Lecture Ludhiana — Page 70
70 the promised one had already come in the form of John. 50 Thus a verdict has already been delivered by no less a court than that of Jesus as himself on the interpretation of the Second Coming, in which John the Baptist was not described as the like of Elijah but was called Elijah himself. And this reasoning supports me. I keep citing precedents whereas my opponents do not. Some people, who are found wanting at this stage of the argument, are wont to say that these scriptures have been tampered with and interpolated. It is a pity that the objectors forget that the Holy Prophet sa and the Companions used to rely on these very books. Most distinguished scholars, including Imam Bukhari, believe that biblical distortion is distortion only in sense and meaning. Moreover, the Jews and the Christians are mortal enemies and their scriptures are different. The Jews still believe Elijah will come again. But for this, they would have accepted Jesus as. I have a book by a Jewish scholar who asserts with great convic- tion that if he were confronted with this question, he would simply produce the book of the prophet Malachi in which it was promised that Elijah would come again. Just ponder that despite such excuses, millions of Jews were consigned to Hell and labelled as monkeys and pigs. Would this argument be valid against me that it was Jesus the son of Mary himself who was supposed to come? Jews might have been handicapped for want of a prece- 50 John the Baptist. [Translator]