r! 3 -y> . VC- oV> 6 wi . 
 
 “TOUCHSTONE OF PHILOSOPHERS ” 
 
 3 7 • 
 
 1 
 
 OR 
 
 A. PRESENT TO THE DELEGATES OF DIFFERENT CREEDS 
 AT THE GRAND INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION 
 
 OF CHICAGO. 
 
 KORAN 
 
 CHAPTER XLI. Verses 53. 
 
 Hereafter we will show them our signs in the regions of the. earth f 
 and in themselves; until it "becomes manifest unto them that 
 this booh is the truth. 
 
 CHAPTER LXI. Verses 9. 
 
 It is he who has sent his apostle with the direction, and the religion 
 cf truth, that he mag exalt the same above every religion, 
 
 although the idolators be averse thereto. 
 
 0 ___ ___ ___ 
 
 CHAPTER XLVII. Verses 24. 
 
 Ho they not therefore attentively meditate on the 
 Are there locks upon their hearts ? 
 
 BT 
 
 GOOLAM MOHAMMAD 
 
 bin 
 
 HAJI HAFEZ SADEE RANDERL 
 
 FIRST EDITION, 2000 COPIES. 
 
 PRINTED BY 
 
 MAGANLAL KIKABHAI 
 
 AT THE SURAT YICIORU PRESS. 
 
 
 
 Koran \ 
 
(IN THE NAME OF GOD THE MOST MERCIFUL 
 THE MOST COMPASSIONATE,) 
 
 ‘Praise be to God, the Lord of all creatures; may He show His 
 mercy to Mohammed and his followers; may He enlarge my breast and 
 make what he has commanded me easy unto me; and loose tha knot of 
 my tongue that they may understand my speech.” 
 
 The pamphlet was undertaken and written at the instance of my 
 old friend Haji Usuf-bin-Saleh Poo who himsslf is always engaged in 
 proclaiming the beauties of his Mussulmin Faith and whose sole delight 
 consists in adopting measures for the propagation of his t^ue religion. He 
 seems to have been pleased with pamphlets which were published and 
 distributed by me and constantly urged upon me the desirability of hav- 
 ing a separate tract with three clupters severally treating of ‘the Existence 
 of God’ 'the falsity of the doctrine of transmigration of soul’ and 'the 
 necessity of following the commandments of a Prophet. But I put him oft’ 
 from time to time for I was awfully impressed with the difficulty of the 
 task. 'Oh it is a tremendous task’ I used to muse within myself. 'The 
 subject is too difficult for ordinary minds. The book will go to the hands 
 of learned connoisseurs’ and with these meditations I used again to ad- 
 dress my soul ' Stay friend, your aspirations are too high. Your pearls 
 are not worth to go for examination into the hands of connoisseurs; other 
 Mussulman Jewellers of learning will deal out their stores of learning for 
 the benefit of others.’ But my esteemed friend the Hsjee Sahib would not 
 let me alone, and inspired by the wish of God who emboldened me to 
 publish whatever I could put down in thoughts I undertook the task and 
 did it but wita trembling hand. 
 
 Would that by the mercy of God, it will be acceptable to all; may 
 they benefit by it and furnish my sinful soul a means of salvation. 
 
 I have one special request to make to my learned readers; that they 
 be not too quick to find fault with a part of the book if they find anv 
 thing objectionable therein; that they should read the whole pamphlet 
 through and I indulgently hope that other parts shall furnish answers to 
 them. For sake of shortness lam obliged to give answers sometimes 
 either before or after a particular point. But .after a careful perusal 
 they still find that some errors of print or judgment have crept in, they 
 may make the necessary corrections and kindly inform me of them. To 
 err is human and I shall most thankfully receive corrections where I have 
 erred. In short, the book is an humble attempt to declare the truth and 
 not a proud ostentation of my learning. 
 
 In fine. I feel quite certain that a man will find much to learn in^his 
 pamphlet if he will take the trouble to read it, Arith impartial eyes. Rut 
 a partial and prejudiced reader is sure to grope in the *dark and injure 
 himself. Far be it from me to ask them to accept what I have said or 
 to assert that that is all true. But what I will humbly request them to 
 do is to leave aside for the moment the teachings of their elders and, 
 examine this with impartiality. 
 
 Would that God will give light unto you. 
 

 iioasst T80M SET 0CO *0 PM AH 3HT HI) 
 
 (,:JTAH0'38A?M00 T'-XM 3ET 
 
 ' 
 
 .•i: 1 ?£ot < Via • ' 'r.fc'j !I y«f. . ifmo ■ \/, , j >f/f 
 
 ■ . . . ■ 
 
 ".dooqqM vto ' . • i “ ■ t'. i vi. . 
 
 • . • lor "jir.-t. ?Mt; ra.iii'iw Irr, ,ct ,L ; ' ' v v.\fr,!»r*<: -il'i. 
 
 • , .> ; ! - om ; o.-iw bn# riii r l cifft!jy*; 8 i 14 - u - Jr ;o<f y ’ M-.lv/r: 
 
 . i 
 
 » 
 
 !>• .' ii if • .v/ iiyinv/ ^{rfnirr-q dl> w i • . n ■ d . » i> -v ’ - 
 
 • ■ ii ; fl-J ri> iii rid; *-ni noqu '• *• •• u« . 1 ••'•‘iJ • 
 
 '■ .'.5 to vjf 7 »e c.i 3 q* v- - <: ; 
 
 ’ 
 
 < "V r iftili *»fl d.i v iqnii uu'.-tn. » I u* u J <-J :*rc .j »h» 
 
 • /in \f\i\ rr Mini • d . »■• i 1 ■ t . .r *i r ir i . a t ii rfO‘ 
 
 ' 
 
 • 1 _ ; : f .+ . a. : : >: "I'm 7 . ■ . ' jf.Mi ; V : • : ' : ■ 
 
 • . i . * : • *.y.+ i;-iiW .iri U i> tl '*/ j i< I f‘ ‘*K ■■ 
 
 if ! , ('>v. r < fi.n*-' 0 '* ; "H .«rfj (ui'.mt! f ti '-■> vui Jfrf 1 
 
 .m , . t yf.i oil !•<::; I > J ■ »itJ ifi fl •! tit*} 
 
 * . ;o .. . ' i ' .i . ’ ■ i 'H" .i< 
 
 
 
 VI ii 't .lo#^ 1 • • 1 4! '■ • ' f 
 
 
 
 j: i ii Ui i U i .114 iit io J t q 
 
 
 i 
 
 jj i" 4 ; i 1 . i • ■ 
 
 J 
 
 f 1 • 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 ’ 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 ill !♦' 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 • , r. i>t fiu»d 
 
 
 
 ofjifvi yin 
 
 
 liir l-'jr.n 
 
 
 
 
 a m(| ityf.yi oil t 
 
 . 1 in* at *»j ) 1* 1 •htri yv: • l n t * • 
 
 
 .11 
 
 I*. >4 ’ • 
 
 if 1. lUli it l V fi.U OIHM*. 
 . 
 
TOUCHSTONE OF PHILOSOPHERS 
 
 If a man dives deep into himself he 
 will immediately perceive that there is a 
 Creator of us all. That He was long be- 
 fore the world, is and will continue to be 
 for ever. 
 
 We can easily see that I, that was 
 not, have now come to exist i. e. I that 
 was non-existent, have started into life and 
 a thing that was not, when it comes to be 
 t. e. a thing that was at one time non-exis- 
 tent when it starts into existence must 
 have a Creator. From these two facts it is 
 logically proved thatl must have a Creator. 
 
 2. The first statement — that I that 
 was not have now come to live, needs no 
 proof for every one knows that a time 
 there was when he had not this bodily 
 form. 
 
 The second statement that a non-exis- 
 tent embodiment when starting into life 
 requires a creator can be thus substan- 
 tiated: — ( a ) nothing contradicts our 
 supposition if we believe that an embodi- 
 ment that comes into existence at a parti- 
 cular date might have come into existence 
 ten days earlier or later. All times are 
 equal and when a thing comes to exist at 
 a particular time there must be One who 
 designedly prefers that time for its birth 
 and associates it with that particular mo- 
 ment. Otherwise it must follow that 
 in spite of two moments being equal in 
 all respects one goes ahead of the 
 other by itself. But that is impossible. 
 ( b ) Secondly in case of would-be things, 
 non-existence is of equal rather greater 
 strength than existence for we know non 
 existence is quite independent of cause. 
 Existence has thus equal or rather less 
 strength than non-existence; still it over 
 powers non-existence and forces the thing 
 into being. We must therefore have One 
 that can increase its strength. 
 
 3. I cannot be my own creator for if 
 I can create myself, I must more easily 
 create others; for in the process of creation 
 we are equal. But you see that I am un~ 
 able to create others and therefore it must 
 be clear to you that I cannot be my own 
 creator. ( b ) Again it is a well-known 
 truth that cause must precede the effect; 
 for it is under the influence of the cause 
 that the effects are produced. If I be my 
 own creator I, as a cause, must precede 
 myself, but as an effect of the same cause, 
 must also follow myself. But a thing can 
 both precede and follow itself is absurd on 
 the face of it. 
 
 But if a man opposes my statement 
 — That I that was not have come to live — 
 and puts it down as false on the ground 
 that I was in the form of seminal fluid of 
 my father, that my father was in that of 
 my grand father and so on ad-infinitum 
 but accepts that the former seminal fluid 
 has now developed into a regular bodily 
 form, he can be told that what I meant 
 by the above-mentioned statement was 
 that I was not in this complete bodily 
 shape endowed with life and soul; and it 
 is a fact attached to the conception of 
 ‘whole’ that it ceases to be whole if some 
 part is taken out of it. The developed 
 body is considerably larger than the ori- 
 ginal seminal fluid. Much must be taken 
 out before it can be reduced to its former 
 state. That is, the developed form ceases 
 to exist in the undeveloped fluid. There- 
 fore my contention ‘ That I was formerly 
 not but have now come to exist ’ is com- 
 pletely true. Then again creator is re- 
 quired. But I cannot be that creator as 
 proved above. 
 
 But again if one says that ‘Man’ is 
 an ‘entire’ conception, Semen is but an 
 i undeveloped portion of it. They are two 
 
2 
 
 different entities altogether and therefore 
 it is quite possible that the original serai* 
 nal fluid may be the cause. But if it can 
 be the cause of ray existence it should equal- 
 ly bring another into existence for the 
 other man and 1 are equal in all Tespects. 
 But it cannot create the other and therefore 
 it cannot be the cause of my existence. 
 
 But if one says that the same seminal 
 fluid does not become the cause of 
 another's existence, for it can not enter his 
 mother’s womb, and that it is thecondition 
 of contact with the mother’s womb that 
 gives it the power to create, it must follow 
 that a body can only develop into the 
 womb and must remain as it was when it 
 came out. But the inference is simply 
 monstrous; for most parts develop after 
 birth. Then how can seminal fluid be the 
 cause of creation. ? 
 
 Now when we look at the non- 
 developed body we see that it has a cer- 
 tain length and breadth; but it is easily 
 conceivable that it can have a greater or 
 less length and breadth; in the same man* 
 ner the body has a particular colour and 
 a particular voice. But it is probable that 
 it might have got a diflerent colour and a 
 different voice. Further we see that the 
 developed body has hands and feet, nose, 
 eyes and ears of a particular shape and 
 their very places of situation are fixed. 
 They might have had other shapes and 
 other places. But the particular shape 
 displays design and therefore there must 
 bo an all-powerful creator. Otherwise it 
 must follow that of two equal possibilities 
 — for example of having a greater or less 
 length, having a particular shape or other 
 — one predominates over the other by 
 itself. But that is impossible to believe. 
 
 Now let us examine the nature of 
 seminal fluid. We will see that it can not 
 be a creator with design for croatore with 
 
 design must have life, power, reason and 
 knowledge. But the fluid has none. If 
 it had the four attributes how is it :hat, 
 despite its having them it cannot create 
 more than one ? Thus seminal fluid 
 cannot create a developed body as a 
 creator with design ; nor can it be its 
 creator as an external cause or as its 
 natural attribute. For if it were the one 
 or the other, according to the law which 
 says, that the external cause or the natural 
 attribute must be iu close contact with its 
 effects, seminal fluid must be in contact 
 with the developed body, and that tha 
 developed body should grow in a round 
 shape, and its eyes and nose should grow 
 equal lengths, with the hands and feet. 
 But as we all see that the nose and the 
 eyes do not grow equally with the hands 
 and feet, nor does the body develo.pe in 
 a round shape, we must say that seminal 
 fluid cannot be the cause of the developed 
 body iu either way. We have already 
 proved that it cannot create as a designing 
 One. Iu short semen cannot create in 
 any of the three possible forms of creation. 
 It therefore cannot be the creator. 
 
 Things can influence only iu three 
 ways which are shown below : — 
 
 Things that can influence others are 
 of two kinds. (1) Some have power to in- 
 fluence as well as to restrain that influence. 
 A.s one about to write. (2) Others are able 
 to influence but cannot stop their own 
 influence. The second class are subdivided 
 into two sorts: — '(1) Consists of things 
 whose influence can only be exerted in the 
 presence of some condition and in the 
 absence of disturbing causes; for instance 
 fire can only burn others if the condition 
 of nearness is present and the disturbing 
 cause of wetness is absent from the thing 
 to be burnt (2) Consists of things whose 
 influence is independent of other condi- 
 
tions as the motion of key by the fingers 
 ' moving . 
 
 Now this must be clearly understood 
 that like myself who am one that equally 
 has both the possibilities of coming into 
 life and not coming into life ( mumkin, ) 
 i.e. that hasitsessential qualities (Jauhar) 
 as well as accidents (Arza) such as dark- 
 ness or fairness of the body, knowledge or 
 ignorance, the original seminal fluid as 
 well as the rest of the Universe have their 
 own possibilities of existence or non-exis- 
 tence, their own essential qualities and 
 accidents as well. And a9 I have my own 
 dimensions and my accidents so has the 
 universe its own dimensions and accidents. 
 
 In my own case starting into life and 
 BOt starting into life were of equal powers. 
 The same is the case with the rest of the 
 universe. And as it has been proved from 
 what has been said above that I should 
 have my creator, it at once follows that the 
 rest of the universe must have its Creator. 
 For both the rest of the universe and I 
 have got similar essential qualities and 
 accidents. Otherwise it must follow that it 
 can have the qualities similar to myself of 
 mumkin &c. and can also claim to have 
 the attribute of (Wajibul Yujud) that is 
 necessary existence. But it is absurd to 
 believe that it can have two contradictory 
 qualities. 
 
 Secondly all the (Sifat) attributes of 
 the whole universe have started into exis- 
 tence from non-existence and those things 
 of which the attributes spring up from a 
 former state of non-existence are created 
 things; therefore it is logically proved, by 
 admitting the truth of the said premises 
 that the whole Universe is created and 
 therefore the whole Universe must have 
 its Creator. But if a man refuses to accept 
 the conclusions on the ground that he 
 accept the truth pf the premises he 
 
 can he shown that the first i3 true for ali 
 the attributes of the Universe seem to vary. 
 Some come into existence and others drop 
 out of it; aud the attribute ^of (mumkin) 
 is common to them all; and those thingB, 
 that are subject to such variations must be 
 new creations; and therefore the attributes 
 of the universe are proved to be 'coming 
 into life from [non-existence.’ ( b ) The 
 second premiss that ‘ those things, of 
 which the attributes spring up from a 
 former state of non-existence, are created 
 things’ can be thus proved: — 
 
 We see that the attributes of the 
 whole universe either come into life from 
 a former state of non-existence or drop 
 out of existence into a state of non-exia- 
 tence. In the former case its existence 
 follows non-existence and so it cannot 
 be kadim or eternal. In the second case, 
 it is obvious that when things that were 
 existent come into non-existence, they 
 caunot lay claim to being Vajibul-Vtijud 
 i. e. having a permanent existence; and 
 if they cannot claim to be Wajibul Wicjud 
 they must be mumkin, that is, must have 
 possibilities of both existence and non-exis- 
 tence. But mumkin things must have their 
 creator, for in their case, existence; and 
 non-existence are equal powers.’ If they 
 have a creator they can not be without a 
 beginning. 
 
 Now that attributes cease to be 
 Kadim, that is, without a beginning,, the 
 things, that have these attributes, cannot 
 be Kadim or without a beginning; for if 
 they can be ‘ Kadim ’ a time there can pos- 
 sibly exist when they were without any 
 attributes. But all the things of the 
 univeree cannot exist without attributes 
 and thus it is proved that the universe 
 cannot be Kadim or without a beginning. 
 
4 
 
 Now I will here put down two laws 
 on which depend the corning arguments; 
 that is there will be no doubt as regards 
 the truth of the arguments, if the laws 
 here cited are once accepted. They are 
 adopted as true by the Brahmanical philo- 
 sophers of Somncith as well as by Greek, 
 Arab, and Persian philosophers. I shall 
 first prove them to be true: — 
 
 (1) Daur (i. e. two things can mu- 
 tually create each others) is impossible. 
 For if A be the Creator of X, X must come 
 after A, that is, A must precede X in point 
 of time. And if X be also the creator of 
 A, X must in like manner precede A. 
 
 But A was already in advance of X 
 in point of time, then X must be still 
 more in advance; that is, X comes befor e 
 himself in a twofold degree. Similarly 
 X comes after himself in a twofold degree. 
 But that is impossible to believe. 
 
 Chain or a never ending series or 
 cm infinite line is impossible. For it a 
 thing takes place anew, there must be a 
 time at which it happened; for example, I 
 am sitting, but if I rise up and begin to 
 move, there must be a particular time at 
 which my motion began. Now suppose that 
 there is an infinite straight line called A B 
 
 A D and that there is a second 
 straight line parallel to it 
 called CD Now if C D 
 bends a little towards A B 
 by hypothesis they must 
 meet at some place (Euclid 
 Ax. 12, Book 1) Now the 
 
 question is ‘can you tell me the time when 
 C D will meet AB’? If you will fix a 
 particular time, and point out the place 
 where it meets, the present writer will 
 easily point out, that it is equally possible 
 that the lines met at twenty yards before 
 the place pointed out. Thus you cannot 
 ascertain the place. Then what must be 
 tire cause that you cannot fix the time of 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 their first meeting ? The cause is simply 
 the first wrong supposition that wa have 
 started with. We have assumed the first 
 line to be infinite; and that assumption 
 has led us to such an absurd result. We 
 must be able to ascertain the time of their 
 first meeting. If not, our supposition 
 that comes in the way of an inevitable 
 result, must be false. 
 
