qur'an).’

Baidawi mentions still another reading in the eighth verse of this chapter, for he tells us that in place of the words لا الضالين la addalina, some read غير الضالين ghair addalina; whilst still another reading of the same word mentioned by him is that with hamza, namely, لا الضالين.

It is admitted that none of the various readings referred to above makes any serious difference to the meaning of the passage. But that is not the point here. The point is that the Qur'an is just as open to criticism on the ground of the presence of various readings as is the Bible. Moreover, it would not be difficult to quote very many various readings in later chapters of the Qur'an which do seriously alter the meaning. Some of these are quoted in the book The Qur'an in Islam referred to above. Despite these facts, there are still not wanting educated Muslims who continue to attack the Bible and impugn its trustworthiness because of the various readings to be found in various ancient manuscripts. Could insincerity and inconsistency go further!

If the Bible and the Qur'an be compared with respect to this matter of various readings, it will readily be seen that the advantage lies altogether with the Bible. We have already referred to the drastic expedient of the Khalifa 'Uthman for eliminating the various readings of the Qur'an by retaining one copy and burning all the rest. Muslims are, therefore, necessarily shut up to this one text, though, as we have already shown, that text is open to the gravest suspicion. Under these circumstances it is impossible for Muslim scholars to compare the various ancient manuscripts of the Qur'an, and so determine the correct text. With Christians, however, the case is entirely different; for they have carefully preserved with jealous care all ancient manuscripts of the Bible, and are, therefore, able to compare them, and by a process of elimination, determine with a great degree of accuracy, what was the original text. The reader will be better able to follow the argument by comparing the imaginary readings of eight different and differing manuscripts given below. The differences are purposely exaggerated for the purpose of illustration. A careful comparison of the different texts will show that the first is almost certainly the correct one. Such a process would be impossible in the case of the Qur'an, where Muslims are forever shut up to one arbitrary text, with no means of testing its correctness. With a hundred texts to collate, the result would be still more certain.

1. Jesus went down to Capernaum, and entered a synagogue of the Jews.
2. Jesus went up to Capernaum, and entered a synagogue of the Jews.
3. Jesus went down to Capernaum, and entered a temple of the Jews.
4. Jesus went to Capernaum. and entered a synagogue of the Jews.
5. Jesus, therefore, went down to Capernaum, and entered a synagogue of the Jews.
6. Jesus went down to Capernaum, and entered a synagogue of the Samaritans.
7. Jesus went down to Nazareth, and entered a synagogue of the Jews.
8. Jesus and His disciples went down to Capernaum, and entered a synagogue of the Jews.

Another class of Scripture frequently quoted by some Muslims to prove the corruption of the Bible is that class of passage which has reference to the sins of the Prophets. Thus in a scurrilous book published in the Bengali language and called Raddi Christian a whole chapter is devoted to what the author calls ‘abuse of the Saints of God’. He (and others like him) starts off with the baseless assumption, which has not the slightest foundation in the Qur’an, that all Prophets are sinless; consequently every passage of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in which the sins of the Prophets are mentioned must be necessarily false; and therefore the Bible is corrupted. Such is the logic and such the arrogance of some Muslim controversialists!

The author of the book Raddi Christian mentioned above is not alone in the possession of this unique power of reasoning. A so-called ‘Maulana,’ writing in the Bengali magazine Naba Nur for the month of Jaiystha, 1327 A.H., after fulminating against the Bible, quotes a number of Biblical passages in which the sins of Lot, Jacob, Aaron, David, Solomon and others are mentioned, and then with no little semblance of indignation asks whether such passages can possibly be portions of the real Torah and lnjil; for, he proceeds, ‘According to the Qur'an it is proved that the verses referred to are false and corrupted.’

Unfortunately for these persons and their logic the Qur'an itself contains exactly similar teaching, and the sins of not a few of the Prophets are clearly mentioned therein! This being so, it is difficult to see how, on their reasoning, Muslims can reject the Bible, and yet retain the Qur'an. If the Bible goes because of its alleged unworthy representations of the Holy Prophets, surely the Qur'an must be rejected for exactly similar reasons.

