187. Alusi writes: Some scholars have said that the Prophet was required to convey to the people only that which had anything to do with their spiritual or material welfare. That which was not of that category was not to be necessarily conveyed to the people. There were things that were only for the Prophet. Verse 10 of surah Al-Najm says:

فَأَوْحَى إِلَى عَبْدِهِ مَا أَوْحَى [النجم : 10]

"Then He revealed unto His slave what He revealed," is in this vein. Allah did not reveal to the people what He revealed then, at that moment, to His Messenger. And, what was especially for the Prophet could have remained unknown to others. Tayyibi has added that with this in the background the report of Bukhari has to be understood in which Abu Hurayrah said:

حَفِظْتُ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وِعَاءَيْنِ فَأَمَّا أَحَدُهُمَا فَبَثَثْتُهُ وَأَمَّا الْآخَرُ فَلَوْ بَثَثْتُهُ قُطِعَ هَذَا الْبُلْعُومُ

"I obtained two kinds of knowledge from the Prophet. The first kind I have spread across. As for the other kind, were I to narrate it, my throat would be slit." He was alluding to esoteric knowledge. That is how it seems Bukhari also understands it. (Alusi’s note ends here).

(Alusi might have a point. But the esoteric interpretation of the hadith of Abu Hurayrah has not been universally accepted. See Ibn Hajr: Au.)

Nevertheless, Alusi continues: `Abdul Wahhab Sha`rani has however warned that the best of Sufi knowledge that has been handed down to us is the result of faithful following of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Whoever lives by what he knows, would also be given to talk in the manner they talked and is likely to possess a part of what they jointly possessed. It all depends on how God-conscious one is and how devoted to Him. The more one acts in accordance with what he knows, the more difficult appreciation of his words become. It is said that somebody reported to his Sheikh that the words of another were quite incomprehensible. The Sheikh replied: “That is because you possess two shirts while he has one." This then is what the non-Sufis call as the `ilm al-batin (esoteric knowledge) of the Sufiya, although, in reality, it is not `ilm al-batin since, in truth, `ilm al-batin is "the knowledge about Allah." As for what Allah has taught the people of the knowledge of the Shari`ah or any other kind, it is `ilm al-zahir and not `ilm al-batin.

Alusi further writes: My own considered opinion is that all that the Prophet had of knowledge, whether of the secrets pertaining to the divinity or those pertaining to the Shari`ah is contained in the Qur'an. Allah has said (16: 89):

وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِبْيَانًا لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ [النحل : 89]

"Surely, We have sent down a Book to you making clear everything." The Prophet said in a report of Tirmidhi and others: "There would be trials and tribulations." He was asked: "What's the way out?" He replied: "Allah's Book. It contains the tidings about you as well about those after you." Imam Shafe`i has said that all that is in the Sunnah is what the Prophet understood from the Qur'an. This is strengthened by that hadith of the Prophet in the Awsat of Tabarani which reports the Prophet as having said: "I do not declare anything as lawful or unlawful but that which Allah has declared lawful or unlawful in His Book." This knowledge he passed on to his senior Companions and others such as Ibn Mas`ud. (Not surprisingly, therefore,) it is reported of Ibn `Abbas that he said that if he lost his camel's halter he would search it in the Qur'an. But, gradually, the later generations lost the proficiency. In fact, some people have even worked out the age of the Prophet as sixty-three years from a verse of the chapter al-Munafiqun which says:

وَلَنْ يُؤَخِّرَ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِذَا جَاءَ أَجَلُهَا [المنافقون : 11]

"Allah will not delay a soul's term when its term has come." For surah al-Munafiqun is the sixty-third chapter of the Qur'an followed by surah al-Taghabun. And it was taghabun (mutual loss) that the Companions suffered with the loss of the Prophet.

