|
Before we venture into examining Imam
Farahi’s point of view regarding the Injil (the Gospel), it
seems appropriate to first clarify certain fundamental issues related to
the Injil, for example, its etymological root, its literal meaning,
and opinions of the scholars of Islam viz-à-viz its veracity etc.
In this way, the importance and significance of Imam Farahi’s thoughts
on this subject can become entirely evident.
Etymological Root of Injil
In this regard, one view is that Injil
is
either a Hebrew or a Syriac word, while another view is that it is an Arabic
word. Those who consider it to be of Arabic origin observe that it is based
on
the construction of ‘اِكْلِيل’
(Iklil)
and ‘اِخْرِيْط’
(Ikhrit)
and is a derivative of the word ‘نَجَلَ’
(najala) which means ‘to make something vivid’. ‘نَجْل’
also means ‘basis,
foundation, fountain and to amass’1.
However, the author of ‘Taju’l-‘Urus’
and other lexicographers do not accept this etymological root2.
In Arabic, one of its readings has been ‘اَنْجِيْل’
(Anjil). This
is a proof of it being non-Arabic because the construction ‘اَفْعِيل’ (Af‘il)
is not included in the Arabic word structures. Zamakhshari writes:
Torah and Injil are both ‘ajami’
(non-Arabic) words. People who have presented ‘وَرْى’
and ‘نَجْل’
as their etymological roots and ‘تَفْعَلَةُ’
and ‘اِفْعِيل’
their paradigms
have been unrealistic. These two points can only be tenable if these two
words are of the Arabic language. Hasan Basri has read it on the paradigm
of ‘اَنْجِيْل’ (Anjil) which is proof of its being non-Arabic because
‘اَفْعِيل’ (Af‘il) is not a part of the Arabic paradigm.3
Baydawi (d: 1286/685) in his Anwaru’l-Tanzil
has
expressed the same idea.4Mufti
Muhammad ‘Abduhu (d: 1322/1905), who belongs to the later group of
hermeneutics scholars, has also given preference to this opinion5.
Now, if this word is ‘ajami’
(non-Arabic), then to which language does it belong? One opinion is that
it is a word of the Syriac language6
and the argument presented in its favor is that the Gospels, published
in the Syriac language, have been published by the name of ‘Evangelion’.
Here it should be kept in mind that the oldest translations of the Gospel
in Arabic have been done from Syriac. The other opinion, regarded as most
plausible by this writer is that Injil is a word from the Greek
language, and it subsequently made its way into Syriac and through Syriac
into Arabic7.
Literal Meaning
In English, ‘اِنْجِيْل’ is translated
as ‘Gospel’. It is derived from the ancient English word ‘goodspel’. It
is a compounded form of two words ‘good’ and ‘spel’; While ‘good’ means
‘good’, ‘spel’ means ‘news’. So ‘Gospel’ means ‘good news’. This archaic
word of English is in reality the translation of ‘evangelium’, which is
the Latin form of the Greek word ‘euggelion’.
In ancient Greek literature, the meaning
of ‘euggelion’ encompassed everything that had a relation with ‘euaggelos’
which means ‘a messenger of good news’. It is the compounded form of two
words, ‘eu’ and ‘aggelos’. While ‘eu’ means ‘good’, ‘aggelos’ means ‘messenger’
or ‘proclaimer’8. ‘Angel’
in English is adapted from this word.
Later on, this word came to be used
for every thing related to a king, particularly birth in the royal family
and the proclamation of kingship. It was applied even for royal commandments9.
Thus it is clear from this discussion that the literal meaning of the Greek
word ‘evangellion’ is ‘glad tidings’ and ‘good news’.
Language of the Gospel
The Gospel was first compiled in Greek
but this does not mean that Jesus’s language was also Greek. Many scholars
think that Jesus’s mother tongue and religious language was Hebrew. But
researchers like Renan think that it was Syriac blended with Hebrew. The
feature writer of Encyclopedia Britannica thinks that Christ and his disciples
spoke Aramaic10. Dr Moses
Butten Wieser, who was a professor of Hebrew, has written that during Jesus’s
lifetime, Aramaic was the language in use11.