It may be well, before moving on to our next point, to quote a few of the verses of the Qur'an in which the sins of the Prophets and their repentance and prayers for pardon are clearly mentioned; after which, it is hoped, we shall hear less of this ‘proof’ of the corruption of the Bible.

Of Abraham we read in the Qur'an that he said, when speaking of God,

وَالَّذِي أَطْمَعُ أَن يَغْفِرَ لِي خَطِيئَتِي يَوْمَ الدِّينِ 

‘Who, I hope, will forgive me my sins in the day of reckoning.’ ²⁸ Some of the sins referred to, such as falsehood, are clearly mentioned in other places of the Qur'an and in the Traditions.

Of Moses it is written in the Qur'an that he killed an Egyptian,

فَوَكَزَهُ مُوسَى فَقَضَى عَلَيْهِ قَالَ هَذَا مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ إِنَّهُ عَدُوٌّ مُّضِلٌّ مُّبِينٌ قَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي ظَلَمْتُ نَفْسِي فَاغْفِرْ لِي

‘And Moses smote him with his fist and slew him. Said he, “This is a work of Satan; for he is an enemy, a manifest misleader.” He said, “O my Lord, I have sinned to mine own hurt; forgive me”.’ ²⁹

David's sin of adultery is referred to in Qur’an Saad surah 38 and in verse 24 his repentance and prayer for pardon is recorded as follows:

 فَاسْتَغْفَرَ رَبَّهُ وَخَرَّ رَاكِعًا وَأَنَابَ

‘So he asked pardon of his Lord, and fell down and bowed himself and repented.’

In the same chapter Solomon is described as a sinner, and his prayer for pardon is recorded in these words:

فَقَالَ إِنِّي أَحْبَبْتُ حُبَّ الْخَيْرِ عَن ذِكْرِ رَبِّي ... ثُمَّ أَنَابَ قَالَ رَبِّ اغْفِرْ لي

‘And he said, “Truly I have loved the love of earthly goods above the remembrance of my Lord” . . . Afterwards he returned (to us) in penitence. He said, “O my Lord, pardon me”.’³⁰

The illustrations given above are sufficient to prove that the Qur'an, equally with the Bible, depicts the Prophets as weak and erring men, who repeatedly asked pardon for their sins. Yet because the Bible contains such teaching it is derided as ‘corrupted’ and unworthy of acceptance. Surely, in view of what we have written above, it is time such writing ceased. If this is the best Muslim controversialists have to offer, it makes a sorry exhibition, not only of inconsistency, but of utter insincerity; for the men who write thus must know perfectly well that the Qur'an is open to precisely the same charges. The fact is, the ancient Prophets were men of like passions with ourselves, and the Bible has faithfully recorded both their successes and failures, their virtues and their vices.

Another method adopted by some Muslim controversialists in order to disparage the Bible and throw doubt on its integrity is to select various passages of the Bible relating to the same event, and then pretend to discover ‘contradictions’ in the different narratives. The fourfold Gospel narrative of the life of Christ affords a happy hunting ground for such men, who spare no pains to show, with much pretended indignation, that the various verbal disagreements manifest prove the corruption of the Bible. Now when these so-called ‘contradictions’ are carefully examined it will be generally found that the difficulty is no difficulty at all, but is entirely due to the crass ignorance of the objector. Moreover, as we shall show in these pages, exactly the same kind of difficulty may be met with over and over again in the pages of the Qur'an.

As an instance of the kind of thing referred to we might mention an article which appeared in the Muslim Review, a Muhammadan, or rather Qadiani, journal published at Woking, England. The writer of the article in question based his attack on the variations in the Gospel narratives of the inscription which was placed over the cross on which Jesus was crucified. As is well known, there exists a verbal disagreement in the records of the Evangelists. Thus St. Matthew tells us that the accusation was written, ‘This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,’³¹ whilst St. Mark quotes more briefly, ‘The King of the Jews.’³² St. Luke writes, ‘This is the King of the Jews,’³³ whilst in St. John's Gospel the words are given as ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews’.³⁴

Now if we apply Sir Syed Ahmad's definition of tahrif to these passages, we shall at once see how impossible it is to believe that the differences pointed out were deliberately made. In other words, according to the great founder of Aligarh College, the passages in question afford no illustration of tahrif at all. On the other hand, any honest attempt to understand these passages will make it indubitably clear that the writers were simply quoting the substance of what was written, and not the exact words. Moreover, we are told by St. John that the inscription was written in Hebrew and Latin and Greek, and it is not impossible that such verbal variations existed in the original writings. However, the explanation given above is ample for any fair-minded man; and those who would find in such verbal disagreements a reason for distrusting the Bible, would do well to remember that the Qur'an is full of examples of exactly the same kind of verbal disagreement. Therefore, if such men are consistent, they must reject the Qur’an, no less than the Bible.