Continuing to discuss the esoteric knowledge of the Sufiya, Alusi writes: I have several times heard my Sheikh assert, ‘Whoever thinks that the "Truth" is in sharp contrast to the Shari`ah, or the other way round, is an ignorant man. Rather, they go together, hand in hand, so that, the Shari`ah is falsehood without "haqiqah" and haqiqah falsehood without the Shari`ah. As for some people saying, (as a way of rejecting what the Sufiya have said), that what the Sufiya claim to have, either conforms with what is in the Qur'an and Sunnah or it is opposed to it. If it conforms with the Qur'an and Sunnah, then we already have them (so we stand in no need of the special knowledge that they claim). But if it is opposed to the two texts, then, obviously, we are in no need of it either ... As for this kind of statement, the answer is that there is no doubt about it that what they have of the special knowledge is from the Qur'an and Sunnah. But is it impossible that some people are given an understanding of the Qur'an and Sunnah which others miss? So long as they do not say anything that goes against the "consensus of the Ummah," their differences with "some" of the scholars should be of no concern. After all, how many great scholars of fiqh and hadith have not been there with whose opinions "some" scholars have disagreed?

Abridged remarks of Alusi end here.

188. (Since the belief - to later crystallize as a Shi`ah article of faith - had begun to surface, to the effect that the Prophet had not made all of the Qur'anic revelations public, rather, had passed on some text secretly to `Ali ibn abi Talib: Au.), `Ali was asked by Wahab b. `Abdullah whether there was anything of the Revelation with him that was not there in the Qur'an. He stoutly denied, saying: "No by Allah who splits the seed and brings out the verdure, nothing save the understanding of the Qur'an that Allah bestows upon a man and that which is in this parchment." He was asked: "And what's in the parchment?" He answered: "(Commandments concerning blood-wit, freeing of prisoners, and that a Muslim should not be killed in retaliation of the murder of an unbeliever" (Ibn Kathir).

Ghadir Khumm

Alusi writes: The Shi`ah have a report in their books narrated by Abu Ja`far and Abu `Abdullah which says that Allah ordered the Prophet to declare `Ali ibn abi Talib as the first khalifah after him. But he delayed breaking the news fearing that some of his Companions might not accept it cheerfully. Therefore, Allah revealed this verse, i.e., "O Messenger, deliver (all) that has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have conveyed His message." The Shi`ah further claim that to allay his fears that some of his Companions might not accept the order in good spirit, Allah reassured the Prophet in the following verse which said: "Allah will protect you from the people." They further claim that the Prophet finally made the announcement about the khilafah of `Ali to a group of Companions assembled at a place called Ghadir Khumm (the Khumm-well). There he addressed them in words:

مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلَاهُ فَعَلِيٌّ مَوْلَاهُ اللَّهُمَّ وَالِ مَنْ وَالَاهُ وَعَادِ مَنْ عَادَاهُ

"Whoever accepts me as his friend also accepts `Ali as his friend. O Allah, befriend him who befriends him (i.e., ‘Ali) and antagonize him who antagonizes him." (Dhahabi has declared it a trust-worthy report: Rashid Rida). Alusi refutes the claim by saying that although it is true that the Prophet had gathered his Companions in a place between Makkah and Madinah near Juhfa called Ghadir Khumm and had spoken those words, the background story is not as widely known. It was on a Sunday, the 18th of Dhu al-Hijjah. (The Shi`ah began to celebrate this day as a day of ‘Eid from the time of Banu Buwayh in the fifth Islamic century: Rashid Rida). It was after the famous Farewell Pilgrimage. The Prophet collected his followers under a tree and spoke out those words. And the reason why he had to do so was that when `Ali returned from Yemen (from where he was bringing in a hundred sacrificial camels for the Prophet: Au.), he went straight to the Hajj sites, leaving behind him a group of people who had accompanied him from Yemen, appointing one of them as their amir. Now, in his absence the amir ordered his companions to dress themselves in an expensive cloak that they were carrying. When they neared (Makkah) `Ali returned to receive them. But he was surprised to see the men dressed up in that apparel. He asked the amir: "Woe unto you man. What's all this?" The amir told him that he had got them dressed up in that manner in order to impress the people. `Ali told him: "Woe unto you man. Get them remove that stuff before we meet the Prophet." They obeyed him but were not too pleased about it. They began to complain of his harshness and frugality. When the complaints reached the Prophet's ears, he ordered his men assembled at Ghadir Khumm and spoke those words.

