jesus and the indian messiah

8/6/2019 Jesus and the Indian Messiah

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jesus-and-the-indian-messiah 1/62



13. Every wind of Doctrine

Revelation from GodThe Genesis storyThe first man

Angels and demonsThe life hereafter

14. The second coming of Christ

His identity on his returnThe purpose of his comingThe Islamic viewThe biblical viewThe time of his coming

Bibliography

Glossary

1. I am the Christ

During the 1840s in the United States some who called themselves µthe students of theScriptures,¶ started earnestly to preach the return of Christ. There were some among themwho designated 1844 as the year for his arrival. In the press the story made headlines. Excited reports spread through America, Europe and even parts of Asia. People wereseriously warned to prepare for the sudden arrival of Christ.

The time of expectation passed and Christ did not appear. There was some bitterdisappointment among these mathematicians. Some thought that they had miscalculated thetime factor. Others concluded he would arrive in secret to take away the elect. The followingyears, many men and women claimed to be prophets and forerunners of Christ. A few wentso far as to introduce themselves as the herald of the coming Christ.

The challenge

Jesus said that many would come in his name, claiming, µI am the Christ,¶ and deceive many(Matthew 24:4-5). Indeed, the world has seen many false prophets and false Christs whohave led many astray. However strange it may appear, some Muslims have also claimed tobe the returning Christ. One such Muslim was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908). He

addressed the West with these words:

Ye Christians of Europe and America, and ye seekers after truth! Know for certain that theMessiah who was to come has come and it is he who is speaking to you at this moment.

1

He claimed to be the spirit of Jesus and yet denied the sacrificial love of Christ. Claiming tobe the only saviour, he taunted Christians saying: "Had Jesus been crucified, not once but athousand times, even then he could not have saved you."2

Mirza lived several thousand miles away in India. Why did he set himself up to incite the



West? Is it because he had heard rumours of Christ¶s coming, or that the disappointments of certain people had reached him? These circumstances could have fostered the thought, butthe answer is found in his own environment. His challenge can best be understood againstthe background of Christian evangelism in the sub-continent of India. The truth about Jesusreached India in the first century A.D., but due to social and political problems in the area,Christianity did not bear fruit in all parts of the sub-continent. It managed only to establishitself in the south of India for many centuries.

About 200 years ago, following new missionary initiatives, a new wave of conversions toChristianity took place. Not only did many Hindus turn to Christ, but also a minority of Muslims. Some of these converts were formerly zealous Muslim priests and scholars. Theseleaders joined the Christian missionaries in preaching Christ with total dedication.

Seeing this, the Muslim populace - and especially their leaders - became concerned that thisnew Christian movement might reduce Islam to a minority religion. Some made efforts torenew the zeal of Muslims and remove the British from India . Other conservative mullahs -priests - resolved to boycott Western institutions, especially in the field of secular education. This disastrous policy resulted in generally low standards of educational qualifications amongMuslims. Men such as Sir Syed Ahmad Khan realised the danger of this . They came up withthe idea of establishing Muslim schools and colleges and alerted Indian Muslims to themistake of avoiding contact with the Christian West.

Modernising movements gradually emerged. Seeing the missionary presentation of Jesus, anew emphasis was laid on the teaching of Islam. Within these movements some of these

µdivines¶ brought new ideas into the fold of Islam that were treated as schism by others. Among these teachers and self-proclaimed leaders was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, whoincorporated many Christian ideas into his Islamic framework. He gave the Qur¶an, the Hadith(traditions) and the Injil (the Gospel) new interpretations to suit his claim to be the secondChrist, fulfilling the predictions of the second coming mentioned in these books.

The second coming and Islam

Islam and Christianity share the belief that Jesus lived on this earth and was taken intoheaven alive. One day that very same Jesus will return to this earth. However popular Muslim

traditions assert that when he comes back, he will convert the world to Islam, destroy theAntichrist, marry, and have children. Later he will die and be buried in a grave next toMuhammad in Madina.3 To support this doctrine, Muslim commentators refer to only one verse in the Qur¶an: "And(Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgement). Therefore have no doubtabout the (Hour) but follow ye Me; this is a Straight way" (Surah 43:61). Most Muslimcommentators take this verse to be a prophecy of the second advent of Jesus. This event isknown as "Nuzul-i-Isa" - the descent of Jesus.

One of the Muslim traditions states:

Abu Huraira reported God¶s messenger as saying, µBy Him in Whose hand my soul is, the sonof Mary will soon descend among you as a just judge . He will break crosses, kill swine andabolish the jizya (poll tax) and wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will acceptit... 4

Jesus and his return as Judge is one of the major themes of the Bible . Nevertheless, there isno mention of him coming as an ordinary being, nor is there the least suggestion that he willmarry, die, and be buried. The Scriptures indicate that when he comes, his people both livingand the dead will be raised or changed and meet him in the air and the earth will bedestroyed (cf . 1 Thessalonians 4:15 - 17; 1 Corinthians 15:50-54; 2 Peter 3:10).

On many occasions Jesus said that he came down from heaven and that he would comeagain (John 3:13; 8:23; 14:2-3,18-19; 16:28; Matthew 25:31-32; 26:64). This coming is to



be different from the first time he came as a baby. His coming will be as the Mighty Judgeand conquering King (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10).

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad however rejected both the Christian and Muslim doctrines about Jesus¶ second coming in person. Instead, the mantle of Jesus was to fall on the second Messiah asan adult, who would be a Muslim.

N otes on Chapter 1:

1. Ghulam Ahmad, A Review of Christianity, pp.40 - 41.

2. ibid., p.41. 3. Wali ad-Din, Mishkat Al-Masabih, Vol.. II, p.1159. 4. Sahih Muslim, vol.1, p.92.

2. Once upon a time ...

The year was 1512. Babar, the king of Kabul, decided to take advantage of the weakmonarchies of India. After several decisive expeditions, he seized Delhi and Agra and becamethe first emperor of a new dynasty of the Moghul empire. The news reached as far asSamarkand and Bukhara. Many in search of prosperity followed Babar to India. Around 1530,a family settled in the region of Punjab, about 70 miles due east of Lahore. The place wasnamed Islampur, which in the course of time became Qadian. The family experiencedsuccesses and failures over the next two hundred years. At one time commanding a force of 7,000 men under the Moghul emperor and later having just a few servants in an estate thathad shrunk to the village of Qadian by the 19th century was its lot. It was in this village achild was born. His father named him Ghulam Ahmad - the slave of Ahmad (the other nameof the prophet Muhammad). Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a twin, but his sister died a few daysafter their birth. No doubt that morning of 13th February, 1835, his father must have beenvery happy to have another son, for sons are highly prized in Muslim society. Many are theprayers that are offered for the gift of sons; few prayers are said for daughters.

Unfortunately, the Moghul dynasty was by now at its last gasp. The British Empire had seizedalmost complete control of India, but was struggling to gain absolute power over the Sikhs inthe Punjab. When the ruler, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, died in 1839, Sikh power disintegrated. Within a few years the British Raj took complete control . It was a time when loyaltieschanged hands from dawn to nightfall. Somehow Mirza¶s family realised the strength andpower of the British Empire and joined the Raj. As a result, five villages that were part of thefamily estate and confiscated by the Sikhs were restored to them and other privilegesgranted. This led the family to render some excellent service during the mutiny of 1857. While the majority of Muslims had rebelled against the Raj, Mirza¶s father encouraged manyof his men to enlist, including his other son, and they served in the force of GeneralNicholson. In appreciation of this, the General awarded them a certificate stating that in 1857 this family had shown greater loyalty than any other in the district.

In such an environment Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received a conventional religious education and

was well instructed in the Persian and Arabic languages. As a teenager, while most of thevillage boys were herding goats and helping in farming, he led a somewhat privileged life. Itis claimed by the movement that by the time he was 16 he had also studied both the Bibleand the Vedas of the Hindus. When he was 17 he married a cousin called Hurmat Bibi. It wasan arranged marriage and faltered from the start. Two children were born in the first fouryears, but their marriage ended in divorce.



A Christian encounter

One day in 1864 his father asked him to get his pension for him. His cunning cousin foundout about it and followed him. After he had collected the money his cousin persuaded him tospend it in the hope of winning more in a lottery. Not surprisingly, he ended up with nomoney. He was too ashamed to return home. And so he stayed in Sialkot. His father foundout and secured him a job as a clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner .1 It was herethat he entered into religious discussions with missionaries and until 1868 had close contactswith many Christians, both nationals and foreigners.2

Due to the sudden death of his mother in 1868, Mirza went back to his home village of Qadian. Her death came as a shock to him and he did not return to his office in Sialkot . Hecontinued his study of Christianity but could not convince himself to be a Christian. In one of his books, Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, he wrote: "I did not like the Christian religion because in itsevery step it defames God, the glorified and exalted one."3

His father wanted him to take over the family business, but he had more interest in religiousactivities. After his father¶s death in 1876, Ahmad was free to decide for himself . Initially, hewanted to make a comparative study of the various sects of Islam . Later, however, he feltthat this would weaken the strength of Islam. In order to proclaim Islam as the only way for

mankind, he conducted debates with Christians and Hindus. At that time new ideas werebeing put forward in Islamic circles. Several of these were giving Muslim evangelism newdirections and to some extent Mirza Ahmad borrowed from them.

The birth of a denomination

In 1879/80, he embarked on a project to set forth the merits of Islam . He completed twovolumes of his book, µBaraheen Ahmadiyya¶ . The main theme was the glory of Islam and theQur¶an. He followed the popular Muslim idea of Christ being saved from the crucifixion andascending to heaven bodily. Similarly, he proclaimed Jesus to be a prophet of God,Muhammad as the leader of all the prophets and the Qur¶an as the only authoritative book.

Several of Mirza¶s leading Muslim friends praised the book and its author highly. However the

third volume of the book printed in 1882 caused concern, especially his claims to be arecipient of revelation, with radical ideas of reformation. A year later, in 1883, theiropposition grew when he openly proclaimed himself a reformer and the one chosen by God.

Mirza is said to have had a dream that God was searching for someone who would revive thefaith of Islam. He was found to be the only suitable person and was chosen for this cause . The very circle of Muslim divines who had praised him now became disappointed in him. Theytried to deter him from making this claim, but failed.

After living for 26 years as a divorcee, he contemplated taking a second wife. Though hesuffered from diabetes, migraine and often tuberculosis, he became convinced that Godwanted him to marry again. More changes came in rapid succession. In 1888 he announced aseparate denomination within Islam, the AHMADIYYA. According to some Ahmadi writers thename, Ahmadiyya, was appropriated in 1900.4 Shortly afterwards he proclaimed himself to be

the Mahdi and the returned Jesus in spirit.5

His claims caused the British rulers some concern. The traditional Muslim doctrine of theMahdi stated that his hands would be red with the blood of his enemies. Mirza was aware of the potential danger of political sedition and futile rebellion against the British Raj. This,together with his family¶s loyalty to the British, influenced him to seek peace with thegovernment. Thus, he emphasised that his Jihad - holy war - was only that of the pen . Hesaid that God had named him the champion of the pen.6



Orthodox Muslims were very much offended by his claims. Knowing that they would not sparehim, he sought the protection of British rule. He advised his followers to µconsider the BritishGovernment as one of their own and truthfully obey their orders from the bottom of theirhearts¶ .7 He went so far as to write in one of his pamphlets: "Disobedience to the BritishGovernment is disobedience to Islam, God and his messenger."8

M ahdi and the M essiah

To Muslims the Messiah and the Mahdi are two different persons. The concept of the Mahdihas mainly developed among the Shi¶a sect of Islam . Within the largest grouping of Shi¶ites,there is a fanatical belief in twelve Imams (leaders) who have appeared on earth from time totime to help the faithful. The twelfth Imam was Muhammed Al-Mahdi. They believe that hedisappeared from the world in 880 A.H. at the age of six.9 They await his second coming asthe Mahdi. Upon his return he will restore justice and righteousness in the world . VariousShi¶ite denominations share this common hope, but differ somewhat in the details of theirexpectations.10

The Sunni, the major sect of Islam, is also expecting a war-like Mahdi, but not the sameMahdi who disappeared. Another major belief is that at the turn of each Islamic century Godsends someone as a reformer to renew the zeal of the faithful.

Ibn Khaldun, notable thinker in Islam, says that the belief in the coming of a Mahdi is of popular origin, but he knows of no trustworthy authority for it .

11It is easy to see how such

doctrines as the second coming of Jesus and the Mahdi could have been largely influenced byJewish, Christian and heretical messianic hopes.12

Division

Like any sect or movement, the Ahmadiyya faced division among its adherents. After Mirza¶sdeath his first disciple Hakim Noor-ud-din led the movement until 1914. Before Hakim¶sdeath, ominous signs of schism were present which came to the fore during the election of asecond Khalifa - successor. At this point the movement split in two. The dissident group,known as the Lahori Party, formed an association of their own in Lahore, called Anjuman

Isha¶ate Islam. While the main group based in Qadian stressed the prophethood of thefounder, to the dissident group he was a mere reformer.

Both groups proclaimed the renaissance of Islam and began promoting their distinctiveteaching. The dissident group has not made much progress. It is a nominal group with fewbranches. After the partition of India in 1947 the major group founded a new town about 95miles to the west of Lahore, Pakistan, called Rabwah. Until recently the town with its 30,000Ahmadi inhabitants was the international headquarters for the movement. Nowadays much of the work is controlled from the south of England. The movement has active branches in 120countries with twelve million followers. Printing and distributing masses of literature is one of the main priorities. Like the Jehovah¶s Witnesses, the Ahmadiyya has its own translation of the Qur¶an which is available in many European languages including Welsh. The movementgives away thousands of books and booklets free of charge. Their aim is to use every effort togive an attractive picture of Islam (and to discredit Christianity) through their literature and

other evangelistic efforts.

In the 1950s religious fervour increased dramatically in Pakistan. The orthodox religiousleaders were dissatisfied with the political life of their country. Their first aim was to eradicateheresy from within their midst. So they subjected the Ahmadiyya sect to public persecution -an action which was partly motivated by political considerations. However they could not usethe constitution of the country to declare them outcasts from Islam . Twenty years later theysuccessfully assaulted the movement and its adherents. Several Ahmadiyya families werekilled, others injured and their properties gutted by fire. Pressurised by the opposition, theruling party of the country, through the national assembly of Pakistan in 1974 declared theAhmadiyya to be non-Muslims. This law was enforced in 1979 and amended in 1984 by Zia-



ul-Haque¶s regime to make it even more difficult for the movement to propagate andproselytise. Their translations of the Qur¶an were confiscated. Many of their publications werebanned. They were even prevented from using the term Mosque or Masjid for their places of worship. Some local authorities went so far as to remove Qur¶anic verses inscribed on thewalls of Ahmadiyya Mosques. In a Pakistani passport, among other details, the holder¶sreligion is also stated. In that space, an Ahmadi is described as µAhmadi¶ and not as µMuslim¶ .

Because of such µhumiliation and persecution¶, immigration authorities in the West haverelaxed their rules towards them. Though many Ahmadis including the present Khalifa(successor) Mirza Tahir Ahmad have left Pakistan and reside in the West, a large proportionof the Ahmadiyya movement still live in Pakistan. To take advantage of the situation,strangely there are immigration cases where Pakistani Muslims or non-Ahmadis have tried topresent themselves as µpersecuted Ahmadis¶ in order to stay in Europe and America.


1. Sahibzadah Bashir Ahmad, Sira al-Mahdi, I, p.34. 2. Zafrullah Khan, Ahmadiyyat - The renaissance of Islam, p.10.

3. Ghulam Ahmad, Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, p.58. 4. Ahmadiyya movement in Islam, p.105. Fath-i-Islam (Victory of Islam), pp.13-156. Al-Hakam, vol.. v, no.22, [June 17, 1901], p.22. 7. Zaroorat-ul-Imam, p.23. 8. Government Ke tawaju ke liye. 9. Just as Christians designate a year by A.D. or C.E., Muslim years are designated A.H.

(Anno Hijrah), in the year of the migration, when Muhammad and his followersmigrated to Madina in 622 A.D. The Muslim year is based on the simple lunarcalendar, and so it is shorter than the solar year.

10. Allamah M. Husayn, The Origin of Shi¶ite Islam and Its principles, p. 50f . 11. A Guillaume, Islam, p.120. 12. Gibb, H.A.R. Islam, p.88.

3. Manifold Visions, and Claims

Behind each of Mirza Ahmad¶s claims, there lies a revelation, vision or dream . He believedeverything he saw and heard; totally convinced, he built up a list of claims.

The claim to be a reformer

In one dream, he saw the body of a dead person lying outside a door . It was miraculouslybrought to life by Muhammad, who gave Mirza a fruit to eat . Mirza also met other µdivines¶ and saints, but found that he was the only one to whom a fruit was given . From this dream,Mirza concluded that the dead person represented the religion of Islam and that Allah wouldrevive it through his own mission.1 Such dreams led him to declare himself a reformer.

He did not mention this claim in the first two volumes of his book, Baraheen Ahmadiyya. Thisled many to question the extent he had been influenced by the praise lavished on him byMuslim readers of the first volume of his book . Others however saw nothing new in hisclaims, since at that time two other self-styled reformers were active: Bahaullah in Iran andMuhammad Ahmad in Sudan.