 Now suppose, there is an infinite 
 straight line, and let it be divided into 
 equal parts of a foot each or 10 feet each; 
 let us also assume a second infinite straight 
 line and let us also suppose that it is 20 
 feet shorter than the first. Now let us 
 bring it over to the starting point of the 
 initial line. Let us also, in the manner 
 above pointed out, go on marking at the 
 aforesaid intervals. Now a question arises: — 
 Whether lines will continually go on in 
 such a demarcation ? If you say, they 
 will equally go on, it follows that a line 
 that was 20 feet shorter than the first, 
 becomes equal to the line that was twenty 
 feet longer. But that is impossible to 
 believe. So it must follow that the shorter 
 line will stop. So it ceases to be infinite 
 that is, it is shown to be finite. Now by 
 a mathematical law which states that any 
 finite line increased by a definite length 
 however great, must also be finite, 1 ’ it 
 follows that the formerly ‘infinite’ line 
 that was only 20 feet longer than the 
 second line, must also be finite. So it 
 follows that there cannot exists au ‘infinite 
 line.' 
 
 Let us take another concrete instance. 
 Suppose there are two men, one of them 
 begins to trace back the pedigree of a man 
 of to-day and the other begius to carry it 
 backwards of a man of the time of Aristotle. 
 
 They also go on naming one ancestor 
 each; that is, if one names the father of 
 the man of to-day, the other names the 
 
father of the man of the time of Aristotle 
 and so forth. A question can now be 
 asked: — Will both of them continually go 
 on tracing backwards or not ? If you say 
 that both will continually go on tracing 
 backwards, it must follow that the shorter 
 pedigree of the man’of the time of Aristo- 
 tle becomes equal to the longer pedigree 
 of the man of to-day. But longer can 
 never be equal to the shorter. Therefore 
 it must ensue that the tracing back of the 
 pedigree of the Aristotelian man must 
 stop. And hence it also follows that the 
 longer line of the man of to-day is longer 
 than that of the man of tl e time of Aris- \ 
 totle, by only so much, as it cau be traced 
 backwards, from to day to the time of 
 Aristotle. That is the longer line of 
 today’s man also, will stop after the defi- 
 nitely greater length. So it cannot be in- 
 finite, and there cannot be an infinite line. 
 
 Now I will give you a third, argu- 
 ment and shall put down four rules to 
 illustrate and clearly explain theargument:- 
 
 (1) Double of astract as well as con- 
 crete numbers is always greater. 
 
 (2) In enumeration, a number in- 
 creases, only beyond that number, over I 
 which it has an increase,; for instance, sup- 1 
 pose that a number increases beyond five, j 
 Then it must increase after five. It cannot j 
 increase from the beginning of numbers, ! 
 for otherwise the numbers will lose their j 
 beginning. But the beginning ig always ! 
 necessary. Nor can it increase from the 
 middle. For the reckoning follows an 
 order as 1-2-3 &c; and therefore if it in- 
 creases from the middle the chain will be 
 broken.. And therefore it is conclusively 
 proved that an increase of number must 
 always begin from the end. 
 
 (3) Every abstract number is capable 
 of being doubled, 
 
 (4) Every thing that springs from 
 non-existence into existence is subject to 
 computation whether the things be infinite 
 or otherwise. 
 
 Bearing these four rules in mind, you 
 will see that even infinite or never ending 
 things are according to Buie IV subject to 
 computation. They are also capable of 
 being doubled in accordance with R,ule HI 
 and according to Rule I double of them 
 must always be greater than their single- 
 ness; and according to Rule II their in- 
 crease must follow their fixed form and 
 therefore those things that vou have as- 
 sumed to be infinite or never-ending, cease 
 to be never-ending, for you have found out 
 their two limits. 
 
 As to chain or the infinite line, I have 
 given only three proofs of its impossibility. 
 But I have about 50 other proofs with me. 
 But as the fact has been admitted by many 
 learned men, and as what I have said is 
 quite conclusive to a thinking mind, I 
 have refrained from giving them all, lest 
 the bulk of the book might grow rather 
 unwieldy. I have therefore contented 
 myself by giving the said three proofs. 
 Some apparent objections are raised against 
 them through misconception by some; 
 but as detailed answers to all, will take up 
 a good deal of space at my disposal, I 
 have rather reluctantly to give up the at- 
 tempt. I shall be very happy to give 
 them ail to those gentlemen who are 
 specially solicitous about them. 
 
 Now the creator of the universe 
 must either be Wajibul Wujud, that is, 
 one of necessary existence, or Mumkin that 
 is one having equal possibilities of exis- 
 tence or non-existence. If the former 
 what we want to prove is already proved. 
 But if the latter, he must have a Creator. 
 The creator, in turn may be either a 
 Wajibul Wujud or Mumkin. If the latter 
 he must again have a Creator, and so on. 
 It will adinfinitim , 
 
e 
 
 1 f the creators mutually create each 
 other, they are subject to a wheel or mutual 
 rotation. 
 
 That is in one case Creators come 
 under the application of the rule of an 
 'infinite line.’ In the second they are 
 subject to the ‘ Wheel ’. 
 
 But I have shown that both are ab- 
 surd aud impossible; and therefore it fol. 
 lows that Creator must be a Wajibul Wujud 
 or One of necessary existence. 
 
 2. All will grant that there is an exis- 
 tence of one form or another. If that 
 existence is Wajibul Wujud, what we 
 desired to prove is t proved. But if that 
 is Mumkin ; it must have a creator. 
 The creator may be Wajibul Wujud or 
 Mumkin. If the latter, he must have a 
 creator, and so on ad infinitum-, or they 
 must mutually create each other, but as 
 both the chain or infinite line and wheel 
 have been proved to be false it must fol- 
 low that the Creator must be a Wajibul 
 Wujud Q. E. D. 
 
 Now suppose all the Mumkin exis- 
 tences of this universe are combined into 
 a big mass. The whole mass is then a 
 Mumkin existence for the several parts of 
 it are Mumkin . A Mumkin (existence 
 muBt have a creator for itself. The whole 
 mass of Mumkin existence cannot be its 
 own creator. Because for a thing to be 
 the creator of another, the condition of 
 precedence is necessary. Therefore the 
 mass, in order that it may be its creator, 
 must precede itself which is impossible. 
 Nor can a part of it create the mass. For 
 the part, in order that it may be its creator 
 must precede itself along with the other 
 parts of the mass that it creates. But 
 that is impossible. Nor can the several 
 parts create each other; for if they do they 
 fall under the rule of the ‘ Wheel ' which 
 has been prored to bo false. All tho pos- 
 
 sible creators are thus rejected. Then it 
 must follow’ that there must be an external 
 one Wajibul Wujud in himself who is the 
 creator of the universe Q. E. D. 
 
 Now let us see from another point 
 of view. If you say that every existence 
 is Mumkin, you strike at the root of all 
 possible existence. For that Mumkin 
 existence may either spring up of itself 
 or may have a creator. Its springing up 
 of itself is impossible. In its case both 
 existence and non' existence are equally 
 possible; and if existence predominates 
 there must be One who gave it the pre- 
 I dominence over the other non-existence. 
 Now according to your supposition, the 
 external Creator must also be Mumkin - 
 The Creator again will have a Mumkin 
 Creator and so on. Or they can mutually 
 create themselves. In the former case 
 they come under the ‘infinite line’; and in 
 the second, under the ‘wheel.’ But both, 
 are proved to be impossible; therefore we 
 must come to the monstrous result of the 
 world never coming into existence. So 
 your supposition of all existence beinS 
 Mumkin is false and thereforo we prove 
 that there must be one Wajiiibl Wujud 
 Q E.D. 
 
 4. If you contend all existences to 
 be Mumkin, you will come to a startling 
 conclusion that nothing should come to 
 exist; for a Mumkin, when it comes to 
 exist, must be preceded by Creation/ But 
 Creation must be preceded by a Creator, 
 that, by another existence. That existence 
 depends upon Creation, and Creation de_ 
 pends upon existence. Thus they come 
 under the ‘Wheel.’ But ‘Wheel’ as proved 
 above is false. Thus it is wrong to say 
 that is only Mumkin Existence. 
 
 5. Again if you say, that all the exis- 
 tence of the universe are Mumkin preced- 
 ed by an infinite of Existences in the past, 
 then you should endorse with me iu a 
 
rather unpleasant conclusion that you and 
 I could not have come to life at all. For 
 the only condition, under which we can 
 come to life, is that the infinity of exis- 
 tencies before us must have lived their life. 
 But if you grant the last, both the begin- 
 ning and the end of your so-called infinity 
 are assertained; and thus it ceases to be 
 infinite. But you have taken it to be in- 
 finite which cannot end. And unless that 
 ends we cannot be created, so we can have 
 no turn for our Creation. 
 
 A little humourous instance will ex- 
 plain it more easily; — 
 
 Suppose A promises B to pay a rupee 
 on a day on condition that A has paid B 
 a rupee on a day preceding and so will 
 never pay the rupee to B; for A has pro* 
 mised to pay B after A has paid an un- 
 limited number of rupees; as infinity never 
 ends. 
 
 In the same manner we can only be 
 created when an infinite number of ances- 
 tors have passed away before us. But as 
 infinity neverstops, the condition can never 
 be fulfilled and we cannot be created. 
 But as we are in the full enjoyment of life, 
 the supposition of an infinity in the past is 
 wrong. We will thus know both the ends 
 and the universe can not be without a be- 
 ginning. It must have a Creator. 
 
 ( Q. I ) All ‘compounds’ are believed 
 to be products of four elements — Earth, 
 Air, Water and fire — by the Greek, Arab 
 and Persian philosophers. The Hindus 
 have added one more big space; and the 
 modern scholars have shown that there are 
 65 elements and from that some maintain 
 that though the universal Existences are 
 Mumkin they do not require the designing 
 hand of God. There are the results of 
 self-acting combinations of these elements; 
 and thus they raise doubts as to the Waji- 
 bv.l Wvjiid character of God, which has 
 
 bsen proved to be so by what is said above 
 
 but which I shall try to prove still more 
 elaborately. 
 
 ( A. I ) Our Creator must be a de- 
 signing One. For the creator's power 
 should be of equal strength in creating one 
 black as well as fnir, tall as well as short; 
 and even all times should be equal to him. 
 But it is by a particular design in the 
 Creator, that though both the alternate 
 capabilities are of equal power — I take 
 only one and become of a particular colour 
 a particular length and height and also 
 associate my birth with a particular time. 
 Otherwise it must follow that of two equal 
 possibilities one goes a head of the other 
 by itself. But that is impossible therefore 
 we must say that there is a design in the 
 Creation of the universe. But as the na- 
 ture of the self-acting elements cannot 
 have a design, it cannot be a Creator. 
 
 ( 2 ) Again if we suppose that there 
 is no design which gives a particular shape 
 or colour to and associates the thing with, 
 a particular time, it must follow that all 
 Mumkin existences cease to exist or they 
 must be from all times both of which alter- 
 natives are impossible for we see around 
 us all Mumkin existences ar.d mumkin 
 existences can never be from all times by 
 their very significance. Now to show how 
 the two conclusions are possible: — If a 
 thing is not associated with a particular 
 time it can only happen in two possible 
 
 ways; —(1) there may never have been 
 % 
 
 the required association or the thing may 
 be from all times in which case also it is 
 associated with no particular time. Only 
 those things can be said to have been 
 associated with a particular time, which 
 come from non-existence to existence at 
 that particular moment. But things 
 coming from non-existence to existence 
 must have a creator and also of two equal 
 
3 
 
 capabilities of being {tall or short, fair or 
 dark, if one gets a head of the other, there 
 must be one^who gives the supremacy. 
 Therefore there must be a creator and a 
 creator with design. But if the Creator’s 
 design does not produce the particular 
 colour or shape, as in this case the nature 
 of the self-acting elements— the universe 
 cannot be produced. 
 
 3 Again the Creator must be con- 
 versant with all matters; for the creations 
 of the universe are full of subtle wisdom 
 and a creator of such things must be all 
 conversant. That the creations of the 
 Creator are full of all-pervading wisdom 
 is obvious to all. Let us first view a man 
 
 a compound of the four elements of 
 
 earth, water, air and fire or of many more 
 elements according to the moderns. His 
 body consists of bones and marrow, tendons, 
 and muscles, flesh and skin. It has its 
 hair and nails all produced with a sur- 
 prising s/cill; which all can be well seen by 
 a study of its anatomy. The body stands 
 with the help of the bones but he is not 
 content with creating one bone but has 
 created not less than 250 bones with 
 tendons attached to them. If there had 
 been one entire bone the man could not 
 have action like a block of wood or a piece 
 of stone, nor could he have moved to and 
 from. How could he have then prayed 
 to the Almighty or even executed his own 
 material work. Let us now see the eco- 
 nomy displayed in filling bones .with mar- 
 row. The inarrow is tough and in a vis- 
 cous condition, which keeps the bone 
 humid and gives it a strengh to sustain. 
 If it had been otherwise, we would natur- 
 ally expect the bones to be less durable and 
 thus the constitution would suffer. Flesh 
 covers the bones all over und gives the 
 body a regular shape. Then come tbe 
 blood-vessels which branch ofl all over the 
 
 body and transmit to every part of it its 
 requisice nourishment. Blood-vessels are 
 again of two kinds. Some are large and 
 some are small. Their number is also 
 fixed. If they had been a little more or 
 fewer in number the natural course would 
 have been disturbed. Again He kept the 
 blood running through them. And lest 
 too thick blood would not easily run 
 through veins and too thin would not 
 supply the necessary nourishment. He took 
 care to make it neither too thick nor too 
 thin. Again He covered flesh with skin 
 which serves as a protection to it. Had 
 there been no skin, there would have been 
 an unpleasing crust all over the body which 
 would have exposed ua to the stings 
 of little insects and thu3 we would 
 have to suffer a good deal. Hair grows 
 over the body, and beautifies it in 
 some places. It protects the skin in some 
 parts and in other protects the lineaments 
 of the body for instance eye-brows, and 
 eye-lashes protect the eyes and it is also a 
 way by which fugta or the refuse of the 
 body comes out. Hairs are hard at the 
 top but their roots are soft, which spare us 
 from its constant prickings. He also again 
 gave us two lips which cover the mouth 
 and thus protect it from an excess of wind, 
 dust &c. but which easily opens when re- 
 quired and adds beauty to the features. 
 Again let us look at the teeth they perform 
 two important functions of cuttiug and 
 chewing and there being two kinds of it — 
 one sharps and the other broad they are 
 very well adopted to this two fold functions 
 of them. He very wisely refrained from 
 giving them at our birth; for in infancy 
 they would have caused incessant pain to 
 the mother at the time of sucking, which 
 then were perfectly useless. Only when 
 the child grows older the teeth cut, and at 
 , that time they cut most seasonably for 
 
0 
 
 that is the time when they require for 
 cutting and chewing their solid food. Then 
 comes the tongue which serves every im- 
 portant functions of collecting the chewed 
 food befors it enters the mouth, and appre- 
 ciates the different tastes. The fingers and 
 the toes have got their nails which protect 
 their ends exposed to a considerable fric 
 tion, from decay ; and they also are useful 
 in scratching and holding minute things 
 There are in fact innumerable advantages 
 of the particular structure of the human 
 body which are so well-known to medical 
 men of the whole world. For my present 
 purpose, it will suffice to say that Galen — 
 (Jalinius Ar) has said that he discovered 
 not less than five thousand different ad- 
 vanges of the human constitution. The 
 above enumeration was simply a typical 
 list to show the subtle wisdom of the 
 Creator. 
 
 My dear Bretheren, if you will thus 
 attempt to find out the latent wonders in 
 the rest of the animal and vegetable world, 
 as well at the subterranean world — mine- 
 rals &c., I am sure you shall find out as 
 many more. 
 
 A Creator of such things must be 
 conversant with all matters is a fact so 
 obvious that it will be simply presumptu- 
 ous to give proofs for its support. Still 
 the present writer hopes that his bretheren, 
 by a study of the book of the universe, 
 will learn to recognise a Creator all-con- 
 versant, as they are led to infer a learned 
 writer by a study of his wise sayings hap- 
 pily expressed. 
 
 (4) A Creator must have both these 
 attributes of working with a design and 
 conversant with all things. Essential 
 nature of elements can have neither of 
 these two attributes and therefore how can 
 ; hey be such a Creator ? 
 
 But even if you still persist in saying 
 that the nature of elements can create 
 things, I shall ask you this question, if the 
 elements are ‘without a beginnig’ or other- 
 wise. If you say, that they are without 
 a beginning, it must follow that the whole 
 universe is ‘without a beginning.’ For 
 I we know that the elements do not act with 
 intention. It is their unconscious juxta- 
 position that produces the things and as 
 this essential nature is with them from all 
 times it must follow that the things that 
 result from that nature must also be from 
 all times. But as I have proved above 
 that the universe cannot be “without a 
 beginning.” So the elements too cannot 
 be without a beginning.’ That is they 
 must all come down to the Category of 
 Mumkin existences. They must then 
 have a Creator who brings them from hon- 
 existence to existence. But when you 
 have denied God’s creation, and adopted 
 the elements as having power to Create 
 these Mumkin proved elements must have 
 another elemental Creator; But it can be 
 asked, is this second Creator without a 
 beginning or with a beginning. But it 
 cannot be ‘without a beginning’ as showu 
 above. Then the second Creator also will 
 be a Mumkin Existence. Thus they will 
 come under the said rules of an infinite 
 line or the wheel. But as I have proved 
 both of them to be false it must follow 
 that the inherent nature of elements cannot 
 create. They are created by some on# 
 external to them. 
 
 But a man might believe that the 
 elements are without a beginning but op- 
 poses the conclusion drawn above that the 
 universe also should be without a begin- 
 ning. He brings forward the known laws 
 of ‘presence of nearness’ and ‘absence of 
 disturbing causes’ in the process of one 
 thing acting on another. He says that 
 
10 
 
 though fire haB the property of burning 
 other things, it cannot burn it, if it is not 
 sioffidently near and if it is obstructed by 
 the disturbing cause of wetness. In like 
 manner, he says, the elements were with- 
 out a beginning. But that they could not 
 act owing to tho obstruction of disturbing 
 causes and therefore it was, he says that 
 though the elements were without a be- 
 ginning the world was not so for it come 
 to exist gradually as the disturbing causes 
 were removed. 
 
 But I can ask him this question. Does 
 he believe the obstruction to be from all 
 times’? If so it must follow that a thing 
 without a beginning can never have any 
 beginning in future. It must continue 
 for all times. Then such an obstruction 
 cannot be removed, and if it cannot be re* 
 moved, the elements cannot act and the 
 world cannot be produced. He must 
 therefore say that the obstruction is not 
 ‘without a beginning.’ It then becomes 
 '‘Mumkin.’ It must then have a creator. 
 
 But you have taken the elements to 
 be Creators, then this obstructor must 
 have an obstructor otherwise it ' will be 
 without a beginning and so on ad-infinitum. 
 Thus it comes under the law of "the infi- 
 nite line.” But we have proved that to 
 be impossible. 
 