Other reports say that even those people who had accompanied `Ali (to Yemen from Madinah: Au.), had complained about his harshness (in religious matters). A report in Ahmad, of sound isnad, records Buraydah al-Aslami as saying: "I was in the contingent sent to Yemen under ‘Ali's command. I found him a dry, tough man. So, when I met the Prophet I told him about what I thought of ‘Ali. The Prophet was displeased. He asked me,

ُ أَلَسْتُ أَوْلَى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ قُلْتُ بَلَى يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلَاهُ فَعَلِيٌّ مَوْلَاهُ

‘Do I not come first to the believers before their own souls?' I said, ‘Sure, you do, O Messenger of Allah.' He said, ‘(Then) whoever has me as a friend has (to have) `Ali as a friend.'"

Such were the complaints against `Ali then, that led the Prophet to speak out those words. The Shi`ah however, derive strange meanings from it. For instance, they understand the term "mawla" ("friend") in the sense of "awla" which of course means, one who comes first: that is, `Ali comes first. (That is, he should have been the first khalifah). But, linguistically, it is impossible to understand "mawla" in the sense of "awla." Further, even if the word is understood in the sense of "awla," it does not prove that the Prophet was speaking about khilafah. Had he intended that, he would not have spoken about it in such a round about way. Rather, as (a person no less than) Hasan al-Muthanna b. Hasan (a descendant of ‘Ali) has put it, he would have said: "People! `Ali is going to be my immediate successor. Therefore, listen and obey." (Moreover, if the Prophet had intended that `Ali should be the first khalifah after him, then surely, the best time and place for an announcement to this effect was the day of ‘Arafah, when he delivered his famous sermon: Rashid Rida). Further, had `Ali been named the first khalifah after the Prophet he would have surely made his claim after him. To this, the Shi`ah reply that if he did not do it, it was either out of fear of the people or out of taqiyyah. But that is not acceptable, because `Ali was a fearless, outspoken person - the Asadullah al-Ghalib - far from cowardice, who did not need to resort to feigning attitudes of obedience. Finally, the Prophet himself was a fearless person. When he was ordered by Allah to do a thing, he went ahead and did it, unmindful of the consequences, fearless of the people. We have several reports of him facing hostile crowds all alone in Makkah, before hijrah.

Alusi's abridged comments end here.

189. ‘A'isha, Muhammad b. Ka`b al-Qurazi, Sa`id ibn Jubayr and others have said that the Prophet used to be guarded by his Companions, until the revelation of this verse. (This verse came down in a journey, even as the guards were posted outside the Prophet's tent). The Prophet peeped out of his tent and told them to disperse as Allah had promised to guard him (Ibn Jarir). Another report in Ahmad and the Sahihayn, has ‘A'isha saying:

عَائِشَةَ كَانَتْ تُحَدِّثُ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ سَهِرَ ذَاتَ لَيْلَةٍ وَهِيَ إِلَى جَنْبِهِ قَالَتْ فَقُلْتُ مَا شَأْنُكَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَتْ فَقَالَ لَيْتَ رَجُلًا صَالِحًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِي يَحْرُسُنِي اللَّيْلَةَ قَالَ فَبَيْنَا أَنَا عَلَى ذَلِكَ إِذْ سَمِعْتُ صَوْتَ السِّلَاحِ فَقَالَ مَنْ هَذَا قَالَ أَنَا سَعْدُ بْنُ مَالِكٍ فَقَالَ مَا جَاءَ بِكَ قَالَ جِئْتُ لِأَحْرُسَكَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَتْ فَسَمِعْتُ غَطِيطَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي نَوْمِهِ

"One night, while I was by his side in the bed, the Prophet evinced restlessness. I asked him, ‘What makes you restless?' He said, ‘I wish someone would guard me this night.' Thus we were (continues ‘A'isha) when we heard the sounds of steel outside. ‘Who is this,' the Prophet asked. ‘It is me, Sa`d b. Malik,' the man replied. The Prophet asked, ‘What brings you here?' Sa`d answered: ‘I thought I would guard you.' ‘A'isha says, "After that I heard the Prophet snore lightly."