Historical Position of the Gospel
A majority of Muslim scholars holds
that the original Gospel revealed to Jesus (sws) is no longer extant. Today,
the books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which are called the Gospels,
were compiled much after Jesus (sws) by his followers. Representing this
school of thought, Imam Razi writes:
In this time of decadence, the original Gospel
revealed by Allah has been wasted away. Only a few portions from it are
in existence, by the grace of Allah. In the light of only these can truth
be made manifest to them.12
Rashid Rada was also a proponent of this view. He
writes:
In the 4th century A.D, numerous Gospels were
existent out of which four were selected and included in the present New
Testament. We cannot call these books the Gospel which is referred to in
the Qur’an at every instance mentioned as a singular word and which
was revealed to Christ.13
In this regard, the thoughts of an Indian
scholar and exegete ‘Abdu’l-Haqq Haqqani are as follows:
In the time of the prophet (sws), the Torah and
the Gospel were not in existence…. Calling the present fictitious collection
that Torah and Gospel is mere ignorance and deception.14
Most scholars also claim that the present
Gospels, viz-à-viz their veracity, are dubious. Mas‘udi (d:
956/345), Al-Bayruni (d 1048/440), Ibn Hazm (d: 1064/456),
Imam
Ghazzali (d: 1111/505), Suharwardi (d: 1234/632) author of ‘Awarifu’l-Ma‘arif’,
Ibn
Taymmiyyah (d: 1325/728) and
Ibn Qayyim (d: 751 H) have presented
this view in their writings.
Ibn Taymmiyyah in his book ‘Al-Jawab
al-Sahih li man Baddala Din al-Masih’, Ibn Qayyim in ‘Hidayatu’l-Hayara’
and Indian scholar Rehmat Ullah Kiranvi in ‘Izalatu’l-Shukuk’15
have thoroughly discussed this issue and have claimed that the present
Gospels, both from the literal and connotative aspects, have been tampered
with16.
Imam Farahi’s Viewpoint
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah from among
the earlier scholars and Imam Farahi from among the later standout because
both were well versed in Hebrew. The latter’s instances of familiarity
with Hebrew are abundant in his writings. The research on ‘marwah’ carried
out by Imam Farahi in his monumental book ‘Fi man huwa al-dhabih
(‘Which
of Abraham’s son was Sacrificed?’) would not have been possible without
acquaintance with the Hebrew language. Likewise, in Aqsamu’l Qur’an
(Oaths
in the Qur’an), his critique of English translations of the Hebrew
word ‘yamin’ meaning ‘oath’ clearly shows that he was not only acquainted
with Hebrew language but also had a firm grasp over it.
Meaning of Gospel and its Language
It has been stated in the beginning
that ‘Gospel’ is a word of the Greek language and its meaning is ‘glad
tidings’. Imam Farahi intended to write a booklet by the name ‘Al-Iklil
Fi Sharh al-Injil’ but unfortunately it remained unfinished. This unfinished
booklet consists of 9 pages and is present in his writing treasure. In
its preamble, while describing the meaning of Gospel and the purpose of
the apostleship of Christ, he has written:
Jesus (sws) came as a messenger of the glad tidings
of the last Prophet (sws) and his apostleship, and paved the way for him
as he has affirmed (in the Gospel) and that is why he named his book Gospel
ie. glad tidings and by giving numerous examples about the withdrawal of
divine revelation from Jews, he has given the glad tidings of the advent
of a Messenger after him17.
About the language of Gospel, Imam Farahi’s
view is that it was Hebrew18
but his distinguished pupil Amin Ahsan Islahi has written in ‘Tadabbur
i Qur’an’ that it was Syriac19.
Status of the Gospel
A majority of the scholars of Islam
have unwittingly become victim of excesses in determining the status of
the Gospel. For some, its status is no more than a book of geneology20
and others have declared it a divine book free from all mistakes and shortcomings21.
The point of view adopted by Imam Farahi in this regard is, in the view
of this writer, based on moderation and closer to the truth.
To Imam Farahi the status of foundation and pedestal
rests only with the Qur’an. Anything other than it has a secondary
status. He has placed three things in the ‘secondary’ category: Sayings
of the prophet (sws), the established and agreed upon history of nations
and the scriptures of earlier prophets, which are intact. In this regard,
he writes in the prelude to his ‘Tafsir Nizamu’l-Qur’an’:
Had there been no intrusion of suspicion and
doubt in sayings of the prophet (sws), history and ancient scriptures,
we would not have placed them in the ‘secondary’ category, rather each
would have attained the primary status and would have complemented each
other without disparity.22
In the light of this excerpt, we can say
that like other religious scriptures, the position of the Gospel was also
secondary to Imam Farahi.
Interpolation in the Gospel
Like other Muslim scholars, Imam
Farahi too was convinced about omission and interpolation in the Gospel.