 Bnt if one accepts a disturbing cause 
 hut denies the existence of any thing 
 capable of obstructing it before it, it must 
 mi rely follow that the world was without 
 .a beginning’ since there was no body be- 
 fore this disturbing cause, the action of 
 t| l0 elemonts cannot be stopped and there- 
 fore the universe must have existed from 
 oil time. But I have shown that the 
 universe cannot be without a beginning it 
 must also follow that the nature of ele- 
 ments cannot be the Creator. 
 
 I have often heard of natural Philoso- 
 phers maintaining, that when hot aud cold 
 
 water are brought together they act on 
 ’ eaoh other and settle down at a mean tem 
 perature. But I can assure them that if 
 they will take pains to think a little more 
 deeply, they will not fail to see the falsity 
 of their doctrines. Do the two waters 
 begin to act upon each at one and the same 
 time or does the action of one follow that 
 of the other ? If they say that they begin 
 to act at one and the same time, their con- 
 tention is false. For if one thing acts upon 
 another in a particular way it must have 
 that particular nature at that time; That 
 is the hot water must be at a higher tem- 
 perature when It makes the colder water 
 warm and vice versa. Then it must follow 
 that the water must have its particular 
 attribute of warmness and must also im 
 bibe coolness from the other at one and the 
 same time. In the same time the other 
 cool quantity of water must retain its cool- 
 ness and again take in warmness from the 
 warm quantity at one and the same time* 
 But that is impossible. 
 
 But if you say that one begins to act 
 before the other, then of two equal attri- 
 butes of warmness and coolness, how was it 
 that one came to preponderate over the 
 other ? It must also follow that if one of them, 
 for instance, the warm quantity of water, 
 first begms to act, it must while so acting 
 upon the other, retain its warmness and 
 destroy the coolness of the other quantity ? 
 In like manner if the cool quantity of water 
 begins to act it must retain its coolness 
 when acting upon the warm. But we have 
 seen that its coolness has been already 
 removed. Under such circumstances how 
 can it act ? 
 
 Thus it has been conclusively shown 
 that the power that brings about the mean 
 temperature is not the inherent nature of 
 water, but it is some one out side it. But 
 it has boon customary with him always to 
 
11 
 
 produce the game result — a mean temper- 
 ature — when both cool and hot quantities 
 of water are brought together. The peo. 
 pie are thus misled and they believe that 
 it is the nature of the two quantities of 
 water that produces the mean temperature. 
 
 From all what has been said above 
 you must have perceived that the creator 
 of the universe is a Wajibul Wujud. Let 
 us now inquire into the question where 
 He is One or more than One. From 
 arguments adduced below, you will see 
 that He ie only One. 
 
 ( 1 ) If you suppose that there are 
 more than one, I shall ask you whether the 
 others can prevent the one, from doing a 
 particular things or not. If they can, the 
 one cannot be the Creator for he is not 
 all-powerful. If they cannot, they cannot 
 be gods for their power is obstructive; but 
 as God’s power should not be obstructive, 
 it is proved that there cannot be more 
 than one God Q. E. D. 
 
 Let us look at it from another point 
 of view. Supposed of two possible crea- 
 tors one desires that a particular thing 
 should happen, while the other desires 
 that it should not happen. Now if things 
 happen according to the desires of both, 
 jt must follow that a thing should be, and 
 should not be, at one and the same time. 
 But that such contradictory things should 
 happen together, is impossible or it is 
 Jjitima-N akii as the Arabs philosophers 
 would call it. If the desires of both 
 remain unfulfilled, the first obvious con- 
 clusion which we must accept is that both 
 are not all-powerful, as they should be, 
 and the second is, that there would be 
 aniritifa nakiz, that is a thing should 
 not happen and a thing should not not- 
 happen will occur at one and the same. 
 If the wish of one of them comes to pass 
 He rises to the rank of an all-powerful , 
 
 while other degrades into one powerless. 
 But one who is not all-powerful cannot be 
 God therefore there can be only one God 
 Q. E. D. 
 
 (3) Now if you suppose two equally 
 all-powerful creators then it must follow 
 that every Mumkin Existence stands 
 on an equal footing before them both i. e. 
 both of them can equally create every 
 possible kind of Mumkin Existence. Lot 
 us then take a certain Mumkin Existence 
 and ask the question as to its creator* 
 Both of them cannot be its creator. For 
 if one thing comes to exist under the in- 
 fluence of two causes acting one and the 
 Bame time, it must follow that the thing 
 depends on both the causes. And when 
 you have supposed both of them equally 
 all-powerful, it must also follow that the 
 thing will come to exist even in the ab- 
 sence of one of the two. Thus we have a 
 thing dependent on both and n on-depen- 
 dent on both (for in the second case it is 
 only dependent on one) we must there- 
 fore say that the thing depends on one 
 only for its existence. Thus out of two 
 equally all-powerful creators, and that 
 creates must have some one else to give 
 it a start over the other. Both equally 
 all-powerful creators are thus proved to be 
 an impossibility. And if you still persist 
 in holding it, you will have a starling con- 
 clusion that there will not be any Mumkin 
 Existence. 
 
 (4) Now if they are two Gods, ther e 
 must be something to distinguish one 
 *rom the other. That one which has 
 attributes marking it out from the other, 
 will be so to say a mixture of genus and 
 the distinguishing qualities. But mix- 
 ture of come under Mumkin Existences 
 which stand in need of some one else, to 
 bring about that 'mixed state’. Thus both 
 are dependent on something else and 
 therefore they cannot be Gods, I shal\ 
 
12 
 
 now prove iti two different ways that God 
 cannot be devisible: — 
 
 (a) If God can be divided into parts, 
 the parts so made, must either be 
 Wajibal-wajud or Mumldn. If they are 
 Wajibul Wujud then there must be as 
 many gods as there are parts. But I 
 have proved that a pluerality of gods is 
 impossible. It must therefore follow that 
 these parts are of Mumkin existence. They 
 must therefore have a creator. God can 
 not be the creator of these parts, for He 
 that is made up of these parts cannot 
 creator the parts themselves. If suppos 0 
 that He can, it comes under the wheel 
 which is shown to be impossible. If any 
 one other than God, were the creator of 
 these parts, he must necessarily precede 
 the parts. Thus God who was mado of 
 these parts ceases to be Wajibul Whjud 
 and one without a beginning. 
 
 (b) Again if a thing is made up of 
 parts, one of its parts necessarily depends 
 upon the other parts, to evolve out the en- 
 tire thing. Thus the 'whole in itself’ 
 comes out of a former state of non-exis- 
 tence.’ If thus becomes Mumkin and 
 thus ceases to be Wajibul Wajud — one of 
 the necessary attributes of God. 
 
 Now I shall prove that God cannot 
 incarnate Himself in any other body. 
 For if one body enters into another body, 
 it must follow, that the body that enters 
 must either be in a bodily form or iu the 
 form of some attributes such as anger, 
 valour, dread, blackness &c. If Ho were 
 in a bodily form, and enters in His bodi- 
 ly form as such, into another body, He 
 must merge Himself completely into the 
 several parts of the body into which He 
 enters; so that He will be divisible into 
 pnrts. How can He then lay claims to 
 beiug God ? In fact God is indivisible. 
 
 How can He then have a bodily from ? 
 
 A body is always a compound and is sub- 
 ject to division. 
 
 If you again say that God enters as 
 accident, Philosophers will say that God 
 is inneed of some substratum to rest up 
 on; for these attributes always are in 
 need of substrata to fix themselves upon. 
 For instance, darkness and fairness, valour 
 and fear, shame &c. can only be found 
 with substances. But God can never be 
 supposed to be dependenton other things; 
 and therefore it is proved that God can 
 I not incarnate himself into other embodi- 
 ments. 
 
 In the same way as God cannot be 
 incarnate as a whole. He cannot be 
 incarnate by some parts of Himself; for 
 God, as proved above, is entire by himself 
 and not made up of parts. But even grant- 
 ing that God is made up of parts and as 
 parts, He can be incarnate into another 
 body, a question can be asked if the parts 
 so admitted have divinity in them or 
 not ? If you say, that the parts have 
 divinity attached to them, then the 
 original God ceases to be God; for accor. 
 ing to the laws of Logic, ‘whole’ ceases 
 to be ‘whole’ if parts are taken out of it. 
 Otherwise there will be two Gods. But I 
 have proved the impossibility of two. 
 More over, if you say, tli«t the parts have 
 no divinity, the parts then can no longer 
 be said to belong to God. Aad also it 
 will follow, according to rules of Logm 
 as shown above that the original God will 
 coase to be God. 
 
 Many more are the attributes of the 
 Almighty , besides those that 1 have attempt- 
 ed to euuraorate. But as they are beyond 
 tho scopo of the presont pamphlet, and 
 are also too many to enumerate, I shall 
 pass them over at present. 
 
 1 shall then conclude the first chapter 
 by a short summery of what I have said 
 
13 
 
 in it. (a) The Universe has come into exis- 
 tence from a former state of non-existence; 
 (b) It has a creator, ( c ) That creator is 
 Wajibal Wajucl, (d) That creator is God, 
 (ej He is conversant with'all affairs , (f) 
 (g) He acts ivith design; (h) There can 
 not be two of the kind, (\) He is in divi- 
 sible; (j) and in capable of incarnation 
 
 into other forms. 
 
 Chapter (IT) 
 
 It is a well-known fact that more 
 than half of the known inhabitants of 
 the world believe that health and wealth, 
 opulence and a high position in life, an 
 inclination to do good to others as well 
 as state of respectability are the rewards 
 of good actions in a previous life; and 
 that illness and malevolence, obscurity and 
 miserty result from evel actions. Thus the 
 individual soul transmigrates from one 
 body to another; [and enjoy the fruits of 
 their past deeds. The process is known 
 as Transmigration of souls. 
 
 Let us now examine if their doctrine 
 is true. But I shall prove by some argu- 
 ments given belcw that the doctrine is 
 false. 
 
 (1) You have seen from the first 
 chapter that there can be only one wajibul 
 wujud Existence. Thus soul must be a 
 MumJcin Existence created later on. In 
 like manner bodies too are Murnkin Exis- 
 tences. They have come to live from a 
 former state of non-existence. Now in 
 the very beginning of the world, particular 
 souls must have enter into particular 
 bodies. They cannot be all males nor 
 can they be all females. For we know 
 that population can only continue, if men 
 and women live together and bring chil- 
 dren into the world; so from the very 
 beginning, there must be both males and 
 females. But we all accept that even in 
 the supreme creation of mankind, males 
 are superior to women. What sing had 
 
 the poor females souls committed that they 
 were born women ? And what meritorious 
 deeds the more fortunate male souls done, 
 they were born men ? This was the 
 very first creation. There was no life pre- 
 vious to it; that we can ascribe their in- 
 ferior female sex to the sins of that life, 
 
 (2) Along with the creator of man-kind, 
 the lowers animals must needs be created, 
 for men depend on them iu various walks 
 of life such as agriculture. Natural phi- 
 losophers have again proved that urine and 
 other excretions of man are the prolific, 
 sources of insects. To what can their 
 birth in the lower animal world be ascrib- 
 ed ? They committed no sius a previous 
 life; for in fact there was no life previ- 
 ous to the beginning of the world. 
 
 (3) If the doctrine of transmigra- 
 tion of souls be correct, then deaths and 
 births must have a corresponding limit. 
 But we see, without the least shadow of 
 mis-giving, that a corresponding number 
 of men are never produced in times of 
 an epidemic like cholera, which takes 
 off men by thousands. The deficit is 
 only made good after a very long time* 
 In like manner millions of small insects 
 and worms are produced in the rainy 
 season. They die off when the season 
 is over, and come out again in the next 
 season. But no body has proved that 
 the millions that die transmigrate to other 
 bodies and increase the number by mil- 
 lions at the end of the season; nor have 
 they proved that millions die off in order 
 that their souls migrate to the bodies of 
 the insects when they come out in the 
 Monsoons. 
 
 4 Mankind in general have avoice 
 best and such other attributes. If they 
 are carefully controlled by reason, they 
 take a lawful course; otherwise they are 
 sure to betray the men in whom they 
 exercise are almost resistless influence; 
 
14 
 
 so much so that men afterwards seem 
 to take pleasure in such vicious in- 
 dulgences. Thus if a man is addicted 
 to theft, adultary or any other vice, in 
 one life, he is sure to do the same in 
 a coming life according to the doctrine 
 of those who hold that deeds regulate 
 births and rebirths. Now imagine for 
 a moment the delight with which such 
 thorough-bred evildoers welcome the vices 
 to which they are addicted ! Just think 
 of the vaunting pride with which they 
 narrate their escapades among their 
 friends. Thus it is no punishment to 
 them to be doomed to those vices which 
 they hail with so much delight. That 
 only is punishment which excruciates 
 their feelings. Thus you can see that 
 falling into vices is not the result of 
 vicious deeds of a former life. 
 
 5 When a culprit is sentenced for his 
 crime, it is customary and just that he 
 should be acquainted with the crime for 
 which he is punished. If judges are not 
 required to give out the nature of the 
 offence for which he punishes the prisoner, 
 a man can, without impunity, go on op- 
 pressing people with a very fine answer 
 that he knows the guiet. But who will 
 then be considered unjust ? 
 
 It is mere justice that the prisoner 
 should know the crime for which he is 
 being punished. But no one is in a posi- 
 tion to attribute, the evil a man does, the 
 trouble he involves himself into, and the 
 sickness which overtakes him to any sinful 
 actions, the man might have committed 
 in a previous life. Then how can you say 
 such delinquencies are the result of sins 
 committed in a previous life. 
 
 6. The whole world believes and we 
 too see without much difficulty, if we turn 
 our eyes a little around us, that the evil 
 passions such as jealously and malevolence, 
 cupidity and family dissensions are yearly 
 
 increasing their influence in an increasing 
 number of inhabitants of this planet. An <J 
 yet we see that the population increases 
 with rapid strides ! What can there be 
 the cause of that ? Do the meritorious 
 deeds of men preponderate over their evil 
 actions that men are again bom in the 
 creation of human kind, rather than de- 
 generating into the vegetable and lower 
 animal kingdoms, according to the doctrine 
 of Karma Vadim, that is, those who say 
 that deeds regulate life. 
 
 6. My dear brethren, who believe in 
 this doctrine of state of life depending on 
 deeds of a former life ! It is indeed a 
 matter of great regret that you are led to 
 believe in this ingineous but mischievous 
 doctrine of transmigration of soul and 
 deeds regulating life. You see men of 
 righteous deeds as well as men of wicked 
 actions. Your moral sense is however 
 offended when you behold that the virtu- 
 ous, with all their good deeds suffer, while 
 the wicked prosper in the midst of their 
 most revolting vices. Such can never be 
 the results of their present life. You can- 
 not also account for their]preBent irregula- 
 rities by a reference to the future. You 
 therefore come down upon the ingenious 
 device of believing that the virtuous whom 
 you behold as suffering, suffer the 
 wicked prosper for their past evil and 
 righteous deeds respectively. But in this 
 confining yourself to only two things, you 
 have committed a very serious mistake. 
 For there is a third way in which you can 
 account for the occurences of many events. 
 You can easily see that when a man does 
 a piece of favour to some body, the favour 
 so done, is not the reward of any thing 
 else. In like manner when a surgeon per- 
 forms his operations upon a patient, or 
 gives a ‘nauseous drought’ of medicino to 
 a sick man, or when parents send reluctant 
 
15 
 
 boys to school; the several kinds of mental 
 and bodily painsufered are not the punish- 
 ments of evil deeds of a former life. Thus 
 there are many other troubles and states 
 of ca«e, which are not the results of any 
 thing gone by. But pity it is that the 
 followers of the transmigration doctrine 
 confine every thing to the results of good 
 and evil actions alone; and fail to see that 
 if their docrine were accepted man will 
 rise superior to God. For in human 
 actions charity had a considerable share; 
 but God will have none. Men did many 
 actions as cures and advice which tended 
 to trouble others, God will have neither 
 of these. For He punishes only for evil 
 deeds and rewards only for meritorious 
 acts. I cannot see, for it seems strange 
 indeed ! How it is that the believers in 
 the transmigration doctrine should ascribe 
 to God the attributes of kindness and 
 beneficence. How should they ask for 
 this thing and that, and request him to 
 do one thing or another ? The very belief 
 in the transmigration doctrine strikes a^ 
 the very root of any such idea. 
 
 7. If the doctrine of transmigration of 
 souls, and the corresponding one of 
 ‘deeds regulating life’, be correct it 
 must follow that a pure man should con- 
 tinue to be, and a wholly or partially 
 wicked man should also continue as he 
 was, in the next life. For the punishment 
 of his evil deeds should necessarily con' 
 demn him for ever to such revolting acts. 
 Now that no man is entirely free from 
 “irregularities of life,” what hope can there 
 be for them, if you endorse the mischievous 
 doctrine of the said transmigration. Every 
 religion must afford facilities for salavtion. 
 In fact it is no true creed but damned 
 heresy that condemns a ciiminal to perpe- 
 tual damnation. But scriptures of all 
 creeds accept as necessary some ways to 
 salvation, But the doctrine of transmigra- 
 
 tion even opposes these ways of divin® 
 justice. And therefore deserves to be put 
 down ns false Q. E. D. 
 
 8. If a cold of earth or a piece of stone 
 is tossed up, it must travel over a certain 
 distance in the air, before its motion i® 
 arrested; and it must also travel again over 
 the same space it first passed through when 
 it comes back to the Earth. It can never 
 happen that it can come down without 
 passing through the intervening distance. 
 It is true that the initial point from, which 
 it etarted first, will be the point of desti-; 
 nation when it will come back to the earthy 
 and the destination of its up-travel will 
 become the starting point of its backward 
 journey. In fact the travel takes peace in 
 quite an opposite way. Through the dis- 
 tance remains just the same as before. The 
 fact is obvious to us all and stands in no 
 need of written proofs. Let us now turn 
 to a child and examine him through the 
 course of his gradual development from 
 childhood to old age. He gradually changes 
 in his bodily and mental parts as he ad- 
 vances in age; and as the child grows up 
 from infancy to youth and from youth to 
 extreme old age, his reasoning faculty 
 developes in a like proportion to a higher 
 shaqe of culture. This is a fact univer- 
 sally acknowledged; but the strange doc- 
 trines of tran8megratiou of soul tries to 
 strike at its very foundation. We know 
 that men gradually rise to a higher degree 
 of culture and development in both mentul 
 and bodily parts. They must have a 
 corresponding gradual descent as in the 
 case of a piece of stone. But the doctrine 
 of transmigration maintains that all the 
 acquired faculties of the previous life dis- 
 appear at a new birth. But a doctrine 
 which opposes the known phenomena of 
 life cannot be right. Transmigration is 
 therefore a false doctrine. 
 