190. That is, your mission is to convey. It is Allah who will guide whom He will. However, He does not guide a people who have decided against receiving guidance (Au.).

191. The verse holds the clear implication that no achievement is of any worth without following of the Shari`ah (Thanwi).

192. The word Sabi'un as it appears in the nominative, presents a grammatical difficulty since, apparently, it should have been Sabi'in - in the genitive. Zamakhshari and others have said that the best answer is that the word is mubtada' of a khabar which has been suppressed. Alusi quotes some poetical pieces as illustrative of this kind of usage.

For an explanation of the term Sabi' as well as of the whole verse see verse 62 of surah Al-Baqarah of this work.

Majid adds: "It was on the banks of lower Euphrates that the Sabians or Christians of St. John the Baptist had, settle, whom the Arabs called Mughtasilah, ‘Ablutionists', because they were always washing in the river: not only were they still living there in the time of Muhammad but they are there to this day, under the name of Saban` (Hyart, Ancient Persia and Iranian Civilization, p. 179).

Notwithstanding his comments at verse 62 of al-Baqarah, Mufti Shafi` once again attempts to clear the doubt that commonly surfaces at this point. He says: A superficial mind would conclude that the verse is promising salvation to those of the Jews, Christians and others who deny Prophet Muhammad. Apart from other points that can be presented to refute the notion, the following verse can be quoted. It declares unbeliever anyone who denies any of the Messengers of Allah.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْفُرُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَيُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يُفَرِّقُوا بَيْنَ اللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ نُؤْمِنُ بِبَعْضٍ وَنَكْفُرُ بِبَعْضٍ وَيُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَّخِذُوا بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ سَبِيلًا (150) أُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ حَقًّا [النساء : 150 ، 151]

"Verily, those who deny Allah and His messengers and wish to make division between Allah and His messengers and say, ‘We shall believe in some and deny others,' wishing to take between this and that a way, such are the true unbelievers" (4: 150-151).

Then Mufti Shafi` points out that the religion (that is acceptable to Allah) is not a brotherhood gift by which new alliances can be created. One might create alliances, be kind towards non-Muslims, do what he can to alleviate their sufferings, or co-operate with them in constructive affairs, but so far as the religion of Allah is concerned, one cannot gift away its brotherhood to anyone he wishes.

193. This verse goes a long way in proving that it is the following of the base desires - a point emphasized by the Sufiya - that is at the root of all major sins (Thanwi).

194. Majid writes: "Compare the O.T.:- ‘They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. Yet they say, The Lord shall not see' (Ps. 94: 6, 7)."

195. Most of the earlier commentators have thought that by the first mention of "blindness and deafness" the allusion is to the first of the two "great rebellions" of the Israelites against God and His Prophets, when they slew Sha`ya (Isaiah) and imprisoned Armiyyah (Jeremiah). By the "turning to them in mercy" the allusion is to their release from Babil (Babylon) where Nebuchadnezzar had enslaved them, and their return to Palestine. The allusion by the second mention of "blindness and deafness" is to the second of their two "great rebellions" against God and His Prophets when they slew Zackariyyah and Yahya (John the Baptist), and attempted to assassinate ‘Isa (asws) - Au.

196. Majid quotes a Christian source: "To the orthodox Christian ‘Jesus is without qualification God, and the greater the contradiction to the mind, the more the heart responds to the wonder of the mystery.' (HJ. Oct. 1934, p.6)"

197. In this verse is the refutation of the Union and Absorption (Ittihad wa Hulul) that some ignorant Sufis believe in (Thanwi).