He remarks:
Our scholars claim and Christian scholars also
corroborate this claim that the original Gospel is non-existent. What we
have today by the name of the Gospel has the status of a mere translation
in which the sayings of the narrators of the Gospel are interspersed with
the sayings of Jesus (sws) and these narratives are mutually dissimilar,
rather at some instances completely contradictory. Continuity and authenticity
aside, the disjointedness and inexactness of the text itself is quite evident.23
Nature of Interpolation
Those who have studied the Gospel
know that a sizeable portion of it is allegorical in nature. Many words
have been used in the figurative sense. This figurative and allegorical
nature of the Gospel became disastrous for its followers.
Christian scholars, while annotating
the verses of the Gospel, forgot this proclamation of their Lord: ‘Man
is destroyed by words and finds salvation in meaning’. They became fixated
with words and were consequently destroyed. Had they searched for the intended
meaning and its significance with untainted intentions, success would have
fallen to their lot since the reality veiled in parable and metaphor could
be easily revealed by slight reflection over the context of verses. But
they were deprived of witnessing the truth because of an obsession with
apparent meaning of words24.
A large number of interpolations by
Christian scholars involve very few words, of which ‘Ibn’, ‘Abb’,
‘Rabb’ and ‘Malakutullah’ are particularly noteworthy. The
interpolation carried out in the text is actually an inevitable corollary
of the flawed interpretation of these words. Imam Farahi, by expounding
the true meaning of the first three mentioned words, ie. ‘Ibn’,
‘Abb’, ‘Rabb’, in ‘Mufridatu’l-Qur’an’ has elucidated
the interpolations of Christian annotators by giving examples. He writes:
In Hebrew language, the word ‘Ibn’ is
frequently used in two meanings. One for relation, eg. ‘Ibnu’l-Sabil’,
‘Ibnu’l-Layl’, ‘Ibn Subh’, ‘Ibn Hawl’, ‘Ibn Sunnah’,
and the other in the meaning of ‘Abd’ e.g. ‘Al-rajul’, ‘Al-fatah’,
‘Al-ghulam’. The word ‘Ibn’ is not like ‘Walad’ because
the word ‘Walad’ distinctly carries the denotation of ‘Ubniyyat’.
That is why one finds that in the Holy Qur’an, the use of this word
is severely condemned and it has been made clear that since there is a
speck of infidelity in the usage of the word ‘Ibn’, hence abstention from
its usage is also imperative, just as the word ‘Rabb’ is akin to ‘Ma‘bud’.
Thus it is quite evident from the Holy Qur’an that they have been extravagant
in using these two words.25
After explaining the literal meaning of
‘Ibn’, he further writes:
Whereever we find the word ‘Ibnullah’
in the Gospel, it is in effect ‘‘Abdullah’ and wherever the words
‘Abuna wa Abukum’ are found, they mean ‘Rabbuna wa Rabbukum’ as
the Holy Qur’an has explained. Jesus (sws) had prohibited usage
of the word ‘Rabb’ for himself and proclaimed that our God is one
and He is Allah and we are all brothers, (Rabbuna wahidun wa huwa Allah
wa ana wa antum ikhwah) but Christians changed this unambiguous instruction.26
A clear example of this change is in the
following verses of Matthew:
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the
chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be
called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your
Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 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. But he that is
greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself
shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.27
The excerpt that we have quoted above
from Matthew’s Gospel is adopted from Imam Farahi’s booklet ‘Mufridatu’l-Qur’an’.
According to his explanation, the interpolation committed in these verses
is related to the words ‘Abun’ and ‘Rabb’. Hence, in the
Arabic edition from Beirut, as Imam Farahi has written in the footnote
of ‘Mufridatu’l-Qur’an’, they have replaced ‘Rabbi, Rabbi’
with ‘Sayyidi, Sayyidi’, and in place of ‘li anna rabbukum
wahidun’, the words ‘li anna mu‘llimukum wahidun’ have been
inserted. Likewise, for ‘Rabban ‘ala’l-ard’ the words ‘Abban
‘ala’l-ard’ and for ‘li anna rabbakum wahidun’ the words ‘li
anna abakum wahidun’ have been inserted respectively. By chance, the
Arabic edition that we have under observation at this moment has been printed
from Beirut and it includes this interpolation:
وأن
يَدْعُوَهم
الناسُ سيدي
سيدي واَمَّا
انتم فلا
تُدْعَوا
سيدي لِانَّ
معلَّمكم
واحدٌ المسيح
وانتم جميعًا
اخوةٌ ولا
تُدْعَوا لكم
أبا على الأرض
لِانَّ
أباَكم واحدٌ
الّذي في
السّموت28
Imam Farahi, in the related
footnote, has written about the English translation of the above-mentioned
verses that the words ‘Rabbi, Rabbi’ have been kept intact in it
but the remaining alterations still exist. Apart from this, the translator
has committed another grave error: A break between the word ‘Al-Masih’
and ‘Antum Jami‘an ikhwah’ has been made through a colon sign (:) by virtue
of which Christ’s relation is established with the preceding verse rather
than with ‘Antum Jami‘an ikhwah’29.