The claim to be the Imam

Not content with being a simple reformer for Sunni Muslims, he soon announced he was theImam of the Shi¶a sect: "I have no hesitation in confirming that I am the Imam of the Age ."2 Shi¶a Muslims however believe that all the twelve Imams were descendants of Ali,Muhammad¶s son-in law. It was certainly not possible for Mirza to prove such an ancestry. Tosolve this problem, he said that one of his grandmothers had been a descendant of Muhammad, his only proof being that God had told him this in a dream . "I had confirmationof this by the Holy Prophet who said to me in a dream: µSalman, thou art one of us, of excellent descent.¶"3 However in another vision he saw Ali, Muhammad¶s son-in-law . Fatima,Ali¶s wife treated him as her son and Ali gave him his own Tafsir, a commentary on theQur¶an.4 Possibly considering he needed more proof, he claimed to have had yet anothervision to become Ali.5

Mirza made every effort to unite every sect of Islam under the one umbrella of theAhmadiyyat. "He who refuses to follow me," he said, "is an enemy of God and his prophet. Heshall be cast into hell."6

The claim to be a prophet

To orthodox Muslims, Muhammad is the last prophet. After him there will be no messengerfrom Allah sent to mankind. Support for this doctrine is found in the following verse of theQur¶an:

Muhammad is not the father of any men among you, but he is the messenger of Allah, andthe Seal of the prophets ... (Surah 33:40).

On the one hand Mirza wrote that the Qur¶an did not allow any prophet, old or new, afterMuhammad7, and on the other, he claimed to be a prophet himself! He said he was aMuhaddith thus a kind of Nabi (prophet). In his opinion, a Muhaddith is not a full prophet, butis nevertheless a prophet.8

Many rejected this claim and branded him a heretic. As a result, he read a statement at a

public meeting denying any sort of prophethood for himself . He stated that all theexpressions of prophethood used in his publications were used only for the sake of simplicity.9 Even so, the temptation to claim prophethood was so great that he later claimedthat no prophet had come into this world whose name was not given to him and there hadbeen no prophet whose qualities he himself had not been given . This resulted in a lot of confusion, even among his own followers. In 1901, to settle the matter once and for all, hewrote a brochure, Ek Ghalati Ka Izala - A Misunderstanding Removed, in which he pointedout:

Wherever I have denied being a prophet (Nubuwat) I have denied in the sense that I am noindependent bearer of a Law or Shariah nor am I an independent prophet, prophet in my ownright. ... I am a Rasul (Apostle, messenger) and Nabi (prophet) without a new Shariah.10

To make the whole matter simple, the movement today believes that µthe attainment of

prophethood independently of the Holy Prophet (Muhammad) is not possible¶ .11 In their viewprophets are of three types:

a. Law-bearing. b. Non-law bearing, i.e. fully independent. c. Non-law bearing, but through allegiance to a law-bearing prophet.

Mirza Ahmad is believed by his followers to be in class "c" .12 The dissident group, the Lahore

Ahmadiyya Anjuman, believe that he was just a reformer.



The claim to be Krishna of the Hindus

Whilst Islam has made a great impression on the lives of the people of the Indian sub-continent, the Muslim population as a whole has remained as culturally Indian as the Hindus . Over the years Muslim mysticism in India has provided a way for believers to worship at theirown holy shrines. Similarly, many other rituals of devotion from Hindu culture have foundtheir way into popular Islam. There have even been those who have thought of the Hindus asPeople of the book, a title given only to Jews and Christians in the Qur¶an. Shah Abdal-Aziz of Delhi, a noted theologian and Mufti - Muslim jurist (1746 - 1824) was asked his opinion of Krishna. He replied: "It is better to be silent about these matters. However from the

µBhagavadgita¶ [a Hindu holy book] it appears that Krishna does belong to the awliya -saints.¶ 13

Mirza claimed to have a vision in which a Hindu inquired: "Where is Krishna of the Hindus?"Someone from the crowd pointed to Mirza and those who were present began to bringofferings to him. One of them called out: "O, Krishna, slayer of swine, protector of cows ... thy praise is recorded in Geeta."

14

In his book, µHaqiqat-ul-Wahi¶, Mirza wrote, "I am Krishna whose advent the Aryans arewaiting for in these days. I do not make this claim on my own. God Almighty has conveyed to

me repeatedly that I am the Krishna, King of the Aryans, who was to appear in the latterdays."15

Ahmad did not even spare the Sikhs of the Punjab. He claimed to be their leader too. Hewrote a book on the life of their leader Guru Nanak (1469-1538) entitled Sat Bachon. It wasessential for him to prove first that Guru Nanak, the founder, was a Muslim. Not many Hindusor Sikhs believed Mirza, but today the movement exalts Krishna, Buddha, Confucius andZoroaster, as prophets from Allah.

The claim to be God and the Son of God

Mirza saw himself in visions as both God and the Son of God. God is alleged to have told him:"You are to Me in the position of offspring. You have a relation with me which the world does

not know. . .

16

You are to me like My unity and uniqueness . . .

17

To me you are like my Son..."18 "God addressed me with His words: µListen! O my Son.¶"19 In other places, he claimed tohave been God. "In a vision I saw that I was God and believed myself to be such ... Divinitycoursed through my veins and muscles ... I then created the heaven and the earth ... then Isaid: µWe shall now create man! ¶"20

Muslim divines were incensed by such ideas and opposed him vigorously. His response was:"No one has the right to say: µI am God¶; or, µI am the Son of God." In his opinion divinerevelation sometimes employs such µmetaphorical expressions¶ .21


1. Baraheen Ahmadiyya, vol. III, pp.248-249 (footnote). 2. Zaroorat-ul-Imam, p.24. 3. Ek Ghaliti Ka Izala, p.8(footnote); English trans. p.23. [Salman Farsi was an

immigrant from Persia who was emancipated by Muhammad personally. Thus it is notsurprising that Mirza borrowed his name to identify himself with the land where theShia sect is dominant.]

4. Baraheen Ahmadiyya, vol.4, p.503 (footnote). 5. Ayena Kamalate Islam, pp. 218 - 219,(footnote). 6. Tabligh-i-Risalat, vol. 9, p.27. 7. Izala Auham, p.761



8. Tawzih Maram, p.18; tr. Explanation of objectives, p. 11 9. Tabligh-i-Risalat, Vol. II, page 95. 10. A Misunderstanding Removed, (pp.11-12). 11. Ahmadiyyat, p.37. 12. ibid., p.58. 13. Muhammad Ikram, Rud-i-Kawther, Lahore 1979, p.591. 14. Badr, Vol. II, p.322; Al-Hakam, Vol. 15, p.8.

15. Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, appendix, p.85. 16. Fountain of Christianity, p.63. 17. Baraheen Ahmadiyya, Vol. IV, p.489 (footnote). 18. Haqiqatul Wahi, p.86. 19. Al-Bushra, Vol.1, p.49. 20. Kitab al-Bariyah, pp. 85-87. 21. Dafeul Bala, pp. 6-7 (footnote).

4. The Muslim Christ

Mirza claimed to have seen Jesus and eaten a meal with him . One of Muhammad¶sdescendants was also present at the meal. When a list of the saints was produced, Mirza¶sname was found on it with distinctive praise from God: "He is to me like my unity and myUniqueness ..."

1From this Mirza thought that he was the only one who could be appointed

µJesus among Muslims¶ .

For half of his life Mirza believed in an orthodox Islamic doctrine of the second coming of Jesus. At the beginning of his ministry he confirmed this but when he wrote a book, IzalaAuham, he asserted that Jesus had died and would not return bodily .2 He declared that Godhad told him, µI created you from the same essence as Jesus was.¶ 3 This led him to reasonthat as John the Baptist was Elijah in spiritual form, so he was Jesus in spirit (cf . Matthew11:14; 17:12). He boldly asserted:

Jesus has given the news of my coming in the gospels. Blessed is he who, out of respect forJesus, ponders with honesty and truth over my coming and thus saves himself fromstumbling.4

The second Adam

In the Bible we find Jesus described not only as the Son of God and the Son of Man, but alsoas the last or second Adam (Romans 5 : 12 - 17; 1 Corinthians 15 : 22, 47; Phillippians 2:5). Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not want to be left behind and so he claimed: "In this age God hascreated an Adam which is this humble one. ... God created me as the last Adam and exaltedme above the previous mankind." 5

To answer why and how, he reasoned:

God made Adam on the sixth day, and the sacred Scriptures further bear testimony to thefact that a day is equal to a thousand years with the Lord. The promises of God, therefore,make it necessary that the second Adam must have been born already...6

To substantiate his claim further, Mirza said that as God placed Adam in the gardeneastward, his abode as the second Adam is in an Eastern country.

If by "sacred Scriptures" he meant the Bible then he ignored verses where the Bible states:"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day" (2 Peter 3:8). If it is the Qur¶an he was referring to as the Scriptures, his theory does not fit there either. Aday with God is described as a thousand years (Surah 32:5), whereas in another place such aday is described as fifty thousand years (Surah 70:4).



One can see that Mirza¶s many statements are self-contradictory. For example, Allah toldhim: "I created you from the same essence as Jesus", thus claiming equal status . Elsewhere,however he exalted himself above Jesus. He often stated: "God has informed me that theMuslim Messiah is more exalted than was the Mosaic Messiah."7

E ven greater miracles

On the basis of the Qur¶an narrative, Muslims believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and thathe was both a prophet and the promised Messiah who performed miracles. He healed the sickand raised the dead through the divine power of Allah. But they read in the Qur¶an thatMuhammad did not have such power (Surah 29:50). One may learn from twenty or moreQur¶anic passages that whenever Muhammad was asked by doubters to perform a miracle, heeither stayed silent, or said that he would not do so because he was a human being like anyother, except to be a µplain warner and a prophet¶ . In Mirza¶s opinion, if Muhammad could notperform miracles, neither could Jesus. He obviously felt threatened by the miracles of Jesus. Thus he came to disagree with both Christians and Muslims. He wrote:

A matter which is not possible for the Holy prophet [Muhammad] - the best of prophets ... how can it be so for the Messiah! [Jesus]? It would be so derogatory to the Holy prophet tothink that what is impossible for him to attain, is possible for the Messiah.8

Elsewhere he writes: "Jesus restored people to life through mesmerism or hypnotism ... TheNew Testament, when examined closely, reveals that Jesus Christ practised this art, not withperfect success, however. The people among whom he lived were simple, unsophisticatedpeople and ignorant of this art." He called this method µAmal-at-Tirb¶ and also asserted thatthe µpractitioner need not even be a believer¶ .9 The text of the New Testament clearlycontradicts these assertions.

This kind of criticism is not new. Even when Jesus¶ contemporary opponents saw his miracles,they put forward their own explanation, µBy Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is drivingout demons¶ (Luke 11:15). Jesus simply pointed out that it was by means of God¶s power thathe drove out demons (Luke 11:22). Interestingly the Qur¶an also confirms that Jesus didmiracles "by God¶s leave" (Surah 3:49) and yet Mirza ignored this.

Mirza further stated: "There is no statement by Jesus which could be taken as proof thatmiracles had actually been shown."10 But note what Jesus said to the Jews:

The miracles I do in my Father¶s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you arenot my sheep ... I have shown you many great miracles from the Father . For which of thesedo you stone me? (John 10:25,32. cf . Matthew 11:20-24).

In his zeal, Mirza Ahmad went further and stated: "I do not consider that Jesus Christ in anyway surpasses me. ... I have been given the word of God just as he was given the word of God. As miracles are ascribed to him, so I find myself with certitude the recipient of thosemiracles - nay, even greater miracles than those."

11

What a surprise! Muhammad, who is traditionally described as the master of this world and

the world to come, did not perform miracles and yet Mirza, who regarded himself as theservant of Muhammad, claimed the power to perform them, and "even greater miracles thanChrist". Thus, he made himself greater even than Muhammad, an idea which is blasphemousto Muslims.

Contrived interpretations

Mirza often resorted to devious and contrived arguments to explain away traditions about thecoming of the Christ in person. Some of his explanations are not only irrational but alsoludicrous. For example consider the following:



In the third vol. of Baraheen Ahmadiyya He (God) named me as Mariam. Then, as is evidentfrom Baraheen ... I was reared in the image of Mary for two years . ... Then I was filled withthe soul of Christ and I became pregnant in a metaphorical sense. At last after a period of many months - lasting not more than ten months - I was delivered from Mary into the formof Christ ... Hence in this way I became the son of Mary.12

In other words he became Mary, got pregnant, and then from his own abdomen he came

forth as the Christ, son of Mary. One problem still remained. Muslim tradition states that theson of Mary will descend on the white minaret to the east of Damascus.13 In response, Mirzacommented that Damascus was only a synonym for his home town of Qadian and that sincehe lived on the eastern edge of the town, the tradition could be validated .

14 However thetradition expected Christ to descend on a white minaret which was unfortunately not there . So Mirza laid the foundation of a minaret in Qadian in 1903. The minaret was completed onlyafter his death.

F ive or fifty volumes?

He promised his reader 50 volumes of his book, Baraheen Ahmadiyya, and the first fourvolumes appeared in rapid succession. Some of his readers had paid subscriptions for furthervolumes at his request, but had to wait for two decades to see the fifth and the last volume

published in 1903. He wrote in the preface:

Earlier, I had thought of writing 50 volumes. But now I have confined myself to five since thedifference between 5 and 50 is just that of one dot. Therefore, the promise has been fulfilledby the publication of five volumes.15

Prophecies against opponents

A good prophet must have the gift of prophecy. Mirza Ahmad thought likewise. Jesusprophesied; so should Mirza, the Masih Maw¶ud (the promised Messiah). When several of hispredictions did not happen, he and his followers had to resort to evasive explanations.

A M uslim opponent

Mirza Ahmad offered prayer in opposition to a Maulvi called Sana-Ullah, saying that the onewho was in the wrong should die of bubonic plague or cholera in the lifetime of the one whowas in the right. In 1907 he advertised his prayer as an open letter to Sana-Ullah:

O, my beloved Master! ... If my claim to being the Christ is my own innovation then I am aliar ... I pray to thee to kill me in Maulvi Sana-Ullah¶s lifetime and ... if Sana-Ullah is nottruthful in his allegations against me then I pray to annihilate him in my lifetime ... notthrough human hands but through bubonic plague and cholera...

16

One year and 21 days later Mirza died. Whether he died of a plague or natural circumstances,that is not our concern. Here one can see that the death of one in the lifetime of the otherwas the main condition. Mirza died in 1908 while Maulvi Sana-Ullah lived for another 40

years. To reply to such objections, Ahmadis in their discussions argue that since the Maulvihimself had established a new criterion that God grants respite to liars and deceivers andgrants them a long lease of life, thus God bestowed a long life on him to prove the Maulvi aliar.

An apostate disciple

Dr. Abdul Hakim, an Ahmadi disciple who served Mirza for about 20 years, rebelled againsthim and wrote two books, Al-masih Ad¶dajjal and Kana Masih. He too made excessive claimsof divine revelation. On 12th July 1906 he published an advertisement saying that within



J esus of the Qur¶an

Mirza Ahmad did not deny the stories of the unique birth of Jesus as mentioned in the Qur¶an,but he and his editors always tried to belittle their importance. Adam, too, µhad neither fathernor mother¶ . According to him, µThousands of worms are brought into existence without anyfather.¶ 25 He became disrespectful towards Jesus and accused him of being vulgar, adrunkard, cowardly, a blasphemer, a failure and one who had friendship with women of ill-repute.26 He argued that Jesus, who claimed to be God, said previous prophets were thievesand robbers; such a Jesus is nowhere mentioned in the Qur¶an.27

This enraged the orthodox Muslims of his time who branded him a heretic . In his reply, heaccused Christians of being abusive and making false charges against Muhammad, theprophet of Islam. Thus he justified his abuse of Christ as a tit for tat response . A similar lineagainst Jesus has been adopted by some orthodox Muslims. Ahmad Deedat of theInternational Islamic Propagation Centre in South Africa is one example. In his booklet on thecrucifixion, he attacks the person of Jesus on numerous occasions, and uses phrases like:"the hot and cold blowing of Jesus ... Now, he must pay the price of failure." Elsewhere, heboasts: "Jesus had doubly miscalculated" and says that Jesus was the "most unfortunate of all God¶s messengers".28 In another of his booklets, Deedat denounces the biblical account of the conception of Jesus as "gutter language".29

Decorum

Mirza Ahmad developed a great dislike of Christians and Christian missionaries in India. Anyone who opposed him was declared: "a Christian, a Jew, a heretic and a hellish person".30 Following Christ¶s example, Christians had also directed their missionary work towards thevery low-caste and outcast people of India. The success of the Christian gospel among themwas sneeringly conceded by Mirza.

In the Punjab Census Report for 1901 his name was confused with that of Mirza Imam-ud-Din(his cousin and opponent), who was preaching orthodox Islam among the low-caste and theuntouchable community. He was very upset and sent a petition to the authorities stating thatit was a disgrace to represent him as being connected with that community and thereforeharmful to his reputation.

In contrast to Christian efforts, Mirza said that his mission was only for the intelligent andhigh-class people. His principles and doctrines were "accepted only by intelligent and noble-minded men". He boasted that his followers were mostly the µRaises (chiefs), Jagirdars(landowners), respected government officials, merchants, advocates and highly educatedyoung men¶ .3

1

Jesus sat and lived with outcasts and low-caste people to bring them into the Kingdom of God. Mirza, who claimed to be similar to Jesus in all qualities, did not consider the low-casteand the untouchable community in need of salvation. One wonders then on what grounds hecould claim to have been so closely like Jesus in every respect.32

Jesus¶ attitude towards sinners is clearly expressed in the Christian Scriptures. He said: "I

came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32) . We find himabolishing death and bringing life and immortality through the gospel. He prayed for hisenemies: "Father! Forgive them! " (Luke 23:34). In contrast, Mirza Ahmad, the self-styledMuslim Christ, engaged in prayer duels, calling down the punishment of death upon some of his detractors, and predicting the death of his enemies.

