Though Zakir and Estes are wrong to market Ibn Abdel Wahab innovated creed of the upper 6th

lasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth,

fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his

understanding.

|

Chapter 44:6 of the same book says:

|

Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel, and his redeemer

the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside

me there is no God.

|

Jeremiah 10:10has:

|

But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an

everlasting king.

|

Paul own First Epistle to Timothy 1:17 says:

|

Now unto the King etemal, immortal, invisible, the only

wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever.

|

God who is etemal, immortal, free of weariness, and everlasting

cannot be helpless and subject to death. Can a weak mortal be God?

In fact the true God is the One whom, according to the texts quoted

above, Christ was addressing at the time of his death. Strangely

the

|

Christians believe that their God, Christ, not only suffered death

but

also entered into hell after his death.

|

This belief is reported from the Book of Prayer printed in 1506 in

these words:

|

As Christ died, and was buried for our sake, we must also

believe that he descended into Hell.

|

Philip Guadagnolo wrote a book in Arabic in refutation of the

work of Ahmad Al Sharif ibn Zain al-"Abidin and named it

Khiyalatol Filbos (The views of Philip). It was printed in Rome in

1669. Father Philip said in this book:

|

Who suffered for our sins, descended into hell, and then

was raised from the dead, the third day.

|

The prayer book contains the word "hell" in the Athanasian doc-

trine," fir nly believed by all the Christians.

|

Jawad ibn Sabbath said:

|

Explaining this belief, Father Martyrose told me that

when Christ accepted human form it became necessary for

him to bear all human sufferings and afflictions. Therefore he

was sent to hell and was punished. When he was delivered

from heM, all those who were present in hell before him were

released with him. I demanded some proof and support for

this belief. He answered that this belief did not need any

support. One of the Christians present, sarcastically remarked

that the Father must be very cruel, otherwise he would have

not allowed his son to go into the fires of hell. The priest

became very angry with him and drove him out of the meeting.

Later on the same Christian came to me and embraced

Islam but did not allow it to be made public in his lifetime. I

promised him to keep it secret.

|

In 1833 (1248 AH) a renowned priest, Joseph Wolf, came to

Lucknow in India. He claimed that he had received inspiration from

God. He declared in public that Christ would descend from heaven in

1847. A Shi"ah scholar had a debate with him. The Shi"ah scholar

asked him about the belief under discussion and he answered that

Christ did indeed enter hell and was punished but there was nothing

wrong with this as it was for the redemption of his people.

Some Christian sects hold an even worse belief about Christ. Bell

said in his history with regard to the Maronites:

|

This sect believes that the Christ entered hell after his

death and that he delivered the souls of Cain and the people

of Sodom from hell, because they were not the followers of

the creator of evil, while the souls of Abel, Noah and

Abraham remained in hell as they were opponents. They also

believe that the creator of the universe is not the God who

sent Jesus. They therefore reject the books of the Old

Testament as being inspired by God.

|

The author of Meezan al Haqq said in his book Hall al-lshkal

which he wrote answering the book Kashf al-Asrar:

|

It is true that the Christian faith includes the belief that

Christ entered into hell and came out of it on the third day

and ascended to heaven, but the word hell here signifies

"house" that is a place between hell and the highest heaven.

This implies that Christ entered the "House", so that he might

show his glory to the people of the "House" and that he should

disclose to them his being master of life, and that he had

atoned for all sins by being crucified. Thus hell and Satan

were overcome by him, and they were made as if non-existent

to the faithful.

|

It has been confirmed by the Book of Prayer and by the priests,

|

Philip Guadagnolo, Martyrose and Joseph Wolf that hell is meant

here

in the real sense, contrary to the interpretation presented by the

author

of Meezan al-Haqq. It remains to be supported by some convincing

ARGUMENTs that any place called "House" exists between hell and the

highest heaven, or that Jesus entered hell simply to show his glory

to

the people of the "House".

|

Besides, the existence of the "House" makes no difference since

either it is a place of pleasure and comfort or it is a place of

punish-

ment and torment. In the former case it would be unnecessary for

Christ to show them his glory as they would already be living in

eter-

nal pleasure and comfort and in the latter case the"House" is

nothing

other than hell for the souls that are suffering there.

|

Atonement: a Rational Impossibility

|

The sacrifice of Christ in the form of his death has no logical

con-

nection with the belief in atonement, that is the redemption of man

from his sins. As sin in this context is the original sin that was

com-

mitted by Adam in Paradise. It is logically inconceivable that all

of a

man own progeny should suffer for the sin of their father. It would

be a

great injustice to them. It is clearly said in the book of Ezekiel

18:20:

|

The Son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither

shall the father bear the iniquity of the son, the righteousness

of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the

wicked shall be upon him.

|

The other point that we are unable to understand is that Satan was

overcome by Christ through his death. According to the books of the

Christians Satan is eternally chained and imprisoned from the time

prior to the birth of Christ. The sixth verse of the Epistle of

Jude has:

|

And the angels, which kept not their first estate, but left

their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains

under darkness, unto the judgement of the great day.

|

Seventh Statement

|

The Gospel of John contains the following statement of Christ

addressing Mary:l

|

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet

ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto

them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and my God,

and your God.2

|

Christ, in this statement, describes himself as man like others so

that the people may not accuse him of the claim of

self-deification.