198. Majid quotes from the Bible: ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him alone shall thou serve.' (Mt. 4: 10; Lk. 4: 8) ‘And Jesus said unto him, why callest thou me good? none is good save one, that is, God.' (Lk. 18: 19) ‘Jesus never refers to Himself as "Son of God," and the title when bestowed upon Him by others, probably involves no more than the acknowledgement that He was the Messiah.' (EBr. XIII, p. 23) ‘That the trinitarian baptismal formula does not go back to Jesus himself is evident and recognized by all independent critics.' (EBi, c. 4689) ‘A critical study of the synoptical material leads invariably to the conclusion that Jesus never called himself the "son of God" and never was addressed by that title' (EBi. c. 4701).

199. Majid once again quotes: ‘That the Christians are proud of their Christolatry is a fact self-evident. It is noted in their books with self-adulation that the Church in the course of its long history has never ceased to offer prayers to Christ with the Father' (ERE. I, p. 104).

200. That is, if Union is wrong, Trinity is no less preposterous (Au.).

Majid presents a variety of criticism coming from Christian sources: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.' (I. Jn. 5: 7). The Athansasian Creed runs:- ‘There is one person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost: the Father is God and Lord: the Son is God and Lord: and the Holy Ghost is God and Lord.' These words of the Creed, says Swendberg, make it ‘as clear as water in a crystal cup, that there are three persons, each of whom is God and Lord.' (The True Christian Religion, p. 244). This central doctrine of the Christian religion can only mean that God ‘is three really distinct Persons: the son, the father and the Holy Ghost ... Three persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial, and deserve co-equal glory and adoration.' (CD. p. 973). ‘The dogma of the "Trinity", which still comprises three of the chief articles of faith in the creed of Christian peoples, culminates in the notion that the one God of Christianity is really made up of three different persons: (1) God the Father ... (2) Jesus Christ; and (3) Holy Ghost, a mystical being over whose incomprehensible relation to the Father and the Son millions of Christians theologians have racked their brains in vain for the last 1900 years' (Haeckel, op. cit. p. 227).

Shabbir expresses his frustration over the failure of the rationalists the world over to convince the Trinitarians of their folly and cleanse the religious atmosphere of the West in words: "The truth is expressed (in an Arabic proverb), ‘The perfumist will not manage to cleanse the pollution of the atmosphere.'"

Further, how difficult the concept has been for the Christians, whether for the learned or the laymen, is illustrated by the following story as narrated by Sheikh Rahmatullah al-Hindi in his Izhar al-Haq. It is said that three persons embraced Christianity and a priest taught them the basic tenets of the religion, especially, of course, the concept of Trinity. The three were in his service. It happened one day that the priest had a guest. The guest enquired whether he had been able to convert anyone to the Christian faith. When the priest told him about his success with the three, the guest enquired whether they had been taught the necessary catechism. The priest replied in affirmation and wished to test them before the guest. He called one of them in and asked him to explain how he understood Trinity. The man replied: "You have taught me that there are three gods. One is in the heaven. The second was born to Virgin Mary. The third is the one who descended upon the second - when he was thirty-three - in the form of a pigeon." The priest was angry, and remarking, "This is an ignorant man," dismissed him. He called in the second man and asked him the same question. The man replied: "You have taught me that there used to be three gods. Then one of them was crucified. That leaves two alive." The priest also sent him out and ordered the third to be presented. This man seemed to be cleverer than the other two. When asked about Trinity he answered: "Master! I have preserved all that you have taught me. And I have understood too - by the grace of Jesus Christ (all that you have taught). You have taught me that there are three are in one and one in three. One of them was crucified and is dead. Consequently, all of them died, since the three were in one. Now, at this moment, there is no god in existence. For if we suppose that there is one, then, it would amount to refuting Unity!" (Rashid Rida).

See Surah Nisa’, note no. 390 for discussions in greater detail, especially concerning the Councils of Nicea.

201. "This refutes the outrageous calumny of the Jews who held her guilty of misconduct, and reinforces her in her pure, saintly character" (Majid).