When Jesus was cursed and abused on the cross, he did not answer back with a curse oroffer insult in return. He made no threats of vengeance, nor was any deceit found in hismouth (John 12:47; 1 Peter 2:22-23). Mirza too, admits that those who are in spiritualleadership should have patience, self-control and forgiveness. According to his own saying,



the Imam-e-zaman (the spiritual leader of his Age), should not be of an immature nature,given to fits of rage at the slightest provocation. Such a person can in no way be consideredthe Imam of his Age.33 Contrary to his own suggestion, the manner in which Mirza dealt withhis critics reveals him to be a person lacking in decency and decorum . Two references areenough:

Verily our enemies are swine of the wilderness and their women are worse than bitches.¶ 34

µAnd he who refuses to be convinced of our victory is evidently inclined to be called abastard.35

In his speeches and writings he would not only curse his opponents but write the word µCURSE¶ many times as a primitive form of emphasis. In one case there are ten repetitionswhen writing about the Maulvi Sana-Ullah,36 and one thousand times in a particular referenceto Christians.3

7Ahmadis today believe that Mirza used the harsh language by way of retort. It

was his opponents who first used such language against him and thus Mirza showedcontempt for his opponents and adversaries.


1. Baraheen Ahmadiyya, vol. III, pp. 253-254 (footnote). 2. ibid., Vol. IV, pp. 361, 499,505 (footnotes); Izala Auham, p.4733. Hamama al-Bushra, p.14. 4. Jesus in India, English tr., p.39. 5. Taryaq-ul-Qulub, pp.156-157. 6. How to get rid of the bondage of sin, p.11. 7. Kishti Noh, p.16. 8. Tawzih Miram, English tr. pp.6-7 9. Three Questions Answered, p.46. 10. ibid., p.62. 11. Fountain of Christianity, pp.33-34. 12. Kashti Noh, pp. 46-47. 13. Mishkat Al-Masabih, Vol.. II, p.1146.

14. Izala Auham, footnotes on pages 63,64,75. 15. Baraheen Ahmadiyya, Vol. 5, Preface, p.7. 16. Advert 15 April, 1907, Majmua Ishtiharat, vol..3, p.579. 17. Advert 16 August 1906, Majmua Ishtiharat, vol..3, p.559. 18. Chashma Marifat p.321 ff . 19. Izala Auham, p.396. 20. Ayena Kamalat Islam, pp.572-573. 21. Advert 5 June 1893, Majmua Ishtiharat, vol..1, p.434. 22. Anjam Atham, pp.10-11. 23. Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, pp. 249-251. 24. Berni, Qadiyyani Madhab, Ed.9th, p. 325. 25. Review of Religions, I, p. 72. 26. Anjam Atham, Appendix. 27. ibid., p.13.

28. Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.23. 29. Christ in Islam, p.24. 30. Nazul-i-Masih, p.431. Review of Religions, II, p. 83. 32. Izala Auham, p.124. 33. Zarurat-ul-Imam, p. 8. 34. Najmul Huda, p. 10. 35. Anwar al-Islam, p.3036. Ijaz Ahmadi, p.38. 37. Nur al-Haqq, pp.118-122.



5. A New Discovery?

The Bible tells us about the life and the teaching of Jesus. It contains the main record of howhe was crucified and died on the cross. It states the story of his burial and resurrection onthe third day. It also tells us about his appearances to his followers and his ascension andsays that one day he is going to return to this earth as the mighty judge.

The Qur¶an, however refers to the crucifixion only once and can be interpreted as denyingboth the crucifixion of Jesus and his death on the cross by the hands of the Jews. Muhammadis said to have received this revelation in response to a boast of the Jews that they had killedJesus Christ. It states:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah¶s messenger -they slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagreeconcerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of aconjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself . Allah was everMighty, Wise (Surah 4:157-158).

The theory of substitution

The majority of Muslim friends follow the substitution theory . In the light of this one verse,they believe that Jesus was never put on the cross. God made someone else look like Jesusand it appeared to the Jews that they had crucified him . The words, µAllah took him up untoHimself¶ are often taken to mean that Jesus was raised alive to heaven without dying .

1They

have different names on their list. Some say Judas Iscariot was slain in his place; others saySimon of Cyrene.

Whoever it was, if God made his face to look like that of Jesus at that moment so peoplewere µtaken in¶, would this not be an intolerable deception? How could Jesus, the prophet of God, allow such a terrible deception? If God wanted to raise Jesus to heaven, why was itnecessary to victimize a bystander? Many Muslims answer: "God knows."

Although the Qur¶an speaks in enigmas when dealing with the events of the last days of

Christ on earth, it certainly does not repudiate his death before his resurrection andascension. For example Jesus is reported as saying: "Peace on me the day I was born, andthe day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!" (Surah 19:33). Here Jesus puts his deathbefore his resurrection but most Muslims interpret such verses in their own way. Theysuppose that Jesus¶ death will happen in the future when he returns.

In another passage we read:

When Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend up unto Me,and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me yewill all return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ (Surah3:55).

Though the translator has used words "gathering thee" but in the original Arabic it certainlymeans "to die" and thus again we see Jesus¶ death, resurrection and ascension mentioned inthat order. However there are Muslims who suggest that the above verses should beinterpreted figuratively. They suppose that Jesus was lifted up while he was asleep and thatGod caused him to die a spiritual death to all worldly desires . Yet others say that Jesus diedin some sense for a few hours, 3 or 7 in the different traditions. He was then resurrected andtaken into heaven.2



The swoon theory

Mirza Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya, always strove to discredit the truth about Jesus. In the first volume of his book, µBaraheen¶, he followed the traditional Islamic belief aboutChrist. However in 1891 he put forward a new doctrine that Jesus was crucified but did notdie on the cross. Instead he swooned, was removed from the cross and later died in Galilee .3 According to his teaching the Qur¶an (Surah 4:157-158) µdoes not deny the fact of Jesus¶sbeing nailed to the cross, but denies his having died on it¶ .4 This was indeed a deviation fromorthodox Islamic belief that Jesus was taken up to heaven by divine intervention at the cross,without having suffered crucifixion at all.

In 1899, Mirza modified this idea in his book, Masih Hindustan Main, Jesus in India . Afterescaping from the cross, Jesus received divine healing by the application of some specialointment. He then left Palestine and travelled to Syria, Persia and later came to India, wherehe stayed in Kashmir to preach the gospel to the lost tribes of Israel . According to MirzaAhmad, Jesus died in Kashmir at the age of 120.

Something old, Something new

This theory was still new to Muslims but not to Christians in the West. Mirza¶s explanation

may convince the twelve million Ahmadis, but this theory has generally been discredited inthe West. In fact, Mirza merely borrowed the µswoon theory¶ from Sayyid Ahmad Khan inIndia and from K.H. Venturini, a western theologian, who in turn had taken it from a Germanwriter, K.F. Bahrdt (1741-1792).

Mirza¶s first suggestion that the death of Jesus took place in Galilee was a slight variation of the swoon theory. The later suggestion that Jesus died in India was different again, but it wasperhaps influenced by the ideas of the Russian writer, Notovitch. Mirza read Jesus¶ words: "Ihave other sheep, that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also" (John 10:16) andconcluded that Jesus, after escaping death on the cross, travelled in search of these lostsheep. Mirza believed that they were the µlost tribes of Israel¶ which were taken into exile in721 B.C. This idea came from the British-Israel movement, who believed that the lost tribeshad travelled westward, whereas Mirza claimed they had gone eastward.

In 1894, a Russian, Nicholas Notovich, published the book µVie inconnue de Jesus-Christ¶ . Later that year the book was translated into English under the title µThe Unknown Life of Jesus Christ¶ . Notovitch claimed that during his tour of Ladakh in India in 1887, he had foundan ancient manuscript in a Buddhist temple in Leh which stated that Jesus had travelled toIndia in his youth. Though his claim was proved to be an outright lie, it influenced MirzaAhmad and led him to write his book, Masih Hindustan Main, Jesus in India.

The question of the tomb

The Qur¶an says: "And we (God) made the Son of Mary, and his mother a portent and wegave them refuge on a height, a place of flocks and water springs" (Surah 23:50) . Accordingto orthodox Muslims, this verse refers to life in Paradise or God¶s help to Mary at the birth of Jesus. Mirza Ahmad interpreted it as a reference to an actual place on earth. He thought it

was Kashmir and searched there for a tomb which could be regarded as that of Jesus. Thereare many anonymous tombs in the Indian sub-continent and Mirza Ahmad pointed to one of these as being that of Jesus. However the local inhabitants do not believe that it is the tombof Jesus. The grave is known locally as that of a saint, Yus Asaf .

This tomb is like hundreds of other tombs of saints. The Muslims in the area believe the tombhad been in the possession of the Hindus. Then in about 1400 AD a Muslim called Syed AbdurRahman, nicknamed Bulbul Shah, came from Turkistan with about a thousand fugitives. He issaid to be the one who introduced Islam into Kashmir and declared this grave to be that of aMuslim saint.



Strange reasoning

Mirza Ahmad then tried to rewrite Christian history. His reasoning is, however, very suspect. Referring to this anonymous tomb, he says: "Hundreds of thousands of people have, withtheir physical eyes, seen that the tomb of Jesus exists in Sirinagar, Kashmir."5

There is no truth in such a statement. Mirza wants us to believe that people have seen theactual tomb of Jesus. What they have seen µwith their physical eyes¶ is the shape of a grave,the grave of an unknown person. They may be right in saying that the grave probablycontains a body, but to claim it to be of Jesus is wishful thinking.

Mirza continues to adjust the facts to his theory, saying that as Jesus µwas crucified atGolgotha, i.e. at the place of siri, so has his tomb been found at the place of siri i .e. Sirinagar¶ . He adjusts his theory further and claims: "The place where Jesus was crucifiedwas called Gilgit or Siri, and the place where, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, thetomb of Jesus has been discovered, is also called Gilgit, or siri."6

The Gospel narratives say that the place where Jesus was crucified was called Golgotha,which means, µplace of a skull¶ (Matthew 27:33; Mark 15:22; Luke 23:33; John 19:17). Thename may have been derived from its shape, or it was a place of execution where skulls

accumulated. Mirza claimed that the town of Sirinagar was also called Gilgit and thus linked itwith the name Golgotha. Although these two names sound vaguely alike, there is no reasonto suggest a link between them. In any case, Sirinagar has never been called Gilgit. There isa town called Gilgit, but it is about 300 miles from Sirinagar.

Since Mirza originally wrote his book in Urdu, he tried to play on the word siri. Interestingly inthe Urdu translation of the Bible the word µsiri¶ is not found. Instead, µthe place of the skull¶ isrightly translated as µKopri ki jegha¶ . Mirza, however, used the word µsiri¶ instead of µKopri¶ .

To suit his purpose, Mirza mistranslated Siri-nagar as the µplace of siri¶ . Had he opened anUrdu or Hindi dictionary, he could easily have found out that the word µsiri¶ originally comesfrom Sanskrit. It is the name of Lakshmi, the wife of Vishnu and the goddess of plenty andprosperity. It is in this context that the place is called Sirinagar - the place of Lakshmi. Thus,to draw a comparison between the biblical Golgotha and Sirinagar clearly requires distorted

reasoning.

The divine ointment

To give his doctrine more publicity, Mirza Ahmad invented an ointment . He said that theingredients had been prepared solely by him under the influence of divine inspiration. Hecalled it µMarham-e-Isa¶ - the Ointment of Jesus. He believed this to be the ointment whichhad been used to heal Jesus¶ wounds. He even suggested that the ointment was a remedy fora plague that was spreading in India at the time . This ointment disappeared from the marketwhen government officials started raiding the bogus medicine shops. These raids followed anorder from the deputy commissioner of Lahore, dated 19th October 1899, which was laterupheld by a decision of the Chief Court of the Punjab, in an appeal case dated 8th June 1900.

Why all the fuss? Mirza Ahmad used to say that if Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, is dead,Christ must also be dead. In one of his books µInvitation to Ahmadiyyat¶, Mirza¶s son, Bashir-ud-din, wrote:

It is impossible for us to think that Jesus the Messiah, is alive in Heaven while Muhammad,our Holy Prophet, lies buried in the earth. We cannot think so. ... If it is true that Jesus isalive in Heaven, we cannot feel more dead. We cannot tolerate the thought that our Master isdead and buried, while Jesus is alive and in Heaven. We feel humiliated before Christians.7

Mirza Ahmad saw Christianity as a threat to Islam. His instruction to his followers was:



Prove to Christians that Christ in reality is forever dead. Through the victory to be gained bythis argument you will be able to wipe the Christian religion off the face of the earth ... Donot entangle with other ideas to talk about with Christians. Just concentrate upon thearguments regarding the death of Jesus Christ, and by the use of powerful arguments put theChristians to silence. The day you will imprint this fact on the minds of Christians, you willknow that the Christian religion has made its exit from the world.8

History tells of many who have predicted the disappearance of the Christian truth. Yet it hasbeen they who have made their exit. Jesus said to his believers: "All authority in heaven andon earth has been given to me ... I will be with you always, to the very end of the age"(Matthew 28:18,20).The Qur¶an reveres Jesus in such a way that our orthodox Muslim friendsconsider it impossible that God could allow Jesus to die on the cross . Their strange idea of reverence reminds us of Peter¶s reaction when Jesus predicted his crucifixion . "Never, Lord!"he said, "This shall never happen to you!" (Matthew 16:22). Jesus¶ reply satisfied Peter, butMuslims and Ahmadi Muslims still try to resolve the matter in their own differing ways.


1.

Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur¶an, p. 390. 2. Iskander Jadeed, The Cross in the Gospel and the Qur¶an, p.7. 3. Ghulam Ahmad, Izala Auham, pp.473-474. 4. Farid, The Holy Qur¶an, p. 232. 5. Ghulam Ahmad, Jesus in India, Eng. tr. p. 53. 6. ibid., p. 53. 7. Bashir-ud-din, Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, p. 15. 8. Ghulam Ahmad, Izala Auham, pp.560 - 561.

6. The Crucifixion Factor

The plain teaching of the Bible is that Jesus came to give up his life and that he died on thecross. Yet to prove his survival on the cross, both Ahmadiyya and orthodox Muslims try tointerpret some passages of the Bible in their own way. There are Muslims who do not believethat Jesus was ever crucified, but in their criticism they follow the Ahmadiyya position: "Hewas crucified but did not die." When reminded that this is not the orthodox belief, they try toget around this difficulty by suggesting that to crucify means to kill on a cross. If a man is puton the cross but does not die on it, he cannot be said to have been crucified.

For Mirza Ahmad the death of Jesus on the cross was a defeat . He wrote: "We do not likesuch a god at all - a god who was overpowered by a debased people like the Jews ..."1 He didnot want to know that the Bible interpreted the death of Jesus, together with his subsequentresurrection, as a victory (2 Timothy 1:10).

In his writings Mirza alleged that the Bible had been corrupted and was full of interpolation. Yet on the other hand, he used it to support his arguments. His followers employ similarmethods. Their boast is that in a discussion or a debate: "A Christian missionary cannot stand

before an Ahmadi."2

A Christian may not be able to stand in the face of the belligerent spiritof Ahmadis and those who follow their tactics but the truth of Jesus, in spite of attacks andacrimony, has stood firm for centuries. This chapter examines some of the arguments thatare put forward, based on Bible verses.

The sign of J onah

Jesus said: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so theSon of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Ininterpreting this text, the Ahmadiyya claim that Jonah "entered the belly of the whale alive,



and remained therein alive and came out thereof alive. Thus, Jesus prophesied that he wouldenter the heart of the earth alive, would remain there alive and would come out thereof alive."3

According to their theory, Jesus "was to be placed in the earth like one dead, but his casewas to be like that of Jonah in the belly of the whale . The latter, while in the belly of thewhale was not dead but alive. Similarly, Jesus was to be alive not dead in the bosom of the

earth."4 Therefore, in Mirza Ahmad¶s words, "As Jonah remained alive for three days in thebelly of the whale, so Jesus remained alive for three days in the tomb."5

This is probably the best piece of biblical evidence that they can provide to support theirtheory. However even this evidence is fundamentally flawed. The Ahmadiyya pick out oneaspect of the story of Jonah, that as he was alive in the stomach of the fish, so Jesus wouldbe.

We cannot ignore several other statements made by Jesus. We must come to the conclusionthat the similarity Jesus pointed out was that, as Jonah was swallowed by the fish, he wouldbe swallowed by the tomb. The comparison is not between being alive or dead.

On another occasion Jesus said: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must

the Son of Man be lifted up" (John 3:14). We can see that Jesus is drawing an analogy. Wehave a pattern: "As Jonah was ... so shall the Son of Man be" and "As the serpent was ... somust the Son of Man be." By this comparison we can see that when Jesus gave Jonah¶sexample he meant he would be swallowed by the earth. When he gave the example of Moseslifting up a brass serpent on a pole, Jesus referred to his crucifixion.

If the main point of the first comparison was the state of Jonah being alive, then in this casethe comparison will be with the brass serpent, a lifeless object . If one were to follow theAhmadiyya method of argument, then one would be forced to conclude that Jesus was dead,even before he was crucified.