The English translation of the Bible that we have in sight is extremely
old and it has this break. The text is as follows:
They like to have places of honor at feasts and
chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be
called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one
is your Master, even Christ: and all ye are brethren. And call no man your
father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.30
In another translation, which is in Modern
English, the translator has completely omitted the word ‘Al-Masih’
and has inserted a capitalized ‘Rabbi’ in its place. The translation
is as under:
But you must not be called ‘Rabbi’; for
you have one ‘Rabbi’ and you are all brothers.31
But in spite of all these interpolations,
the teaching of Christ that ‘your Lord is one, He is Allah and do not proclaim
anyone God besides Him’ remained intact. We’ll discuss it further ahead.
The fourth word is ‘Malakutullah’,
which the Christian scholars misinterpreted because of their injudiciousness
and were consequently deprived of the honor of entering the kingdom of
God and a major portion of their people are to this day deprived.
This point has been clarified previously, that Jesus
(sws) came in this world as a harbinger of the prophet who was to succeed
him. Therefore, he initiated his exhortation with these glad tidings. Observe
the following words of Mathew:
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to
say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.32
What did Jesus (sws) intend by this kingdom
of heaven or kingdom of God; Christians themselves have differing views
regarding this. One group thinks that it implies the second advent of Jesus
(sws) when he will descend in the world as the son of Adam and the Lord,
and will establish God’s kingdom on earth. Contrary to this, the other
group derives from it that this world will soon come to an end and God’s
kingdom would be established on it. The feature writer of the Encyclopedia
of Religion writes:
The coming of God’s kingdom implied the end of
the world order as it was then known.33
But by reflecting on these words, wherever
they have appeared in the Gospel, in light of their context, the mistake
of both aforementioned groups of Christians becomes clear and it plainly
appears that it neither means the end of the material world, nor the second
advent of Jesus (sws) and the establishment of God’s kingdom in this world.
Rather it in fact implies the apostleship of the last prophet.
It is most likely that the earlier
Christian scholars were aware of this reality of ‘Malakutullah’,
because of which they tried fervently to interpolate in it. Imam Farahi,
after quoting in his mentioned booklet, ‘Al-Iklil fi Sharh Injil’
similar verses from Matthew and Mark regarding ‘Malakutullah’ has
shown the disparity and contradiction in these verses, which visibly show
that they have been tampered with.
In Matthew, it is written that Christ
questioned an assembly of Pharisees (Jewish jurists):
‘ماذا
تظنون في
المسيح’
(What do you think of Christ, i.e. the promised king). The verses after this
question i.e. from ‘إبن
من هو؟’
(Whose son is he) to ‘من
ذالك اليوم
لم يحسر أحد
أن يسأله’
(nor
did anyone
dare from that day to question Him any more) are the addition of Christian
annotators because they make up an unrelated answer to the mentioned question.
The question was related not to lineage but to ‘Malakutullah’. This
is the reason why the phraseology of the response is utterly unintelligible
and this is undeniable proof of interpolation.
In the Gospel of Mark, this question
‘ماذا
تظنون في
المسيح’
(What is your opinion regarding the Messiah?) was altogether omitted and only
the first question ‘اية
وصية هى اول
الكل’
(Which
is the first commandment
of all) of the Pharisees has been reported. The response of Christ (sws)
to this question has been affirmed by a person (probably a Pharisee) and
the same is written in the Torah. After
hearing this affirmation, Christ declared:
‘لست
بعيدا عن
ملكوت الله’ (You are not far from the kingdom of God).
It is strange that Matthew has the
question regarding ‘Malakutullah’, albeit unclear, its correct answer
has been omitted, while Mark has the answer but the correct question is
absent. It becomes evident from this that the authors of both Gospels have
tried to veil the reality of ‘Malakutullah’.
The sermon of Christ, which is famous
as the ‘Sermon on the Mount’, also has mention of ‘Malakutullah’. The sermon
has been recounted in Matthew’s Gospel. It begins with these very verses:
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they
that do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the
pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for
they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted
for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.34
We shall quote only that part of the detailed
commentary and critique made by Imam Farahi on this sermon that is related
to the explanation of the kingdom of heaven, he remarks:
This reality would not be hidden from him, who
has meticulously read and reflected over the manuscripts of the Gospel,
that Jesus (sws) came as the harbinger of the advent of a heavenly kingdom.