 Some maintain that, the elevation of 
 humanity depends on education, devotion 
 
16 
 
 to good and moral deeds. They further 
 say that the elevation so reached however 
 slow it might have been disappeared in a 
 moment for these are mere accidents; for 
 example anger, fear sham &c, But they 
 can be told that these accidents are of a 
 two fold nature. These are temporary 
 as well as permanent. Pleasure, grief 
 boldness and fear come and go as soon as 
 they like. But the permauent ones, such 
 as the superficies of the human body and 
 the vocant place it requires for itself, are 
 accidents which can never be separated 
 from it. What you say is true in the case 
 of the temporary ones. But it false in the 
 other ones. 
 
 9 Out of all existent embodiments 
 there are some elements and some com- 
 pounds. There are some men and som e 
 animals; some are gnats while others are 
 ants &c. Among these some are superior 
 to others is a fact acknowledged even by 
 the advocates of the transmigration doc- 
 trine. A question can at the very begin- 
 ning be asked ? Is the universe created 
 by itself or by some one else ? ' The first 
 alternative has already been shown to be 
 impossible. The second alternative only 
 stands as true, that it is created by some 
 one else. If it is created by some one 
 else, was it created all in one moment or 
 were some things created after the other ? 
 If you say that they were all createp 
 simultaneously, the lowest amongst them 
 can justly complain of the injustice of 
 God s Creation. They could not have 
 Committed any sins for there was no pre- 
 vious life, how it was then that they were 
 doomed to the lowest rank, while their 
 more fortunate bretheren without any 
 meritorious deeds in a previous life, are 
 placed in a higher rank of life. Some of 
 them are made angels while others are 
 borne men. Some are born princes while 
 others are great landlords, 
 
 If they were created one after another 
 a second question can be put: — Were all 
 of those that were born first, in this case 
 of Succession, of the same species as men 
 only or different, sucb as men, animals &c. 
 If there were different species the lower 
 amongst them were sure to complain of 
 injustice as shown above. If you say that 
 there was only one species, a question 
 again may arise if there was one or many 
 among the species. If many, were they 
 all equal iu rank ? If they were not, the 
 same complaint of injustice will be made 
 by the lower in rank among them. If they 
 were all equal, how it was that the inter- 
 dependent society went on and how has it 
 come about that we see all manner of in- 
 equalities amongst mankind. If there 
 was born only one of one species at one 
 time. How was it that the population 
 increased, and secondly if we grant that 
 the population did increase, what was the 
 rank of the afterborn ? If it was equal, 
 how came about the present inequalities. 
 If it was unequal, the same complaint of 
 injustice from the lower in rank will 
 follow. Thus we have completely shown 
 that the doctrine of transmigration is false. 
 
 10 The one that commits sins in a 
 wicked man is either his body or soul or 
 both. If the body commits sins — as I am 
 informed, the Hindus believe, it must fol- 
 low on the theory of transmigration of 
 souls that the body will never suffer for 
 bis evil deeds, but an innocent body in the 
 next life in which the individual soul of 
 the wicked man enters, will suffer a vica- 
 rious punishment. But that is impossible 
 to believe, as we cannot attribute injustice 
 to God. If the sinner were noul, it must 
 follow that the human soul must commit 
 sins without any dependence on the body. 
 But that is equally false; for we see that 
 soul always acts through the agency of the 
 
\7 
 
 body, They are so intimately connected 
 with each other that they have a retlex 
 action on each other. For example, fear 
 paralyses human limbs, and illness injures 
 the intellect. It is recognised by all 
 medical authorities that there are some 
 nutritive substances which invigorates the 
 body as well as mind; on the other hand 
 there are other things which not only 
 bring on illness but also darken the intel- 
 lect. Thus it is proved that both the 
 human soul and body together commit sins. 
 Again if the human soul alone were the 
 sinner, it should only suffer punishment 
 in the next life; then how is it that both 
 the new body and soul suffer punishment 
 for the evil actions of the ‘soul’ alone ? 
 Thirdly you will say that both in conjunc- 
 tion commit sins. Then both the soul and 
 the present body should suffer their deserv- 
 ed punishment in the next birth. But we 
 see that only one of the two culprits, 
 namely soul, is punished and the body is 
 let alone. Strange enough it may seem 
 that a second innocent body is brought in 
 to suffer punishment without any offence. 
 None will, I hope, advocate the mischi- 
 evous doctrine. To my great surprise, I 
 have heard of Dayanand Sarasvati the 
 leader of the Aryasamajists and the so- 
 called propagators of the doctrines of 
 Vedantism, seriously discoursing before a 
 public meeting at Rourkee, that the total 
 number of living creatures on the face of 
 the world was 4,500 million and that all 
 the changes according to the doctrine of 
 transmigration went on within that num- 
 berjthat after death they are born in dif- 
 ferent species in accordance with their 
 actions. It is a pity that he took so rash 
 a leap in the dark without a moment’s 
 consideration. He ought to have known 
 that the human creation of the world now 
 amounts to 1500 million. That there is 
 
 hardly any house which is without a pretty 
 large number of flies, gnats, ants, bugs &c. 
 Now if we to be on safest side possible, 
 take an average only five per head, there 
 will be in all (men & animals) not less than 
 9000 million living creatures. There are 
 mauy other creatures which simply baffles 
 description. If an Aiyasamagist is not 
 still convinced, he will do well to count up 
 for himself those innumerable little insects 
 which fly just above the surface of a single 
 pond, and which, I am sure, exceeds far 
 beyond their Sivami’s computation. Pos- 
 sibly it might have been told in the Vedas 
 that the whole of the creation at the time 
 amounted to 4500 million. But after all 
 it is an undoubted fact that the population 
 has considerably increased; and the state- 
 ment that changes occur only within that 
 number is also false. 
 
 Chapter (III.) 
 
 Man is the most wonderful being in 
 the Creations of the Almighty. The other 
 species can do without mutual aid. But 
 it is impossible for man to go in this 
 struggle for existence without the aid of 
 their fellow-men. There must be an ex- 
 change of services for society to go on. 
 Without it men would have to suffer an 
 innumerable number of inconveniences. 
 As an example let us take the common 
 look of a peasant. Before you can have it 
 a number of men must contribute their 
 own share of labour for its production. 
 There must be men to grind the corn; and 
 there must be farmers to grow the corn. 
 But the farmers are equally in need of 
 Blacksmiths &c. who make for him the 
 plough. In like manner, it is in matter 
 of dress. You require men to grow the 
 cotton. The cotton must be ginned, spun 
 and woven into clothes and cloth must 
 be sewen into clothes before you can put 
 them on. Without an interchange of 
 services a man can never acquire all the 
 
18 
 
 necessaries of life. He must therelore 
 exchange his services. To control such 
 a number of intricate relations in a world 
 so full of conflicting passions, a certain ! 
 amount of social polity is required to pro- 
 tect the interests of all. If there was no 
 such restraint, property would be in secure 
 and jealousy for the good of others would 
 preponderate. There are evil passions 
 such as anger, lust, avaries in all human 
 breasts. And if they were allowed to have 
 their full sway, uncontrolled and unimped- 
 ed, the whole world will be a scene of 
 unceasing fights and bloodshed. All human 
 concerns will be forgot no body will care 
 either for the living or for the dead. To ; 
 control such passions and restore peace all j 
 over the world, it is but meet that there 
 must be One, under whoseguidance people | 
 will learn to live happily such a man is 
 known a ‘Prophet of God. 
 
 Sentiments and disposition vary in al 
 most every human breast. But inspite of 
 these varieties of nature and the spirit of 
 insubordination in man, which always 
 stirs up a man to set every body else at 
 defiance, when a man springs up on the 
 world, who wields the necessary power to 
 bring them all under subjection, to whom 
 many leaving aside their differences meet 
 together to obey, there must be some latent 
 cause or other. If there were no such 
 cause as that every man would set him at 
 naught and refuse to obey his commands. ; 
 The cause that leads men to obey him is 
 the divine proofs that he adduces in sup- 
 port of the true way and true cannons that 
 he promulgates. What are those proofs ? 
 The proofs are those miracles which are 
 known as Mujijah in Arabic. From this 
 you must have seen that these miracles or 
 Mujijah are the credentials of his Pro- 
 phetship. 
 
 Miracles that attest to the divine 
 mission of a Prophet must obey the follow . 
 
 ing conditions, without which the miracles 
 will come down to the category of sleights 
 of hand or anything else but miracles. 
 
 (1) The object of miracles must be a 
 creation of God— pure and simple. 
 
 (2) It must be supernatural. 
 
 (3) It must happen during the term of 
 his Prophetsbip. 
 
 (4) When working that miracle he 
 must challenge his opponents to do 1 the 
 same. 
 
 (5) The miracle must come about in 
 the way announced and must not falsify 
 the Prophet. 
 
 (6) The man boasting to do the same 
 must be powerless to do so. 
 
 Now let us examine the reasons why 
 these conditions should apply to one who 
 claims to be a Prophet. The first applies 
 for miracles cannot be from all time. If 
 they were so, every one will say that they 
 were before the man, who says he worked 
 them; for we have supposed them to be 
 from all times. (2) If the miracles do not 
 oppose the ordinary phenomena of nature 
 such as the rising and setting of the sun, 
 and the rotation of crops in due returns of 
 seasons, every one else would claim to be 
 on an equal footing with the Prophet. 
 He can also say with absolute, certainty 
 that the sun will rise the next day. How 
 can then such pretenders be distinguished 
 from true prophets. 
 
 It must however be borne in mind 
 that feats performed by means of magic or 
 the tricks of hand do not oppose the laws 
 of nature. For both magical performances 
 and the sleights of hand require the use of 
 certain things in a certain manner and 
 that all can perform with the utmost 
 amount of ease if they know their use. 
 
 It is known to all that some learned 
 men and philosophers have discovered some 
 drugs or stones which work out quite ex- 
 traordinary results. For instance, the 
 
19 
 
 magnet has the power to attract iron and 
 the straw-attracting amber has the pro- 
 perty of attracting straw towards itself. 
 One pretending to be a Prophet might as 
 well make use of any of similar things, 
 whose properties he has studied, and might 
 also succeed in imposing upon an ignorant 
 gathering of spectators. From these facts, 
 some Brahmans as well as some of the 
 followers of Dayanand Swarai of the Arya 
 Samagist sect, hold that perhaps the Mus 
 salraan Prophet Mohmed might also have 
 performed his miracles by the help of such 
 things whose properties he was aware of 
 but they are innocent of. But they can 
 be assured that we only hold those things 
 as miracles in which we know for certain 
 that human agency is perfectly helpless 
 such as coming to life of a dead body 
 turning of a stick into a serpent capable 
 of moving about and eating. Or we hold 
 those events only as miracles which have 
 someattendantcircumstances which have no 
 possible doubt of their reality. For instance 
 the promulgation of our Koran by our 
 beloved Prophet Mahmad is a miracle by 
 itself. He challenged all the unbelievers 
 in his Mission to produce a Sura or chapter 
 like the one he gave out in the Koran. 
 But none could do it. The attendant cir- 
 cumstance which establishes the reality of 
 the miracle, beyond doubt, is the better 
 want of education in the Prophet. He 
 was even innocent of the very Alif be-A. 
 B. C. of the Arabic language. Nor did he 
 use to move in the learned circles. Again 
 according to the 6th rule no one else must 
 
 be able to do what the Prophet did* But 
 
 you see that any man can use the magnet 
 or the amber and work the same effects. 
 How can its effects be then termed mira- 
 cles. There is no art or science on the 
 whole face of the Universe which once 
 learnt bya man cannot be learnt by another. 
 Eut miracles must be such that no one 
 
 else can do the same thing done by the 
 man who performed it as a miracle 
 
 3 Miracles are brought about by God 
 to prove the mission of the Prophet whom 
 He seuds. So why need we miracles to 
 prove it before the claim of Prophets hip 
 is set up. Thus if a man says that he 
 has given the proofs of his mission long 
 I before the time he set up his claim he can 
 be asked to give them a second time. If 
 he can not furnish them when thus asked 
 j he must be an impostor. It is true that 
 some wonderful feats are performed by 
 sages & pious men but these feats are not 
 ! Mujijak or miracles; for he either does 
 not ascribe them to his own power; or 
 if he does, he only does it as a Vali or 
 pious man. 
 
 4 The rule states that miracles are a. 
 
 I test of his Prophetship. By challenging 
 
 ! the opponents to do the same their ears 
 J will be opened. They will try to test the 
 claimant will; and afterwards no doubts 
 1 will be entertained. 
 
 5 If one professing to be a Prophet 
 promises to bring a dead body to life; and 
 it happens that instead of the dead body 
 coming to life, a stick or a piece of stone 
 becomes alive, it can not be said to be a 
 miracle. If he, in like manner, sets up a 
 claim to give life to a stick or a piece of 
 stone, and it happens that the stick when 
 it comes to life denies the prophetic cha- 
 racter of the man it then also ceases to be 
 a. miracle. 
 
 6 This rule is of great use in clearly 
 explaining the meaning of the word Mu- 
 jijah. Mujijak presupposes that others 
 than the true Prophets cannot perform it, 
 and therefore the thing that the Prophet 
 performs becomes areal Mujijak. It also 
 goes a great way in proving the fraud of 
 a pretender who tries to impose upon the 
 ignorant; such things attempted to be im- 
 posed on the ignorant as miracles, are not 
 
20 
 
 Mujijah or what we mean by miracles. 
 
 Some are of opinion that there is no 
 need of a Prophet, and that they need not 
 follow his dictates, for God has given 
 them a sufficient amount of reasoning 
 faculty, with the help of which they are 
 able to judge what is for their good & 
 what is evil to them. To such men I 
 have already given an answer in the very 
 beginning of this chapter, which I hope, 
 will prove quite sufficient to impartial 
 judges. I agree with them in believing 
 that Reason does teach us that there is a 
 Creator of us all who gives us our subsis- 
 tence &c, and that we must pray to God 
 in gratitude for what He has done for us. 
 But how long should we pray and at what 
 times we should pray, is a question on 
 which Reason can never inform us. It is 
 not reasonable that God should expect a 
 man to offer up his prayers to Him always 
 all day long. For if that were his duty, 
 men would not find time to get all his 
 necessaries of life. If Reason says that a 
 man is to pray to God only in leisure hours, 
 then offering of prayers will cease to be a 
 duty. There might be a man who is all 
 day long busy and can hardly be able to 
 spare a moment. On the other hand there 
 might be a second man without hardly 
 having any thing to do. The first will 
 he allowed to go quite free from duty 
 while the other will be almost tired to 
 death in praying all day long. But a 
 duty can not have anything like an option. 
 I f Reason says that it can fix its own suit- 
 able time, it must follow that there will 
 be a number of different times at which 
 different men will like to offer up prayers. 
 But if that practice were allowed, the 
 several advantages of united prayers will 
 he at once at an end. But it is not pos- 
 sible for Reason to fix a particular time. 
 To it all times are equal for the purpose 
 of devotion & prayers to the Almighty 1 
 
 Then how can it give preference to one 
 particular hour ? it. is true that some 
 moments are considered preferable to 
 others in the eyes of men, but even then ; 
 it is the scriptures that ascribe to it the 
 given preference. Even granting that 
 Reason can fix the particular times for 
 prayers, it cannot decide how long the 
 prayers should be offered. In like man- 
 ner Reason cannot assign strictly just 
 sanctions to all offences nor can it point 
 out all commands which either do good 
 or cause a positive loss. My dear brethren, 
 even if you earnestly wish to distinguish 
 between good and evil with the sole aid of 
 your Heaton, I fear, you will fail to suc- 
 ceed. Experience may lead you to right 
 rules of good conduct and may teach you 
 what is for your good and what is harm- 
 ful; but it is not at all surprising that you 
 will fall into the snares of evil before the 
 light of knowledge has dawned upon you. 
 Just turn your eyes to Government laws. 
 There are the results of agood many learned 
 brains working to gether; and still we will 
 find considerable amendments in later 
 editions as timegoeson. My dear brethren, 
 prophet is just like a learned doctor. A 
 doctor has studied all the beneficial and 
 harmful properties of drugs and roots, 
 with which he effects cures and often 
 guards from negligent use of some of noxi- 
 ous drugs. It is true that by a careful 
 study & experience of some years we 
 might come to know all their properties. 
 But will it not be foolish to waste our 
 time and in some cases to suffer positive 
 harm, when we can avail ourselves of the 
 acquired knowledge of tbe doctor. In like 
 manner it is much batter to improve under 
 the ministering care of a Prophet who 
 has been inspired with all knowledge .and 
 is of a blameless character, than to im- 
 prove after many and repeated blunders 
 and sad experience of avery long time. 
 
21 
 
 Proofs of Prophetsliip depend on mi- j 
 racles. Miracles are such phenomena as i 
 are not to be found in the ordinary course 
 of creation. And as such supernatural 
 phenomena are impossible, they say, it is 
 impossible to prove a Prophets’ mission. 
 If it were possible they say, to have things 
 quite opposed to the ordinary phenomena 
 of the world, it is possible that the moun- 
 tains may turn to gold, a sea may as well 
 be full of blood or oil, and the “household 
 gods” may all be transformed to so many 
 beautiful males and females. Put it would 
 be madness to suppose that such events 
 would happen. 
 
 But to such objections a very simple 
 answer can be easily given: — It as if to pro- 
 duce such supernatural phenomena as you 
 speak of, is not more extraordinary than 
 the creation of this stupendous Universe. 
 I have already proved in chapter 1 that 
 there can be only one Wajebul Wujiid and 
 that is God. Every other creation followed 
 him. When He created the heavens for 
 the first time, He had no former experi- 
 
 such awful phenomena without the small- 
 est amount of effort though he had no 
 habit to do it. It is really surprising 
 that such supernatural creations excite little 
 or almost no wonder, while happening 
 of such things as you speak of, strikes you 
 as superhuman creations. Nothing can 
 be a greater mistake than that. It might 
 be true that such supernatural creations 
 as you speak of, might not have been 
 made. But what proofs can you show 
 that such things will not happen ? What 
 can we say to them who obstinately refuse 
 to believe that such things would happen, 
 even when they are shown that many of 
 the Prophets and their pious followers 
 have performed many miraculous & super- 
 natural feats. If they happen so often, 
 how can they be said to be opposed to the 
 ordinary rule ? 
 