The Jews asked Jesus, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." (Matthew12:38 cf .; Luke 11:29; John 2:18, 6:30). Elsewhere they asked him to show them a signfrom heaven (Matthew 16:1). Not only did he tell them about the sign of Jonah, but also that

he was greater than Jonah: "Behold, one greater than Jonah is here" (Luke 11:32). Now, if Jesus had come down alive from the cross, having been in a swoon, from which herecovered, this would not be a sign of anything greater . It would not be obvious that Jesuswas the Messiah, greater than Jonah, and even greater than Solomon (Luke 11:31). Jesus¶ outstanding sign was to overcome death after dying on the cross. If this had not been thecase, the sign of Jonah and claiming that he was greater than Jonah would have had nosignificance.

Although Jesus did not explicitly predict on this occasion that he would be put to death, hedid so on many other occasions. For example, in Matthew 17:22-23, Jesus said to hisdisciples: "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him,and he will be raised on the third day" (cf . Matthew 16:21 and Mark 10:33-34).

John¶s Gospel recounts the story of Jesus in the temple. He became very angry when he saw

tradesmen doing business there and overthrew their tables. The Jews were upset and askedhim: "What sign have you to show us, to prove your authority to do this?" Jesus answered:"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it" (John 2:18-22). The temple he referredto was his body.

The Jews remembered such predictions about his death and resurrection and therefore, onthe day after his death, they went to Pilate and said: "Sir, we remember that , while he wasstill alive, that deceiver said, µAfter three days I will rise again.¶ So give the order for thetomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal thebody and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead" (Matthew 27:62-64).



It is obvious that the Jews did not doubt that Jesus had died. There was no reason for themto believe that he had escaped death. Their words "while he was still alive" could only meanthat Jesus was no longer living. They wanted to seal his tomb, not because Jesus mightrecover from his wounds, but because they feared that his disciples might steal his body andspread the rumour that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Not only before, but also after his resurrection, Jesus reminded his disciples: "This is what I

told you while I was still with you; everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in theLaw of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. ... This is what is written: µThe Christ will sufferand rise from the dead on the third day,¶ and repentance and forgiveness of sins will bepreached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:44-47).

In conclusion, there is a wealth of evidence in the Gospels to support the argument thatJesus knew that he was going to die on the cross. To argue and draw some other conclusionfrom his words therefore is a serious misrepresentation of the Scriptures.

The lost sheep of Israel

Once, when Jesus sent his disciples out, he advised them not to go among the Gentiles, orenter any town of the Samaritans. "Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6).

This was not something unusual. The good news of the Kingdom of God was first to bepreached to the Israelites and later to others.

Ahmadis acknowledge Jesus to be a prophet of God, but claim he was sent only to theIsraelites. When they want to prove the universality of Mirza Ahmad¶s prophethood, theirgeneral proposition is that "a prophet or messenger does not belong to one community,"6 i.e. he is for all. Yet in the case of Jesus¶ prophethood they claim that his ministry "did not extendbeyond the Children of Israel".7

Once Jesus said to a woman of Canaan: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). Mirza Ahmad¶s son, Bashir-ud-Din, builds up his argument on thisverse in isolation, saying: "From the Bible we learn that the message of Jesus Christ wasmeant for Israel, not for others."

8

If Jesus¶ ministry were only for the Israelites, then what of other passages in the Bible whichspeak about his universal ministry (John 8:12; Matthew 12:15-21; Isaiah 42:1)? If Jesus¶ mission was only for the Jews, he could not have given the great commission before hisascension: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Fatherand of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). The apostles understood thiscommand to preach the truth to all nations. They did not hesitate because they knew that thegospel "is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jews,then for the Gentiles" (Romans 1:16).

Both orthodox and Ahmadi Muslims agree that one of the best principles of interpreting theQur¶an is to check all references on the subject and then draw a conclusion . However ininterpreting the Bible, they often fail to apply this principle. Rather, they often ignore boththe specific context of a passage and the general teaching of Scripture.

If one wishes to be selective about biblical references to show the limitation of Jesus¶ ministry, then a similar selective standard could also be used to prove the limitation of Muhammad and the message of the Qur¶an. One could easily select a few passages from theQur¶an, leaving all others out and declare that the Qur¶an was in Arabic ONLY for the Arabs(Surah 43:3) and Muhammad was a prophet ONLY for the Arabs. Surely such an approach isnot worthy of consideration. Yet many Muslims approach the Bible with such an attitude.



The lost tribes

Jesus said: "I have other sheep which are not of this fold; I must bring them also" (John10:16). The Ahmadiyya claim that Jesus was referring to the ten lost tribes of Israel . MirzaAhmad relates the following story:

Jesus, coming out of the tomb, went to his tribes who lived in the eastern countries, Kashmir,Tibet, etc. viz. the ten tribes of Israelites who 721 years before Jesus, had been takenprisoner from Samaria by Shalmaneser, King of Assur, and had been taken away by him . Ultimately, these tribes came to India and settled in various parts of the country. Jesus at allevents must have made this journey; for the divine object underlying his advent was that heshould meet the lost Jews who had settled in different parts of India; the reason being thatthese, in fact, were the lost sheep of Israel who had given up even their ancestral faith inthese countries, and most of whom had adopted Buddhism, relapsing gradually into idolatry.9

His theory is based on 2 Kings 17:6 and 18:11 which describe how the King of Assyriacaptured Samaria and carried the Israelites away to Assyria. The idea that these Israelitetribes were "lost", does not originate in the Bible, but in England in the 18th century. At thattime, people who later became known as "British-Israelites" reasoned that the descendants of these ten tribes migrated westward through Europe and became the ancestors of the Saxons,

who invaded England. From here they colonised America. This doctrine is currently beingtaught by Herbert W. Armstrong¶s Worldwide Church of God. However Mirza claimed thatthey travelled eastward instead and settled in present Afghanistan and India.

Mirza Ahmad may claim to have received this revelation, but Muhammad, whom Mirza callshis "Master" and the source of "all knowledge", thought that those Israelites were turned intorats. Abu Huraira alleges that Muhammad said: "A group of Bani Israel was lost. I do notknow what happened to it, but I think it underwent a process of metamorphosis and assumedthe shape of rats."

10

These theories have no basis in Scripture. Biblical evidence does not suggest that these tribeswere "lost" in the sense Mirza, Muslim traditions and some western counterparts allege. Forexample, when Ezra made a sin offering to the Lord, for those who returned from captivity,he sacrificed twelve goats, one for each of the tribes of Israel (Ezra 6:17, 8:35). Before the

exile, the nation of Israel was divided into two separate kingdoms, but the prophets of Godwere told that one day these kingdoms would come together and live as one nation (Jeremiah3:18; Hosea 1:11). We see the prophecy fulfilled in the Old Testament. The ten tribes wereconsolidated (2 Chronicles 11:14,16; 15:9).

There are examples in the New Testament which confirm that the Jews never considered theten tribes of Israel to be lost, even though their numbers were depleted:

1. Anna, the prophetess, was said to be of the tribe of Aser or Asher. (Luke 2:36). 2. Jesus told his disciples that they would sit on twelve thrones to judge the tribes of

Israel. How could they do this if they did not preach the gospel to the other tentribes? (Matthew 19:28).

3. In his testimony before King Agrippa, Paul said: "And now I am standing trial for thehope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelvetribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day" (Acts 26:6-7).

4. The letter of James is addressed to Jewish Christians from the twelve tribes of Israel. This shows that the church in Jerusalem knew about the existence of members of each of the tribes.

The word µlost¶ in the Gospel

What did Jesus mean, then, in using the word "lost" and when he referred to "the lost sheepof Israel"? In Matthew 9:36 Jesus describes the crowds following him as "harassed andhelpless, like sheep without a shepherd". That is, lost, not knowing which way to go. In Luke



19:10 Jesus said to the tax collector, Zacchaeus: "The Son of Man came to seek and to savewhat was lost." In the Gospels, the "lost" included sinners, tax collectors, adulterers,outcasts, lepers and all those who were spiritually blind or deaf .

When Jesus said to the Canaanite woman that he had been sent to "the lost sheep of Israel",he was referring to the Jewish people who were living round about and not to some lost tribesin the east. In addition when Jesus advised his disciples to go only to the "lost sheep"

(Matthew 10:6), on this preliminary mission they did not journey to Syria, Persia or India topreach to the supposedly lost tribes. Instead, they went to the villages and towns aroundthem and later returned to tell Jesus of the difficulties and success of their ministry.

It was not simply Jews but also many Gentiles who were blessed through Jesus. God hadpromised Abraham that he would bless all nations through him (Genesis 18:18), and not justthe twelve tribes of Israel. This was the promise to which Jesus referred in John 10:16 whenhe said: "I have other sheep which are not of this fold; I must bring them also ... and thereshall be one flock and one shepherd." Indeed the words "which are not of this fold" refer tonon-Jews.

When Jesus told his disciples: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of theSamaritans," he knew that this was the first occasion where they would preach. So hewanted them to concentrate initially on preaching to the house of Israel. Later, however,Jesus did send them to a village of the Samaritans (Luke 9:52). He preached to a woman of Samaria and subsequently to the whole town, staying with them for two days (John 4:1-42). We can see that Jesus did not consider his ministry to be restricted to the Jews. When theright time came, he commanded the disciples to preach to all the world (Matthew 28:18-20).

Some Muslims, following the teachings of the Muslim commentators, think that Jesus was amessenger sent only to the Children of Israel, but in the Qur¶an, Jesus is not described in thisway. Rather, he is described as "a sign to all the worlds", ayatan lil-alamin and "a sign tomankind", ayatan lin-nas (Surah 21:91, 19:21).

J esus¶ prayer before the crucifixion

During the days of Jesus¶ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud crying

and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of hisreverent submission (Hebrews 5:7).

This is an obvious reference to Jesus¶ experience in Gethsemane (John 12:27; Matthew26:39-44). Ahmadi followers suggest that because of Jesus¶ supplications "to be deliveredfrom death upon the cross", he was assured that "God would deliver him from such adeath".

11 Orthodox Muslims say that Jesus was taken up bodily into heaven and someone else

was crucified. The Ahmadiyya, however, say that his prayers were heard; he suffered on thecross, but did not die.

An escape after such pain and suffering was unnecessary if God was going to deliver himanyway. It could have been no comfort to Jesus to be delivered after facing the horrors of thecrucifixion. Anyway, it was God¶s will that Jesus be crucified, in fulfilment of prophecy. In

Gethsemane Jesus ended his prayer with the words: "Not my will, but yours be done" (Luke22:42). This showed that he did not oppose his Father¶s will, but he did shrink from theagony of taking the sin of the world on his shoulders and being separated from God . His cryfrom the cross, using words of the prophecy in Psalm 22: "My God, my God, why hast Thouforsaken me?" confirms this.

When the Bible says Jesus was heard, it does not mean that God would prevent his death onthe cross. God answered Jesus¶ prayer by giving him the strength to go through an agonisingdeath, to fulfil the promise of atonement - Kaffâra for the whole of the world . To endureseparation from his Father and then being raised from death to life was God¶s will for Jesus,thereby making salvation and forgiveness available to all believers, with assurance and a sure



hope. Mirza¶s own judgement regarding prayer is that God sometimes accepts supplicationand at other times he wants to fulfil his will through the supplicant.

12

In the same letter to the Hebrews, Jesus¶ crucifixion, his sacrificial death and resurrection areall mentioned (Hebrews 9:11-28; 10:8-15; 13:9-12,20). There it becomes quite clear thatthe writer of Hebrews never intended to imply that Jesus escaped death, as the Ahmadiyyahave inferred from Hebrews 5:7 quoted above.

Some people claim that when Jesus realised that there was no other way of escaping thecross, he turned to God to save him. This idea is completely wrong. Jesus never tried to runaway from death on the cross. Rather we see him deliberately going to Jerusalem to facedeath (Luke 9:51; Matthew 16:21; Mark 10:33).

Jesus¶ death and resurrection was the climax of his mission on earth . At the start of hisministry, Jesus said: "My time has not yet come" (John 2:4). Later he repeated this saying:"My time is not yet at hand" (John 7:6). Just before his crucifixion, he prayed: "Father! Thetime has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you ... I have revealed you tothose whom you gave me out of the world" (John 17:1,6). Finally, on the cross, Jesus¶ lastwords were: "It is finished." His mission on earth had been accomplished. The promise Godhad made to Abraham centuries before was fulfilled in the work of Jesus on the cross.


1. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Fountain of Christianity, p.18. 2. Bashir-ud-din, Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, p.132. 3. Zafrullah, Deliverance from the Cross, p.25. 4. Shams, Where did Jesus die?, p.26. 5. Ahmad, Jesus in India, p.26. 6. Bashir-ud-Din, Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, p.137. 7. Zafrullah Khan, Deliverance from the Cross, p.48. 8. Bashir-ud-Din, Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, p.142. 9. Ahmad, Jesus in India, pp. 22-23.

10. Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1541. 11. Zafrullah, Deliverance from the Cross, pp. 27-28. 12. Ghulam Ahmad, Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, p.19.

7. Death & Resurrection

After going through several trials, Jesus was sentenced to be crucified along with two thieves. The prophecy of Isaiah: "He was numbered with the transgressors" was fulfilled (Isaiah53:9,12). The soldiers broke the legs of the thieves, an action employed to hasten death . Butwhen they came to Jesus, they found him already dead. They did not break his legs. Anotherprophecy was fulfilled: "Not a bone of him shall be broken" (Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12;Psalm 34:20). So according to the purpose of God, Jesus died and was buried.

As it was promised, on the third day, he was raised from the dead. To some people today,the idea of Jesus being raised from the dead is preposterous. Orthodox and AhmadiyyaMuslims are no exception. They both try to find evidence to support their denial of Jesus¶ death on the cross. While Ahmadiyya doctrine takes him to Kashmir to die in his old age themajority of Muslims believe he was raised to heaven to come back later and then die anatural death. However the Qur¶an makes it clear that his ascension would not transpire untilafter his death (Surah 3:55). If, as the orthodox Muslims believe, Jesus has ascended toheaven, he must have already suffered death and then been raised to life and ascended intoheaven. This was the argument raised by Christians of the day which prompted Mirza to thinkabout the orthodox belief regarding Jesus¶ bodily ascension and thus he introduced the swoontheory and a delayed natural death for Jesus.



Blood and water: A sure sign of conspiracy?

To claim Jesus¶ natural death Mirza Ahmad says: "To put an end to the life of a crucifiedperson, it was the practice in those days to keep him on the cross for several days and thento break his legs. But the legs of Jesus were purposely not broken and he was taken downalive from the cross, like the two thieves. That was the reason why blood and water came outwhen his side was pierced. The blood, however, congeals after death. And here also, itappears that all this was a result of a conspiracy."1

Zafrullah Khan agrees with Mirza but declares that this "conspiracy" was a plan of God . Heargues that apparently Jesus had died: "But in truth, despite the semblance of death, he wasalive. If he had continued in that state for some time, the circulation of blood could also havestopped, but it was God¶s plan that the process of his resuscitation should now come intooperation."2

When Jesus¶ side was pierced, had he been alive and his blood circulating, spouts of bloodwould have emerged with every heart beat. Instead John says "blood and water" came out. Dr Stuart Bergsma, a physician and surgeon states: "A small amount of pericardial fluid, upto 20 or 30ccs, is normally present in good health. It is possible that with a wound piercingthe pericardium and heart, enough pericardial fluid might escape to be described as water."3

Rendle Short, late professor of surgery at Bristol University states:

As a result of the spiritual and physical agony endured, the deep distress in Gethsemane, theinsults in the high priest¶s house and the appalling brutality of a Roman scourging, acondition of acute dilation of the stomach may have developed and the spear wound drewwatery fluid from the stomach and blood from the heart and the great vessels of the thorax. Needless to say, such a wound would be instantly fatal if the victim was not already dead, asindeed he was.4

Pilate¶s favour

According to Mirza Ahmad, Pilate was a God-fearing ruler. He wanted to release Jesus, but

"could not openly show favour to Jesus for fear of Caesar; for the Jews had declared Jesus arebel". Pilate thought of a way to rescue Jesus. Friday was fixed for the crucifixion, only a fewhours before sunset. Jesus¶ legs were not broken and Joseph, a friend of Pilate, took thebody. Pilate had planned that Jesus should be kept in Joseph¶s tomb, an airy chamber so thatJesus would escape.5

Nowadays even some orthodox Muslims who do not believe in the swoon theory, still followthe Ahmadiyya line of reasoning. They ask: "If it was not a plan, then why did they not breakJesus¶ legs?"

The only reason for breaking the legs of a criminal on the cross was to stop him from movinghis body upward to ease the pain and help in breathing. This caused the victim to die soonerbecause of lack of breath and extreme exhaustion resulting in suffocation . Since Jesus wasalready dead, there was no need to break his legs.

If sparing his legs were a plan to save him, a soldier would not have pierced his side . Thisspear wound was so big that a man could put his hand into it (John 20:27). If Pilate hadplanned to rescue Jesus and if it were all a conspiracy and Joseph and his colleague knew, asAhmadiyya claim, then Pilate would have not gone to such lengths to ask for his centurion tomake sure Jesus was dead.



Resurrection or Resuscitation

After his resurrection Jesus¶ body was of such a nature that he could transcend all earthlylimitations. He could suddenly appear and then conceal himself, or his identity. TheAhmadiyya claim that these appearances were not supernatural; Jesus was in disguise. WhenMary Magdalene went to the grave, she found Jesus in gardener¶s clothes.

12 Jesus did notwant to be recognised by the Jews, re-arrested and placed upon the cross again . Therefore,he disguised himself and when the disciples saw him, they were mistaken and thought thathe had been raised from the dead instead of having been revived. Jesus tried to prove tothem that he was the same. He showed them his wounds, he ate, and lived with them, toprove that "his body retained its mortal character".