What was this heavenly kingdom? A purely religious dominion which was first
bestowed on the Jews but they, after having wasted it, were now, after
countless vicissitudes, according to the promise of God, once again awaiting
its manifestation. Jesus (sws) gave them the glad tidings of its propinquity
and explained it with numerous such parables that pointed exactly toward
the apostleship of the Prophet (sws), but the people of their nation did
not profess faith in it, and since the scholars too had become obdurate
and captivated by the greed of material things, they stood against him
as well. At last, after being dismayed by these people, he selected a small
group of simple and impecunious individuals who were purged from all types
of superfluities and contaminations of the material world and exhorted
them so that when the heavenly kingdom manifests itself, they should be
ready to enter it.35
He further writes:
Hence, whatever Jesus (sws) proclaimed about
the conditions of Christians, turned out to be absolutely true. One group
within them remained content with their impoverished lives, but the other
forgot the admonition of Jesus (sws) and immersed themselves in the pleasures
of worldly life. Subsequently, exactly what Jesus’ (sws) had prophesized
in the beginning of his sermon (regarding the materialists scorn for the
ascetic’s destitution, despising contact with them) eventually transpired.
The ascetic’s only sins were imposing upon themselves a life of poverty
through expending all their valuables in the way of God; holding on to
Torah and considering pork prohibited; considering circumcision necessary;
deeming Jesus (sws) human, not God; accepting only the Hebrew manuscript
of the Gospel which was squandered away by others; and, vehemently opposing
Paul’s changes to Christianity.
When this kingdom of heaven Jesus (sws) prophesied
manifested itself with the Apostleship of the Prophet Muhammad (sws), a
sizeable portion of these mendicants entered it but the wealthy opposed
it and remained deprived of entering this kingdom of heaven.36
Imam Farahi has also exposed
the interpolation by Christian scholars in the foregoing verses of Matthew.
He writes:
If these directives of Jesus (sws) are taken
to be general, then it necessitates defiance of the Sunnahs of such
illustrious prophets as Abraham (sws) and David (sws). These respected
prophets waged wars in the way of God, assembled armies for it, amassed
wealth, spent it fittingly and never depended on others for subsistence.
How then can it be said that abnegating the world is imperative for achieving
excellence. This point pricked Christians too, so in order to ward it off,
they made such additions in the Gospel of Matthew that have tainted the
essence of the original words. The words of Matthew are: ‘Blessed are the
poor in spirit …Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness’.
Though, even after such changes there has been no change in the spirit
of the remaining text and it is evident from it that its real adversaries
are the destitute and poor in wealth not the destitute and poor in spirit.37
From this discussion it becomes evident
that addition and elision has taken place in the Gospel in the garb of
annotation and interpretation. Imam Farahi has not only lifted the
veil from these interpolations but has also rectified them, as is clear
from the above excerpt.
Respect for the Gospel
It is true that Imam Farahi has
accepted interpolation in the Gospel and has pointed it out as well, as
mentioned in the above explanation, but this should not create a misperception
in anyone’s mind that the present Gospel did not warrant any respect and
reverence in his eyes, as one gets after reading the discourse of several
other Muslim scholars.
Imam Farahi, despite some interpolations,
showed complete reverence to the Gospel as a divine book because it is
a Qur’anic directive to profess faith in all divine books without
any distinction. He writes:
Some Muslims ridicule certain statements of the
Gospel although if they brought them in consonance with Qur’anic teachings,
they would realize that the greatest responsibility of accepting certain
Gospel sayings lies with Muslims. We have been directed in the Qur’an
to
proclaim faith on allegorical (Mutashabihat) verses. I find no reason for
this directive’s principle to not apply to other divine books. It is clearly
enshrined in the Qur’an that if an individual simply rejects something
because he is unable to find an explanation, then he shall be considered
a great sinner. Accordingly, there is a saying of the Prophet (sws): ‘Do
not verify the people of the book… (meaning that whatever they narrate
from the sacred books, do not verify it because they have not safeguarded
it), and do not repudiate it (since it is possible that it might be among
those matters whose reality is not apparent to us)’.38
It is absolutely clear from this excerpt
that Imam Farahi reviewed the Gospel as a sincere exhorter and accounted
for all its exigencies. This is why his demeanor is not argumentative while
critiquing and commenting on the verses of the Gospel. In the critique
of the Gospel and its adherers by Islamic scholars, a polemical manner
of argumentation is quite evident. The harm of this approach was that Christian
scholars, in reaction, distanced themselves from the Qur’an. Imam
Farahi writes in a very distressful manner while commenting on this
situation:
Some Muslims ridicule the verses of the Gospel
and the complaint of those who deride Christ (sws) can only be made to
God. Muslims should not forget that they have only been allowed to debate
in a beautiful manner and strictly disallowed from reviling their opponents.