 Now 1 shall prove the mission of our 
 beloved Prophet Mohmed in six different 
 ways, and shall hope that after a careful 
 perusal of the following sheets you will 
 learn to recognise their truth: — 
 
 1 Prophet Mohammed set up a claim 
 to his mission & performed miracles 
 in support of what he said. The first 
 statement that he laid claim to being the 
 apostle of God, is acknowledged by Hin- 
 dus, Christians, Parsis as well as other men 
 of various other creeds. That Prophet 
 Mohammad showed miracles can be thus 
 substantiated: — Koran is one of his greatest 
 miracles. That Prophet Mahommed chal- 
 lenged his opponents to produce a Koran 
 like his own, is a fact so often repeated 
 by so many men, that it will be simply 
 a height of absurdity to deny its truth 
 There are proofs of it even in the Koran 
 (see ch-ipter entitled Hhd verse 27) “Will 
 they say, he hath forged the Koran ? 
 Answer, Bring therefore ten Chapters like 
 unto it, forged by yourselves; and call on 
 whomsoever ye may to assist you, except 
 God, if ye speak truth.’'' He once more 
 challenged (see chapter entitled the Cow) 
 ‘If ye be in doubt concerning that revela- 
 tion which we have sent down unto our 
 servant, produce a chapter like unto it, 
 and eall upon your witnesses, besides God 
 if ye say truth.’ A second challenge fol- 
 lows: (see chapter entitled the night journey 
 or Beni israel or the son of Israel Verse 
 88) “Say, Verily if men and genii were 
 purposely assembled, that they might 
 produce a book like this Koran, they could 
 not produce one like unto it, although the 
 one of them assisted the other.” Now 
 consider for a moment. Although they 
 were thus challenged, they remained quiet 
 and could not produce, nor can they ever 
 produce a chapter like it. Thus it is proved 
 i that Koran is a miraele of God. 
 
If some, men could have produced a chapler 
 like uuto it, there were so in, any men op 
 posed to M.ehornraed, that they would have 
 one and all. at once announced the fact, 
 and then Reason would not have dared 
 to oppose the testimoney of so many 
 They were all hostile to Mahomed and as 
 enemies are always ready to gratily their 
 spite they would have at once proclaimed 
 the matter. 
 
 If one admits the fact that Prophet 
 Mahomed challenged his opponents to 
 produce a Koran like unto his own; but 
 doubts the reality of its being a miracle, 
 for it might happen that his opponents 
 remained quite unaware of the challenge 
 or if they knew, they were silenced with 
 a prospect of participating in the immense 
 gains of the prophet; : secondly it were 
 likely to believe that his opponents, doubt- 
 ful of his success, might have considered 
 him below their notice and thus refrained 
 from producing the koran like unto his 
 own; or they might have been over awed 
 by his superior dignity or might have been 
 under pressure of their ordinary- occupa- 
 tion, unable to spare the requisite time; 
 and thirdly they might not have been able 
 to announce it though produced on account 
 of some unavoidable difficulties, or even 
 though announced and brought forward, 
 it might have been suppressed by the dis- 
 ciples of Mahomed in the days of their 
 power. All these are possible conjectures. 
 But one answer will equally apply to them 
 all. It is admitted a3 a fact by all that 
 they could not produce a work like unto 
 the Prophet’s and therefore all your sup- 
 positions cannot stand before an ascertain- 
 ed fact till proofs are brought forward 
 which can establish the truth of your 
 conjectures. To the several conjectures, I 
 will now attempt to reply. (1) If one 
 claiming to be the Prophet ofbiod, shows 
 
 his miracles and challenges others to do. 
 
 doubt can there exist as to the reality of his 
 mission. (2) It is human nature that 
 some, if not all instead of letting him. 
 alone will rise up against a. man who by 
 means of some miraculous power in his 
 hands, proclaims his superiority over his 
 contemporaries and attempts to govern, 
 their life and property and again Prophet 
 Mahomed had to fly from Mecca to Medina 
 and that it was at Mecca that the above 
 quoted verses were proclaimed. From this 
 it follows that his opponents began to 
 persecute him at Mecca when they could 
 not successfully meet hia challenge. It 
 was not that they considered him below 
 their notice; for if that were the case how 
 was it that they began to oppress him ? 
 (3) Men in general are always ready to 
 expose the falsehood of an impostor, who 
 claims many things against their will, if 
 they are able to do so It is also human 
 nature that they are sure to announce the 
 fact of their success. The very idea of 
 meeting a challenge has associated with 
 itself a very natural desire to loudly pro- 
 claim his own success. How can a man 
 then remain quite ? He would leave no 
 stone unturned to give publicity to it. It 
 is possible that it might remain a secret in 
 a particular time at one particular place, 
 but it is impossible to believe that it should 
 remain so, for all times and all places. 
 And therefore we should have naturally 
 expected to have it announced to us by 
 Mahoraedans or by men of other creeds, 
 if one had really produced a work like 
 unto the Koran. Mahomedans hold that 
 Koran is written in an elegant and highly 
 finished style, and that it abounds in illus- 
 trations of the several part3 of Rhetorics. 
 Even a chapter of it is therefore incapable 
 of imitation. They therefore maintain it 
 
23 
 
 to be a miracle. Their opponents who 
 doubt its reality as a miracle stand their 
 ground on the following considerations: — 
 (1) If a chapter of Koran be put side 
 by side with an eloquent lecture of a first- 
 rate lecturer or some fine poems of some 
 of the best poets, it may be seen that both 
 the chapter of the Koran and the lecture 
 or the poems are of equal merit, or it 
 may be perceived that the latter are father 
 of a superior excellence. But a miracle 
 must be of such a supreme degree of ex- 
 cellence that there can remain no doubt as 
 to its being a miracle which will thus go 
 to prove the real character of the man who 
 claims to be an apostle of God. (2) If 
 an elegant and finished style were the only 
 thing to prove its character of being a 
 miracle, then the difference of opinions 
 among the disciples of Mahomed whether 
 some portions of the Koran formed a part 
 of it or not, becomes in-explicable. If 
 that were the real standard they would 
 have at once turned to those chapters and 
 examined them with that test; so that if 
 it had come to the standard degree of 
 eloquence they would have accepted them 
 with one assent, or rejected them equally 
 with an unanimous consent, if they had 
 fallen below that test. (3) In Mohammed’s 
 time, there were men who could repeat the 
 wholo of the Koian by heart. Some 
 portions of it, here and there were also put 
 down in black and white. At the time 
 when the whole of Koran was collected in 
 its present form, men who were engaged 
 in the business of collecting it, only ad- 
 mitted those portions which, the man who 
 produced them, swore to have himself 
 heard from the mouth of the Prophet, or 
 produced witnesses to attest to their being 
 given out by the Prophet. Now if th e 
 miraculous nature of Koran depended only 
 on its elegant and finished style, where 
 was the necessity of swearing or of pro- 
 
 | ducing witnesses in support of their state- 
 ment? If the portions come upto the 
 required elegance, they would have been 
 admitted or rejected if they fell below that 
 level. (4) There are vaiious degrees of 
 ■ excellence in all sciences and arts. One 
 may be inferior and others superior. In 
 fact there are degrees innumerable of 
 excellence in all sciences and arts. And 
 it is equally possible that a man may rise 
 superior to his contemporaries although at 
 another time another man may be found 
 who surpasses the first. If so, it i3 likely 
 to believe that Prophet Mahomed might 
 have risen superior to his contemporaries 
 in matter of an elegant and finished style; 
 and therefore in like manner the Chef-de - 
 ceuvre of all men who excell other men 
 of their time in their respective arts or 
 sciences should also be recognised as 
 miracles if Koran is to be considered so. 
 
 ( Ans 15) Any man who will compare 
 a lecture or a fine poem to a chapter in 
 Koran will not fail to be struck with a 
 marked difference of superiority in the 
 latter. It was only for this reason that 
 some of the fir9t-rate lecturers and best of 
 poets finding that even their best perform- 
 ances fell far short of the real excellence of 
 the chapters of Koran, desisted from cora- 
 parision with it. That men who knew little 
 of Rhetorics, much less of the art of com- 
 paring and judging of real excellence, ra- 
 ted them at an equal rate, does not in the 
 least detract from the value of Koran as 
 a miracle for ignorant men are no judges 
 of literary excellence. It is quite sufficient 
 to say that the learned men were quite 
 unable to produce the like of it. (Koran) 
 Again it is contrary to justice to compare 
 one of the smallest chapters of Koran 
 which is but three verses, some of the 
 longest speeches or poems. It is mere 
 justice to compare both of equal lengths 
 
24 
 
 and on such a comparision, you shall find 
 that Koran far excels over the others. 
 
 It is known to all students of History 
 that there lived a very able and eloquent 
 lecturer named Nalid son of Mugira. The 
 people were quite confident that he would 
 be able to produce a work like unto the 
 Koran. Just as they had expected h e 
 stood up and promised to produce a work 
 like unto the Koran. But after a careful 
 and minute study of the Koran he was 
 compelled to declare, that though he had 
 seen many discourses and many poems, 
 he had never seen the like of Koran, that 
 its style was really extraordinary Others 
 like him, were also compelled to express 
 their inability to do the same. 
 
 (Answer 2) It is true that we have 
 heard from tradition that the authenticity 
 of some of the portions of Koran forming 
 a part of it was denied by some; but the 
 testimony of the denial has not reached us 
 in that overwhelming number that common 
 sense might be led to admit it. The tes- 
 timony is so feeble that it can only carry 
 us to a vague possbility, on the othbr hand 
 the whole of the Koran has been handed 
 down to us by oral instructions. So much 
 so that it will simply be a height of ab- 
 surdity to doubt the testimony of them all. 
 It leaves no doubt but forces an unimpea- 
 chable certainty on our minds that every 
 portion of Koran was promulgated by Pro- 
 phot Mohammed. How can then a mere 
 possibility stand against such a dead cer- 
 tainty ? Again granting that there was a 
 difference of opinions still we can afferin 
 that those who denied them as forming 
 apart of the Koran did not deny that the 
 chaptors descended to Prophet Mohmcd 
 from God, nor did they deny that they in 
 point of elegant and finished style reachod 
 the standard — elegance of a miracle. They 
 only maintained “That the portions were 
 
 only sent down to protect Mohmed from 
 magical practices and therefore they would 
 not admit them as portions of the Koran/ ’ 
 Jf this was what they said, how was its 
 “elegant and finished style” denied ? 
 How did it affect the Koran as a miracle ? 
 
 (Answer to 3) It is true that at the 
 time of collecting the Koran those who pro- 
 duced a verse or two, were made to swear 
 or produce witnesses in support of thei r 
 statement. But the oath or witnesses 
 were required not that they could attest 
 to their forming a pare of the Koran, but 
 to their saying that they occupied a parti- 
 cular place in its chapters. In fact he was 
 asked if he had heard from Prophet Moh- 
 raed himself in the same order in which 
 he asked them to enter them in the Koran. 
 
 There was no doubt as to whether the 
 portions formed a part of the Koran or 
 not; for Prophet Mohmed was in the ha- 
 bit of repeating the chapters to his audi- 
 ence at the time of prayers every day, or 
 even sometimes iu public lectures. The 
 collectors of Koran also recited them at 
 the prayertimes and therefore they knew 
 well whether a particular verse or verses 
 formed a part of the Koran. But they 
 were doubtful of their order that is the 
 way in which they came one after another 
 Again even if we take it for granted that 
 the chapters of the Koran about which a 
 difference of opinions arose, was without 
 that excellence of slyle which would enti- 
 tle it to be called a miracles, it does not 
 
 affect in the least the miraculous character 
 of the Koran for it is the whole of it or 
 the several chapters of it, no matter they 
 be large or small, the smallest being me- 
 rely three verses, that are considerd a 
 miracle. 
 
 (Answer i ) In all times a miracle’ should 
 bo of such a sort as people at the time 
 might be excelling iu, or might have 
 
25 
 
 reached the extremest limit oF, for then 
 only can the limits of human power be 
 defiued. The said condition is necessary in 
 order that men may know for certain that 
 the miracle performed by the prophet is 
 beyond the reach of human power: Thus 
 no doubt would cross the human mind as 
 to its divine character. If it were not so, 
 the miracle worked by the Prophet would j 
 not have appeared as such to the people 
 who would have thought that had they 
 themselves entered in that department 
 and reached the furthest extremity of it, 
 they would also have as easily worked a 
 similar miracle. For example, the con- 
 temporaries of Moses were very proficient 
 in magic, so much so that they had reach- 
 ed the furthest limit of excellence in it. 
 God therefore Gave to Moses the princi- 
 pal miracle of the stick, which stick when 
 turned into a serpent, swallowed up the 
 serpents of the magicians of the day. The 
 magicians then one and all began to ad- 
 mit that it was no magic. It was a mi- 
 racle. That it was beyond the power of 
 man. From that moment they did not 
 hesitate to put their confidence in Moses. 
 But Phaoron who was quite ignorant of 
 the wonderful performances of magic, still 
 persisted in calling it ‘magic.’ In like 
 manner, as the contemporaries of Jesus 
 christ were very learned in medicine, so 
 much so that they were the most advanc- 
 ed, in that science, God thought it neces- 
 sary that the principal miracles of his 
 should relate to medicine. He was there 
 fore given the miracles of being dead bo- 
 dies to life and giving sight to men blind 
 from their very birth. They could there 
 fore at once see that the miracle was be. 
 yond the power of man and that it must 
 have therefore come down from God alone. 
 In the same manner people of Prophet Ma- 
 homed’s time were well-versed in all the 
 
 excellences of style. They always hosted 
 of their superiority in that art, and in 
 that pride of their art they produced 
 seven long poems and hung them up in 
 the Moslem of Mecca with a challenge to 
 produce their parallels. The said poems 
 are entiled “Sab ‘mo’ MaJca” or the seven 
 hanging poems. They are even now taught 
 j in government as well as Mussulman 
 Arabic Schools. 
 
 They also used to assemble in a place 
 called Arafat for three or four days in a 
 year and compete for superiority over 
 others by reciting their poems. Warriors 
 also had to compose poetry in praise of 
 themselves and their ancestors which they 
 used to recite with pride at the time of the 
 battle and the assembly. What to say of 
 them, when challenged to recite? When 
 they could not refrain from replying it, a 
 man recited new poems or gave a new 
 lecture. All this is so well known to 
 readers of Arabian History. Many Euro- 
 pean writers have extolled in their works 
 the Arab’s excellence in style, particularly 
 Dr. Leitner has given us a very able and 
 genuine account of the Arabs. Under such 
 circumstances God made Koran the chief 
 of Mahomed’s miracles, which are boldly 
 proclaimed. “If ye be in doubt concerning 
 that revelation which, we have sent down 
 into our servant, produce a chapter like un- 
 to it, and call upon your witnesses, besides 
 God, if ye say truth.” Mahomed produced 
 the Koran which was a miracle of that 
 sort in which these contemporaries were 
 well- versed. And when the very best lectur- 
 ers and the poets of the day could not 
 produce a work like unto it, it follows 
 without a shadow of doubt that Koran is 
 a miracle of Prophet Mahomed. 
 
 My dear brethren, from this you are 
 not to understand that an elegant and a 
 finished style is the only excellence of 
 Koran. There are many more besides this 
 , which I shall enumerate some few: — 
 
(1) Koran has many predictions for 
 the future: — (See chapter entitled the 
 Greek verses 1 — 2). The Greeks have 
 been overcome in the nearest part of 
 the land; but after their defeat, they shall 
 overcome the others in their turn within 
 a jeio years. Unto God belongeth the dis- 
 posal of this matter, both for what is past, 
 and for what is to come; and on that day 
 shall the believers rejoice in the success 
 granted by God; for he granteth succes s 
 unto whom he pleaseth and he is the 
 mighty, and the merciful. This is the pro- 
 mise of God. God will not act contrary to 
 His promise; but the greater part of men 
 know not” [N. B. The word Tew’ in the 
 expression within a few years, is a trans- 
 lation of Arabic ‘Bid’ which means “from 
 three to nine’ 5 ] 
 
 The Persians as is well-known were the 
 worshippers of fire and the Greeks were 
 Christians. When therefore the news of 
 the victory of the Persians over the Greeks 
 was first heard in Mecca, the idolaters 
 of Mecca became elated; and -they began 
 to speak to the followers of Mahomed 
 that as the Persians defeated Christians 
 with their own scriptures, so wonld they 
 overcome them though they had Koran — 
 their guide of faith. 5 It was at this occa- 
 sion that the above verse descended, where 
 upon AbubaJcar spoko to the idolaters 
 that they were doomed to be disappointed. 
 In the name of God I tell yon, Greeks 
 will again conquer the Persians. 5 Then 
 Ubaya, son of Kalaf, Mio leadtr of the 
 opponents, said that he was a liar and 
 challenged him to fire a limit and lay a 
 wager. The limit was to bo three years 
 and a wager of 10 camels was laid and 
 security was given. Abubakar then came 
 to Prophot Mahomed, and told him all 
 that had happened. Then Mahomed ex- 
 plained to him that the word ‘BUT meant 
 
 from three to nine and therefore advised 
 him to ask for an extension of limit even 
 at a higher wager than 10 camels. The 
 limit was then prolonged to nine years 
 and the wager was raised to hundred 
 camels. Before the time elapsed Ubaya 
 son of Khalaf died of a wound he had 
 received at Ohod. The Greeks triumphed 
 over the Persians in the seventh year of 
 their first defect. Abubakar got the 
 camels from the heirs of Ubaya and 
 brought them to Prophet Mahomed who 
 asked him to give away in alms. 
 
 Dr. Fondar in his work called Mi - 
 ghamul-hak chapt 3, speaking of this 
 prediction writes: — ‘If what the commen- 
 tators say as to the verse descending before 
 the final triumph of the Greeks over the 
 the Persians be right, we can say that 
 Prophet Mahomed only through the power 
 of his intellect and foresight had given out 
 the prophecy for keeping up the courage 
 of his followers and the prediction is one 
 of a nature that has of ten times be made 
 by men of good abilities and Judgment. 
 
 When a learned doctor after reading 
 the verse in question goes on seriously to 
 write ‘If what the commentators say &c 
 it is no wonder that he becomes an ob- 
 ject of derision to all, for these are the 
 words of the verse: — “Shall overcome within 
 a few years,” ‘outhatday shall the believers 
 rejoice/ ‘This is the promise of God 5 . 5 ' 
 These words cannot be used in reference to 
 what is past but only in reference to 
 what is to come. A promise is always made 
 for a thing to be and not for a thing 
 that has already happened. The other 
 statomeut of the Doctor “that Mahomed 
 predicted by the power of his intellect 
 and foresight,” is also false. That Ma- 
 homed was a man of sound intellect is ac- 
 knowledged by the doctor himself. The 
 doctor therefore should havo considered 
 that a man of Mahoincds’ abilities and 
 
laying claim to Prophetsliip would never 
 haznrd his reputation among his disciples 
 on mere haphazard conjectures that a par- 
 ticular eveut will happen in a fixed period 
 of time, before opponent* who were al- 
 ways ready to find his defects and faults. 
 Even a man of common sense would not 
 dare to hazard conjectures, for opponents 
 will have a decided victory if the predict- 
 ed events does not happen; and the Pro- 
 phet will atjonce'be proclaimed to be an 
 impostor in the world. His believers will 
 soon begin to distrust him, and there- 
 fore when Mahomed boldly declared his 
 prophecy in face of opponents, he must 
 have told it, as a miracle and revelation 
 of God. 
 