13

If Jesus had been raised, Mirza Ahmad questioned, why was it that Jesus, who had a duty toproclaim the miracle of his resurrection among the Jews, kept it secret? nay, he forbadeothers to disclose it and "made a journey of seventy miles to Galilee in order to save hislife".14 Certainly Jesus asked his disciples to meet him in Galilee but there is no statementfound in the Scriptures where Jesus told his people not to proclaim his resurrection. Insteadwe see Jesus commanding them to go to all nations, preach, teach and baptise (Matthew28:16-20). Following Mirza¶s argument, the Ahmadiyya argue that Jesus did not appear tothe Jews, but only to his followers. How easily they ignore the fact that all the disciples wereJews. The account shows that Jesus did appear to some unbelievers who then became faithfuldisciples. James, his own brother, did not become a follower until after his resurrection andPaul long after his ascension.

Mirza¶s argument is not a new thing. People challenged Jesus even while he was actually onthe cross saying: "Let him come down now from the cross and we will believe in Him"(Matthew 27:42). But he would not be manipulated. People have to believe in Jesus on God¶sterms not on their own terms. "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will notbe convinced even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

Jesus told his disciples: "After I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee" (Matthew26:32). Mirza Ahmad strangely finds support in this reference for his swoon theory . In hisopinion the "verse clearly shows that Jesus, after he had come out of the tomb, went toGalilee and not to heaven. Jesus¶ words "After I am risen" do not mean his rising up alive

after he was dead."15

We marvel at such an interpretation! Jesus predicting his death orresurrection is recorded 17 times in the New Testament. On some 30 occasions, the phrase"from the dead" is found along with such words as, "God raised Jesus" or "Jesus rose".

The disciples¶ courage

Shams, another follower of Mirza, alleged that the disciples knew that Jesus had not beenraised from the dead, but they did not tell about it because they were afraid of "cruelpersecution". He adds: "So it is more than possible that they concealed the matter andreplied that Jesus had risen from the dead."

16

It is indeed difficult to believe that these disciples were oblivious of Jesus¶ predictions of hisresurrection and would fix on the desperate plan of vowing never to divulge the truth and

keep on proclaiming his resurrection. Is there a persecution that exceeds the taking of aperson¶s life? Who would have persecuted them if they had proclaimed that he was notraised? History tells us that the disciples did not care about their lives, but cared only for thetruth. They proclaimed that Jesus was crucified, died, was raised and will come again to

judge the nations. Whenever the opposition wanted to stop them, their answer was: "Wemust obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29).

It stretches credulity beyond the limit to believe that these people were willing to die for whatthey knew to be a lie. Why would they sacrifice their lives for a lie? Many of these disciplesdied martyrs¶ deaths because of their belief in the resurrection of Jesus and their belief in himas the Son of God.



The fisherman Peter, a man who denied three times that he even knew Jesus, later wept andrepented. At Pentecost, the same weary Peter comes forward with great courage and joy toannounce the resurrection. The Bible tells us that after his message, about three thousandcame to believe in Jesus (Acts 2:14-47). If Peter were afraid, he would not have had thecourage to accuse and charge the Jews of killing the Christ. Was there fear of persecutionwhen before the Sanhedrin he accused them of killing Jesus? Boldly he claimed: "The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead - whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree . God

exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Saviour that he might give repentance andforgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit,whom God has given to those who obey him" (Acts 5:30-32). This same Peter was eventuallyalso crucified for his faith. Who would die for a lie?

Tradition tells us that of all the apostles only John died a natural death. Others apparentlywere crucified, beheaded, stoned and killed by spear thrusts. If the apostles knew that theresurrection of Jesus did not occur, it would have been humanly impossible for them all tokeep it a secret and even die for such a lie.

Charles Colson, an associate of former US president Richard Nixon and one of theconspirators of the Watergate scandal, relates: "With the most powerful office in the world atstake, a small band of hand-picked loyalists, no more than ten of us, could not hold aconspiracy together for more than two weeks."17 So it would also have been impossible for

the disciples to keep it secret. "If the resurrection wasn¶t true," Colson says, "those disciplescould never have held out." Someone would have split and told the truth.

The wounded body

Mirza questions: "If he [Jesus] had been resurrected after death, how was it that this body orspirit could still have borne the wounds inflicted upon him on the Cross? What need had he toeat? If he required food, then he must be in need of food even now."

18

The Bible teaches plainly that at the final resurrection, the bodies of believers will bechanged. They will be raised as spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:51-53). Jesus had risen inthe same body, but with spiritual effects. He could appear and disappear at will and was nolonger bound by physical limitations (Luke 24:31, John 20:26). But because Jesus called on

the disciples to handle him and because he ate a piece of fish before them (Luke 24:39-43),Mirza suggests that he had not risen from the dead. He turns a blind eye to the fact thatJesus did this to let the disciples know that the risen Jesus was not a vision, or a figment of someone¶s excited imagination, but that he had conquered death and come back.

Mirza Ahmad should not have been very surprised about the body of Jesus bearing the marksof crucifixion. Muslim tradition also suggests that those who are wounded in the cause of Godwill be raised with their wounded body and the blood will be dripping from it .19 Muslims andChristians know that on the day of judgement the resurrection of the dead will take place. Nowonder the Bible calls Jesus the first fruit of the resurrected ones and the Qur¶an calls himthe sign of that HOUR (I Corinthians 15:20; Surah 43:61).

F ood and drink

It is indeed true that Jesus ate a piece of fish before the disciples after his resurrection (Luke24:41-42), but in the gospels nowhere is it written, as Mirza suggests, that Jesus had "thepangs of hunger and thirst" and needed rest and sleep.20

The Qur¶an talks about a paradise for righteous Muslims after their resurrection . They willdwell in paradise and will be wedded to women with wide and lovely eyes . They will beprovided with meat, fruit and wine (Surah 52:17-23). Now, if it is possible for a resurrectedbody to consume meat and fruit, then Mirza should not have been surprised at Jesus eating a



this day of the week that changed the converted Jews from their strict observance of theseventh day Sabbath.

The institution of baptism is additional evidence. It symbolises the fact that as Jesus died andwas buried, the candidate going into the water dies with Christ and is raised (coming out of the water) to new life as Jesus was raised to life (Romans 6:4).

The breaking of bread, or communion, is another practice which dates back to the earlychurch and is a reminder that Jesus not only died on the cross for our sins and was buried,but on the third day he also rose from the dead as the victor over death and is reigningtoday.

Just as after the resurrection of Jesus the apostles were changed into a company whom noopposition could deter, the lives of people all down the ages from different nationalities,cultures and backgrounds have changed. They have found their salvation in the risen Christ . The resurrection of Christ is not dependent on a relic, or some ancient tale. Jesus has risenand is alive. He is still in action, changing people¶s lives. The experience of many Christiansthroughout the centuries witnesses to this. So why then do the Ahmadiyya movement andorthodox Muslims not believe in Jesus¶ resurrection? It is simply that for some people noevidence could ever be enough.


1. Ahmad, Jesus in India, p.31. 2. Zafrullah, Deliverance from the Cross, pp. 32-33. 3. The Calvin forum, March 1948, p.165. 4. The Bible and Modern Medicine, p.965. Ahmad, Jesus in India, pp.31-32. 6. Edwards et al, On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ, Journal of the American Medical

Association, March 1986, p. 1456. 7. C. Truman Davis, The Crucifixion of Jesus, Arizona Medicine, March 1965, p.185. 8. Ahmad, Jesus in India, p.32.

9. ibid., p.55. 10. Zafrullah, Deliverance from the Cross, p. 59. 11. Antiquities of the Jews, tr. William Whiston, p.471. 12. Shams, Where did Jesus die? p.25. 13. Ahmad, Jesus in India, p.46. 14. ibid., p.48. 15. ibid., p.25. 16. Shams, Where did Jesus die? p.24. 17. Colson, Loving God, p.67. 18. Ahmad, Jesus in India, p.27. 19. Sahih Bukhari, Vol.. 4, p. 46. 20. Ahmad, Jesus in India, p. 30. 21. David Sox, The Shroud unmasked, p.12622. Zafrullah, Deliverance from the Cross, pp.44-45.

23. David Sox, The Shroud unmasked, p.151ff .

8. The Ascension of Jesus

Jesus often spoke about his ascension, as he did about his death on the cross and hisresurrection. He claimed that he had descended from heaven and that he would ascend backto heaven (John 3:13; 6:62; 20:7). The Bible teaches, that after his resurrection from thedead, Jesus ascended far above all the heavens, to the very throne of God himself (Ephesians4:10; Revelation 3:21).



The Islamic idea

The majority of Muslims believe in Jesus¶ ascension. The basis of this belief is found in twopassages in the Qur¶an (Surah 3:55; Surah 4:158) but a lot of support is taken from thetraditions. A general belief is that Jesus was raised to the second or third heaven, but theQur¶anic statement means that he was raised to the very presence of God: µbal rafa¶ahu µllahu

µilayh¶, Nay, God raised him up unto Himself (Surah 4:158). Why would God choose to raiseJesus above the heavens into his presence? The only answer the Qur¶an gives is that Godwanted to save him from the Jews.

The Biblical answer

Jesus said: "I am from above ... I am not of this world" (John 8:23). He told the disciples: "Icame from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back tothe Father" (John 16:28). Before his crucifixion he prayed these words: "And now, Father,glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began" (John17:5). This is a clear testimony that Jesus existed and shared the glory of God before eventhe world was created. Now, after the completion of his earthly task, he was returning to hisprevious realm.

A M uslim¶s dilemma

For a long time, Muslims have seen that such an understanding about the destiny of Jesusundermines the Muslim¶s claim about the uniqueness of Muhammad as the PROPHET. Acomparison between Muhammad, whose body lay buried in the grave and the living Jesus inheaven, could be unfavourable to the spread of Islam . Thus no wonder some people likeMirza Ghulam Ahmad have come forward to suggest that Jesus did not ascend to heaven:"Nowhere in the Qur¶an is there any warrant for the popular belief of many Muslims that Godhas µtaken up¶ Jesus bodily into heaven."

1The majority have vociferously rejected this idea,

but a minority including Ahmadis still continue to believe that Jesus never ascended toheaven. In their belief the expression µraf ¶ or µrafa¶ employed in the verses of the Qur¶anrefer to Jesus¶ spiritual exaltation and not his physical ascension.

The argument against Ascension

In Mirza¶s opinion, the ascension is contrary to modern science. He writes that one may beable to spread such a belief among the people of Africa and the unlettered Bedouin of Arabia,but not amongst educated people, especially the people of America and Europe, who arealready trying to get rid of the absurdities in their religion. He argues that in thisphilosophical age it is a big mistake to think that one would be able to achieve religioussuccess while holding on to such beliefs.2

If such is the case, why then did Mirza believe that Jonah was alive in the belly of the fish forthree days? How could he accommodate other similar matters relating to the metaphysicaldomain, like revelation, angels, resurrection and to some extent, reincarnation and thetransmigration of souls?3

Following the same route, Zafrullah Khan says: "It is contrary to God¶s law for a human beingto ascend to heaven in his physical body and the Holy Prophet, being human, though a divineMessenger, could not ascend to heaven."4

First, unlike Ahmadis, Muslims do believe that Muhammad visited the heavenly realms . Theoccasion is known as Mi¶raj - ascent to heaven. Second, yes it is impossible to ascend with anormal physical body, but it was possible for Jesus because of his glorified body and above allbecause of his divine status. It was recognisable as the same body, but with aspects andabilities attributable to the glorified, spiritual state.



Jesus said: "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he wasbefore!" (John 6:61-62). If Jesus were not ascending to heaven he would not have usedwords like this again and again. He would never have kept his disciples in the dark.

Kashmir instead of heaven

Certainly it would have been disgraceful for Jesus, who is given the title "the prophet of Islam" in Muslim circles, to advise his disciples to stay in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) to bearpersecution when he himself runs away to another country, µto be safe from the enmity andmachinations of the Jews¶, as Shams claimed. What kind of prophet would he be, who aftersneaking away, sends two men to say he had ascended into heaven? (Acts 1:11). This makesJesus the instigator of a plan of deceit. By the way Jesus taught, lived, and gave his life, onecannot accept that he was a µdeserter¶ or a liar.

To make room in their narrative for Jesus¶ visit to Kashmir in India, the Ahmadiyya would goto any length to suppress the Gospel truth and ignore clear references in the Bible. Forexample, consider Jesus¶ words when he prayed for his disciples just before his crucifixion: "Iwill remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world and I am coming to you ... Iam coming to you now" (John 17:11,13).

He was praying in this way to God. Was God living only in Kashmir that Jesus said, "I amcoming now"? If Jesus knew there remained a task for him to reach the ten lost tribes of Israel in person, he would never have said these words in his prayer:

I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now,Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began(John 17:4-5).

This is not all. If the mission of reaching the lost sheep as the Ahmadiyya claim was about totake place, then Jesus would never have said: "It is finished" (John 19:30).

J esus died at the age of 33, 60, 120, or 125

To convince his readership, Mirza claimed that Muhammad said: "Jesus was 125 years of age

when he died." He went so far as to claim that all the sects of Islam believed Jesus was atravelling prophet and lived for 125 years.

10 However Shams, Mirza¶s follower, claimed thatMuhammad said, "Jesus died at the age of one hundred and twenty years"

11

If Muhammad said Jesus died at the age of 125 and all the sects of Islam believe this thenwhy do the Qur¶anic classical commentaries state his age as being around thirty three? Thatis not all. In his earlier book, Izala Auham, Mirza claimed that Jesus died in Galilee after hisescape from the cross.12 In the same book he tried to prove from the traditions of theMishkat and Muslim that Jesus must have died before reaching sixty or seventy.

13 To confirmthis, in another book, Atmam-ul-Hujjat, he quoted Imam Malik (the founder of one of thefour schools of Islamic jurisprudence) as believing that Jesus died when he was 33 years old . Mirza even alleged, on the authority of one friend, that the tomb of Jesus was in Syria.14

But now, to prove that Jesus did not die in Galilee, or somewhere in Syria but in Kashmir,India, Mirza again wanted to show from the Muslim traditions that Jesus in fact survivedlonger and travelled to India. He quoted from a book, Kanzul Ummal which he called "acomprehensive book of Hadith". For example the following:

1. "God directed Jesus (on whom be peace): O Jesus! Move from one place to another;go from one country to another lest thou shouldst be recognised and persecuted."15

2. "Jesus always used to travel; he went from one country to another, and at nightfallwherever he was he used to eat the vegetation of the jungle and to drink purewater."

16



Interestingly enough, he quoted the above traditions in his Urdu version along with the Arabicoriginal. In the first Hadith, in his translation he inserted the words: "Go from one country toanother." In the second he added: "He went from one country to another." Even if one isbound to accept his editing, it does not prove that Jesus travelled to India . The fact thatJesus was a traveller during his ministry can be seen in the Gospels, but he did not cross theboundaries of Israel. From village to village and town to city, he preached the good news of the Kingdom of God. When a man said to him: "I will follow you wherever you go," Jesus

replied: "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhereto lay his head" (Luke 9:57-58).

In the Old Testament we are told that µMoses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, ... but to this day no-one knows where his grave is¶ (Deut 34:5-6). Muhammad, howeverclaimed to have known where Moses¶ grave was. Abu Huraira is said to have heardMuhammad saying: "If I were there, I would show you his grave below the red sand hill onthe side of the road."17 Those Muslims who oppose Mirza argue that to find Jesus¶ grave wasmuch more important. If his body had been laid to rest somewhere, Muhammad would haveknown it and told his disciples. It would have made Mirza¶s task much easier. For it is certainthat Muhammad did believe in the bodily ascension of Jesus into heaven.


1. Asad, The Message of the Qur¶an, p.135. 2. Ahmad, Izala Auham, p.268. 3. Ahmad, Taryaq-al- Qulub, p.155n. 4. Zafrullah Khan, Deliverance from the Cross, p.68. 5. ibid., p. 69. 6. Deedat, Is the Bible God¶s word?, p.17. 7. ibid., p.19. 8. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Izala Auham, p.420. 9. Shams, Where did Jesus die?, p. 61 10. Ahmad, Jesus in India, p.53. 11. Shams, Where did Jesus die?, p. 153.

12. Ahmad, Izala Auham, pp. 4

73-4

74. 13. ibid., pp. 623-625.

14. Ahmad, Atmam-ul-Hujjat, pp.17-19. 15. Ahmad, Jesus in India, p.53. 16. ibid., p.54. 17. Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, p.409.

9. The Great Sacrifice

Christ has died, Christ is risen. Christ will come again. When the discussions are exhaustedthen usually friends who oppose the crucifixion of Christ turn around and ask: "But why doChristians insist that Jesus died?" Such a question is often asked by people who claim to haveread the Bible and the Qur¶an. The straightforward answer is that Jesus gave his life for theremission of our sins. Christians are puzzled that Muslims do not understand the need for

Jesus to be the redeemer. The simple reason is that the Qur¶an has not included muchinformation on this subject.

Islam does know the concept of Kaffâra, expiation, but it knows nothing of the atonementcapable of overcoming all evil in fulfilling all righteousness . In several places in the Qur¶an,the idea of ransom, atonement and redemption is mentioned (Surah 5:45,89,91). The usualword that is used is Kaffâra or Kaffâratun - to pay the price for sin . Muslim translators havealways translated it more vaguely than the Arabic demands.



Kaffâra, the promise of God

The promises of God that he would make Kaffâra - atonement - for his people are found inthe Bible, and also mentioned several times in the Qur¶an, but without any explicitmechanism. The Qur¶an says that Allah will atone for evil deeds (Surah 65:5; 29:7;5:45,65,89 etc.), and implies that the believers¶ good deeds have a part to play . But there isno way of knowing if atonement has been made or not.