The result has been nothing but our estrangement from them and widening
of the gulf of disagreement, and as an obvious outcome, they have remained
deprived from accepting the truth. Although, if it is true that truth prevails
over falsehood and light obliterates darkness, there can be no greater
manifestation of truth for them and ourselves than juxtaposing the two
views so that the one possessing wisdom and an elevated disposition would
himself choose the better of the two.39
This very exhortatory feeling of Imam
Farahi drove him towards the idea of writing a commentary of the Gospel
in order to expunge the deviation of the followers of the Gospel and unearth
the path of submission to the truth for them. He writes at one point:
As a pretext, I would hope to discuss those matters
which caused the transgression of Christians and on which their present
faith is anchored. For instance, the words ‘Ibn’ and ‘Abb’;
the transformation of bread and wine into Christ’s flesh and blood; that
he is sitting on the right side of God; would descend among an army of
angels and hold court on the Day of Judgment; that he would send PHARCOLEET
who would instruct Christians on all the details of law; and, that the
people of his time would witness all those things about which he has forewarned.40
For this purpose, he wanted to write a
booklet by the title of ‘Al-Iklil fi Sharh Injil’, but was unable
to complete it. Even still, this unfinished booklet bears strong witness
to the fact that Imam Farahi was a true well-wisher of the people
of the book and they had an extremely elevated status in his eyes.
Is the Gospel Devoid of any Truth?
When it is said that the Gospel is
corrupted, people usually take it to imply that it is bereft of any truth.
One is especially surprised when scholars make such gross assertions. One
possible reason for this is that people do not study the Gospel. Aside
from the Gospel few among these same people would be found reflecting on
the verses of the Holy Qur’an.
In reality, the Gospel does still
hold some truth. From the context of the Gospel’s verses and parallels,
as well as from the Qur’an, there is proof of both tampering and
presence the original, real message. This was Imam Farahi’s point of view.
As he wrote on one occasion:
Jesus (sws) dispelled another doubt and made
plain that it is not greatness to forsake the world altogether. This is
an additional distinction. The refuge from certain sins that man achieves
as a result of forsaking the world is actually an escape from life’s test.
Thus he has chosen this course of abandoning the world to instruct those
who are unable to achieve absolute excellence. Hence the saying: ‘The disciple
would not take precedence over his mentor rather everyone would be like
his mentor when perfected’, (Luke). However, later adherents did
not settle for the fact that Jesus’ (sws) tradition only be considered
that of additional excellence, therefore they added to the narrative of
Matthew: ‘Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven
is perfect’; and in place of this sentence in Luke, the following words
were inserted: ‘You are as merciful as your father is’, even though the
abhorrence of these words is evident. How could creation be at par with
its creator? But thank God, notwithstanding the incursions of interpolators,
truth prevailed and such evidences remained in the Gospel, against their
desire, through which, on the one hand, any trace of polytheism is rebutted
and on the other, it becomes apparent that Christ’s excellence was additional,
reserved only for the mendicants.41
Since the issue under discussion, as mentioned
by Imam Farahi (‘Notwithstanding the incursions of interpolators, truth
prevailed’), is of utmost importance and also a cause of bewilderment for
many people, it seems reasonable to explain it further to elucidate Imam
Farahi’s
point
of view. For this purpose, we take those three words that have become the
most frequent target of Christian scholars’ tampering. These are ‘Rabb’,
‘Malakutu’l-Samawat’ and ‘Ahmad’ (Pharcoleet). The former
is related to Jesus (sws) and the latter two with the Prophet (sws).
A discussion on ‘Rabb’ and
‘Malakutu’l-Samawat’ has already been done in the preceding pages,
hence this discussion would be confined to proving that despite tampering
with these words, the essence of their true meaning is still unmarred.
We shall start the discussion with the word ‘Rabb’.
The present belief of Christians is
that Jesus (sws) is their God and he would again, in his previous capacity,
honor the world with his presence. This belief is entirely repugnant to
the true teachings of Jesus (sws). He, in plain words, forbade conferring
the status of God upon anyone besides the one God and included his own
person in this prohibition, but later followers changed this teaching.
