Three Questions by a Christian and their Answers — Page 20
20 The critic then goes on to object to another verse, which he has, again, taken out of context. If it had been taken in its context, it would become clear to all fair-minded observers that it does not contain even a word which suggests a denial of miracles. Rather, the words make it amply clear that miracles had certainly been shown. The verse in question and the accompanying verses, read as follows: 22 The Glorious God says: Although We shall destroy every township before the Day of Resurrection, or shall punish it with a severe punishment, and this is what has been written down in the Book, We do not send afresh some of those past signs of chastisement (that have already descended as pun- ishment upon people of the past), which were rejected by them. Thus We gave Tham u d the she-camel, a clear sign, (as a fore-warner of the impending punishment, but they re- jected it unjustly, and the she-camel caused the ponds of water to dry up for the people of Tham u d, residents of the town of H ijr, and spared no grazing ground for their animals. They were thus caught in great suffering and distress be- cause it ate and drank in plenty. ) And We send not signs of punishment but as a warning, i. e. , signs of punishment are sent so that people may be fearful. Why then go on demand- 22 Ban i Isr a ’ i l, 17:59-60 [Publishers]