He stressed his humanity and said that he is a man like others, the

word son has been used for him only in metaphorical sense. As this

statement was made by him before his ascension to the heavens and

just after his "resurrection" it confirms that Christ had been

preaching

his humanity and his being the servant of God up to his ascension

to

the heavens, that is, the whole of his life. The above statement of

Christ is absolutely in accordance with the following statement of

the

Holy Koran where it quotes the statement of the Prophet Jesus

(peace

be on him).

|

I spoke to them of nothing except what you bade me. (I

said) worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.3

|

Eighth Shtement

|

The Gospel of John 14:28, contains the following statement of

Christ:

|

For my Father is greater than I.

|

This also confirms that Christ denied being God, as no one can be

even equal to God far from being greater than Him.

|

Ninth Statement

|

The Gospel of John 14:24 contains the following statement of

Christ:

|

And the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father own

which sent me.

|

This makes it very clear that the word spoken by Christ is the word

of God and not the word of Jesus, and that Jesus was no more than

a

messenger sent by God.

|

Tenth Statement

|

Matthew chapter 23 contains this address of Christ to his

disciples:

|

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is

your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters:

for one is your Master, even Christ.l

|

This also clearly says that God is one and Jesus only his messen-

ger.

|

Eleventh Statement

|

The Gospel of Matthew 26:36-44 has:

|

Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called

Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I

go and pray yonder. And he took with him Peter and the two

sons of Zebedee,2 and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.

Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful,

even unto death: tarry ye here and watch with me. And he

went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying,

O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup" pass from me: nev-

ertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. And he cometh unto

the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter.

What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray,

that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing,

but the flesh is weak. He went away again the second time,

and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass

away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done; And he

came and found them asleep again.... And he went away

again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

|

All the sayings and the acts of Christ in the above description

clearly prove that Christ did not consider himself to be God, but

a ser-

vant of God. Would God be sorrowful to death, would God prostrate

and pray as Christ did? Besides, when the only purpose of Christ own

coming in the world in human form was to sacrifice his life for the

redemption of the whole world, why, on this very occasion, was he

so

sorrowful on the question of his death which was supposedly the

very

purpose of his existence? Why did he pray that God would remove

the cup of death from him?

|

l"welfth Statement

|

It was the usual habit of Christ to refer to himself with the words

"the son of man" as is evident from Matthew, 8:20, 9:6, 6:13, 27,

17:9,

12, 22. 18:11. 19:28. 20:18, 28. 24:27. 26:24, 45, 64. Similarly

there

are many other places in other books.

|

Christian ARGUMENTs in favour of the Trinity

|

It has been shown under the fifth point above that the writings of

John are full of metaphorical and symbolical descriptions and that

there are only rare occasions where some interpretation is not

required. Similarly we have shown in the sixth point that great

ambi-

guity is found in Christ own statements, to the extent, in fact, that

even

|

his disciples were unable to understand him until Christ himself

had

specified the meaning of his statements. Also we have cited

examples

proving that he never claimed godhood nor to be the second person

of

the trinity in clear words; and that the statements usually used by

the

Christians to support this claim are ambiguous and mostly taken

from

the Gospel of John.

|

These statements are of three kinds:

|

1. There are some statements that do not in any way support their

claim as far as their real meanings are concerned. Their deduc-

tions from these statements stand in clear contradiction to rea-

son as well as textual evidence and explicit statements of Christ

himself. We have sufficiently discussed them in the previous

two sections.

|

2. Some statements produced by them for this purpose are of the

kind that have already been explained by other verses of the

Gospels and by statements made by Christ himself. In the pres-

ence of these explanations, no other explanations of the

Christian scholars or commentators can be accepted.

|

3. There are statements that, according to ,Christian theologians

require interpretation. The necessity of interpretation in such

statements requires that this interpretation must not contradict

the holy text and be consistent with rational ARGUMENTs. It is

unnecessary to reproduce all those statements here and we will

reproduce and discuss only some of them in order to exhibit the

nature of their ARGUMENTation.

|

First ARGUMENT

|

The verses frequently quoted by Christian scholars are those that

refer to Christ as the son of God. These verses as an ARGUMENT for

Christ own divinity are not valid, firstly because they are

contradictory to

other verses that speak of Christ as the son of man,2 and because

these

|

verses also preclude Christ from being a descendant of David.

Therefore they need some interpretation to prevent them from being

a

logical impossibility. Secondly, because the word own on" cannot be

taken in its literal and real sense, as all the experts in

etymology unan-

imously describe its meaning as "the one born of the natural sperm

of

his father and mother." This literal meaning of the word is clearly

not

applicable here. Therefore, it requires that it should he used

metaphor-

ically in such a meaning as may be appropriate to the status of

Christ.

