The Holy War — Page 29
Proceedings—Debate 23 May 1893 29 Adam as was born without a father or mother? In addition, the practice of Allah has already been established regarding him. However, as far as the disputed issue is concerned, there is nothing that both parties have accepted to be established and proven. On the contrary, the party opposing the Christian gentlemen presents from their Book—that is to say, the Noble Quran —that based on inductive reasoning, the matter in dispute [i. e. , the Divinity of Jesus as ] is false. Now, if this argument is not perfect and complete, then what is required from the Gospel—that is to say, from the words of the Messiah as —is some argument put forth to refute it, through which it is proven that the argument presented by the Holy Quran contains this weakness. Furthermore, it is self-evident that if proofs by inductive reasoning are rejected without presenting an opposing precedent, then all knowl- edge and science would be rendered worthless, and all research would come to a halt. For example, I inquire from Mr. Abdullah Atham, that if you were to give 1,000 rupees to an employee of yours for safekeeping and that money was placed inside a lockbox, and the key of the lock was given to the said employee, and there be no circumstances present of theft, yet said employee comes to you and presents this excuse that Sir, that money became liquid and flowed out from the lockbox , or that it became vapour and thus leaked out , would you accept this explanation of his? You state that so long as anything does not conflict with the attrib- utes of Allah, you will continue to consider it to be allowed and possi- ble, but I ask you since you have for some time served as Extra Assistant and handled civil and criminal cases: Have you ever come across such a strange case in which this type of nonsensical excuse was accepted as satisfactory by the Court, and the party giving such excuse was awarded the case? Gentlemen! Carefully reflect once again; it is abso- lutely unacceptable that a person who opposes something established through inductive reasoning should present a new assertion that is con- trary to something established by inductive reasoning, and it should be accepted unless that new assertion is proven true by some precedents.