The popular Islamic interpretation of atonement

The Muslim theologian¶s interpretation of atonement is sometimes similar to the thoughts of

Judaism. For both personal good deeds play an important part in the matter of atonement. According to one of the Hadith, a disciple of Muhammad said: "A man came to the prophetand said, µO prophet of Allah, I have handled a woman from the outskirts of the town andgratified my desire but without intercourse. Here I am. Judge me as you wish."1 At firstMuhammad said nothing, and the man rose and went away. Then the prophet called himback and recited to him this verse: µLo! Good deeds annul evil deeds¶ (Surah 11:114).

Muslims believe that on the day of judgement, God will set up a balance with an indicator andtwo weighing pans, on which will be weighed all the deeds of mankind - their good deeds and

their evil deeds. He who has more good deeds goes to paradise and he with less goes to Hell. However the traditions of Islam are quite contradictory. On one hand the confession of theKalimah - the creed: "There is no god but Allâh, and I testify that Muhammad is the prophetof Allah," is a passport to salvation. Yet on the other hand even total obedience does notnecessarily ensure salvation.

It is said in the Qur¶an: "He forgiveth whom He will and punisheth whom He will" (Surah3:129; 11:118; 14:4; 16:93; 19:71,72). Muslim traditions say that God has already createdsome for hell and others for paradise. Muhammad is alleged to have said: "God createdAdam, then passed His right hand over his back and brought forth from it his offspring,saying, µI have created these for paradise and they will do the deeds of those who go toparadise.¶ He then passed his hand over his back and brought forth from it his offspring,saying, µI have created these for hell and they will do the deeds of those who go to hell.¶"2

The biblical view of atonement

In the light of the Bible we see God as generous not capricious. He surely can do whatever hewill but he does not. If he is to forgive the sinner there must be a reason for forgiveness,which will also satisfy his justice. Through Moses God instituted the offering of animalsacrifices. He accepted these because they symbolised the sacrifice he was going to providefor the whole of mankind. The Bible insists that God is just and his justice demands thepunishment of the sinner. The only way out is either to die eternally, or be reconciled throughhis atonement.

The practice of sacrifices to cover sin began with the first humans, when Adam and Evedisobeyed God and it was God who covered their nakedness - an enacted parable of atonement (Genesis 4:4). Later, God only accepted the sacrifice of Abel and not of Cain .

When we look at this story in the Bible and in the Qur¶an, we see that Adam¶s family musthave been taught a particular way to approach God (Genesis 4:4; Surah 5:27-32). Peoplehad to realise that they deserved to die for sin. But a ransom (fidyah) or sacrifice made infaith can redeem the sinner. The sacrifice may be seen as a substitute for the sinner.

This pattern is illustrated by Abraham and his son (Genesis 22:1-14). Another example is thePassover lamb. After sending many plagues to Egypt, God said he would kill all the first-bornchildren in that land. However God told Moses to command his people to slaughter a lamband sprinkle its blood on their door-posts. The angel of God would then pass over every door



which had the blood on it and the first-born in that house would be spared. God fulfilled hispromise and the first-born of Israel were saved (Exodus 12:1-42).

Atonement and the Law of M oses

In the law of Moses, recorded in the book of Leviticus, God revealed that the way for mankind

to approach him is through sacrifice. He said: "Without the shedding of blood there is noforgiveness" (Hebrew 9:22; Leviticus 17:11). Moses explained the method of sacrifice to theIsraelites: the sinner was to take a perfect animal to the door of the temple of God . There hewas to put his hands on it, symbolically transferring his sins onto the animal. Next he had tokill it. The priest would sprinkle its blood at the foot of the altar and offer the rest to God onthe altar. God would accept the animal¶s death in place of the death of the sinner.

J esus: Zabih-ullah, the sacrifice of God

How can an animal die for a human, when we are of much greater value than any animal?The animal did not take away sin, it was merely a symbol pointing to what was to come. Godpermitted such a situation until the perfect sacrifice would be offered for all sin . This offeringwould be for the sin of all the people who had ever lived, or would live. After Moses, manyprophets of God came to prophesy about this great sacrifice. One such prophet was Isaiah.

He made a very astonishing prophecy which was fulfilled centuries later, in the life and deathof Jesus who accomplished God¶s purpose (Isaiah 52:12-15, 53:1-12).

John the Baptist, whom Muslims know as Yahya, testified: "Look, the Lamb of God, who takesaway the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). Muslims however reject Jesus as the vicariousatonement. Yusaf Ali, a Muslim translator and commentator of the Qur¶an says:

We are fully responsible for our acts ourselves: We cannot transfer the consequences tosomeone else. Nor can anyone vicariously atone for our sins.3

In one way this statement contradicts a passage of the Qur¶an, where we see one life beingsubstituted for another. The context is about Abraham¶s willingness to sacrifice his son andthough the name of the son is not mentioned, the narrative is similar to the biblical account

and it ends with God providing the sacrifice in the place of the boy. Then God is reported tohave said regarding Abraham: "We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice" (Surah 37:99-111).

Usually Muslim commentators tell us that the "momentous sacrifice" was the ram provided byGod to be sacrificed in place of Abraham¶s son. But would a ram be a µmomentous sacrifice¶ compared to Abraham¶s son? Note that it was the son, not Abraham, who was ransomed bythe provision of that ram, so the "momentous sacrifice" by which Abraham was to beransomed must refer to some other utterly essential sacrifice offered by God himself . Thisraises the question: Was it pointing forward to a great sacrifice in the future?

In the Qur¶an these incidents have not been described in detail, but they are comprehensivelyrecorded in the Bible. Here we learn what that sacrifice was, by which God has ransomed notonly Abraham, but also all who believe and are faithful like Abraham . Jesus Christ is the one

who has been made the sacrifice and ransom for the whole world . Jesus once said, "Yourfather Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad" (John8:56). Again speaking of himself he said that he µdid not come to be served, but to serve andgive his life as a ransom for many¶ (Matthew 20:28).

Jesus is presented as a sacrifice and a ransom in the Torah, the Psalms and also in the booksof the Prophets. There we learn that people through the ages were expecting God to redeemthem from sin and eternal death through his mighty power. Thus in God¶s own time, Jesusarrived to fulfil this mission. He gave himself as a ransom, to die on the cross according toGod¶s will and then to rise on the third day. Before his ascension he told his disciples:



This is what I told you while I was still with you . Everything must be fulfilled that is writtenabout me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:46).

The story of redemption from sin does not finish there. It does not mean merely deliverancefrom punishment of sin. Jesus has become the mediator. Through him we encounter truerecognition of God and are able to establish a true and strong relationship with him.


1. Mishkat Al-Masabih, Vol. I, p.116.

2. ibid., Vol. I, p.27. 3. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur¶an, Text, Translation and Commentary, p.339

10. The Bible & the Qur¶an: a question of integrity

Muslims are very familiar with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses undertheir Arabic names. They also know about Job, Jonah, David, John the Baptist and Jesus. TheQur¶an acknowledges all these prophets. Muslims believe that 124,000 prophets have cometo this world, of whom the last was Muhammad. In their view, he was the greatest prophet,superior to all the others. They also believe that, by revelation, God sent down specific booksto several of the prophets, the Torah was given to Moses; the Zabur (Psalms) to David: theInjil (Gospel), given to Jesus and at last the Qur¶an was given to Muhammad.

The distinction

The Qur¶an asks Muslims to confirm their faith in the following words:

Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which wasrevealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that whichMoses and Jesus received, and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make nodistinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered (Surah 2:137).

Despite such instructions, Muslims do differentiate; not only between Muhammad and otherprophets, but also between the Qur¶an and the Bible. Most maintain that the Bible has beencorrupted, while the Qur¶an is µperfectly preserved and protected from human tampering¶ .

1

On the question of the integrity of the Qur¶an, the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam holds thesame belief as orthodox Muslims:

Among all the religious books of the world, the Holy Qur¶an is the only Book which enjoys thedistinction of having pure text. Every word and letter of the Holy Book, as we have it to-day,is as it left the lips of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, to whom the Book was revealed.2

Mirza Ahmad argued that the Bible was a "dead book" and that the Gospel of Jesus was full of

countless absurdities.3 He claimed that the Torah and the Gospel had been corrupted to suchan extent that they could not be counted as the words of God.4 On the other hand, he usedthese very books extensively to back up his own theories.

Integrity of the Bible

It is hard to accept that God was capable of protecting the Qur¶an from alteration and yetpowerless to preserve his earlier books, the Torah, the Zabur, the Injil and the books of theprophets. Muslims, in believing that the Bible once was Allah¶s word, but is no longer, in factcontradict the Qur¶an which says: "There is none who can change His words" (Surah 6:116;



6:34; 10:64). Several centuries before Muhammad, the Bible stated: "All men are like grass,and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, butthe word of the Lord stands forever" (1 Peter 1:24-25).

In the Qur¶an we do not find any suggestion whatsoever that the text of the Jewish andChristian Scriptures had been altered at the time of Muhammad . Indeed Muhammad himself trusted these Scriptures so much that we find verses in the Qur¶an which instruct Christians

and Jews to follow their own Scriptures. How could the Qur¶an say such things if the Biblewere corrupted?

Let the people of the Gospel judge according to what has been revealed in it. ... Say O Peopleof the Scriptures, Ye have naught of guidance till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel andthat which was revealed unto you from your Lord (Surah 5:47,68).

The immediate followers of Muhammad were so busy in establishing a Muslim community,that they did not have much time to read and compare the earlier Scriptures . When the nextgeneration of Muslims after Muhammad came into regular contact with Christians, they foundcertain difficulties in reconciling the Qur¶an with the Bible. First, Jesus did not prophesy aboutMuhammad and secondly, the Gospel narrative that Jesus died on the cross, was buried androse again. If, in the light of what the Qur¶an said, they accepted that the Bible was a guideand light from God, then they would have had to accept the supremacy of Jesus. This wouldnot only have led to the absorption of Islam into Christianity, but would also have diminishedtheir political power. Since, in their opinion, the Qur¶an could not be wrong, they were forcedto discredit the text of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures by claiming that they had beenchanged.

M issing verses

Both orthodox and Ahmadi Muslims refer to certain variations they find in differenttranslations of the Bible. To prove the Bible fallible, in their discussion with Christians, theycompare certain passages from the Authorised Version with the Revised Standard Versionand then argue that a certain verse is found in one copy and is missing in others, provingthat the original text has been tampered with.5

Typical examples are John 5:2-4 and 1 John 5:7. Some translations have added brackets tosuch verses while other recent translations in English have included them in the margins orfootnotes, stating that this portion of the text is not found in some of the earlier manuscriptsdiscovered recently. However Bashir-ud-din, Mirza¶s son has this to say:

When the Christians entered into conflict with the Muslims and the latter began to hurlattacks at such passages, the former altered the text of their sacred Scriptures and the wordswithin brackets were expunged .6

In recent translations, only the first sentence of 1 John 5:7 is found compared with a longverse in the Authorised Version. Thus Bashir claims that it was simply done, µout of fear of Muslim criticism¶ .7 In endeavouring to discredit the Bible, other Muslim writers claim that bytaking out most of 1 John 5:7 from the present day translations, the doctrine of the Trinity

has been removed. This was the main passage that represented the µnearest thing to theChristian Trinity in the whole of the Bible¶ .8

If this were all the evidence, the doctrine of the Trinity would be in serious doubt. Howeverthere are other passages which provide evidence about the unity of the Father, the Son andthe Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19, Ephesians 2:18 and 2 Corinthians 13:14).



differing details. In their writings and conversations with Christians they use such arguments,but they can be levelled against the Qur¶an too.

For example, in Matthew we find Jesus saying: "You have heard that it was said, µLove yourneighbour and hate your enemy.¶" (Matthew 5:43). Mirza Ahmad thought Jesus was quotingword for word from the ten commandments, so he accused the narrator Matthew of being aliar, just because Mirza could not find the words µhate your enemy¶ which are not found in the

Old Testament passage.14

In another place Mirza refers to Jesus¶ command to love each other (John 13:34). Hecomments that this command can be found in Leviticus 19:18, so how can Jesus claim it as µanew commandment¶?

15 Mirza gives a list of such cases.16 However he misses the crucial

difference - to love others as you love yourself . Here Jesus asks us to love as he loved, i.e. be prepared to die for friends.

Following similar methods, an orthodox Muslim, Bashir Ahmad Ansari of the UK Islamiccentre, in his booklet, Kitab-e- Muqaddes main Tahrif ke matni Saboot, (The textual evidenceof alteration in the Holy Scriptures) accuses the Gospel narrators of their lack of knowledge. He refers to the texts of the four Gospels, where the story of Jesus¶ entry into Jerusalem on adonkey is found (Matthew 21:7; Luke 19:35; Mark 11:7; John 12:14). Bashir questions howit comes about that these inspired narrators did not know if Jesus sat on a donkey himself toenter Jerusalem, or other people helped him to sit on it.17

Another Muslim critic Ihsan-ul-Haq gives no less than 20 examples of such minor differencein the accounts.18 In one such case, Mark 10:46-52 and Matthew 20:29-34, one narratormentions one blind man, the other makes it two. The argument is that if these passages wereinspired, it would have the exact number. Muslims say that such contradictions cannot betolerated. They insist that this type of error means that the Bible is not the word of God.

Many of the orthodox Muslims in their accusations against the Christian faith have followedthe Ahmadiyya route so much that they use Ahmadi propaganda material as their own. Somewriters have gone to the length of being dishonest and plagiarist. For example the book,

µMyth of the Cross¶, written by a Sunni Muslim and published by an Islamic organisation, hasliterally copied page after page from an Ahmadi publication, with no reference or credit to the

actual author.19

Muslim and Ahmadiyya Muslims both ignore the fact that the Qur¶an also contains manypassages that are repeated several times and yet their details differ . Now if we were to usethis type of pedantic criticism it would provide similar problems for the Qur¶an. For example,the Qur¶an states that God created man from dust (Surah 35:11). At another place it saysthat he created him of potter¶s clay and at yet other place it says from sticky clay (Surah15:26; 55:13; 37;11).

Another example of such "contradiction" in the Qur¶an is the story of Lot. At one place thetext says that Allah saved Lot and every member of his family (Surah 54:34). Yet in anotherplace there is an exception; it says: "except his wife" (Surah 11:81; 15:60).

Let one other example be sufficient. In one narrative the angels visit Abraham and say:

"Salamen " - peace. Abraham receives them with the same salutation, saying, "salamun-peace" (Surah 11:69). Yet in another narrative his reply, µSalamun¶ is not mentioned. Insteadhe is quoted as saying, "We feel afraid of you" (Surah 15:52). In one statement it is reportedas a dialogue but in the other case it is reported as unspoken feelings, "He mistrusted themand conceived a fear of them" (Surah 11:70).

The dialogue between Adam and God (Surah 20:123 versus Surah 2:38); the discoursebetween Noah and God (Surah 26:117:-118 versus Surah 71:21-22) and the debate betweenSatan and God (Surah 7:12-13 versus Surah 38:75-78) are a few more examples amongmany one could look at. We believe that such variations do not invalidate the account, but



rather they compliment and enhance each other. The only reason for mentioning the abovereferences is to show that the criterion Muslims use for the Bible could equally be used tobring the Qur¶anic text into question.

Interestingly the Qur¶an does admit that it has such changes in it and makes no excuse for it,only that: "God knows best what He reveals" (Surah 16:101-102). One wonders if a Christianreplied in a similar way to the Muslim objections, "God knows best," would a Muslim accept

such a reply?

The fact is that both the Qur¶an and the Bible are well preserved but neither book has beenpreserved totally without textual defect. Both books have suffered from variant readings. While Christians preserved also the variant readings, Muslims at the time of Uthmanconsidered it wise to destroy all evidences of different readings of the Qur¶an to standardiseinto one universal text.

AL-NASIKH W A AL-MAN SUKH: The doctrine of abrogation

Following the early Islamic commentators and schools of thought, conservative Muslimsbelieve that some verses in the present Qur¶an have been abrogated (mansukh). The simpleversion of this is that earlier verses have been superseded by verses revealed later and found

in the received text. This doctrine is based on the teaching of the Qur¶an itself, in particularthe following verse:

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitutesomething better or similar: Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things? (Surah2:106).

Other versions of abrogation suggest that certain verses have been abrogated but noreplacement verse has been revealed or recorded. The extent of this is the subject of muchcontroversy, varying from five verses to several hundred!

The Ahmadiyya view, however is that no part of the Qur¶an has been abrogated. Instead theymaintain that it is the Bible, the earlier Scripture, that is abrogated.20 A similar line is adoptedby other Muslim scholars, who claim that the above verse and similar ones (Surah13:39;16:101) refer to the abrogation of the Tawrat of Moses and the Injil of Jesus.21

This interpretation cannot be accepted, as the Qur¶an does not suggest that the previousScriptures were ever abrogated. Instead, we see that it claims to be, µmusadiqallima baynayadayhi - confirming what was before it¶ (Surah 3:3), namely the Tawrat and Injil. In anotherplace, Jews and Christians are instructed to obey the Tawrat and Injil respectively and judgeby what is written in them, rather than come to Muhammad for judgement (Surah 5:47, 71).

Therefore, the abrogation of which the Qur¶an speaks cannot refer to the previous Scripturesbut only to the text of the Qur¶an itself . Other passages in the Qur¶an support this idea, suchas the following verse:

When we substitute one revelation for another - and God knows best what He reveals (in

stages), - they say, Thou art but a forger: but most of them understand not (Surah 16:101).