Siddiqah

The verse points out to a historical truth. Maryam was a woman, like any other woman, except that she was a lady of high integrity, godfearing, and, pious to the highest degree. Yet, she was a mortal in every sense of the word. Interestingly, in none of the Gospels she claims to be a mother of God, nor does she claim divinity for her son Jesus Christ. Why? Did she forget? That is unimaginable, especially in view of the salvation of billions of people who have every right to be skeptic of a concept so important for them yet so unimportant for the divinity to forget! As for the word in the original - Siddiqah - it has its root in sadaqa, which is to speak the truth or to be truthful. Saddaqa is to confirm, acknowledge, testify or believe. Elsewhere, Allah said about her (66: 12):

وَصَدَّقَتْ بِكَلِمَاتِ رَبِّهَا [التحريم : 12]

"She confirmed in the Words ofHer Lord and His Books."

Siddiq (of which Siddiqah is the female form) is also a rank attained by those who are complete in their submission and the most devoted to their Lord. Allah said (4: 69):

وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَالصِّدِّيقِينَ وَالشُّهَدَاءِ وَالصَّالِحِينَ وَحَسُنَ أُولَئِكَ رَفِيقًا [النساء : 69]

"And whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, they are with those whom Allah has favored: the Prophets, Siddiqun, the martyrs and the righteous: and good companions they are."

The note here is to refute the Jewish claims of impropriety on her part, who took that extreme position, in contrast to one Christian group who believes in her divinity. Further, basing their opinion on this verse, and on another (12: 109):

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِكَ إِلَّا رِجَالًا نُوحِي إِلَيْهِمْ [يوسف : 109]

"We sent not before you but men as Messengers," the great majority of scholars believe that Maryam was not a Prophetess (Au.).

202. It has been conjectured that the hint by the words "they both ate food" is to their need to attend to nature's call. How could those who were human to that extent be gods? (Razi, Alusi).

203. That is, see how the common Christians are beguiled by their priestly class!

Yet the Qur’an did influence Christian belief. Majid quotes Encyclopedia Britannica: "That the Holy Qur'an did, to some extent, exert modifying influence on certain Christian sects is now an admitted truth. ‘The opposition of Islam' also partly determined the form of men's views on the doctrine of Christ's person.' (EBr. I, p. 177)

204. "That" (ma of the original) is normally employed for the non living, and the allusion could be to the Christian worship of the Cross (Alusi).

205. Majid writes: "Christianity gradually ‘assumed a form that was quite as polytheistic and quite as idolatrous as the ancient paganism.' (Lecky, op. cit., II, p. 97). ‘The polytheist peoples the world with a variety of gods and goddesses, which enter into its machinery more or less independently ... It reaches its highest stage in Hellenic polytheism ... At a much lower stage we have Catholic polytheism, in which innumerable "saints" (many of them of equivocal repute) are venerated as subordinate divinities, and prayed to exert their mediation with the supreme divinity' (Haeckel, op. cit., p. 226)."

206. This in essence has been the main problem with the people. Either they have gone to one extreme, or to the other. For instance, with regard to the Prophets, either they have gone to one extreme of worshipping them, in fact, even the graves of their followers, or have gone to the other extreme of treating them as no better than couriers (Shafi`).

207. The concept of Trinity is so vigorously unacceptable to human mind that no devoted Christian is questioned about it, but, after initial defense, he falls silent, and, mentally disturbed. Herewith we present some criticism of it.

Trinity

Majid comments: "Now who are these erring peoples the prototype of the Christian error? The allusion may well be to the ‘highly cultured' yet polytheistic and idolatrous nations of Greece and Rome many of whose superstitions and blasphemies the early church, inspired by Paul of Tarsus, was only too prone to imbibe. St. Paul, the founder of latter day Christianity, ‘owed much to the Greek philosophy and thought, gained partly in formal education at Tarsus, partly by assimilation of the knowledge which floated on the surface of a more or less educated society and became insensibly the property of all its members.'

Mawdudi's quotation from Encyclopedia Britannica is abridged here: "... there is nothing in these three Gospels to suggest that their writers thought of Jesus as other than human, a human being specially endowed with the Spirit of God and standing in an unbroken relation to God which justifies His being spoken of as the ‘Son of God.' Even Matthew refers to Him as the carpenter's son and records that after Peter had acknowledged Him as Messiah he ‘took Him aside and began to rebuke Him' (Matthew, xvi. 22). And in Luke the two disciples on the way to Emmaus can still speak of Him as ‘a prophet, mighty indeed in word before God and all the people' (Luke, xxiv, 19).

