Before we venture into
examining Imām Farāhi’s point of view regarding the Injīl (the Gospel), it
seems appropriate to first clarify certain fundamental issues related to the
Injīl, 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 Imām Farāhi’s thoughts on this subject can
become entirely evident.
Etymological Root of Injīl
In this regard, one view is that Injīl 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’ (Iklīl) and ‘اِخْرِيْط’
(Ikhrīt) and is a derivative of the word ‘نَجَلَ’
(najala) which means ‘to make something vivid’. ‘نَجْل’
also means ‘basis, foundation, fountain and to amass’.
However, the author of ‘Tāju’l-‘Urūs’ and other
lexicographers do not accept this etymological root. In Arabic, one of its
readings has been ‘اَنْجِيْل’ (Anjīl). This is a
proof of it being non-Arabic because the construction ‘اَفْعِيل’
(Af‘īl) is not included in the Arabic word structures. Zamakhsharī writes:
Torah and Injīl are both ‘ajamī’ (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 Basrī has read it on
the paradigm of ‘اَنْجِيْل’ (Anjīl) which is proof
of its being non-Arabic because ‘اَفْعِيل’ (Af‘īl)
is not a part of the Arabic paradigm.
Baydāwī (d: 1286/685) in his Anwāru’l-Tanzīl has
expressed the same idea. Muftī Muhammad ‘Abduhū (d: 1322/1905), who belongs
to the later group of hermeneutics scholars, has also given preference to
this opinion.
Now, if this word is ‘ajamī’ (non-Arabic), then to
which language does it belong? One opinion is that it is a word of the
Syriac language 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 Injīl is a word from the
Greek language, and it subsequently made its way into Syriac and through
Syriac into Arabic.
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’.
‘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 commandments. 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
Aramaic. Dr Moses Butten Wieser, who was a professor of Hebrew, has
written that during Jesus’s lifetime, Aramaic was the language in use.
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, Imām Rāzī 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.
Rashīd Radā 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’ān at every instance mentioned as a singular word and which was revealed
to Christ.
In this regard, the thoughts of an Indian scholar and
exegete ‘Abdu’l-Haqq Haqqānī 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.
Most scholars also claim that the present Gospels,
viz-à-viz their veracity, are dubious. Mas‘ūdī (d: 956/345), Al-Bayrūnī (d
1048/440), Ibn Hazm (d: 1064/456), Imām Ghazzālī (d: 1111/505), Suharwardī
(d: 1234/632) author of ‘Awārifu’l-Ma‘ārif’, Ibn Taymmiyyah (d: 1325/728)
and Ibn Qayyim (d: 751 H) have presented this view in their writings. Ibn
Taymmiyyah in his book ‘Al-Jawāb al-Sahīh li man Baddala Dīn al-Masīh’, Ibn
Qayyim in ‘Hidāyatu’l-Hayārā’ and Indian scholar Rehmat Ullah Kiranvi in
‘Izālatu’l-Shukūk have thoroughly discussed this issue and have claimed
that the present Gospels, both from the literal and connotative aspects,
have been tampered with.
Imām Farāhī’s Viewpoint
Imām Ibn Taymiyyah from among the earlier scholars and Imām Farāhī 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 Imām Farāhī in his monumental book
‘Fī man huwa al-dhabīh (‘Which of Abraham’s son was Sacrificed?’) would not
have been possible without acquaintance with the Hebrew language. Likewise,
in Aqsāmu’l Qur’ān (Oaths in the Qur’ān), his critique of English
translations of the Hebrew word ‘yamīn’ 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’. Imām Farāhī
intended to write a booklet by the name ‘Al-Iklīl Fī Sharh al-Injīl’ 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 him.
About the language of Gospel, Imām Farāhī’s view is
that it was Hebrew but his distinguished pupil Amīn Ahsan Islāhī has
written in ‘Tadabbur i Qur’ān’ that it was Syriac.
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 geneology and others have declared it
a divine book free from all mistakes and shortcomings. The point of view
adopted by Imām Farāhī in this regard is, in the view of this writer, based
on moderation and closer to the truth.
To Imām Farāhī the status of foundation and pedestal
rests only with the Qur’ān. 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 ‘Tafsīr Nizāmu’l-Qur’ān’:
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.
In the light of this excerpt, we can say that like
other religious scriptures, the position of the Gospel was also secondary to
Imām Farāhī.
Interpolation in the Gospel
Like other Muslim scholars, Imām Farāhī 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.
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 words.
A large number of interpolations by Christian scholars
involve very few words, of which ‘Ibn’, ‘Abb’, ‘Rabb’ and ‘Malakūtullāh’ are
particularly noteworthy. The interpolation carried out in the text is
actually an inevitable corollary of the flawed interpretation of these
words. Imām Farāhī, by expounding the true meaning of the first three
mentioned words, ie. ‘Ibn’, ‘Abb’, ‘Rabb’, in ‘Mufridātu’l-Qur’ān’ 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-Sabīl’, ‘Ibnu’l-Layl’,
‘Ibn Subh’, ‘Ibn Hawl’, ‘Ibn Sunnah’, and the other in the meaning of ‘Abd’
e.g. ‘Al-rajul’, ‘Al-fatāh’, ‘Al-ghulām’. 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’ān, 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‘būd’. Thus it is
quite evident from the Holy Qur’ān that they have been extravagant in using
these two words.
After explaining the literal meaning of ‘Ibn’, he
further writes:
Whereever we find the word ‘Ibnullāh’ in the Gospel,
it is in effect ‘‘Abdullāh’ and wherever the words ‘Abūnā wa Abūkum’ are
found, they mean ‘Rabbunā wa Rabbukum’ as the Holy Qur’ān 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, (Rabbunā
wāhidun wa huwa Allāh wa anā wa antum ikhwah) but Christians changed this
unambiguous instruction.
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.
The excerpt that we have quoted above from Matthew’s
Gospel is adopted from Imām Farāhi’s booklet ‘Mufridātu’l-Qur’ān’. 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
Imām Farāhi has written in the footnote of ‘Mufridātu’l-Qur’ān’, they have
replaced ‘Rabbī, Rabbī’ with ‘Sayyidī, Sayyidī’, and in place of ‘li annā
rabbukum wāhidun’, the words ‘li annā mu‘llimukum wāhidun’ have been
inserted. Likewise, for ‘Rabban ‘ala’l-ard’ the words ‘Abban ‘ala’l-ard’ and
for ‘li annā rabbakum wāhidun’ the words ‘li annā abākum wāhidun’ 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 السّموت٢٨
Imām Farāhī, in the related footnote, has written about
the English translation of the above-mentioned verses that the words ‘Rabbī,
Rabbī’ 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-Masīh’ and ‘Antum Jamī‘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 Jamī‘an ikhwah’. 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.
In another translation, which is in Modern English, the
translator has completely omitted the word ‘Al-Masīh’ 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.
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 ‘Malakūtullāh’, 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.
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.
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 ‘Malakūtullāh’, because of which they tried
fervently to interpolate in it. Imām Farāhī, after quoting in his mentioned
booklet, ‘Al-Iklīl fi Sharh Injīl’ similar verses from Matthew and Mark
regarding ‘Malakūtullāh’ 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 ‘Malakūtullāh’.
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 writtenin the
Torah. After hearing this affirmation, Christdeclared: ‘لست
بعيدا عن ملكوت الله’ (You are not far from the kingdom of God).
It is strange that Matthew has the question regarding ‘Malakūtullāh’,
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 ‘Malakūtullāh’.
The sermon of Christ, which is famous as the ‘Sermon on
the Mount’, also has mention of ‘Malakūtullāh’. 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.
We shall quote only that part of the detailed
commentary and critique made by Imām Farāhī 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.
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.
Imām Farāhī 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.
From this discussion it becomes evident that addition
and elision has taken place in the Gospel in the garb of annotation and
interpretation. Imām Farāhī 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 Imām Farāhī 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.
Imām Farāhī, despite some interpolations, showed
complete reverence to the Gospel as a divine book because it is a Qur’ānic
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’ānic teachings,
they would realize that the greatest responsibility of accepting certain
Gospel sayings lies with Muslims. We have been directed in the Qur’ān to
proclaim faith on allegorical (Mutashābihāt) verses. I find no reason for
this directive’s principle to not apply to other divine books. It is clearly
enshrined in the Qur’ān 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)’.
It is absolutely clear from this excerpt that Imām Farāhī 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’ān. Imām Farāhī 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.
This very exhortatory feeling of Imām Farāhī 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.
For this purpose, he wanted to write a booklet by the
title of ‘Al-Iklīl fi Sharh Injīl’, but was unable to complete it. Even
still, this unfinished booklet bears strong witness to the fact that Imām
Farāhī 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’ān.
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’ān,
there is proof of both tampering and presence the original, real message.
This was Imām Farāhī’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.
Since the issue under discussion, as mentioned by Imām
Farāhī (‘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 Imām Farāhī’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’,
‘Malakūtu’l-Samāwāt’ and ‘Ahmad’ (Pharcoleet). The former is related to
Jesus (sws) and the latter two with the Prophet (sws).
A discussion on ‘Rabb’ and ‘Malakūtu’l-Samāwāt’ 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.
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”.’
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’ān 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 ‘Malakūtullāh’, 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.’
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’ān 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 (٦١:٦)
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 Ahmed. 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.
I have spoken these things to you, being present with you. But the
Comforter, 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.
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.
I shall no longer speak many things with you, for the ruler of this world
comes, and he has nothing in Me.
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.
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.
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’ān 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’ān 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 (٥:٦٨)
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 (٥:٦٦)
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’ānic 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’ān has directed the people of the book to stand by not only the
Torah and the Gospel, but the Holy Qur’ān. 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’ān has been called the
‘Muhaymin’ of these books. Therefore, standing by these three books in
effect means standing by the Qur’ān.
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’ān. To this writer, this exhortation of the Qur’ān 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 Imām Farāhī’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
Imām Farāhī 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)
|