This verse clearly speaks of the replacement of one part of the Qur¶anic text by another. Muhammad was accused by his opponents of giving contradictory statements in the Qur¶an . As a result, he is said to have received a revelation that Allah replaced some of the text witha later text. However this verse does not state that Allah replaced one µKitab¶ (book) withanother but rather that he substituted one µaya¶ for another. The word µaya¶ principally means

µsign¶ . However in the context of Muhammad¶s revelation, this refers only to the verses of theQur¶an and not the book of the Christians or the Jews.




1. Deedat, Is the Bible God¶s Word, p.7. 2. Muhammad Ali, The Holy Qur¶an, p. XXXV3. Ahmad, Fountain of Christianity, pp. 13,26. 4. Ahmad, Tazkira-tus-shahadatain, p.2. 5. Bashir-ud-din, Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur¶an, p. 35. 6. ibid., p.55. 7. ibid., p.54. 8. Shafaat, The question of authenticity and authority of the Bible, p.16. 9. Sahih Bukhari, Vol..6, p.479. 10. Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p.62. 11. Bashir-ud-din, Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur¶an, p.359. 12. as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.524. 13. Zafrullah, Islam: Its meaning for modern man, p.89. 14. Ahmad, Kitabul Bariah, p.68. 15. ibid., p.72. 16. ibid., pp. 57-72. 17. Bashir Ansari, Kitab-e- Muqaddes main Tahrif ke matni Saboot, p.1918. Ihsan-ul-Haq, Yahudiat wa Masihiat, pp.327-332. Muslim Academy, Lahore. 1981. 19. Ajijola, The Myth of the Cross, pp.85-88; 114-126; 133-138 & 140. Compare with,

Bashir-ud-din, Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur¶an, pp.47-51; 59-68; 17-19,7; 30-31,37,40,44; 46-47. Page numbers of Ajijola¶s book are of the first edition,1975. Pages numbers of Bashir-ud-din¶s book are of the 1985 edition. First edition of his work appeared around 1948 and subsequently in 1961.]

20. Muhammad Ali, The Holy Qur¶an, p.48. 21. Asad, The Message of the Qur¶an, p.23.

11. Pagan Origins

The case against Christianity

Muslims and Ahmadis both try to link the teachings of the Bible with polytheistic pagansources. They accuse early followers of incorporating foreign beliefs derived from paganism

µin the religion of Jesus¶ .1

To prove the point, they draw an outward comparison between thepagan myths and the events of the life of Jesus, being born of a virgin mother, his mission,death and resurrection. Paul also comes under heavy attack. They accuse him of bringingpagan rites and creeds into Christianity.2

If such a claim were true, those who persecuted Christians could easily have condemned theirfaith as being of pagan origin. In fact the early Church refused to make room for pagan ritesand ceremonies. For example, the Church at Colossae was surrounded by a pagan philosophythat involved a religious life of observing the movements of the stars, which were associatedwith the powers of the angels and were therefore worshipped. Paul boldly and harshly warnedthe Church of this dangerous situation:

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, whichdepends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than Christ(Colossians 2:8).

In other places Paul declares all pagan gods to be demons. He calls upon Christians not toparticipate in any pagan rites or idol feasts:

The sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to beparticipants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too;



you cannot have a part in both the Lord¶s table and the table of demons (1 Corinthians10:20-21).

The balance of truth

Like any other family in England, we receive a lot of µjunk mail¶ before Christmas and Easter.

Once I came home and found, as usual, a lot of mail blocking my way . Among theadvertisements for Easter eggs and Easter holidays, I found a four page leaflet that anAhmadi friend had pushed through the letter box. "Interesting," I thought and started readingit. µEaster and other festivals: Their pagan Origin¶ was the title. Waiting for the water to boilfor a cup of tea, I read the outcry about the similarity between Christianity and paganreligions and µproofs¶ from the Bible for the swoon theory.

The fact that every year the Christian world has to fix Good Friday and Easter Sunday afterthe movements of the moon clearly shows that the festival has more to do with the worshipof some luminary [heavenly body] than with any event in the life of Jesus (pp. 1-2).

If such reasoning is used to prove the pagan origins of Christianity, I can easily use the samecriterion for Muslim festivals and reverse the accusation by just putting some Islamic terms inthe above passage, thus:

The fact that every year the Muslim world has to fix the date for Ramadhan and Eid festivalsafter the movements of the moon clearly shows that these festivals have more to do with theworship of some luminary [heavenly body] than with any event in the life of Muhammad.

See how easy it is to reverse the objection? Not only this but, by following the method usedby Muslim and Ahmadi followers, one can provide a list of beliefs and practices of Islam, tosuggest their Zoroastrian, Sabaean or pagan Arab origin.

For instance we are told by Abul Fidah, who quotes from Abu Isa al-Maghrabi, that theSabaeans performed prayers seven times a day. Five of these prayers were at the samehours as adopted by Muhammad. These people fasted for thirty days and observed, like theMuslims, Eid festivals and venerated the Ka¶ba, the cube like building in the centre of thesacred mosque at Mecca.3

Again, if we adopt the Muslim attitude towards the Bible and use it to criticise Islam, we caneasily say, like our Muslim critics, that much of Islam came from hearsay. For example Miraj -the ascent of Muhammad to heaven and the passing visit to hell, may be found in ancientZoroastrian tales dating some four hundred years before the time of Muhammad. The Magi of Persia sought to revive the faith in people¶s hearts and they sent a Zoroastrian up to heavento bring some news. An angel took him to the heavenly realms, where he met the heavenlyleaders. He was shown Paradise and Hell. At last he was taken into the presence of Ormazd,the god of Zoroastrianism and his company of angels. Ormazd was like a brilliant light, butwith no appearance of a body.4 In another work such as the Zardusht Namah, the personwho ascended up to heaven and then came back was Zoroaster himself .5 If such similaritydoes not mean Islam has its origin in pre-Islamic sources, then one should not use the sameyardstick when looking at the Bible.

The strange legacy

One Ahmadi author attempted to trace Jesus¶ teachings to pagan origins. A secondendeavoured to find similarities and likeness between Muhammad and pagan gods to provethe universality of Muhammad. The first was Kamal-ud-Din, in his book, The Sources of Christianity, who tries to prove that the story of Jesus in the Bible is an exact copy of thestory of Horus, the µsun-god¶ .6 Then Abdul Haque, in his book, Muhammad in WorldScriptures, does not see even one point of similarity between them . Instead, he presents a



series of similarities between Horus and Muhammad to prove that the former foretold thelatter.

7

In another chapter, Kamal-ud-Din attempted to prove that the life and teachings of Jesus asrecorded in the Bible, were borrowed from the life of Buddha and his teachings . He arguedthat even µsome of the parables and precepts that we find in the Gospels had been givenword for word by Buddha, some five hundred years before Jesus¶ .8

Surprisingly Kamal-ud-Din did not know, or ignored, what the founder of his movement,Mirza Ahmad, had said:

The events of Buddha¶s life had not been recorded till the time of Jesus . Buddhist priests,therefore, had a great opportunity to ascribe to the Buddha anything they wished to ascribe. So it is likely that when they came to know the facts of Jesus¶ life and his moral teaching,they mixed these with many other things introduced by themselves and ascribed them to theBuddha.9

The Logos connection

To discredit the validity of the Gospels, some would lay their hands on anything they can find.

Kamal-ud-Din is no different in his reasoning. He further claims that the disciples did notwrite through inspiration but were influenced by Plato and Philo. He refers to the first fewverses of John¶s Gospel and comments that µthe term WORD, used in John, which stands forthe Greek word LOGOS¶ is also used by Philo.

10

In the race to accuse, Deedat, an orthodox Muslim, does not want to be left behind. Hestates, without any evidence, that every Christian scholar acknowledges John 1:1 as thewords of Philo. He accuses John of being a plagiarist.11

John used the word LOGOS because it was a word in common use by well-educated men of that time, just as, today, we expect educated people to understand terms like evolution, life-force, relativity, ecology, zoology, and psychology etc. The truth about Jesus had to beinterpreted to a changing Greco-Roman world. God wanted them to know what he meant. Therefore the gospel was presented in terms which were familiar at that time.

It is indeed true that Philo and John both used the word µLogos¶, but while Philo used it toexplain some of his philosophical principles, John used this term or word to explain about anhistorical figure: Jesus.

The fact is that Philo never said that the Logos became flesh and lived among us . In hisopinion, µGod is without qualities because that which possesses qualities cannot be regardedas sui generis¶

12 - of the same kind. In contrast, John introduces God the Son as the Logos,the Word, (Kalimah) as the one whom the disciples heard, saw and touched ( 1 John 1:1-4). Since both writings were in Greek, it was natural to use a familiar word but with a whollydifferent connotation. A similar example is of the Qur¶an where in Arabic µAmr¶ and µKalimah¶ are the two words used.


1. Kamal-ud-Din, The Sources of Christianity, p.15. 2. Aziz-us-Samad, A comparative study of Christianity and Islam, p.71. 3. Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p.11. 4. ibid., pp.79-81. 5. Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qurµan, p. 230. 6. Kamal-ud-Din, The Sources of Christianity, p.35



N ew trends

Nowdays, Ahmadiyya missionaries in the West are trying to reinterpret the concept of Sonship rather than deny it. They have found references in the Bible where other people wereaddressed as son, or sons. They use these examples to show that the expression Son of Godwhen spoken by Jesus about himself, or by others, meant no more in his case, than it meansin its application to others in Scripture.

13

A similar line has been adopted by more recent Muslim writers . Deedat, for example, quotesseveral texts from the Bible in his booklet, Christ in Islam, to show that the expression, Sonof God "was a metaphorical descriptive term, commonly used among the Jews". To concludehis argument, he adds that in the Bible, "God has sons by the tons."

14

In answer to this, our response is that the phrase Son of God is never used in the Bible in acarnal sense, as is taught by the Qur¶an. In no sense and at no time does the Bible claim thatAlmighty God had intercourse with Mary, in order for Jesus to be born.

Secondly, Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God in the same sense in which all truebelievers are sons of God. One should not overlook many occasions when Jesus¶ Sonship isstated as being unique. For example:

All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is, exceptthe Father, or who the Father is, except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses toreveal him (Luke 10:22).

Jesus said that everyone should honour him as the Son of God, even as they honour theFather. Why? Because ...

The Father judges no one but has given all judgement to the Son that all may honour theSon, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour theFather who sent him (John 5: 22 - 23).

No other person has claimed such authority. It is clearly an exclusive statement. In another

place Jesus said: "No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6). Furthermore, it is notonly Jesus who refers to himself as the unique Son of God. God the Father himself borewitness to him: "This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17. 17:5).

Like many Muslims, Ahmadis use some verses from the Bible out of context, in their attemptto prove that Jesus is not the SON of God. However they ignore the overwhelming witness of Scripture to Jesus¶ unique Sonship. God spoke through Jesus, not only as a prophet but as

µthe Son¶, through whom he made all things (Hebrews 1:3).

The Divinity of J esus

When Christians say: "Jesus is God," they mean that Jesus shares the divine nature with theFather and the Holy Spirit. He took human form and voluntarily chose to subject himself to

the limitations and weakness of human nature. This is why the Bible declares about him:

Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in humanlikeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedientto death ² even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:5-8).

The usual trump card in the Muslim argument is to say that µJesus did not claim divinity¶ . They maintain that µnowhere in the Gospels or the Epistles is it said that Jesus referred tohimself as God, or implied that he was God¶ .15



Ahmadiyya and orthodox alike want to see a categorical statement from Jesus saying: "I amGod." Unless it can be shown that he said, "I am God," Muslims and Ahmadis will not believethat Jesus is God. Thus, they discount extensive scriptural evidence of his nature andessence, regarding it as insufficient proof of his Divine Sonship.

Muslims and the Ahmadiyya are inconsistent in that they also have several doctrines that areneither mentioned categorically, nor stated specifically and yet they believe in them . For

example, nowhere in the Qur¶an is there a categorical statement of the doctrine known as the µKalima Tayyebah¶, "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his apostle." It is derivedfrom two different places and combined to form a doctrine.

The Qur¶an says, µEstablish Prayer,¶ but it does not prescribe all the ritual prayers practisedby Muslims. Many of these were passed on through the traditions of the earlier disciples of Muhammad. Yet Muslims do not doubt their validity. Why then should they apply doublestandards when considering a Christian doctrine?

Perhaps through the years a truce between Sufism and Muslim Orthodoxy has worked out,but back in 922 a Sufi saint called Al-Hallaj was executed for his idea because he said of himself: µAna al haqq,¶ which means µI am the truth,¶ a statement which in orthodox ears wasequivalent to identifying himself with God. Jesus had long before said, "Ana huwa Sirat, al-haqq, al-hayat," I am the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6) and many Muslims arestill asking: "Show us where did Jesus say, µI am God.¶".

In any case, had Jesus made the blunt statement: "I am God," then he would have beenexcluding the Father and the Holy Spirit. For this reason he simply said, "I am", which is aclear reference to God in the Old Testament (Ex 3:14; John 8:58). Other places we see thathe allowed to be called "The Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:16).


1. Ahmad, Victory of Islam, p.4. 2. Ahmad, Tohfa Qaisariyah, p.21; Zafrullah, Tazkirah, tr. p. 154).

3. Ahmad, Baraheen Ahmadiyya, Vol. 4, p. 370. 4. Ahmad, Noor-ul-Haqq, Vol. I, p.79. 5. Ahmad, Jang Muqaddas, p. 169. 6. When those of the Quraysh tribe planned to kill Muhammad, he fled with his friend

Abu Bakr to a cave on mount Thaur (Sor) south of Mecca and remained there for twodays. A legend widely reported in the biography of Muhammad explains how Allahsent a spider to spin a cobweb around the mouth of the cave and a pair of dovesmade a nest in front of it. When the enemy made a frantic search for him, they cameto the entrance. Seeing the cobweb and the doves, they thought that no one couldhave entered the cave without disturbing the entrance and so they searchedelsewhere. Interestingly enough such a story is also told among the Jewish traditionsabout David when he fled from Saul into a cave. When David prayed to God (Seepsalm 57:2), he called a spider to weave a web in the mouth of the cave.

7. Al-Hakm, 17th August, 1902.

8. Albadr, 11th September, 1903. 9. Ahmad, Noor-ul-Haqq, Vol. I, p.106. 10. Ahmad, ibid., p.106; Jang Muqaddas, p. 169. 11. Malik G.Farid, The Holy Qur¶an, p.304. 12. Ahmad, Jesus in India, p.13. 13. Zafrullah Khan, Deliverance from the Cross, p.11. 14. Deedat, Christ in Islam, p.28. 15. Zafrullah Khan, Deliverance from the Cross, p.8.



days but in six "periods". Since it is impossible to define the length of these periods, theyargue, "All that we can say is that creation of the heavens and the earth took six long cycles,to become perfect and complete."10

The Ahmadiyya have embraced the Big Bang theory. In support they quote surah 21:31 as aproof text from their translation of the Qur¶an:

Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then Weopened them out? And we made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

11

Bashir-ud-din states: "God, in accordance with the laws which He had set in motion, split themass of matter, and its scattered bits became the units of the solar system."12

The first man

The Bible reminds us that it is God who created us all and that all humanity sprang forth fromthe first man and his wife (I Corinthians 15:45). Regardless of race or nationality, we all havea common blood line (Acts 17:26).

Muslims also believe that Adam was the first human being created by God. They claim thatAdam was the first prophet sent by him. The Ahmadiyya movement accepts Adam as the firstprophet, but denies that he was the first man on earth.

he World has passed through different cycles of creation and civilisation, and Adam theprogenitor of the present race is only the first link in the present cycle, and not the very firstman in God¶s creation. ... Other Adams may have gone before our Adam; other races mayhave lived and perished and other cycles of civilisation may have appeared anddisappeared.

13

The movement very much supports evolutionist theories. God did not create the first man atonce, but through a gradual process, "stage after stage and condition after condition".

14 According to Bashiruddin there was a civilisation on this earth before the arrival of Adam. They were human but called "Jinn" and their leader was "Iblis".

15

Angels and demons

According to the Qur¶an the angels - mala¶ikah were created from light - nur and the demons- Jinn from fire - nar. The Qur¶an acknowledges the existence of Satan (often called Shaitanor Iblis) who is from the Jinn. Like the Jinns, he was created from fire (Surah 18:50; 7:12). God ordered him to worship Adam, but he refused and so he was rejected and cast down(Surah 7:11).

The Bible however teaches that Satan because of his pride and covetousness fell. It revealsthat Satan is the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4), "The prince of the power of the air, thespirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2) . The Bible tells us thatSatan¶s powerful influence can be overcome. "Resist the devil and he will flee from you"

(James 4:7

). Additionally, Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Deliver us from the evil one"(Matthew 6:13).

Muslim writers disagree with each other that Iblis ever was an angel . Yet it is strange to findthat it was the angels who were asked to worship Adam and Iblis is mentioned as the onewho refused and was cast down. Muslims do agree with Christians that Satan masqueradesas the benefactor, friend and servant of mankind, but they add that because God has allowedhim to do this, they believe that all good or bad things come from God. The last part of thecreed, µIman Muffasel¶ says, "Wal qadri khairihee wa sharrihee minallahi ta¶ala" - and anything good or bad that occurs is caused by Allah.