Further on: "... The Gospels leave no room for doubt as to the completeness with which these statements (about the human nature of Christ: au.) are to be accepted. From them we learn that Jesus passed through the natural stages of development, physical and mental, that He hungered, thirsted, was weary and slept, that He could be surprised and require information, that He suffered pain and died. He not only made no claim to omniscience, He distinctly waived it."

The same source states: "... It may not be possible to decide whether it was the primitive community or Paul himself who first put full religious content into the title ‘Lord' as used of Christ. Probably it was the former. But the Apostle (Paul: Au.) undoubtedly adopted the title in its full meaning, and did much to make that meaning clear by transferring to ‘the Lord Jesus Christ' many of the ideas and phrases which in the Old Testament had been specifically assigned to the Lord Jehovah. God ‘gave unto Him that name that is above every name the name of "Lord". At the same time by equating Christ with the Wisdom of God and with the Glory of God, as well as ascribing to Him Sonship in an absolute sense, Paul claimed for Jesus Christ a relation to God which was inherent and unique, ethical and personal, eternal. While, however, Paul in many ways and in many aspects, equated Christ with God, he definitely stopped short of speaking of him as ‘God' (xiv edition, title, ‘Christianity.').

(Mawdudi goes on), "In another article in Encyclopedia Britannica (xiv edition), under the title ‘Christianity', the Reverend George William Knox writes as follows about the fundamental beliefs of Christianity:

‘Its moulds of thought are those of Greek philosophy, and into these were run the Jewish teachings. We have thus a peculiar combination the religious doctrines of the Bible, as culmination in the person of Jesus, run through the forms of an alien philosophy.

The Doctrine of Trinity: Jewish sources furnished the terms Father, Son and Spirit. Jesus seldom employed the last term and Paul's use of it is not altogether clear. Already in Jewish literature it had been personified (Cf. the Wisdom of Solomon). Thus the material is Jewish, though already doubtless modified by Greek influences: but the problem is Greek; it is not primarily ethical nor even religious, but it is metaphysical. What is the ontological relationship between these three factors? The answer of the Church is given in the Nicene formula, which is characteristically Greek ...'

Also significant (Mawdudi continues) in this connection are the following passages of another article in Encyclopedia Britannica (xiv edition), entitled ‘Church History':

"The recognition of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos was practically universal before the close of the 3rd century, but His deity was still widely denied, and the Arian controversy which distracted the Church of the 4th century concerned the latter question. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 the deity of Christ received official sanction and was given formulation in the original Nicene creed. Controversy continued for some time, but finally the Nicene decision was recognized both in East and West as the orthodox faith. The deity of the Son was believed to carry with it that of the Spirit, who was associated with Father and Son in the baptismal formula and in the current symbols, and so the victory of the Nicene Christology meant the recognition of the doctrine of Trinity as part of the orthodox faith."

Mawdudi's quotes end here.