We have already quoted certain verses from Matthew’s Gospel in this regard.
Have another close look at these verses, he observed:
Greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called
by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi’. But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One
is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone
on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And
do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.42
As has been mentioned earlier, in this
excerpt, in place of ‘for one is your God’ the words ‘for one is your Teacher’
have been supplanted only because Christians consider Christ their Lord
and the verse prohibited it. But has this literal tampering wiped out the
real teaching of Christ?
Looking at the context of these verses,
if it is conceded that in place of ‘for one is your God’, the actual verse
was ‘for one is your Teacher’, then there was absolutely no need for mentioning
this teaching here since the same phrase is found one phrase later in this
discourse: ‘And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the
Christ’. It becomes completely evident from this that the real verse was
‘for one is your God’ which was changed by Christian scholars to ‘for one
is your Teacher’?
This ‘teaching’ can still be found
at other occasions in the Gospel, for instance in the very beginning of
Matthew’s Gospel, where the trial of Christ through Satan is related, the
following verse is found:
Jesus said to him: ‘Away from me Satan! for it
is written: “Worship the Lord, your God, and serve him only”.’43
In this verse, the word ‘Lord’ is synonymous
with the word ‘God’. Hence God is actually the Lord of people and He is
to be worshipped. This teaching is more clearly found at another instance
in Matthew. Pharisees’ (Jewish jurists), in order to judge Christ, questioned:
‘Master, which is the great commandment in the law?’ Jesus said unto him:
‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your mind44. It can be seen in this verse too that the
word Lord is used with God for just one being worthy of existence. These
instances are so innumerable in the Gospel that it is difficult to cover
all of them.
Can anyone claim even after these
verses that the Gospel is devoid of teaching the oneness of God? As for
the question, that even after these verses why do Christians consider Jesus
(sws) their Lord, the answer is quite obvious. It is mentioned in the Qur’an
on
many instances in clear words that all prophets were humans and the last
prophet (sws) was also human but in spite of this clear teaching, a large
segment of Muslims consider him (sws) superhuman. The reason in both cases
is the same: mendacious scholars who have mastered the craft of completely
changing something through interpretation.
By the word ‘Malakutullah’,
Jesus (sws) suggested the apostleship of the last Prophet (sws), as has
been mentioned above. That is why at all instances mentioning these glad
tidings, Christian scholars have added such words and sentences as so these
verses would bespeak the last Prophet (sws). They have succeeded in this
attempt at some instances but there are still such occurrences in the Gospel,
merely by the grace of God, which unequivocally declare that nothing but
the apostleship of the last prophet (sws) could be implied by kingdom of
heaven. For instance, consider the following verses of Mathew:
Hear another parable: There was a certain householder,
who planted a vineyard, hedged it around, dug a winepress in it, built
a tower, let it out to husbandmen, and then went into a far country: When
the fruit were ripe, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they
might receive the fruits. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat
one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants
more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he
sent unto them his son, saying, ‘they will reverence my son.’ But when
the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves: “This is the heir;
come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.” And they caught
him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore
of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say
unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out
his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in
their seasons. Jesus said to them,
‘Did you never read in the scriptures, the stone
which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner:
this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? Therefore say
I to you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone
shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to
powder.’45
Regarding this topic, there are other
interesting and meaningful parables also mentioned in Matthew’s Gospel.
I do not wish to stop the ambling pen here, but the fear of prolixity is
also imminent, so I would settle for this one parable. Those who are interested
should take a look at Matthew (13:24-34; 18:1-6; 20:1-16; 22:1-4).
Now take the word ‘Ahmad’. The Qur’an says:
وَإِذْ
قَالَ عِيسَى
ابْنُ
مَرْيَمَ
يَابَنِي
إِسْرَائِيلَ
إِنِّي
رَسُولُ
اللَّهِ
إِلَيْكُمْ
مُصَدِّقًا
لِمَا بَيْنَ
يَدَيَّ مِنَ
التَّوْرَاةِ
وَمُبَشِّرًا
بِرَسُولٍ
يَأْتِي مِنْ
بَعْدِي
اسْمُهُ
أَحْمَدُ (61:6).
And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: O
Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah sent to you, confirming
the Law [which came] before me, and giving Glad Tidings of an Messenger
to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad. (61:6)
According to the above quoted verse,
Jesus (sws) had foretold the name ‘Ahmad’ for the Prophet to succeed him.