 It in] true that men of genius some- 
 times predict some events with the help 
 of their intellect. But such events turn 
 out sometimes right, and sometimes false- 
 But it is divine nature that it will not 
 allow things to happen as foretold, if those 
 who claim to be Porphets give out things 
 on conjecure and not on revelation: — (see 
 Bible Denteronomy chap. 18 verses 21-22.) 
 
 Also see Koran chapter entitled the 
 story verse 85 verily he who hath given 
 thee the Koran for a rule of faith and 
 'practice, will certainly bi-ing thee back 
 home unto Mecca.” 
 
 When Prophet Mahomed, fled from 
 Mecca to Medina, he stopped in a moun* 
 tain-valley for three days on his way to 
 the latter town. The valley is far away 
 from the direct route to Medina. But 
 they had taken this direction in fear of 
 the idolaters. But when the fear was 
 over, they took the public road and 
 reached Jhosa, lying between Mecca and 
 Medina. When he discovered the route 
 to Mecca, he began to grieve and longed 
 to go homewards; and began to think of 
 the place of his and his ancestors birth. 
 
 Then Gabriel came down from heaven and 
 asked Mahomed if he desired to go to the 
 birth place of his family, when he express- 
 ed his assent, Gabriel said: — ‘verily he 
 who hath given thee the Koran for a rule 
 of faith and practice will certainly bring 
 thee back home unto Mecca” and it so 
 happened. 
 
 God took Mahomed safely to Mecca 
 which surrendered to him: — see Koran 
 chap XV entitled A1 Hejr verse 9 — ‘We 
 have surely sent down the Koran; and 
 we will certainly preserve the same from 
 corruption. “What a remarkable prophecy 
 is this that though thirteen hundred and 
 ten years have already elapsed, not an 
 Ota has been changed or manipulated in 
 the whole of Koran, which fact can be 
 substantiated by the testimony of two 
 gentlemen of different creeds: 
 
 Honourable Mr. William Muir in his 
 life of Mahomed Part 1 Page 15 writes of 
 Koran that there is hardly any other 
 book than Koran that has remained un- 
 altered and unadulterated for so many as 
 twelve centuries,, and Rev. Imamudin in 
 his book of ‘Hiday-tul-Muslemin’ publish- 
 ed in A. D. 1877 Page 16 writes: — 
 
 It is my firm conviction that Koran 
 has remained and will ever remain unal- 
 tered. Many other clergymen have also 
 admitted that Koran has suffered no al- 
 terations. 
 
 3. Now to return to the excellencies of 
 Koran Koran has, as shown above, given 
 illustrations of predictions of future. Such 
 predictions are spoken of as a foreknow- 
 ledge of coming mysteries But as we know. 
 Prophet Mahomed wes illiterate and as 
 he had not heard from the conversation 
 of other learned men about the past, his 
 speaking of the past should as well be 
 considered a knowledge of mysteries. 
 
 4 Those who outwardly professed to. 
 be the believers of the Moslem faith, but 
 
28 
 
 at heart were attached to their ancestral 
 religion are exposed in the Koran at vari- 
 ous places. In the same manner the 
 underhand dealings of the Jews were also 
 revealed to Mahomed 
 
 The total number of the verses of 
 the Koran are a little over six thousand 
 and six hundred. But the wonder of it 
 is that they never conflict with each other. 
 Imagine for a moment its great length 
 and the various topics of which it treats, 
 and you shall see that had it not been a 
 revelation of God, it should have been 
 full of inconsistencies. 
 
 6 But the Koran, miracle of Prophet 
 is of such a nature that it will remain 
 for ever. In case of other Prophets 
 their miracles have ceased to appear soon 
 after their disappearance. But Koran 
 still is what it was. For its complete pre- 
 servation from corruption, God has so wise- 
 ly ordained it, that there are men who can 
 repeat it from one end to the other so 
 that one can take it down if he likes. 
 
 Besides these there are various other 
 points of excellence; but as they are so 
 well known to those who can appreciate a 
 good style, I shall not enumerate them here. 
 
 The second of Mahomed’s miracles is 
 the information he gave, of mysterious 
 three instances of which I have already 
 given when enumerating the excellences 
 of the Koran. 
 
 The third of Prophet Mahomed’s 
 miracles is the dividing of the moon into 
 two parts, the account of which is given 
 in Koran chap 54 entitled the moon verses 
 1-2-3. This miracle was also witnessed 
 by King Zemorin of Malabar who was 
 converted into the faith of Moslem after 
 witnessing the miracle. 
 
 (See Tawarikhe Ferishta) and Jaulia- 
 e-Sadik. Some missionaries raise object- 
 ions from this verse and as often mis- 
 interpret it; which objections, if God 
 
 well share my life I shall attempt to meet 
 in a separate tract, at no distant date. 
 But if men are curious to know them 
 sooner they will do well to write for them 
 to me. I cannot give them here, for the 
 space at my disposal is limited. But I 
 cannot help saying thus much at least, 
 that if this verse did not refer to a mira- 
 cle, and if Prophet Mohomed had not, 
 shown it as such, then the verse “But 
 if the unbelievers see a sign, they turn 
 aside, saying this is a powerful charm^ 
 would be meaningless. From the verse it 
 is clearly evident that it refers to a mira- 
 cle; otherwise what was it that they turn- 
 ed from ? And if no sign was shown, 
 every opponent of Mahomed would have 
 found scope to say that, which signs of his 
 Prophetship did Mahomed show which 
 they ascribed to a powerful charm ? And 
 the result would have been that even his 
 believers would have been distrustful of 
 his mission for they had heard of the mi- 
 racle of the moon which was a thing 
 known to them all. The second of the 
 five ways of proving the Prophetship of 
 Mahomed is the follownig: — 
 
 Mohmed was full of all manly vir- 
 tues and Ahldak or a noble disposition 
 He was perfect in all moral virtues. For in’ 
 stance he never said an untruth in mat- 
 ters religious as well as profane; for had 
 he but once told a lie his opponents 
 would not have failed to proclaim as 
 lougly as possible. He was so very 
 honest in his- dealings that he was known 
 as the upright and even his enemies 
 without an exception admitted him to be 
 so beforo lie proclaimed his mission. Ho 
 never is said to have dono any evil deed 
 before or after ho laid claim to being an 
 apostle of God. llis words were pre- 
 gnant with meaning. See Dasatir of 
 the Parsis which gives a prediction 
 of Mahomed’s coming. That volume 
 
‘>9 
 
 speaks of Mahomed's words as like- 
 ly to be full of hidden meanings. He 
 had to suffer a great deal iu declaring 
 his mission; had to live as an exile from 
 the place of his birth, had to break with 
 his friends but he patiently bore that all, 
 and never did thoughts nor his zeal in 
 propagating his faith suffer in the least. 
 But when at last he prevailed over his 
 enemies, and became the master of Mecca 
 when he becamo the sole lord and guar- 
 dian of their life and property, in fact 
 when his word was law, he was found 
 much the same man that he was in his dis- 
 tress. His kindness to all his contem* 
 poraries can be seen in Koran chap XVI 1 1 
 entitled the cave verse 6 which will kill 
 thyself with grief after them, out of thy 
 earnest zeal for their conversion, if they 
 believe not in this new revelatiou of the 
 Koran.” His charity was of the first 
 order: — God says of him in Koran chapter 
 XVII entitled the night Journey verse 29 
 “neither open it with an unbounded ex- 
 pansion lest thou become worthy of re- 
 prehension and be reduced to poverty.” 
 He did not care for worldly things in the 
 least. The Koreish tribe of Mecca offered 
 him diamonds, daughters and diadem. 
 He would abandon his own newereed and 
 allow them to follow the ancient creed 
 of their fore-fathers. But he disdainfully 
 refused them all. 
 
 Some Missionaries make mean attacks 
 on the Prophet on the score of his having 
 married nine wives. But it is no wonder 
 that they should make a very soiry figure 
 before those who look at it with unpreju- 
 diced eyes. Mhomed had passed the whole 
 of his youth in wedlock with an old widow 
 named Khadija. The other wives he took 
 after the mature age of fifty. But only 
 one of them was a fresh virgin. Her 
 name was Aeshah. All the rest were of an 
 
 advanced age. Some of them being 
 widows while others divorced. If Prophet 
 Mahomed were a man of worldly lust, he 
 would have married beautiful young girls 
 either from his native village or outside it; 
 and would not have refused the importu- 
 nities of the tribe of Koreish. Ho would 
 have married their girls and enjoyed 
 sovereignty over them. The reason why 
 he married so many women was not the 
 gratification of a lustful nature but was 
 the disinterested desire of propagating Iris 
 ' rules of conduct. His religion was at the 
 time s pread far a wide. And he saw the 
 necessity of teaching women, as well as 
 men, the rules of virtuous conduct in life, 
 such as ablutions &c. It was for this 
 reasou that he married women of an ad- 
 vanced age and intellect; that they may be 
 instrumental in teaching these rules of 
 life to others. May I then venture to 
 advise these thoughtless missionaries to 
 refraiu from speaking ill of such high 
 souled men, and to read, if not a biography 
 of Mohmed by a mussulman, at least one? 
 written by their own country-men such as 
 ! “Mohommed and the Koran” by Mr. John 
 I Davenport or the Apology of Mr. Godfrey 
 ' Hingus. Both of them have given a very 
 learned and able account of Prophet 
 | Mohomed. 
 
 For his wisdom in giving laws to a 
 I nation, a man will do well to refer to 
 I his laws given in the works of Filcah or 
 | Mahomedan law which are even much ad- 
 ! mired by foreign nations. He was again 
 | a very brave man and always fought with 
 | the brave. He never retraced a step even 
 i though it might be a most frightful scene. 
 See the account of the battles of Ohod and 
 Ahjab. This reveals a fact that he had an 
 unbounded faith in God. If it were not 
 so, human nature would have induced him 
 to fly for life. That Prophet Mahomed 
 was endowed with many other good quali- 
 
30 
 
 ties is a fact acknowledged by many of 
 various other creeds. See Apology by 
 Mr. Godfrey Hingus and an apology for 
 Mahomad and Koran by Mr. John Daven- 
 port. Even Mr. Spanlieiinus ‘though he 
 owned him to be a wicked impostor,’’ was 
 constrained to acknowledge him to have 
 been richly furnished with natural en- 
 dowments, beautiful in his person, of a 
 subtle wit, agreeable behaviour, showing 
 liberality to the poor, courtesy to every 
 one, fortitude against his enemies, and 
 above all of a high reverence for the name 
 of God; severe against the perjured, adul- 
 terers, murderers, slanderers, prodigals, 
 covetous, false witnesses See., a greater 
 preacher of patience, charity, mercy, bene- 
 ficence, gratitude, honouring of parents 
 and superiors and a frequent celebrator of 
 the divine praises.” 
 
 Some men may possess some of these 
 few good qualities. But Prophet Mahomed 
 had all these good qualities which is a very 
 strong proof of his divine mission to those 
 who examine it with unprejudiced eyes. 
 
 (3 Way) If a man examine all the 
 topics contained in the faith of moslem such 
 as how to keep faith in God, how to pray, 
 how to behave with men, how to rule, how 
 to punish See. he will assuredly feel that 
 all has come down from God, & that they 
 are all revelation. But as revelations are 
 given to Prophets only, Mahomed is 
 proved to be a Prophet of God. (way 4) 
 Many a missionary not unfrequently raise 
 objections against some of the teachings 
 of Koran and thus try to impose upon the 
 people. 1 shall therefore take this opportu 
 nity, through the medium of this tract, to 
 inform them that they will do well to ask 
 for the explanations of a man of humble 
 abilities like myself. I shall then claim, 
 to ask them in turn some questions upon 
 the Bible; and it they will attempt to 
 
 solve the doubts raised, they will be con* 
 sidered as seekers after truth; but if they 
 cannot, or will not, I shall be led to infer 
 that they are all mere bigots ( way 4 ) 
 Prophet Mahomed claimed to be ar. 
 apostle of God amongst men who had 
 neither a book of revelation nor any other 
 good laws to guide them. In fact, they 
 were all wandering astray from the true 
 path. Amongst such men, he declared 
 that he was sent down by God with a book 
 and laws; that be would, therefore, be able 
 to reform their life, and give them a sound 
 moral instruction which would free them 
 from superstitions and a. false faith 
 Further he promised, that he would be 
 enabled to strengthen their power to avoid 
 I evil, and do righteous deeds; that he 
 would thus adorn the Earth with splendid 
 trophies of faith and virtuous deeds. And 
 he did what he engaged for. His religion 
 extended over a great expanse. The true 
 mission of a Prophet consists in curing all 
 the diseases of the mind, to improve their 
 way of living, aud make men forget their 
 previous wicked life. Mahomed did what 
 was expected of a true Prophet. In a 
 moment the whole of Arabia was reformed. 
 It is needless to narrate the various villa- 
 inies into which the Arabs were involved, 
 and the amount of instantaneous influence 
 which the sermons of Mahomed exercised 
 over the hearts of the Arabs. To any 
 candid reader it will appear from the 
 History of Arabs. And thu3 he will be 
 convinced that a man, who could in a short 
 duration of twenty-three years changed 
 the filthiest moral atmosphere of Arabia, 
 into a pure and salubrious oue, must have 
 been a true Prophet. 
 
 At the beginning of liis Mission, 
 Prophet Mokomed was very weak indeed. 
 He had little money and few men to aid 
 him, while the whole world was up against 
 him. Still he cariied the promise, that 
 
31 
 
 God had given of propagating his religion, 1 believed in a trinity of God and even spoke 
 no effectually that there remains no pos- of Mary's divinity. They worshipped the 
 eibility ol doubt thereto. Again if Maho- cross and even the male and female saints. 
 
 med were not a true Prophet, he would 
 have perished and his men would have 
 been dispersed. See what Gamaliel has 
 said: — 
 
 Acts of the Apostles Ch. V verses 
 35-39: — “And said unto them. Ye men 
 of Israel, take heed to yourselves what 
 you intend to do as touching these men. 
 36. For before these days rose up Thendas 
 boasting himself to be somebody; to whom 
 a number of men, about four hundred 
 joined themselves : who was slain; and 
 all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered 
 and brought to naught. 37. After this 
 man rose up, Judas of Galilee in the 
 days of the taxing, drew away much 
 people after him; he also perished; and all, 
 even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. 
 38. And now I say unto you, Refrain from 
 these men, and let them alone : for if this 
 counsel or this work be of men, it will 
 come to naught. 39. But if it be of God^ 
 ye cannot overthrow it: lest happy ye be 
 found even to fight against God. Compare 
 also Psalm I verse 6, Psalm V 6, Psalm 
 
 XXIY 16, and Psalm XXXVII 17-20. 
 
 (way 5.) When Mahomed proclaimed 
 his mission from God, men of all creeds 
 were wandering astray. The Arabs were 
 idolators and buried their living female 
 infants. The Persians believed in two 
 Gods, Aharman the god of evil, and 
 Yazdan the God of good and married even 
 their mothers and daughters. The Turks 
 were given to oppressing the faithful and 
 desolating the country. The Hindus 
 worshipped the kine and prostrated them- 
 selves before the stones and trunks of 
 trees. The Jews were bigots of the worst 
 type and always persisted in giving a 
 human body to God, in spreading fables 
 and blaspheming the Almighty Christian 3 
 
 Other sects also, were in like manner’ 
 treading on wrong paths. Under such 
 circumstances would it behove the Al- 
 mighty to send no Prophet to guide the 
 people and let them linger in paths of 
 wickedness ? Certainly not. He there- 
 fore, out of his benign kindness, sent forth 
 a man who denounced the tricity and 
 established the Unity of God, condemned 
 the belief in two, declared against idolatry 
 &c. Can any one show a man, so great 
 and glorious, and such a noble founder of 
 religion other than Mahomed? I assure 
 him, he shall not. My dear friends, if you 
 love truth, you shall not help saying that 
 Mahomed stands alone as a founder of 
 religion. I need not say much, for all men 
 acquainted with History know what state 
 Arabia was in, and what condition Maho- 
 med brought it to. 
 
 The facts given in the last proof, must 
 have clearly seemed to you, to be a com. 
 plete answer to a book entitled Adame- 
 Jar urate- Koran “no need for Koran,” 
 published by Thakordas a missionary of 
 India; If it be accepted that the whole 
 world was full of wickedness, and all men 
 were led astray then the presence of a 
 Prophet follows as a matter of course. 
 But what book was he to take as a text 
 for guidance ? The Bible which the 
 said missionary looks upon as a revela- 
 tion from God, has suffered considerable 
 alterations and interpolations, and is full 
 of many opprobrious tales about the Pro- 
 phets. It was therefore necessary that a 
 book should descend upon Mahomed, 
 that he may use it as a text of guide to 
 reform the people. 
 
 ( Way 6 ) Former prophets have 
 been forewarned of Mahomed’s Mission; of 
 which about twenty statements are col- 
 
lected by Mussulman writer, my friend 
 Hajee UsufSaleh Poo, who in a tract called 
 ‘Proofs of Prophet Mahomed’ lias given 
 good many instances from the Bible in 
 support of it. I will dedicate only one of 
 the several proofs to my Christian readers 
 — which statement has been made by 
 Jesus Christ himself. It is hoped that 
 they will give it the attention it deserves, 
 and in deference to the high authority 
 that has given it, will accept it. See St. 
 John Chapter XIV verse 15. If ye love 
 me keep commandments. 
 
 16. And I will pray the Father, and 
 he shall give you another Farkalet, that 
 he may abide with you for ever, 
 
 17. Even the Spirit of truth, whom 
 the world cannot receive, because it seeth 
 him not, neither knoweth him: but ye 
 know him; for he dwelleth with you, and 
 shall be in you. 
 
 26. But the FarJcalet which is the 
 Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in 
 my name, he shall teach you all things 
 and being all things to your remembrance 
 whatsoever I have said unto you. 
 
 ( 29 ) And now I have told you 
 before it came to pass that, when it is 
 came to pass, ye might believe. And 
 again Chap XVI v. 26. But when the 
 Farkelet is come, whom I will send unto 
 you from the Father, even the spirit of 
 truth, which proceedeth from the Father, 
 he shall testify of me. 
 
 27. And ye also shall bear witness, 
 because ye have been with me from the 
 beginning. Chapter XVI v. 7 — Neverthe- 
 less I tell you the truth. It is expedient 
 for you that I go away; for if I go not 
 away, Farkalet will not come unto you. 
 But if I depart, I will send him unto you. 
 v. 8. And when he is come, ho will reprove 
 
 the world of sin, and of righteousness, 
 and of Judgment D of sin, because they 
 
 believe not in me, ve 10. Of righteous- 
 ness, because I go to my Father, and ye 
 see me no more. ( 11 ) Of Judgment, 
 because the prince of this world is judged. 
 ( 12 ) I have yet many things to say unto 
 you, but ye cannot bear them now. ( 13 ) 
 How be it when he, the Spirit of truth is 
 come, he will guide you unto all truth: 
 for he shall not speak of himself; but 
 whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he 
 speak: and he will shew you things to 
 come. ( 14 ) He shall glorify me: for he 
 shall receive of mine and shall shew it 
 unto you. ( 15 ) All things that the 
 | Father hath, are mine: therefore, said I, 
 | that he shall take of mine, and shall shew 
 it unto you.* 
 
 All the verses quoted above refer to 
 Prophet Mahomed; and the word Farkalet 
 which means Ahmed is a name of the 
 Prophet. First I shall give two proofs in 
 support of my contention, and then shall 
 meet the objections of Rev. Fonder and 
 other clergymen raised against it. 
 