Another passage often quoted by Muslims to prove the corruption of the Bible is St. Matthew 27:9. It is there written: ‘Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the Prophet, saying, and they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter's field as the Lord appointed me.’

lt is pointed out by the critics that the words here attributed to Jeremy the Prophet are not to be found in the Book called by his name, but in the Book of Zechariah. Even there, there is no verbal agreement with the words quoted by Matthew, and so, argue these clever gentlemen, the Bible is corrupted. Now if the reader will bear in mind what was written above regarding the fourfold quotation of the inscription on the cross, he will be prepared to see that Matthew, here, is only giving the substance of the prophecy, and is making no attempt to quote it literally.

The Book of Jeremiah, it is well known; was placed first in the Jewish collection of the Prophetical books of the Hebrew Bible, and, for that reason, often gave its name to the whole collection; just as in common speech the word Torah, because of its position at the beginning of the Old Testament, is often applied to the whole of that book, though, strictly speaking, the title only belongs to the Books of Moses. For confirmation of this the reader is referred to Sir Syed Ahmad's book,³⁵ in which he writes: ‘Although the term Torah is strictly applied to the Books of Moses, yet, in the use of Muslims the term sometimes signifies the Book of Moses, and sometimes it is used for all the Books of the Old Testament.’

Now he might well quote a passage from any of the Prophets as being ‘written in the Torah,’ yet who would convict him of error? Similarly, when Matthew uses the term Jeremy for the whole collection of the Prophetical Books of the Old Testament, it is futile to contend that he did not know what he was writing about, or that later persons ‘corrupted’ the words originally written by him. The passage before us affords an excellent illustration of the danger of criticising without full knowledge.

We now give two or three illustrations, out of scores which might be quoted, to show that the Qur'an contains exactly the same kind of verbal disagreement taken objection to by some Muslim critics of the Holy Bible.

In the tenth verse of Surah Ta-Ha 20 we are told that when Moses saw the burning bush in the wilderness, he addressed his people in certain words. Again in Qur’an An-Naml (surah 27:7), the same incident is recorded including Moses’ speech to his people; but we find striking ‘discrepancies’ in the two accounts. We give them side by side, so that the reader can see for himself how wide those ‘discrepancies’ are.

Then the narrative continues in both chapters with a record of the words of God addressed to Moses when the latter approached the fire. We give the two passages in parallel columns, so that the reader may clearly appreciate the verbal disagreements which exist between them.

The whole colloquy between God and Moses is too long for quotation in full here, but the opening sentences which we have quoted are sufficient for our purpose. So long as such verbal disagreements exist in the Qur'an, it is both inconsistent and foolish for Muslims to quote the various accounts of the resurrection of Christ as found in the four Gospels, and try to prove from their verbal disagreements that the Gospels have been ‘corrupted’.

It may be of interest to note the reply of Moses as recorded in various places in the Qur'an. We give below two varying accounts. ³⁶

lt will be noticed that in Surah Ta-Ha 20, Moses is represented as begging for Aaron to be sent with him as a helper; whilst in Surah Ash-Shu’ara’ he seeks to have Aaron sent instead of him, as he feared capital punishment for the murder which the Qur'an, in another place, has recorded against him. Here we have, not merely the same story told in different words, but we have an entirely different story, differing materially as to questions of fact. What have the Muslim critics of the Bible got to say to this?

Another illustration of verbal disagreement in the Qur'anic narratives may be found in the words of God said to have been addressed to our first parents in the Garden of Eden. We give below three distinct, and differing, records from three different chapters of the Qur'an dealing with this one speech of God, and leave the reader to draw his own conclusions.