Perhaps this is the only example in the history of prophets that an apostle
has given the glad tiding of the succeeding messenger with his name. Evidently,
after these clear and established glad tidings, it was quite easy for Christians
to profess faith in the last prophet, but woe to national and religious
prejudice, Christian scholars tampered with this name while translating
the Gospel.
The Gospel was first translated into
the Greek language. It has a word PERICLYTOS, synonym for Ahmed46. It also
has a similar word PARACLETUS. Christian scholars made use of this phonetic
and somewhat literal similarity and translated it as ‘helper’. But did
the Gospel become bereft of the glad tidings of the last Prophet (sws)
by this interpolation? No, in spite of all their possible efforts, these
glad tidings still exist in unambiguous words. Consider the following verses
of John’s Gospel:
And I will pray to the Father, and He shall give
you another Comforter, so that He may be with you forever.47
I have spoken these things to you, being present
with you. But the Comforter48,
the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you
all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said
to you.49
And when the Comforter has come, whom I will
send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the
Father, He shall testify of Me.50
I shall no longer speak many things with you,
for the ruler of this world comes, and he has nothing in Me.51
But I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that
I go away; for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you.52
I have yet many things to say to you, but you
cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come,
He will guide you into all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but
whatever He hears, He shall speak. And He will announce to you things to
come.53
The above mentioned verses make
it difficult for any Christian to say, except out of obstinacy and prejudice,
that these verses do not correlate with the glad tidings mentioned in
Qur’an
61:6 (quoted above).
It is evident from this discussion
that despite interpolations, the Gospel still contains truth. The reason
for this is the allegorical style of the Gospel because of which interpolators
have not succeeded in their ulterior motives. Had it been bereft of truth,
Christians would not have been ordered in the Qur’an to stand fast
by it. The following verses in this regard assume the status of indubitable
evidence:
قُلْ
يَاأَهْلَ
الْكِتَابِ
لَسْتُمْ
عَلَى شَيْءٍ
حَتَّى
تُقِيمُوا
التَّوْرَاةَ
وَالْإِنجِيلَ
وَمَا
أُنزِلَ
إِلَيْكُمْ
مِنْ
رَبِّكُمْ (5:68).
Say: ‘O People of the Book! you have no ground
to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the
revelation that has come to you from your Lord’. (5:68)
وَلَوْ
أَنَّهُمْ
أَقَامُوا
التَّوْرَاةَ
وَالْإِنجِيلَ
وَمَا
أُنزِلَ
إِلَيْهِمْ
مِنْ
رَبِّهِمْ
لَأَكَلُوا
مِنْ
فَوْقِهِمْ
وَمِنْ
تَحْتِ
أَرْجُلِهِمْ
(5:66).
If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel,
and what was sent down to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed
happiness from every side. (5:66)
Since our scholars have come to believe
that the Torah and the Gospel are completely corrupted, they were
severely perplexed in understanding the above mentioned verses. The Qur’anic
directive
of standing fast by the Torah and the Gospel can only be meaningful when
it is accepted that these books still contain truth, since holding on to
corrupted books is irrelevant. The solution to this problem was contrived
by presenting the unsubstantiated claim that these verses do not imply
to the Torah and Gospel in existence today, rather the reference is to
those books extant during the prophet’s time, which have now gone into
extinction.
If our respected scholars had reflected
on the mentioned verses, they would not have needed this farfetched explanation.
The Holy Qur’an has directed the people of the book to stand by
not only the Torah and the Gospel, but the Holy Qur’an. This has
been pointed to in the words ‘and what was sent down to them’ of 5:68 quoted
above. Here, it should also remain in perspective that the Holy Qur’an
has
been called the ‘Muhaymin’ of these books. Therefore, standing by these
three books in effect means standing by the Qur’an.
Those who have insight into the psychology
of nations and their national and religious prejudices can fully understand
why people of the book were directed to stand by the Torah and the Gospel
besides standing by the Qur’an. To this writer, this exhortation
of the Qur’an holds as true for the People of the Book today as
it did in the prophet’s time because these books contain truth even today.
Conclusion
It is evident from our detailed analysis,
in the preceding pages, of Imam Farahi’s point of view regarding the Gospel
that he has analyzed it as a sincere exhorter. He has not sought to discover
interpolations in the Gospel to immerse Christians in a psyche of religious
inferiority and Muslims in a delusion of superiority; rather his only purpose
was to make plain the passage of truth for them. That is why where he unveils
interpolations of Christian annotators, he also presented the correct interpretation
of manipulated verses. This approach distinguishes Imam Farahi from
other Muslim critics of the Gospel and determines the right course and
direction for scholars in the study of divine books.
(Translated by Razi Allah Lone)
|