Especially when the Gospels elucidate that this word is used in the

meaning of "righteous" when referring to Christ. The Gospel of Mark

15:39 says:

|

And when the centurion, which stood over against him,

saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly

this man was the Son of God.

|

While the Gospel of Luke describes the same event in these

words:

|

Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified

God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.2

|

It may be noted that Luke uses the words "righteous man" in place

of Mark own words "the son of God". This expression has been used to

signify "righteous man" by other people as well, exactly as "the

son of

Satan" has been used to mean an evil-doer. The Gospel of Matthew

says in chapter five:

|

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the

children of God.3

|

It may be noted that Jesus himself used the words "children of

God" for the peacemakers. Moreover chapter 8 of the Gospel of John

contains a dialogue between Christ and the Jews in which Christ

says:

|

Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We

be not bom of fomication; we have one Father, even God.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love

me."

|

Further in verse 44 he says:

|

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father

ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode

not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he

speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the

father of it.

|

The Jews in this example claimed that their father was one, that is

God, while Jesus said that their father was the devil. It is

obvious that

neither God nor devils can be father of any in the literal sense of

the

word. It is therefore, necessary for these words to be taken in a

metaphorical sense, that is to say, the Jews were claiming to be

obedi-

ent to God while Jesus said that they were followers of the devil.

The First Epistle of John 3:9,10 contains this statement:

|

Whosoever is bom of God doth not commit sin; for his

seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is bom

of God.

|

We read in chapter 5:1 of the same epistle:

|

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is bom of

God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also

that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the

children of God, when we love God, and keep his command-

ments.2

|

Another statement we read in Romans 8:14:

|

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the

sons of God.

verses also preclude Christ from being a descendant of David.l

Therefore they need some interpretation to prevent them from being

a

logical impossibility. Secondly, because the word own on" cannot be

taken in its literal and real sense, as all the experts in

etymology unan-

imously describe its meaning as "the one born of the natural sperm

of

his father and mother." This literal meaning of the word is clearly

not

applicable here. Therefore, it requires that it should he used

metaphor-

ically in such a meaning as may be appropriate to the status of

Christ.

Especially when the Gospels elucidate that this word is used in the

meaning of "righteous" when referring to Christ. The Gospel of Mark

15:39 says:

|

And when the centurion, which stood over against him,

saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly

this man was the Son of God.

|

While the Gospel of Luke describes the same event in these

words:

|

Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified

God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.2

|

It may be noted that Luke uses the words "righteous man" in place

of Mark own words "the son of God". This expression has been used to

signify "righteous man" by other people as well, exactly as "the

son of

Satan" has been used to mean an evil-doer. The Gospel of Matthew

says in chapter five:

|

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the

children of God.3

|

It may be noted that Jesus himself used the words "children of

God" for the peacemakers. Moreover chapter 8 of the Gospel of John

contains a dialogue between Christ and the Jews in which Christ

says:

|

Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We

be not born of fomication; we have one Father, even God.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love

me.l

|

Further in verse 44 he says:

|

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father

ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode

not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he

speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the

father of it.

|

The Jews in this example claimed that their father was one, that is

God, while Jesus said that their father was the devil. It is

obvious that

neither God nor devils can be father of any in the literal sense of

the

word. It is therefore, necessary for these words to be taken in a

metaphorical sense, that is to say, the Jews were claiming to be

obedi-

ent to God while Jesus said that they were followers of the devil.

The First Epistle of John 3:9,10 contains this statement:

|

Whosoever is bom of God doth not commit sin; for his

seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born

of God.

|

We read in chapter 5:1 of the same epistle:

|

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of

God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also

that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the

children of God, when we love God, and keep his command-

ments.2

|

Another statement we read in Romans 8:14:

|

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the

sons of God.

|

Also Paul says in Philippians 2:14,15:

|

Do all things without murmerings and disputings: That ye

be blameless and harmless, the sons of God.

|

All the above statements sufficiently prove our claim that the

words own on of God" used for Christ in some statements does not

prove

that Christ was the Son of God in the real sense of the word.

Especially when we find the words Father and Son used in metaphori-

cal sense frequently in both the Old and New Testaments. We present

some examples of such use from the Bible.

|

"Son of God" Used In The Bible

|

Luke, describing the genealogy of Christ says in chapter 3:

|

The son of Joseph...and Adam which was the son of God.

|

Obviously Adam was not the Son of God in the literal sense. Since

he

was created by God without biological parents, metaphorically he

has

been ascribed to God. Luke ascribes Jesus to Joseph although Jesus

had no biological father, as he relates Adam, who had no biological

parents with God.

Exodus 4:22 contains the following statement of God:

|

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh,Thus saith the Lord,

|

Israel is my son, even my firstbom: And I say unto thee, Let

my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him

go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstbom.

|

Here this idea is used twice in connection with Israel, who is even

referred to by God as his "firstborn".

Psalm 89:19-27 contains the following address of David to God:

|

Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I

have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one