According to the Ahmadiyya belief, Shaitan (Satan) does not mean a devil. Satan and Iblisare two different persons. Iblis is the one who refused to submit to Adam and it was Satanwho tempted Adam and caused him to slip. Iblis belonged to the Jinn and therefore becamethe leader and representative of the forces of evil in the universe . Satan was not "an invisibleevil spirit but a wicked man of flesh and blood".16

The life hereafter

The fifth article of faith in Islam is the belief in the Hereafter, heaven and hell . Following theQur¶an, Muslims believe in life beyond. Like the Bible, the Qur¶an teaches about the

judgement day, also called "Yawmal-Qiyamah", the day of resurrection, and "Yawmal-Akhir",the last day. There will be everlasting life for the righteous and everlasting destruction for thewicked.

Those who will have everlasting life will live in a place called Paradise, a big garden wateredby rivers. The sensuous joys of Paradise are described in great detail in many popular Islamicbooks. However hell is a place of fire, which has seven gates and is divided from Paradise bya wall. Those who are in hell suffer everlasting punishment.

The Ahmadiyya reject the idea of Paradise being a place of physical delights. However neither

is it regarded as a mere metaphor. In their view life after death takes two forms, a life inParadise and a life in hell. The body in the after life is different from the physical. "Paradiseand Hell are not two distinct and separate places but two conditions or states of mind."

17

Ahmadiyya does not believe in the eternity of hell but regard it as a sort of hospital wheresinners will live for a limited time for their spiritual treatment and cure.

18

In his teaching about eternal life and eternal punishment, Jesus taught that there was nomovement from hell to heaven. He did not leave any room for purgatory. The Qur¶an alsoleaves no room for the possibility of hell being a temporary place . The righteous and thewicked will remain in their places of destiny forever (Surah 2:81-82).

The Ahmadiyya are trying their best to introduce their doctrines in ways which will beaccepted by modern people. They have brought the idea of evolution into Islam. Theirmessage is of eventual salvation for all, in direct contradiction of the teaching of all theprophets.


1. Bashir-ud-din, Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, p.7. 2. Ahmad, Arb¶ain, No.4, p.25. 3. Zafrullah, Ahmadiyyat, p.38. 4. Ahmad, Baraheen Ahmadiyya, Vol. 5, p.115. 5. Ahmad, Haqeeqatul-Wahi, p.178. 6. Ahmad, Fountain of Christianity, p.63 (footnote).

7. Majmua Ishtiharat, Vol.. I, p.117. 8. Ahmad, Anjam Athem, p. 62. 9. Ahmad, Baraheen Ahmadiyya, Vol.. IV, p.557 (footnote). 10. Farid, The Holy Qur¶an, p.336. 11. ibid., p.695. 12. Bashir-ud-din, Introduction to the Study of the Qur¶an, p.422. 13. Farid, The Holy Qur¶an, p. 23. 14. Bashir-ud-din, Introduction to the Studyof the Qur¶an, p.423. 15. ibid., p.424. 16. Farid, The Holy Qur¶an, p.328.



The Purpose of his coming: The Islamic view

Muslims believe in a Jesus who is to descend as an ordinary man but with the power of Godand his permission to spread Islam through battles; he will then marry, have children, dieand be buried next to Muhammad.

Maududi, the founder leader of Jamat-e-Islami draws a scenario of what will happen whenJesus arrives. In his opinion before the coming of Jesus, Anti-Christ Dajjal will arise amongthe nation of Jews and will impose himself as the Christ. He will gather Jews from all over theworld and assemble them in Palestine. He will create a mighty Jewish empire. Muslims willsuffer colossal hardship. His army will move towards neighbouring Muslim countries and willexpand their borders. He will penetrate into Syria with 70,000 Jewish troops and will takeposition before Damascus. At this moment of crisis Jesus will descend in the eastern quarterof Damascus near a white minaret. After the morning prayer he will advance with theMuslims to fight against Dajjal. Jesus with the Muslim army will pursue and "A greatslaughter of the Jews will ensue and every one of them will be annihilated. The nation of Jewswill be exterminated." 3

Another Muslim writer, Kassim, thinks the 70,000 will be Jews and Christians, and Jesus,before going on the offensive, will give the world a chance to convert to Islam or be ready for

extermination. Then his army will engage at a battlefield called Armageddon in the Bible. Hewill capture Dajjal at Lydda, the airport to Tel Aviv. All the followers of Dajjal will beexterminated.4

Both writers follow the same popular route stating that no other religion will be in a positionto challenge Islam because the followers of them including Christianity will renounce theirformer allegiance to form the only brotherhood of Islam.

5

On the one hand Jesus is expected to convert everybody by force or they would beexterminated, and yet on the other hand, according to the popular Hadith, Muslims think of Jesus coming back as a "just leader and a benevolent sovereign" ruler who will establishuniversal peace and brotherhood under a Muslim state head.6 He will rid this world of hatredand malice and establish peace. After all the efforts even that peace will last for only a fewyears and then will be the judgement day.

The biblical view

The Bible however tells us that at his first coming Jesus became like us in every respect, todeliver us from the power of Satan (John 1:18; Hebrews 2:14-17). He came to conquer sinand rise from the dead to gain victory and triumph. At his second coming, we in fact aregoing to see him as he really is (1 John 3:2). We should not assume the second coming willbe a repeat of the first. However this coming is linked with the mission he left to the Churchto perform and proclaim to the world his Gospel. At his coming the mission that began withPentecost will terminate.

His coming will be a decisive one (1Corinthians 15:24). The destruction of the heavens andthe earth, the resurrection of the dead and the judgement will take place (1 Thessalonians

4:16,17; 2 Peter 3:10,12; Matthew 7:1-27; 5:21-30; John 5:28-29). Not only those whohave not accepted him but Christians too will stand before Christ, to receive what is due tothem (2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Corinthians 10:11).

Jesus gave many striking illustrations of the suddenness of his coming and the result . Hesaid:

Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grindingwith a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left (Matthew 24:40-41).



Elsewhere we are told:

We will all be changed - in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet . For thetrumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed(1Corinthians 15:51-52).

He is not coming to establish peace for a time but to establish eternal peace. Although it is

right to campaign for social justice and peace to improve society, the Bible makes it clearthat we will never be able to perfect it . Only Christ at his second coming will uproot evil andenthrone righteousness forever.

The time of his coming

The Bible speaks clearly about the unexpectedness of his return. When Jesus was asked byhis disciples about the day of his return, he advised them not to speculate because no oneknows the date but God (Mark 13:32). Therefore any speculation about the date is futile. Peter points out that God¶s time-scale is different from ours (2 Peter 3:8). All that Christianshave to do is to be ready and prepared for his return - at any time. Jesus said that he wouldcome when people did not expect him. So often critics consider the idea of Jesus¶ secondcoming as naïve and gullible:

"Where is this ¶coming¶ he promised? Ever since our fathers died everything goes on as it hassince the beginning of creation" (2 Peter 3:4).

Jesus has answers to such ridicule. He will come unexpectedly as a thief in the night. He saidhis coming would be as unexpected as the flood in the time of Noah (Matthew 24:37-41). People were told about it but they did not believe it until it arrived and then it was too late . Today everyone has the opportunity to believe in Christ now and act as he has commanded(2 Peter 3:9; Acts 2:37-38). At his arrival this chance will have been withdrawn; it will be toolate.

Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts. (Hebrews 4:7)


1. Nadwi, A.H; Qadianism: A Critical Study, p.392. Maududi, A.A; Finality of Prophethood, p.61 3. ibid., p.694. Kassim, H.M; Time for the appearance of Imam Mahdi and the second coming of

Jesus to earth draws close, The Muslim Digest, May/June 87. pp.201-202. 5. Maududi, p.696. ibid., p.58.

Bibliography

Abdul Haque, Akbar. Christ in the New Testament and the Qur¶an. Author published. Evanston, USA. 1975.

Adelphi G. and Hahn E. The Integrity of the Bible According to the Qur¶an and Hadith . Hyderabad, India. 1977.

Ahmad, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam. Victory of Islam. Tabshir Publication. Rabwah, Pakistan. 1973.

A Misunderstanding Removed. Tabshir. Rabwah, Pakistan. 1975.



How to get rid of the bondage of Sin. Ahmadiyya Muslim Foreign Mission, Rabwah, Pakistan. n.d.

Three Questions by a Christian Answered. Tabshir Publication. Rabwah, Pakistan. 1972.

Explanation of Objectives (Tavzih Maram). Tabshir Publication. Rabwah, Pakistan. 1972.

Jesus in India (Masih Hindustan Main). Ahmadiyya Muslim Foreign Mission, London. 1978.

Four Questions by a Christian and their Answers. Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyyah, Qadian. India. 1969.

The Philosphy of the Teaching of Islam, Islam International Publications, Tilford, 1989.

Anjam Atham. (Urdu). Ziaul Islam Press, Qadian. 1896.

Atmam-ul-Hujjat (Urdu & Arabic). Gulzar Press, Lahore. 1894.

Ayena Kamalate Islam. (Urdu & parts in Arabic), Riaz Hind Press, Qadian, India. 1893.

Izala Auham. (Urdu). Vol. 1 & 2. Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha¶at Islam, Lahore. 1951.

Baraheen Ahmadiyya. Urdu). (Vol. I & II). Safeer Hind Press. Amratser, India. 1880.

Baraheen Ahmadiyya. (Urdu). (Vol. III). Safeer Hind Press. Amratser, India. 1882.

Baraheen Ahmadiyya. (Urdu). (Vol. IV). Riaz Hind Press. Amratser, India. 1884.

Chashma Marifat. (Urdu). Anwar-e-Ahmadiyya Press. Qadian 1908.

Dafeul Bala. (Urdu). Zia-ul-Islam Press. Qadian. 1902

Haqiqat-ul-Wahi. (Urdu). Matba Magazine, Qadian 1907.

Kitabul Bariyah. (Urdu). Zia-ul-Islam Press. Qadian. 1898.

Majmooa Ashtiharat. (3 Volumes). Gresham Press,Old Woking, England. 1986.

Nur-ul-Haq. (Volume 1). Mustafai Press, Lahore. 1894. (Volume 2). Mufeed-e-Aam press,Lahore 1894.

Sat-Bachan. (Urdu). Zia-ul-Islam Press. Qadian. 1895.

Taryaq-ul-qulub. (Urdu). Zia-ul-Islam Press. Qadian. 1902 (?)

Ajijola, Al-Haj Adelcke Dirisu. The Myth of the Cross. Islamic Publications, Lahore. 1975.

Ali, Maulana Muhammad. The Holy Qur¶an. The Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha¶at Islam, Lahore,Pakistan. 1963.

The Religion of Islam. Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha¶at Islam, Lahore, Pakistan. 1973 (1936).

Asad, Muhammad. The Message of the Qur¶an. Dar Al-Andalus, Gibraltar. 1980.



Aziz-us-Samad, Mrs. Ulfat. Islam and Christianity. Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha¶at Islam,Lahore, Pakistan. 1970.

Burney, Prof . M.E. Qadiani Madhab Ka Elmi Muhasabah. Ashraf Books, Lahore. (9th ed. n.d.)

Colson, Charles W, Loving God. Basingstoke, England, Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1983.

Deedat, Ahmad. Christ in Islam, Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham, England. 1985.

Is the Bible God¶s Word? Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham, England. 1986.

Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction. Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham, England. 1987.

What was the Sign of Jonah? Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham, England. 1985.

Ghulam Farid, Malik (Editor). The Holy Qur¶an. The London Mosque. 1981.

Gibb, H.A.R. Islam. Henry Martyn Inst. Hyderabad, India. 1979.

Gilchrist, John. Jam¶ Al-Qur¶an:The Codification of the Qur¶an Text, Jesus to the Muslims,Benoni, South Africa. 1989.

Guillaume, Alfred. Islam. Pelican Books, Hamondsworth, UK. 1979.

Jadid, Iskander. The Cross in the Gospel and the Qur¶an, Markaz-ash-Shabiba, Beruit. n.d.

Jeffery, Arthur. Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur¶an. AMS Press, New York,USA. 1973 (1937).

Joomal, A.S.K. The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man? I.M.S. Publications, Johannesburg,South Africa. 1976.

Kamal-ud-Din, Khawaja. The Sources of Christianity. Woking Muslim Mission & Literary Trust,Lahore, 1973 (1924).

Khan, Dr. Muhammad Muhsin, Sahih al-Bukhari. (9 Volumes), Hilal Yayininlari, Ankara,Turkey. 1978.

Mahmood Ahmad, Bashir-ud-din. Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur¶an, LondonMosque. 1985.

Invitation to Ahmadiyyat. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1980 (1961).

Maududi, S Abul A¶la. The Qadiani Problem Islamic Publications, Lahore. 1979.

The meaning of the Qur¶an.Islamic Publications, Lahore.

Finality of Prophethood, Islamic Publications, Lahore, Pakistan 1978.

Monir, Shakil Ahmad. The Shroud of Jesus. Ahmadiyya Muslim Mission, Lagos, Nigeria. 1978.

Pickthall, Muhammad Marmaduke, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur¶an, Taj Company Ltd. Karachi, Pakistan. n.d.



Robson, James (ed & tr.). Mishkat al-Masabih . (2 Volumes). Sh. Muhammad Asraf, Lahore,Pakistan. 1975.

Shafaat, Ahmad. The Question of Authenticity and Authority of the Bible, Nur Media Services,Montreal. 1982.

Shams, J.D. Where did Jesus die? London Mosque. 1978.

Siddiqui, Abdul Hameed. Sahih Muslim (4 Volumes), Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore,Pakistan. 1972.

Sox, David. The Shroud Unmasked. The Lamp Press. Basingstoke, England. 1988.

Vidyarthy, Abdul Haque. Muhammad in World Scriptures. (3 Volumes), Ahmadiyya AnjumanIsha¶at Islam, Lahore, Pakistan. 1968.

Tisdal, W. St. Clair. The Original Sources of the Qur¶an. Society for Promoting ChristianKnowledge, London. 1905.

The Sources of Islam. T & T Clark, Edinburgh, Scotland. 1901.

Yusuf Ali, Abdullah. The Holy Qur¶an. Amana Corp.Maryland, USA. 1983.

Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad. Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man. Routledge and Kegan Paul,London, UK. 1980.

... Tadhkirah (Eng. trans.). London Mosque. 1976.

Deliverance from the Cross. London Mosque. 1978.

Ahmadiyyat: The Renaissance of Islam. Tabshir. London Mosque. 1978.

Glossary

Ahadith: plural of Hadith; traditions attributed to Muhammad.

Al-Masih: the Messiah; the Christ

Allah: the Arabic name for God; His personal name in Islam.

Allama: a learned person

Awliya: Plural of wali; Saints

Ayah: verses of the Qur¶an; also means signs and miracles.

Bahagavad Gita: an important and popular religious book of the Hindus

Brahmo Samajist: monotheistic Vedic Movement

Dajjal: the anti-Christ

Fidyah: ransom

Hazrat: title of respect used for religious leaders.



Hijrah: migration; date of Muhammad¶s flight from Mecca in 622 A.D. to Madina. The Islamiccalendar commences from this year.

Hindu: a term used to identify the Vedantic religion of India and its followers.

Iblis: Satan

Ibn: son

Ibn-e-Maryam: the son of Mary

Imam: leader of a Muslim community or of a congregation of worshipers; spiritual guide of Shia Muslims.

Imam-e-Zaman: the spiritual leader of his age.

Iman: faith; in the sense of a formal declaration of belief in the six articles.

Injil: Gospel

Isa: The name of Jesus in the Qur¶an.

Jagirdar: Landowners

Jehad: Striving; Holy War.

Jin: demons but not necessarily evils.

Jizyah: tax enjoined on non-Muslims, a kind of community charge.

Ka¶aba: the sacred shrine of Islam where Muslim converge.

Kaffâra: atonement

Kalimah: the creed

Khalifa: successor, vice-regent

Kitab: book

Kitab-e-Muqaddas: the holy book, the Bible.

Krishna: the most popular avatar of Vishnu and hero of the Mahabharta.

Lakshmi: the goddess of fortune, wife of Vishnu

Mahabharta: the great Hindu epic.

Maharaja: great king

Mahdi: the directed one; a ruler to appear on earth in the last days.

Malika: angels



Mansukh: abrogated

Marhame Isa: ointment of Jesus

Masih Maw¶ud: the promised Messiah.

Masjid: mosque

Minaret: tower of a mosque

Mir¶ag: Muhammad¶s ascension to heaven.

Muffasel: detailed

Mufti: Muslim Jurist; expounder or doctor of Islamic

Mujaddid: revivalist; Renewer; Reformer,

Mullah: priest

Nabi: Prophet

Nar: fire

Naskh: abrogation

Nubawat: prophethood

Nur: light

Nuzul: the descent

Nuzul-i-Isa: the descent of Jesus

Qadi: Muslim Jurist

Qira: recitation

Qurra: Qur¶an reciters

Rafa: to ascend

Raise: chief

Rasul: apostle

Sahih Bukhari: name of the most respected collection of traditions.

Sharia: Islamic law

Shia: Shi¶ite. sect regarding Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad as direct lawful successor toMuhammad.

Sikh: a follower of Sikhism.



Sunni: those who accept the sunna, the custom and practice of Muhammad.

Surah: chapter of the Qur¶an

Tafsir: commentary

Tahrif: alteration

Tawhid: unity; the oneness of God.

Vishnu: one of the two great gods of Hinduism

Wahy: revelation, inspiration

Yahya: John the Baptist

Yawamal-Akhira: the Last Day; the day of judgement.

Yawmal-Qiyamah: the Day of resurrection, Judgement.

Zabih-ullah: the sacrifice offered by Allah

Zabur: psalms

Zakat: Charity enjoined upon Muslims

ITL-USA, Jesus to Muslims Inc. P.O.Box 1555, Summerfield, FL 34492, USA [email protected]

jesus and the indian messiah

Documents