بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

اَلْحَمْدُ لِلّٰهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ وَ الصَّلاَةُ وَ السَّلاَمُ عَلَى سَيِّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وَ عَلَى آلِهِ وَ صَحْبِهِ اَجْمَعِينَ

 عيسى عليه السلام -  ‘ÎSÂ (as) – NASRÂNIYYAH

JESUS – CHRISTIANITY- 5

Some fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam:

…

Europe, particularly its revolutionaries, reformists and philosophers — due to their hostility towards the Catholic Church — embraced the Protestant Church, which was regarded by the Catholic Church to be the people of bid’ah and Mu'tazilites. By taking advantage of the French Revolution, they partially destroyed the Catholic Church and declared Protestantism.

Thus, the pseudo-patriots who are accustomed to blind imitation say, "Since such a revolution occurred in the Christian religion, initially, the revolutionaries were called apostates (murtad), but later they were accepted back as Christians; such a religious revolution can occur in Islam."

The Answer: The difference in this comparison is more evident than the one in the First Sign because in the religion of ‘Îsâ ‘Alayhissalâm, only the fundamentals of religion were derived from Hazrat ‘Îsâ ‘Alayhissalâm. Most of the laws regarding social life and secondary matters of Sharî’ah were established by the disciples and other religious leaders, and the majority of those laws were taken from the earlier Sacred Books. Since Hazrat ‘Îsâ ‘Alayhissalâm was not a worldly ruler or a sultân, and since he was not the source of the laws concerning social life, under the name of the Sharî’ah of Christianity, customary laws and civil principles were adopted and given a different form; it is as if the fundamentals of his religion were clothed with a garment from outside. The original religion of Hazrat ‘Îsâ ‘Alayhissalâm may remain even if this form is changed and the garment is transformed. It does not conclude in denying ‘Îsâ ‘Alayhissalâm or pronouncing him to be false.

However, Fakhr al-‘Âlam1 ‘Alayhissalâtu Wassalâm is the owner of the religion and Sharî’ah of Islam; he is the sultân of the two worlds, and his seat of sovereignty are the East and the West, Andalusia and India; therefore, he himself demonstrates the fundamentals of the religion of Islam, and he also brings, informs about and commands the secondary matters and other rulings of that religion, even its most minor issues of âdâb. It means that the secondary matters of Islam are not a garment that can be changed; therefore, if they are changed, the fundamentals of religion cannot remain intact. The secondary matters of Islam are indeed a body to the fundamentals of religion or at least a skin. They have become intertwined and fused with the fundamentals of religion; the fundamentals of religion and the secondary matters of Islam are inseparable. To change them directly leads to denying the owner of Sharî’ah and pronouncing him (asm) to be false.

As for the differences in Madhabs, these have derived from the different ways of understanding the theoretical (nadharî) principles demonstrated by the owner of Sharî’ah (asm). The principles called “the dharûriyyah of religion”, which cannot be interpreted, and the principles called “Muhkamât” cannot be changed in any way and cannot be subject to ijtihad. One who changes them excludes himself from religion, and he will fall under the rule,

2 يَمْرُقُونَ مِنَ الدِّينِ كَمَا يَمْرُقُ السَّهْمُ مِنَ الْقَوْسِ

The people of bid’ah have found the following pretext for their irreligion and ilhad. They say, “In the French Revolution, which caused the series of events in the world of humanity, the clergy and religious leaders and their specific sect, the Catholic Church, were attacked and destroyed. Later it was approved by many people. Westerners also greatly progressed after this event?”

The Answer: this comparison, like the previous ones, has an evident difference because, for a long time among the French, in the hands of the upper and ruling classes, Christianity, particularly the Catholic Church, has been used as a means of oppression and despotism. The upper class maintained their power over the lower class by using the Catholic Church. And because it was used as a means of oppressing the awakened patriots from among the lower class, whom the upper and ruling classes called “rogues”, and the thinkers of freedom-seekers, who attacked the despotism of the upper-class tyrants, and because the Catholic Church was considered a cause of disrupting the rest of mankind and turning social life upside down through revolutions against it in Europe for nearly four hundred years, the Catholic Church was attacked, not in the name of irreligion, but in the name of another sect of Christianity. And among the lower class and philosophers, resentment and animosity had arisen, which led to the well-known historical event. However, no oppressed person or thinker has the right to complain about the religion of Muhammad (asm) and the Sharî’ah of Islam. Because Islam does not offend but protects them. The history of Islam is there for all to see. There have been no internal religious wars among Muslims except for one or two incidents. Whereas the Catholic Church has caused internal conflicts for four hundred years.

Furthermore, Islam has been a refuge for the lower class rather than the upper classes. Through zakat being wâjib and usury (ribâ) being haram, Islam does not make the upper classes tyrannical over them; instead, it makes the upper classes servants to them in some respect! Islam says

سَيِّدُ الْقَوْمِ خَادِمُهُمْ ٭ خَيْرُ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَنْفَعُ النَّاسَ3

Moreover, through the tongue of Al-Qur’an Al-Hakîm, with sacred references, such as

اَفَلاَ تَعْقِلُونَ ٭ اَفَلاَ يَتَدَبَّرُونَ ٭ اَفَلاَ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ4

Islam makes the mind (‘aql) a witness, warns it, refers to it, and pushes the mind to investigate. Through these, Islam gives status and importance to the people of ‘ilm and the people of reason (‘aql) in the name of religion. Unlike the Catholic Church, Islam does not dismiss the mind, silence thinkers, nor demand blind imitation.