 ( 1 ) It is a habit with Christian 
 writers that they translate proper names 
 and also make some additions in illustra- 
 tion of some thing as they themselves 
 think proper. See Joshua chap. 10 v. 13. 
 “Is not this written in the book of 
 Masher’ ? ” It is plain from this verse 
 that the name of the author of the book 
 referred to is ‘Jasher.’ But the Arabian 
 translation of the Bible published in 1844, 
 has for the word Jasher an explanation 
 which runs as follows: — ‘A good man.' 
 While in the Arabian translation of 1811 
 the word Jasher has been rendered by a 
 ‘stragihtforward mau.’ And in the Persian 
 version of it ‘Jasher’ has been changed to 
 Sar. While the Urdu version of it has 
 
 * The above are transcribed from the 
 Arabic translation of the Bible published in 
 A. D. 1821, 1831, 1814 and 1860 in Loudon. 
 
33 
 
 got'Yaaha’ as an equivalent of Joser. Now 
 it is just possible that the real name of 
 the author of the book may be either of 
 the first three — Jasher, Yashnn or Sar, 
 But the Arabian translators of it have 
 rendered it by a ‘straightforward man* 
 and a ‘good’ man. They also pronounce 
 proper name in different ways in different 
 languages. For instance, Greek and 
 Gujarati Bibles read ‘Yahaakua,’ and 
 Arabic and Urdu versions have Yashu for 
 the English word Joshna. In like manner 
 Jesus is rendered into Ishti by Greek and 
 Gujarati Bibles, while Arabic and Urdu 
 translations give his name as Yaaua. This 
 is given as mere examples. But I have ready 
 at hand thousands of such alterations. 
 And any reader of two or three transla- 
 tions of Bible shall find out as many. 
 
 Now just think of this that Jesus 
 could not speak Greek. Hebrew was his 
 vernacular. He therein spoke of Ahmed, 
 which St. John rendered, as it was usual 
 with them, into Greek by its equivalent^ 
 which word was again given in a corrupt 
 form by the Arabic translator, as Farkalete. 
 No possible doubt can cling to this infer- 
 ence for we know that it is usual with all 
 Christian writers. 
 
 A Calcutta missionary when discussing the 
 origin of the word Farkalete in an Urdu 
 pamphlet goes on to say that the use of 
 the word Farkalete has misled many a 
 Mussulman. He admits that Farkalete 
 is a derived word from the Greek original; 
 and does also admit that there are two 
 possible words from which it can be derived. 
 The words are Paraclete and Peraclete or 
 illustrious. But he maintains that the 
 word is derived from Paraclete which 
 means comforter or an advocate. He 
 however goes on to say that if the word 
 were derived from Periclete, it does mean 
 Ahmed or Mahomed; and that the Mus- 
 sulmans who look upon the verses of St. 
 
 John as a prediction of Mohmraed’s com- 
 ing, would then be right. But as it is, 
 he says, the word is derived from Para- 
 clete and therefore their contention is 
 groundless. But I say that the words 
 Paraclete and Periclete differ but slightly; 
 and it is not unreasonable to suppose that 
 Paraclete might only be a mere altered 
 from of Periclete, in a language like 
 Greek in which words have very simall 
 differences. To make alterations like these, 
 is a common praotice with all Christian 
 writers. And then it is not at all sur- 
 prising to imagine that they might have 
 accepted Paraclete in exclusion of the 
 word Pereclete. 
 
 Before Mahomed came, there had 
 sprung up many men who had claimed 
 to be Farkalete , one of them waa a Chris- 
 tian called Montanes. It is said of 
 another Christian in Tawarikhe-kilesia. 
 Page 205, published in A. D. 1170, that 
 he set up his right of being Farkalete 
 in A. D. 170 and many other Christians 
 joined him. It is also said by Mr. Wil- 
 liam Muer in his history chapt-3 that 
 historians have spoken of a man claim- 
 ing to be Paraclete i. e. comforter, or tha 
 Holy Ghost, that he was religiously 
 scrupulous, and that it was for that reason 
 that people received him very well. 
 
 From what has been said above it 1* 
 evident that even so early as the first 
 century of Christian era, man looked for- 
 ward to the coming of Farkalete. It waa 
 thus that men pretended to be Farkalete 
 and said that he was the person spoken 
 of, to which Christians gave their acquios* 
 ence. A missionary publication entitled 
 Lubbut Tawarikh says that the contem- 
 porary Christians and Jews of Mahomed’s 
 time awaited a Prophet’s missions which 
 greatly benefitted Mahomed; for he laid 
 claim to being the person they expected to 
 cjme, From this it again appears that Pro- 
 
34 
 
 p4iet Mahomed’s contemporary Christians 
 and Jews were looking forward to the com- 
 ing of the Prophet. Nedjashi the Abyssian 
 Pasha testified when he got Mahomed’s 
 letter that he (Mahomed) was the person 
 whose coming followers of the Book look- 
 ed forward. He then sent a reply to 
 Mahomed declaring his conversion from 
 Christianity to the Islam faith. A letter 
 was also sent to Moccankis, king of tne 
 Egyptians, who in reply wrote to Mahomed 
 that he was already aware of a Prophed’s 
 coming, and that he had expected him to 
 come out in Syria. But he treated the 
 bearer of the letter very kindly. He gave 
 him presents on his return. Though from 
 the above reply of Moccankis it is not evi- 
 dent that he was converted to the Islam 
 Faith, but it is quite clear that he too was 
 awaiting a Prophet’s arrival. 
 
 That these answers were not entracted 
 through fear is quite evident;', for we can 
 see that these Padshas were not likely to 
 be overawed by the worldly grandeur of 
 Mahomed. 
 
 Now I say that the original word 
 which Jesus used has altogether gone out 
 of use. There are two Greek versions of 
 it. Paraclete and Pariclete. If the letter 
 were the true one, then even according to 
 the opinion of Missionaries the Gospel ot 
 St. John refers to Prophet Mahomed. But 
 they say that the true word is Paraclete 
 which either means a comforter or an 
 advocate. But even in that case the Gos- 
 pel refers to Pxophet Mahomed, for all the 
 said meanings are applicable to him. 
 Again in an Arabic translation published 
 in 1816 the word has been substituted by 
 “giver of Salvation.” This meaning also 
 would equally apply to Prohet Mahomed, 
 But this would not apply as the Christians 
 say Holy Ghost which descended in the 
 form of tongues of fire over the Apostles 
 ( The Act II.) 
 
 Now I shall speak of tbe said verses 
 of St. John; from which it shall be clear 
 to you that the word Farkalete of the 
 verses refers to Prophet Mahomed; and not 
 to the said Holy Ghost. 
 
 (1) Jesus says ‘If ye love me keep m y 
 commandments’ and then goes on to give 
 the warning about Farkaldc. From this 
 it appears that he meant to impress upon 
 his hearers the necessity of carefully bear- 
 ing in mind what he was then going to 
 say. If the said FarJc elete referred to 
 the Holy Ghost, such words of solemn 
 warning were unn ecessary; for the said 
 Holy Ghost that had descended upon 
 them in the house had descended upon 
 the Apostles long before; under such 
 circumstances how can they be apprehen- 
 sive of what they were told bo as to require 
 such an impressive command. The fire 
 had long before come down upon them and 
 they were already inspired by them. Its 
 coming now was not of an extraordinary 
 nature so as to keep them in suspense. 
 T hus it is conclusive that the word Far- 
 kalete refers to the coming of a Prophet 
 and not of the said fire. 
 
 The fact is, that Jesus out of his 
 inspiration as a prophet and experience, 
 divined that Christians would deny the 
 Prophet spoken of in that Gospel and 
 it was therefore that he proclaimed it in 
 that emphatic manner. 
 
 (2) Jesus speaks of “another Farka- 
 lete” which infers one already gone by. 
 The one already gone by was Jesus; and 
 the one spoken about in the Gospel was 
 a coming Prophet. Now according to the 
 belief of Christians the Holy Ghost is one 
 with the son and God, how can there be 
 an ‘ another ’ holy Ghost, 
 
 3. According to Christian writers Far- 
 kalete means either an advocate or a giver 
 of Balvation. But these are attributes 
 of a true Prophet alone. They do not 
 
belong to the Holy Ghost Then the | 
 word Farlcalete refers to tho Prophet about 
 whom the prediction is made. How can 
 it show the Holy Ghost ? 
 
 4. Jesus says “Bring all things to your 
 remembrance.” But no epistles tell us of ! 
 the Apostles having been reminded of 
 things by the Holy Ghost, which they had 
 forgot, after they were told by Jesus. How , 
 cau the word then refer to the Ghost ? 
 
 5. Jesus says:-- And now I have told 
 you before it came to pass that when it i s 
 come to pass ye may believe. 
 
 From this also it follows that the 
 said word does not mean the Ghost. Were 
 they distrustful of what had happened/ 
 when the Ghost bad descended, that the 
 words “ye may believe” were necessary ? 
 No man of even common sense would talk 
 useless things; a forteori it follows that a 
 Prophet like Jesus would not utter un- 
 necessary words. But if you take the 
 word Farkalete to mean the Prophet, then 
 not only do the words prove out to be true, 
 but they heighten the glory of Jesus. 
 
 6. Jesus again speaks of : — ‘He shall j 
 testify of me.’ Now it is well known that 
 the Holy Ghost testified before none- j 
 He did not testify to the Apostles who knew 
 Jesus too well to require any testimony, 
 nor did he testify before those who denied 
 Jesus. But Prophet Mahomed has amply 
 testified that Jesus was right, that he was 
 a Prophet, that he never laid claim to 
 being God, that his mothed was free from 
 all impurities &c. See the Koran aud the 
 stories of Prophet Mahomed. 
 
 7. Jesus says: — ‘Ye also shall bear 
 witness.” From this it is evident that 
 the apostles were to bear witness over and 
 above the testimony of Farkalete. If 
 Farkalete refers to the descended Ho^ 
 Ghost, he ought to have borne a separate 
 evidence. But it is said that the apostles 
 spoke when the Ghost had descended upon 
 
 them. In fact the Ghost spoke through 
 their mouths, as an evil spirit speaks with 
 the help of the mouth of the man that is 
 possessed. But if you take the word 
 Farkalete tomenn the Prophet spoken of, 
 then there would be two separate testimo- 
 nies. To avoid this difficulty the word 
 also has been omitted in the Arabic trans- 
 lations of the Bible published iu London 
 iu the years 1821, 1881, 1844. But this 
 triok of them could not pass well. For 
 their critics at once detected that the word 
 also has been used in the Gujarati transla- 
 tion published in 1869. Urdu translation 
 published in 1814-1870, and the Arable 
 translations of 1816-60 and also in 
 some of the English texts. Such altera- 
 tions are common through out the Bible. 
 Still it is most strange that the Mission- 
 aries lay claim to having their Bible in 
 tact as it was. 
 
 8. Jesus says : — If I go not ctvmy 
 Farkalete would not come unto you. But 
 if I depart, I will send him unto you.» 
 This shows that Farkalete' 8 coming had 
 depended on Jesus’s departure. But the 
 Holy Ghost had descended upon the 
 Apostles when they were sent out to the 
 cities of Israel, in the lifetime of Jesus. 
 From this, it is clear, that the coming of 
 the Holy Ghost was not at all impeded by 
 the stay of Jesus. How can Farlcalete 
 then mean ‘Holy Ghost’? It must mean 
 a man from whom they might have derived 
 no advantage and who might have come 
 after Jesus had departed. This oomes true 
 of Mahomed who has come after Jesus and 
 whose coming had rested on the departure 
 of Jesus; for two prophets of two different 
 kinds of teachings cannot come together. 
 
 9. Jesus says: — And when he is come, 
 he will reprove the world of sin, and of 
 righteousness and of judgment.’ This is 
 boldly proclaimed of Prophet Mahomed- 
 
36 
 
 He convinced the Jew* of the sins of deny- 
 ing Jesus, and imprecated damnation npon 
 all who were wicked. But the Holy Ghost 
 that had descended, did nothing of the 
 sort; nor did the Apostles, according to 
 the belief of you, Christians, deal punish- 
 ment to the evil doers. On the contrary 
 they are said to have been employed in 
 converting men to Christianity by remon- 
 strances and tempting offers. 
 
 Reverend Rankin, in his book called 
 Dafedl-Bohtan which is written in Urdu, 
 writes: — “The word "reprove” occurs in 
 no book of gospel, nor is it to be found in 
 any of its translations. But the word 
 seems to have been interpolated by peo- 
 ple that it may refer to Mahomed without 
 any difficulty, as he is said to have re- 
 proved and threatened them all with 
 ▼arious npuishl ments. But the faithfu 
 who fear God will not stoop to such 
 mean tricks.” What the reverend gentle- 
 man endeavours to make us believe, is that 
 the word "reprove” does not occur in 
 the Bible, and that the people have brought 
 it in, that it may refer to Prophet Maho- 
 med. I agree with him in saying that 
 a man who uses such base artificies and 
 adds words, is a very wicked man indeed. 
 But a man who maintains that it is not, 
 notwithstanding the fact that it is in the 
 Book, is still more wicked. For this is 
 an attempt to mislead, and a denial of 
 the Biblical text. The word has been met 
 with in the Arabic translations of the Bible 
 published in 1816, 1825, 1860 and even 
 so late as 1871. It also occurs in the 
 Persian vorsions of 1816, 1828 and 1841. 
 Now which of the two tries to deceive ? 
 The Reverend father or the word inter- 
 polator T 1 shall like to leave it to the 
 judgment of my readers. 
 
 10. Jesus says — ‘of sin, because they 
 believe not in me.” These words point 
 
 to a coming Farkalete who will reprove 
 those who believe not in Jesus; Prophet 
 Mahomed did the same. But it is known 
 of the Holy Ghost, that after his descent, 
 he ever reproved the men who doubted 
 Jesus’* words. 
 
 11 "I have yet many things to say 
 unto you, but ye cannot bear them now” 
 are Jesus’s words which clearly lead us 
 to believe that the word Farkalete which 
 he used can never mean the Ghost; for 
 He is never known to have taught any 
 new things. According to the belief 
 among the Christians what the Holy Ghost 
 told the Apostles to do, was to bring peo- 
 ple to the Christian Faith and to make 
 them believe in the Trinity which as they 
 believe, was even in the time of Jesus. 
 What the Holy Ghost did was not of a 
 nature that the people could not bear. 
 Mathews chap V. 17 enjoins following 
 the whole of the Testament but what the 
 Holy Ghost did was the destruction of 
 everything but the ten commandments 1 
 He allowed all forbidden things for the 
 use of men. Could they not bear such 
 facilities afforded to them ? notwith- 
 standing the most sacred law of the Tes- 
 tament, the law of observing Saturday as 
 the Sabbath which even has the sanction 
 of capital punishment attached to it for 
 its uon-observauce-they could easily bear 
 the order for its non-observauce. Then 
 what did other small commandments sig- 
 nify ? Then it follows that the word Far- 
 kalete refers to a Prophet whose laws 
 would even be more sever and greater 
 than those of Jesus, which ordiuary fol- 
 lowers of the faith will find a little hard 
 to follow. The Prophet referred to is the 
 Prophet Mahomed. 
 
 12 He shall not speak of himself but 
 whatsoever he shall hear that shall he 
 speak ” From these words it follows 
 that the coming Farkalete was to speak 
 
3T 
 
 something which the sons of Israel were to therefore, said I, that ho shall take of 
 disbelieve; therefore Jesus said, 'he shall mine and shall shew it unto you'’ The 
 
 not Bpeak of himself.’ The Apostle would 
 not disbelieve the words of the Holy 
 Ghost, for they had full trust in him. No 
 body knew his coming, much less would 
 he talk to them. Again the Christian under- 
 stand the Holy Ghost to be one with God 
 from whom was he to hear theu? But it is 
 true in the case of Porphet Mohomed that 
 the people disbelieved him. He could 
 bear God for he was distinct from Him 
 and as a Prophet of Him could only give 
 out what was revealed to him. 
 
 18 "He shall receive of mine, and 
 shall shew it unto you." These words 
 mean that the coining one about whose 
 coming the warning is given, will first of 
 all be quite innocent of what he after- 
 words was to say. In fact be knew 
 what he said when it was made known 
 to him. How can theu the word Farkalete 
 apply to the Holy Ghost ? who is as you 
 suppose all powerful and from all times, and 
 from the very beginning, possessed of the 
 attributes which he has. If he was spoken 
 of as speaking whatsover he heard, itwould 
 charge with an imperfectioD-ignorance; 
 on the other hand, if the word Farkalete 
 is taken to mean Prophet Mahomed, there 
 will be no difficulty in reconciling all the ver- 
 ses; for he has said all that he had heard . If 
 some Christian missionaries maintain, that 
 if the word Farkalete referred to Prophet 
 Mahomed, then according to the text that 
 says, "He shall receive of mine and shall 
 shew it uuto you." Prophet Mahomed must 
 be subordinate to Jesus. But as that is 
 not the case the word Farkalete cannot 
 be said to point to Mahomed. I can how- 
 ever give a very simple answer to my 
 missionary brethren. In fact Prophet 
 Jesus himself has anticipated the objection 
 and given in the answer. He says:-'All 
 things that the Father hath are mine; 
 
 words above quoted clearly show that 
 Jesus did not mean to say that Mahomed 
 will propagate his (JeBus’s) creed, but 
 he will propagate God's religion, Jesus’s 
 saying that ‘he Bhall take of mine’ was 
 but a figurative way of speaking, for the 
 law says, "God is completely at his,wish 
 who serves Him devoutly. 
 
 I have already said that the word 
 which Jesus had used, was Ahmed, and that 
 St. John had, according to his usual habit, 
 translated it into his Greek translation. 
 In support of my contention Mr. George- 
 sale, a very learned scholar in a note at 
 P. 38 of his translation of the Koran 
 published in 1850 writes: — 'Oh Barnabas, 
 every sin, however small, is punished 
 with great torment, because God is offend- 
 ed with sin. My mother, therefore, and 
 faithful disciples, having loved me with 
 a mixture of earthly love, the Just God 
 has been pleased to punish this love with 
 their present grief, that they might not be 
 punished for it hereafter in the flames of 
 hell. And as for me, though I have my- 
 self been blameless in the world, yet other 
 men having called me God and the son of 
 God; therefore God that I might not be 
 mocked by the devils at the death of Judg- 
 ment has been pleased that in this world 
 I should be mocked by men with the death 
 of Judas, making every body believe that 
 I died upon the cross, and hence it is that 
 that this mocking is still to continue till 
 the coming of Mahomed, the massenger of 
 God; who coming into the world will un- 
 deceive every one who shall believe in the 
 law of God from this mistake.” 
 