At this point, the reader might wonder if the above are not stray thoughts, of odd figures, prejudiced against the Church, since the Roman Catholic Church does not seem to take any notice of them. But that is not true. From the time people began to read the Bible for themselves, no generation of Christians has been without eminent men raising their voice against the Christian doctrines that have no basis either in reason and logic, nor do they have any basis in the New or Old Testaments. Many learned men of the Christian world have either denounced Trinity unequivocally or have expressed serious doubts and reservations about it. But such dissensions have been carefully suppressed. Sir Isaac Newton, for instance, who revolutionized science, was one of them. A recent work on the Church's relationship with science says: "In the early 1670s Newton began serious theological study, which came to focus almost at once on the doctrine of the Trinity. As he read on, with his eye riveted on the allied problems of the nature of Christ and the nature of God, the conviction took hold of him that a monstrous fraud had perverted the nature of Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries. The fraud had altered the Bible. Newton began to collect evidence that the passages on which Trinitarians relied had been inserted into the Bible in the fourth and fifth centuries ... Although he did not say so directly, Newton clearly believed that the Protestant Reformation had only scratched the surface. It has left the source of infection, Trinitarianism, untouched" (God and Nature, Ed. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, p. 230-231). A little before him, John Milton, the great English poet, also differed with the doctrines taught by the Church, but did not have the courage, as scores of others also did not have the courage to denounce them publicly. He preferred to put the idea in his writings in a somewhat camouflaged manner. Nonetheless, in a book, "A Treatise Relating to God," not intended to be published during his life-time, he was somewhat outspoken. In Book One, Chapter two, Milton writes: "... what can be plainer, what more distinct, what more suitable to general comprehension and the ordinary forms of speech, for the purposes of impression on the people of God that there was numerically One God and One Spirit in the common acceptation of numerical unity? ...it must always be remembered in this place that nothing can be said of the One God which is inconsistent with His Unity, and which assigns to Him at the same time the attributes of unity and plurality. Mark 12: 29-32, "Hear O Israel, the Lord Our God is One Lord." (Muhammad Ata ur Rahim, Jesus the Prophet of Islam, Riyadh Pub., p. 152).

There have been many others who have said similar things. For instance, Brinton wrote: "... The point must be made again firmly, for if Christianity is so regarded one would expect the triumphant Christianity of the Council of Nicaea, the official faith of the world's greatest empire, to be quite different from Christianity of the fishermen of Galilee. On the other hand, if one takes the New Testament as the final assertion of Christian truth, one is bound to conclude, not just that the Christianity of the fourth century was different from that of the first, but that the Christianity of the fourth century was not Christian" (Clarence Crane Brinton, Ideas and Men, Prentice Hall Pub. p. 127).

H.G. Wells presented the result his own research on the subject. An excerpt: "Then appeared in time a great teacher whom many critics consider as the true founder of Christianity, viz. Saul of Tartus, or otherwise known as Paul. It is apparent that he was Jewish by birth, although the Jews disown him. However, the fact is uncontested that he received education at the hands of the Jewish masters and was extremely good in the theology of the Alexandrian Hellenism. Therefore, he was influenced by the Hellenistic school on the one hand and by the methods of the Stoicists on the other. Thus he became a man of sound opinions and a teacher of religious sciences even much before he heard about Jesus Christ. It is also strongly possible that he was influenced by Mithraian thought, as he uses very strange sounding words taken from the Mithraians. It is apparent to every reader of his letters of diverse nature in comparison with the Gospels themselves that the foremost thought in his mind was, (which does not seem to receive the same emphasis in the writings of the Apostles), that of an individual who offers his sacrifices to God as an atonement for sins. Therefore, what Jesus presented promised a new life to the human soul, but what Paul offered, alas, is the ancient religion: religion of the priests, sacrifices, blood offerings in search of God's Pleasure" ("The Fundamental Interpolations in the Teachings of Jesus").

Earnest Renan, whose crusade against the church is well known, wrote the following: "In order to understand the true teachings of Christ, as he himself understood it, it is necessary that we search for those details and false explanations which have obscured the real teachings of Christ and placed it behind a barrier of thick layers of clouds. That will take us right back to the days of Paul who did not understand the teachings of Christ, rather, who gave it a new interpretation adding to it a lot of ideas and practices of the Pharisians and the teachings of the Old Testament. And Paul, as it appears, was a people's messenger, or a messenger of disputes and religious contests. He was inclined towards the outward appearances of religious nature such as, circumcision and so forth. He introduced his own personal inclinations and proclivities in the religion of Christ and perverted it" (Discourses on Christianity).

And, finally, here are the words of the most learned man of Europe of his day, Edward Gibbon: "He adopted the Platonian theory of the Logos and gave it a Christian coloring, explaining that ‘the Logos, who was with God from the beginning and was God, who had made all things and for whom all things had been made, was incarnate in the person of Jesus of Nazareth’" (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol 1, p. 611) - Au.