Since the fundamentals of not true Christianity but the present-day Christian religion and the fundamentals of Islam have diverged on a critical point, they have separated in many ways, just like the aforementioned differences. That critical point is this:

Islam is the religion of true Tawhîd; it eliminates intermediaries and causes. It breaks the ananiyyah and establishes sincere ‘ubûdiyyah. Islam cuts and rejects every kind of bâtil rubûbiyyah, starting from that of nafs. It is because of this mystery that if a person of high status from the upper class becomes perfectly devout, he is obliged to abandon his ananiyyah. One who does not abandon his ananiyyah will abandon religious steadfastness and, to some extent, his religion.

The present-day Christian religion, however, attributes a real effect to causes and intermediaries because it accepts the "Doctrine of waladiyyah5”. It does not break the ananiyyah in the name of religion, but rather, describing a person as a holy deputy of Hazrat ‘Îsâ ‘Alayhissalâm attributes a kind of sanctity to his ananiyyah. Therefore, the Christian upper class, who occupy the highest worldly positions, can be perfectly devout. As evidence, it can be mentioned that there are many, including former American President Wilson and former British Prime Minister Lloyd George, both of whom were as devout as zealous priests. Among Muslims, however, those who rise to such positions rarely remain perfectly devout and steadfast because they cannot abandon their pride and ananiyyah. And true taqwâ cannot be combined with pride and ananiyyah.

Yes, just as the religious zeal of the Christian upper class and the lack of firmness in religion among the Muslim upper class demonstrate a significant difference, so too do the philosophers, who emerged from Christianity, taking a position of indifference or opposition towards their religion; on the other hand, the great majority of ‘ulamâ, who emerged from Islam, constructing their hikmah on Islamic fundamentals, demonstrate another significant difference.

Furthermore, most Christians from the lower class, who fall into dungeons and misfortunes, do not expect help from religion. In old times, most of them became irreligious. As evidence, it can be mentioned that the famous revolutionaries in history, who sparked the French Revolution and were called "irreligious rogues", emerged from the lower class who were struck by calamities. Whereas in Islam, the vast majority of those who fall into prison and misfortune seek help from religion and become more religious. This state, too, demonstrates a significant difference.

Third Sign: The people of bid’ah say, "Religious devoutness made us backward. Living in this age can only be done through abandoning devoutness. Europe progressed after abandoning devoutness.”

The Answer: You are wrong and deceived, or you are misleading! Because Europe is bigoted in its religion. As evidence, it can be mentioned that if an ordinary Bulgarian or an English soldier or a French rogue were to be told, "Wear a sariq. If you don't wear it, you'll be thrown in prison!" Due to his bigotry, he would reply, “I won't commit this insult to my religion and nation, even if you kill me, not just throw me in prison!"

Furthermore, history testifies that whenever the people of Islam fully adhered to their religion, they progressed compared to their contemporaries. Whenever they abandoned their firmness in Islam, they declined. Whereas with Christianity, it is the opposite. It also stems from a significant fundamental difference.

Moreover, Islam is incomparable to other religions; if a Muslim leaves Islam and abandons his religion, he can no longer accept any prophet. Indeed, he cannot even acknowledge Janâb-i Haqq and does not recognise anything sacred. He will lose his conscience (Vijdân), which will be the source of his perfection; his conscience (Vijdân) will deteriorate. Therefore, in the Islamic perspective, a kâfir who lives in Dâr al-harb has the right to life. If he lives outside the Islamic land and makes peace, or if he lives inside the Islamic land and pays the head tax (Jizya), his life is protected according to Islam. But a murtad does not have the right to life. Because his conscience (Vijdân) is corrupted, and he becomes a poison to social life. However, an irreligious person from among Christians can still be in a state that is beneficial to social life. He may accept some sacred matters, believe in some prophets and acknowledge Janâb-i Haqq to some extent.

I wonder, what benefit do these people of bid’ah, indeed, the people of ilhad, find in this kind of irreligion? If their concern is governance and public order, governing ten irreligious rogues who do not acknowledge Allah and repelling their sharr is more difficult than governing a thousand religious individuals. If they think of progress, just as such irreligious people are harmful to the administration of government, they are also an obstacle to progress. They undermine the security and public order that are the foundation of progress and trade. Indeed, they are destroyers due to the path they have taken. The biggest fool in the world is the one who expects progress and happiness in life from such irreligious rogues. One of those fools among them who holds a high position said, "We remained backward, saying, 'Allah! Allah!' Europe advanced, saying, 'Guns and cannons.'”

According to the rule, "The answer to a fool should be silence," the answer to such people is silence. But since behind some of these fools, there are wretched ghâfils, we say this:

O wretched ones! This world is a guesthouse. Every day, thirty thousand witnesses sign the decree

6 اَلْمَوْتُ حَقٌّ ,

with their corpses and testify to this assertion. Can you kill death? Can you refute these witnesses? Since you cannot, death makes you say "Allah! Allah!" Which of your cannons, which of your guns — instead of "Allah! Allah!" — can illuminate the eternal darkness awaiting in front of the dying person in sakarât and transform his absolute despair into absolute hope? Since there is death, and we will enter the grave, and this life departs and an eternal life is coming, if “Guns and cannons” is said once, "Allah! Allah!" should be said a thousand times. And if it is in the way of Allah, the gun also says, "Allah!" and the cannon shouts, "Allahu Akbar!" They break the sawm with "Allah" and start the sawm with "Allah!"

 The Twenty-Ninth Letter Seventh Section