 The said Gospel of Barnaboss gives 
 the warning of Prophet Mahomed’s coming 
 with his very name. From this it appears 
 that the word Farkalete in St. John’s 
 gospel is the original Perecletes which 
 
38 
 
 even according to the belief of the Christ- 
 ians means Mokmmed or Ahmed. 
 
 Rev. Thakordas in his book called 
 “Izhari I*vi’ ; Page 332, after having given 
 the said Gospel of Barnabas says: — “Either 
 some Christian or some Missionary has 
 forged that word.” Other missionaries 
 also maintain the same. But when the Mus- 
 sulmans ask who that Christian or Mus- 
 sulman was that forged it, when and before 
 whom, he forged it; how such interpolated 
 gospels could find their place in the sacred 
 libraries of the Pope, and stand along with 
 their holy gospels, how it was that Monks 
 were converted to Mussulmani’sm when 
 they read it, they are unable to answer. 
 It is strange indeed that the alterations 
 made by Mussulmans should remain un- 
 discovered, when they do not remain so, 
 when made by Christians. The said Gos- 
 pel was in force till the fourth century of 
 the Christian era. Prophet Mahomed lived 
 in about 580 A. D. If it is a forgad word, 
 they must atleast show one copy of the 
 Gospel of the time previous to Mahomed, 
 that it does not occur there. 
 
 Mr. Georgesale in his translation of 
 the Koran published by F. Warne &co at 
 P. 10 of his ‘To the Reader’ writes ‘that 
 the discoverer of his original ms (of Bar- 
 nabas) was a Christian monk, called Fra 
 Marino, who tells us that having accident 
 ally met with a writing of Irenoeus (among 
 others) wherein bespeaks against St. Paul, 
 atfleging for his authority, the Gospel of St. 
 Rarnabas, he became exceedingly desirous 
 to find this Gospel; and that God, of His 
 mercy, having made him very intimate 
 with Pope Sextus V; one day, as they were 
 together in that Pope’s library, his Holi- 
 ness fell asleep and he to employ himself, 
 reaching down a book to read, the first, 
 he laid his hand on proved to be the very 
 Gospel he wanted: overjoyed at the dis- 
 
 covery, he scrupled not to hide bis prize io 
 his sleeve and on the Pope’s awaking,, 
 took leave of him, carrying With him that 
 celestial treasure, by reading of which he 
 became a convert to Mohammedanism” 
 
 Haider Ali Kureshi, a learned scholar 
 of the North of India, in his Urdu work 
 entitled Khulaste Se/til Mutalemin at P. 
 63-64 writes that the following sentence 
 occurs in chap 42 of the Armenian trans- 
 lation of Isaiah by Rev. Oscan of Arme- 
 nia written in 1666 but published so late 
 as 1733 by the Antuni Purtulli Press: — 
 sing unto the lord a new song: Ahmed 
 bears upon his back the sign of future 
 Kingdom.’ The translation will be avai. 
 ble to those who will like to read it in the 
 Armenian Languuge. 
 
 That the word Farklete means Ahmed 
 has been acoepted by many great and 
 learned scholars. For'instance see P. 17 
 Vol I of History of Mohammed published 
 by Sir William Muirs. See also ‘Apology’ 
 of Mr. Godfrey Higgins P. 177 in which 
 Mr. Parkherst is said to mean Mohammed 
 by the Gospel of St. John Also Dr. Michel [ 
 maintains at P. 206 of his book published 
 in 1869 that the said Gospel refers to 
 Mohammed. Mr. Georgesale In his trans- 
 lation of the Koran at P. 445 writes that 
 the warning that Jesus has given was for 
 Mohammed. Mr. Davenport also maintains 
 the same statement. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that the 
 word Farkelete occurs in the Urdu trans- 
 lations published till 1819, but the word 
 has been taken out from later editions; 
 and the word comforter or advocates sub- 
 stituted for it. 
 
 1. Reverend Fonder in his Persian 
 book calleb Mifta-hul-Asrar P. 53 pub- 
 lished in 1850, maintains that the words 
 spirit of Ood and Holy Ghost both mean 
 the same thing. H« goes on to say in his 
 
39 
 
 }I oil ill Ishkad that a man slightly ac- | 
 quainted with the Testaments will not fail , 
 to perceive that the expression Holy Ghost, I 
 spirit of truth and the spirit of the mouth 
 of God are interchangeable. The poor 
 Key. was led to seek refuge in a trick of 
 this sort in his attempt to avoid referring 
 it to Mohammed; Farkalete is, in the Gospel 
 of St. John later down spoken of as “Holy 
 Ghost.’ Now Holy Ghost, according to 
 the Christian doctrine is one with God. 
 He cannot be a human individual. He, J 
 therefore, put the said three words in the 
 same category as meaning one and the 
 same thing. The word theu cannot refer 
 to a man and so it cannot also refer to 
 Mohammed. It was for this reason thut he 
 invented this mean trick. I will like to 
 repay Rev. Fondar in kind. I will say 
 that any man but slightly read in the 
 Bible will immediately see that the ex- 
 pressions spirit of God, spirit of truth 
 8cc. are used ia the Bible with respect to 
 all pious men. See Ezekiel chap 37-14 
 where God, speaking of the thousands 
 brought to life by the miracles of Esekisl 
 says: — ‘And shall put my spirit in you.’ 
 Here the word spirit of God is said to be 
 put in thousands. But mark well that 
 it is not the Holy Ghost of the Trinity; see 
 also the first epistle of St. John Chap IV. 
 1. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but 
 try the spirits whether they are from God; 
 because many false prophets are gone out 
 into the world. 2. Hereby know ye th e 
 spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth 
 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of 
 God. 3 We are of God we that knoweth 
 God, heareth us; he that is not of God 
 beareth nol us. Hereby know we the spirit 
 of truth and the spirit of eiror. Now 
 consider for a moment that the word spirit 
 of God in v 2 and the spirit of truth in v 6. 
 mean preachers of morality. They do not 
 mean the }hird of Christian Trinity. It 
 
 was for this reason that the word preacher 
 of morality is used for spirit in an Urdu 
 translation of the Bible published in 1844. 
 From this it follows that there can be no 
 objection to take Farkalete to mean 
 Mohammed because the word has been 
 rendered by the Holy Ghost. Mohammed 
 was also a preacher of morality. It there- 
 fore seems strange that the Reverend 
 Fondar should have declined to accept the 
 Gospel os referring to Mohammed, notwith- 
 standing the word Holy Spirit being used 
 for nreu at various places in the Bible. 
 
 Was it- merely through iguorauce ? 
 
 [t cannot be. He only did it that the 
 Gospel may not refer toProphetMohammed. 
 But I will like to warn the followers of 
 Rev. Fondar and ask them to pay attention 
 to the words of Christ, understand what 
 they mean, and decide whether they refer 
 to the spirit or to Prophet Mohammad. I 
 have drawn thirteen inferences from tbe 
 above quoted verses for your proper guid- 
 ance; and indulgently hope that you will 
 pay proper attention to them. 2. Mission- 
 aries maiutain thut the word 'you’ occurs 
 in various places in the said verses. 
 Therefore it must refer to one who might 
 have flourished in the time of the Apostles. 
 The Holy Ghost has descended in the very 
 time of the Apostles in the form of tongues. 
 The word Farkalete might therefore apply 
 to him, and not to Prophet Mahomed that 
 came after many centuries. But any one 
 can see the futility of [the objection who 
 will take the trouble of perusing the Bible. 
 I am at a loss indeed to divine how it is 
 that missionaries cannot see it. See 
 mathews XXVI v 64r. “Here after shall 
 ye see the son of man, sitting on the right 
 hand of power, and ooming in the clouds 
 of heaven.’ Now the verse quoted above 
 is used in connection with Jesus speaking 
 to the scribes and elders of the Jews. Now 
 thousands of years have come and gone 
 
 V 
 
40 
 
 since they went to their graves. None 
 remains now of the great host. Yet Jesus 
 has even to-day not appeared on the 
 clouds of heaven. What does the verse 
 signify them ? It cannot refer to the 
 scribes and elders of the Jews who were 
 then addressed. I am sure you will ex. 
 plain the word “you” to mean the coming 
 generation of Jews and you will interpret 
 the verse as meaning ‘the generations of 
 the Jews will gee Jesus coming on the 
 elouds of heaven.’ In like manner I can 
 say that the word “ye” in the said Gospel 
 of St. John means not the apostles them- 
 selves but their posterity of the time of 
 Mahomed. 3. Again Missionaries object 
 to Farkalele refering to Mahomed. Of 
 Farkalete it is said 'whom the world can- 
 not receive, because it seeth him not, 
 neither kuoweth him.’ But Mahomed was 
 Visible to all eyes. They therefore say 
 that the word Farkalete cannot mean 
 Mahomed. The answer to this objection 
 is equally obvious to those who study 
 ordinary phraseology of the language or 
 the Bible. We speak of a man who dis- 
 regards the advice of a wiseman as “he 
 would not hear it.” It does not mean that 
 lie is deaf or that he oannaflt hear. Again 
 it is a common phraBe to speak of a man 
 as “not looking at a wife” when he is not 
 on good terms with one of his several 
 wives. But then we do not mean that he 
 is blind or he has purposely shut his eyes. 
 Ths Bible also affords us numerous in- 
 stances of such phraseological usages. 
 Matthew XIII 13 Therefore speak I to 
 them in parables : because they seeing see 
 not; and hearing they hear not, neither do 
 they understand. H. And in them is ful- 
 filled the prophecy of Esais, which saitb, 
 “By hearing, ye shall hear and shall not 
 understand and seeing, ye shall see, and 
 shall not perceive Mathew XI 27.” And 
 no man knoweth the bod, but the Father; 
 
 neither knowel;h any man the Father, save 
 the Son, and he to whomsoever the sou 
 will reveal him’ St. John VII. 28. ‘and I 
 am not come of myself, but he that sent is 
 true, whom ye know not.’ St. John VIII. 
 19. ‘Ye neither know me, nor my Father; 
 if he had known me, ye should have knowu 
 my Father also.’ 55. ‘Yet ye have not 
 known him. XVII 25. 0 righteous Father 
 the world hath not known thee : but I 
 
 have known thee' XIV 7. If ye had known 
 me ye should have known my father also; 
 and from henceforth ye know him and 
 have seen him. 8 Phillip saith into him 
 Lord shew up the Father, and it sufficeth 
 us. 9. Jesus saith unto him “Have I been 
 so long a time with you, and yet hast thou 
 not known me, Phillip” ?he that hath seen 
 me hath seen the Father; and how 
 sayest thou then, shew us the Eather.’ 
 
 The words know and sec and then 
 equivalents in the above transcribed verses 
 mean to know completely and ‘know’ res- 
 pectively. That ‘see’ means ‘know’ i» 
 acceptable to all, for Christians also believe 
 that God is invisible to our physical eyes. 
 Even ordinary men knew Jesus; what to 
 speak then of elders and scribes ? What 
 they wanted was that perfect knowledge 
 of Christ which was necessary. The 
 Gospel of St. John 'it seeth him not, 
 neither knoweth him’ is to be similarly 
 interpreted. That is, it means that it did 
 not see Farkalete as well and know him 
 and give him that respect which he deserved. 
 Those of you who have seen him as you 
 ought, aud kuow him as you should pay 
 him the proper respect. Is there any in- 
 consistency with respect to Mahomed when 
 you interpret the Gospel, as you should, 
 in the way shown ubove. 
 
 If missionaries object to this interpre- 
 tation as very farfetched, I can say to them 
 that they also cannot use the expression 
 in its ordinary sense in connection with 
 
41 
 
 Farkalete. By Farkalete they mean the 
 Holy Ghost, and as the Holy Ghoat is one 
 with God; by knowing Holy Ghost man 
 can know God and by knowiug God they 
 can knows Holy Ghost. But as the world 
 knows God, how can it be true to say that 
 the world does not know God ? They 
 also must therefore accept this slightly 
 far-fetched interpretation. 
 
 Thus in both cases where Farkalete 
 means the spirit or Mahomed, the words 
 are to be interpreted in this altered sense- 
 How is it then, say some Missionaries, that 
 Farkalete only refers to Mahomed of under 
 such circumstances attendant circumstances 
 arriving at a decision. I have deduced 
 thirteen inferences from statement that 
 precede or follow the statement under 
 consideration and have conclusively shown 
 them to refer to Prophet Mahomed. Kind- 
 ly examine them with an impartial eye if 
 they apply to the Holy Ghost and you 
 shall find that they do not. 4. It is said 
 about Farlcalete that “he dwelleth with 
 you and is in you.” From this if some 
 missionaries argue that Farkalete should 
 have been present with the apostles when 
 this was 6aid by Jesus and therefore it 
 cannot apply to Mahomed who came a long 
 time after, they cau be said in reply that 
 their text quoted above has suffered a 
 change. See Arabic translation of the 
 Bible published in 1860 ‘He shall dwell 
 with you and shall be in you/ Also com- 
 pare the Arablic versions of 1816 and 1825 
 ‘He shall dwell with you and shall soon be 
 in you.” In like manner you can see the 
 Persian translations of 1816, 1828 and 
 1841 and the Urdu ones of 1839 and 1814. 
 How can your objection then stand against 
 us ? Again from instances like the fol- 
 lowing from the said Gospel, ‘shall be 
 with you, ‘shall give you another'' Farka- 
 lete, ‘And now I have told you before it 
 came to pass, that when it is corns to pass 
 
 ye might believe’ it follows that Farkalete 
 was not with them when Jesus said all 
 that. Even granting that the present 
 tense used in the Gujarati translation is 
 correct, the answer is plain enough, for it 
 is a habit with learned men to speak of 
 future things as things of past and present 
 when they are quite certain of their occur- 
 rence. Not only do learned men speak 
 in that manner, but also do ordinary men; 
 For instance when a debtor gives the bail 
 of a man of solid means the creditor speaks 
 of the money as come to his hands, though 
 it has not yet actually come. There are 
 examples of it even in the Bible. See 
 Ezekial Ch. XXIX. 8 The coming of Magog 
 is spoken of in words ‘Behold it is come 
 and it is done.’ The Magogs have not yet 
 come though more than 2900 years have 
 passed away since the time of Ezekill. 
 How is it then that the past is used about 
 things to come ? The only reason is that 
 in God’s warnings no discrepancy ever 
 occurs and it was therefore that Ezekil/ 
 speke of the future in a preterite form; 
 The Gospel of St. John is to be similarly 
 interpreted. The coming of and dwelling 
 with them of Farkalete was sure to happen 
 and therefore it was said thathedwelth 
 Again see St. John ch. V. 25 ‘verily verily 
 I say unto you. The hour is coming and 
 now is, when the dead shall hear the voice 
 of the son of God; and they that hear 
 shall live’. Jesus tpeaks of now is; but 
 now no less than 183 years have passed 
 and still the time has not come and the 
 dead have not come to live. 
 
 5. If missionaries quote Acts I. 4. 5, 
 ‘And being assembled together with them , 
 commanded them that they should not de- 
 part from Jerusalem, but wait for the 
 promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye 
 have heard of me. For John Berly was bap- 
 Used with water; but ye shall be baptized 
 
42 
 
 with the Holy Ghost not many days hence’ them referred two thecomingof Farkalete 
 and deduce from them that the word Far- which is given by St.John alone. While 
 
 kalete refers to the Holy Ghost, that des- 
 cended on the apostles; for they say that 
 the promise of the Father refers to Far- 
 kalete, they can be asked on what grounds 
 it is that they take the promise of the 
 Father to mean the coming of Farkalete? 
 
 A careful perusal of my thirteen infer- 
 ences given above will completely prove 
 that Farkalete cannot mean the Holy 
 Ghost that bad descended. The reasons 
 why the missionaries were misled to 
 suppose that the promise of the Father’ 
 refers to the coming of Farkalete spoken 
 of by St. John, seem to me tw o-fold. (1) 
 That the w r ord Holy Ghost has been used 
 for Farkalete in the Gospel of St. John 
 which word is also used here and (2) St 
 John speaks of the coming of Farkalete 
 alone and no other warning is given by 
 him. If the two words Farkalete and Holy 
 Ghost were not only one but two different 
 ones, he would have epoken of two. But 
 as he speaks of one, they (missionaries) 
 have taken both Farkalete and Holy Ghost 
 to mean the same one. The answer to ' 
 (1) will be obvious by reading answer 
 to one of these five objections by the mis- 
 sionaries. If I were to summarise that, 
 I should say that the word Holy Ghost, 
 lefers to the third of the Trinity as well 
 to the preacher of morality. It does not 
 necessarily mean the Holy Ghost that had 
 descended' in all places. In the Gospel 
 of St. John the word Holy Ghost means 
 
 the other referred to the coming of the 
 Holy Ghost that is narrated not only in 
 the Acts but in the Gospel of St.} Luke 
 XXIV. v. 49 Both of the revelations 
 came to pass. One was fulfilled when the 
 Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles 
 in the House. The other came to pass 
 when my beloved Prophet Mahomed came 
 upon the Earth. 
 
 “Miftahul kitab” gives at P. 221 that 
 the Gospel of St. John was composed ia 
 A. D. 96. Mr. Horn in his commentary 
 maintains that the said Gospel was written 
 in A. D. 69 or 97 98. Now Christians be- 
 lieve that the Holy Ghost had descended 
 in A. D. 33; see the reference in the Bible 
 at the Acts II. If Farkalete then meant 
 the Holy Ghost that had descended, St. 
 John ought to have said, as it is usual 
 with him, that the saying of Jesus had 
 come to pass. 
 
 All that has been said above has 
 completely established the prophetic mis- 
 sion of Mahomed. It is therefore obli* 
 gatory on one and all to follow him; other - 
 wise 1 say they are doomed to eternal 
 damnation. 
 
 Would that my labour bear fruit; 
 that this may open the eyes of ray readers 
 in order that they may peruse it with 
 J impartial eyes and profit thereby. 
 
 “ 0 Lord cause not our hearts to 
 swerve from truth after thou hast directed 
 
 ‘preacher of morality’ aud in the Acts it j 
 means the Holy Ghost that had descended. 
 The answer to (2) is equally simple. God 
 had revealed two different things. Oue of 1 
 
 us: and give us mercy from thee, for thou 
 
 art He who giveth” 
 
 Ft it i* 
 
 l 
 
/ 
 
 To It obtained from the Author or MahfUe-Islam 
 at Hander Zilla Surat t gratis on sending in the Postage, 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - ••