The effect of the original teaching of Jesus was very limited because he never preached the faith which the Christians ascribe to him.

The idea of Father and son and the concept of trinity are the worst kind of atheism and association and are certainly the product of ignorance.

Such heretical teachings cannot be ascribed to so great a Prophet as Jesus who was innocent of all such crimes.

We are therefore certain that Jesus could have not preached this impure faith.

He originally preached monotheism and not tritheism as the Christians claim.

But this teaching of Jesus did not spread due to many historical factors.

His message therefore remained very limited.

[1] Imam ar-Razi, a great authority on almost all the Islamic Sciences and author of many valuable books on Qur’an, hadith history and other sciences.




The present gospels, which are called evangels, are not the same Evangel which the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on Him) alluded to in the words:

’And Allah revealed the Torah and the Evangel for the guidance of the earlier people.’

Then al-Qurtubi put forward the argument that the disciples of Jesus were not Prophets, hence not protected from impurity, and the miraculous events ascribed to them have not been proved by an unbroken chain of reporters. There are only statements made by isolated reporters, We also do not find any indication that the copies of these gospels are free from serious manipulations. They are wrong. If, for a moment, we accept that these reports are true, they are still not an argument for proving the truth of all the wonders attributed to the disciples, nor do they help in proving the claim of prophethood for them, because they never made any claim to prophethood; on the contrary, they solemnly confirmed that the Prophet Jesus was a preacher. Al-Qurtubi also said:

It is evident from the above discussion that the present gospels have not been authenticated by means of an unbroken chain of transmission, nor is there any indication that the copiers were protected from wrong action and therefore the possibility of error and fault from them cannot be overlooked. The presence of the above two factors deprives the gospels of their divine character, authenticity and hence their reliability. The proven presence of human manipulation within the text of these gospels is enough to prove their unacceptability. We quote, however, some examples from these books to show the carelessness of their copiers and blunders made by them.

After producing several examples he said:

These examples are sufficient to prove that the present gospels and the Pentateuch cannot: be trusted and that neither of them are capable of providing divine guidance to man, because no historical chain of transmission can be adduced in favour of either in support of their authenticity.

We have already cited several examples to show that these books have been subject to great changes and distortions in their texts. The condition of other books of the Christian theologians can well be imagined in the light of the distorted texts of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures, books of such prime importance to them.

This book of al-Qurtubi can be seen in the Topkapi Library in Istanbul.

Al-Maqrizi was a great scholar of Islam in the eighth century AH. He said in the first volume of his history:


The Jews think that the book which they have is true and original, free from all corruption. The Christians, on the other hand, claim that the Septuagint 1[1] version of the Bible which is with them is free from any possible distortion and change, while the Jews deny this and contradict their statement. The Samaritans consider their Pentateuch to be the only genuine version as compared to all others. There is nothing with them to eliminate the doubts about this difference of opinion among them. 2[2]

The same difference of opinion is found among the Christians regarding the Evangel. For the Christians have four versions of the Evangel which have been combined together in a single book, The first version is of Matthew, the second of Mark, the third of Luke and the fourth of John.

Each of them wrote his gospel according to his own preaching in his own area with the help of his memory. There are innumerable contradictions, incompatibilities and inconsistencies between their various accounts regarding the attributes of Jesus, his message, the time of his Crucifixion and his genealogy. The contradictions are irresolvable.

Alongside this the Marcionites and the Ebionites have their separate version of the Evangels, each being different from the present canonical gospels. The Manichaeans also claim to have an Evangel of their own totally different from the current accepted gospels. They claim that this is the only genuine Evangel precinct in the world and the rest are inauthentic. They have another evangel called the Evangel of AD 70 (Septuagint) which is ascribed to Ptolamaeus. The Christians in general do not recognize this gospel as genuine.

In the presence of the above multifarious differences to be found within the corpus of the Judaeo-Christian revelation, it is almost impossible for them to sort out the truth.”

The author of Kashf az-Zunun said with regard to this matter that the Evangel was a book which was revealed to Jesus, the son of Mary, and, discussing the lack of authenticity and genuineness of the present gospels, he said:

The Evangel which was in reality revealed to Jesus was a single book which was absolutely free from contradictions and inconsistencies. It is the Christians who have put the false blame on Allah and His Prophet (Jesus) by ascribing the present gospel to them.

The author of Hidayatu’I-Hayara Fi Ajwibaru’l-Yahood wa’n- Nasara said quite explicitly:

The present Torah (Pentateuch) owned by the Jews is much distorted and defective, a fact known to every biblical reader. The Biblical scholars, themselves, are certain and sure of the fact that the original Torah which was revealed to Moses was genuine and totally free from the present distortions and corruptions. There was no corruption present in the Evangel which was originally revealed to Christ and which could not have included the event of the crucifixion of Christ, or other events like his resurrection three days after his death. These are, in fact additions inserted by their elders and have nothing whatever to do with divine Truth.4

He further said:

Several Islamic scholars have laboriously pointed out hundreds of specific examples and passages showing contradictions, incompatibilities and differences in the so-called Canonical Gospels. It is only to avoid an unnecessary elongated discussion that we refrain from presenting more examples.

The first two parts of this book should be more than enough to prove the truth of this claim.

1[1] The Septuagint is the oldest version of the Old Testament. The Septuagint is so-called because in the third century BC severity’ (more correctly seventy-two) translators were sent to Alexandria where they prepared this translation with their combined effort. Later on, the same translation was acknowledged by Greeks as their Bible.


2[2] . Britannica page 868 vol. 14. Marcion.



The second claim advanced by them is that Mark wrote his gospel with the help of Peter while Luke wrote his gospel with the help of Paul. Since both Peter and Paul were men of inspiration, the above two gospels are also divinely inspired books.

It would seem to be our duty to examine the validity of these two misguiding claims, each one separately, in the light of available historical data and general human logic.

The main point of dispute regarding the originality of the present gospels is the lack of an uninterrupted continuity in transmission of the reporting authorities of any of the gospels. There is no evidence that any of the gospels have come down to us direct from Jesus through his disciples to the subsequent recipients so as to form a continuous chain of reliable reporters. To say it more simply, there should be a reliable record of a recognised disciple of Jesus bearing witness that whatever he has written was told to him by Jesus in the presence of one or more people of such and such names. Then the next reporter should bear witness to having received, heard or been told the same statement by that particular disciple of Jesus in the presence of such and such people. Then one or more of those present should have conveyed the same text to others by the same procedure so that the texts would have been conveyed to us with an uninterrupted chain of reporters traceable directly back to Jesus himself (as is the case with Qura’anic revelation).

Now we say, and without any fear of being wrong, that the Christians do not possess any such succession of authorities from the authors of the gospels to the end of the second century or the beginning of the third century AD. We, ourselves, have dug into their books to find any trace of such proofs, and also sought guidance from renowned Christian scholars but could not get anywhere. The priest, French, 1[1] during our public polemic with him, tried to explain this away by saying that we do not have any such authorities due to the historical calamities which befell the Christians during the first three centuries. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the priest Clement and Ignatius had no such authority with them in their time.

We do not necessarily refute the conjectures and suppositions by which they ascribe these writings to their authors. What we are trying to say is that these suppositions and conjectures cannot be accepted as an argument for the genuineness of the word of God. Neither do we deny the fact that the present gospels gained popularity towards the end of the second century or at the beginning of the third century, with all their faults, errors, and contradictions.

We must be allowed to bring to light some facts regarding Clement and Ignatius to eliminate any misapprehensions.

[1] Our author had a famous public polemic with a priest named Fonder in India.


French was appointed as an assistant to Fonder. The assistant of the author was Dr.. Vazir Khan. (Taqi)


Clement, the Patriarch of Rome, is said to have written a letter to the church of Corinth. There is a disagreement between the scholars regarding the exact year that this letter was written. Canterbury puts it between 64 and 70 AD. Leclerc claimed it to have been written in 69 AD, while Duchesne and Tillemont have said that Clement did not become Pope until 91 or 93 A.D. How Clement could have written letters to the church in 64 or 70 AD when he was not yet Pope is not explained. However, setting aside all the differences, the letter in question could have not been written later than 96 AD. Some sentences of this letter, however, happen to be identical to some of the sentences in one of the four gospels. This allowed the Christians to claim that Clement had copied those sentences from the gospel. This claim is liable to be rejected for the following reasons:


Firstly, it is not sufficient to copy only some sentences from a gospel. If this were the case the claim of those people would be true who are considered heretics 1[1] by the Protestants because they have claimed that all the moral teachings contained in the gospels have been borrowed from the pagans and other philosophers (because some of their ideas were identical to some of the ideas of the gospels). The author of Aksihumo said:

The moral teachings of the Evangel, of which the Christians are very proud, have been copied word for word from the Book of Ethics of Confucius,2[2] who lived in the sixth century BC. For example he said under his moral no. 24: ”Behave towards other as you want to be behaved towards by others. You need only this moral because this is the root of all other morals. Do not wish for the death of your enemy because to do so would be absurd since his life is controlled by God.” Moral no. 53 goes: ”It is quite possible for us to overlook our enemy without revenging him. Our natural thoughts are not always had.”

Similar good advice can be found in the books of Indian and Greek philosophers.

Secondly, if Clement really had copied it from the gospel, all its contents would have been identical to the gospel, but such is not the case. On the contrary, he differed from the gospel in many places, showing that he had not copied what he wrote from the gospels. Even if it were proved that he had copied from a gospel, it might have been from any of the many gospels which were current in his time, as Eichhorn admitted in respect of the sentence spoken by a heavenly voice at the time of the descension of the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, Clement was one of the followers of the disciples and his knowledge about Christ was no way less than that of Mark and Luke, which allows us to believe, and logically so, that he might have written the letter from reports received by himself directly. If there were an indication anywhere in his writing that he had copied it from any of the gospels, our claim would certainly have been out of place.

We quote below three passages from his letter.

He who loves Jesus should follow his commandment.

Jones claimed that Clement copied this sentence from John 14:15 which reads:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

The apparent similarity between these two statements led Mr. Jones to suppose that Clement had copied it from John. However, he has chosen to overlook the clear textual difference between these two statements. The falsity of this claim has already been proved by our showing that the letter could not have been written after 96 AD, while, according to their won findings, thc Gospel of John was written in 98 AD. It is nothing but a desperate effort to provide some authenticity to the present gospels.

Horne said on page 307, Vol. 4 of his commentaries printed 1824.

According to Chrysostom and Epiphanius, the early scholars and according to Dr. Mill, Fabricius, Leclerc and Bishop Tomline, John wrote his gospel in 97 AD, while Mr. Jones situates this gospel in 98 AD.

However, a true lover always follows what his love commands, otherwise he would not be a 1over in the true sense of the word. Lardner justly said in his Commentaries printed 1827 on Page 40 of Vol., 2:

I understand that the copying of this letter from the gospel is doubtful, because Clement was fully aware of the fact that any claim to the love of Christ necessitated practical obedience to his commandments, because Clement had been in the company of the disciples of Jesus.

1[1] 1.The Rationalists who strongly favour liberalism.


2[2] Confucius, 6c great moral philosopher of China born in 551 BC, who had strong influence on the religion and general character of the Chinese. Thc past Chinese ideology was thus called Confucianism.



We follow what is written, because the Holy Spirit has said that a wise man is never proud of his wisdom. And we should keep in mind the words of Christ who said at the time of preaching patience and practice:

”Be ye merciful, that ye be shown mercy, forgive that ye he forgiven; ye will be acted upon, the same as you will act upon others, as you will give so shall you be given, you will be judged as you will judge upon others; as you will pity, so shall you be pitied upon and with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to You again.”

The Christians claim that this passage was taken by Clement from Luke 6:36-38 and Matt.7: 1,2,12. The passage from the Luke is this:

Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you mete.

The passage from Matthew 7:1,2 reads:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And in verse 12:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.


Chapter forty-six of his letter contains this passage:


Remember the words of Lord Christ who said, Woe unto the man who has committed a sin. It would have been better for him if he had not been born, that he should harm those chosen by me. And whosoever shall offend my little ones, it will be better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

The Christians have claimed that the above passage was copied from Matthew 26:24 and 18:6 and Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2: reproduce these verses below:

The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Matthew 18:6 contains the following lines:

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mark 9:42 reads:

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

The text of Luke 17:2 is this:

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Having reproduced the passages from Clement and the above texts of the gospels, Lardner said in his Commentaries printed 1827 vol. 2 page 37 that:

The above two passages of Clement are his longest passages and this is why Paley confined himself to them to support the claim of authenticity for the gospels. This claim does not, however, stand to reason because Clement would at least have made a reference to the gospels had he copied any passage from them and he would also have copied the rest of the related text or, if that was not possible, the text reproduced by him should have been totally consistent and similar to the text of the gospel. However none of these conditions are met. Such being the case, there is no possibility of its have been copied from the gospel.

1t is surprising to see Luke being referred to as the teacher of Clement, imparting to him the knowledge which he must already have had, being the companion of the disciples just as Luke was.

In volume 2 of his commentaries, Lardner remarked about the above two passages:

When we study the writings of those who enjoyed the company of the apostles or of the other followers of our Lord who, like the evangelists, were fully conversant with the teachings of Christ, we find ourselves very much in doubt without the evidence of a clear reference. We are faced with the difficulty of ascertaining whether Clement copied written statements of Christ or whether he is simply reminding the Corinthians of the sayings which he and the Corinthians had heard from the Apost1es and their followers. Leclerc preferred the former opinion ,while the Bishop of Paris preferred the latter.

If we accept that the three Gospels had been compiled prior to that time, in that case Clement could possibly have copied from them, though the word and expression may not exactly be identical. But that he actually has copied is not easy to confirm, because this man was fully acquainted with these matters even prior to the compilation of the Gospels. It is also possible that Clement would have described events already known to him without referring to the Gospels even after their compilation out of his old habit. In both the cases, the faith in the truth of the Gospels is reaffirmed, obviously so in first case, and in the second case because his words correspond to the text of the Gospels, proving that the. Gospels were so widely known that the Corinthians and Clement both had the knowledge of them.

Through this we achieve the belief that the evangelists faithfully conveyed the words consisting of the true teachings of Christ. These words deserve the most careful preservation, though there we have a difficulty. I think that the most scholars will agree with the opinion of leclerc, however, as Paul advises us in Acts 20:35 with the words:

’And to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.’

It is, I am sure, generally acknowledged that Paul did not copy the above statement from any letter but just quoted the words of the Christ which were in his knowledge and in the know1edge of others. This does not mean that it may be accepted as a general rule but this method can possibly be applied in letters. We know that Polycarp also used this method in his writings. We are quite sure that he also copied from the written gospels.

It is clear from the above statement that the Christians are not certain that Clement really copied from the canonical gospels, and any claim to this effect is only based on conjecture.

We do not agree with the conclusion of Lardner that in both case the truth of the present gospels is proved because there can be no certainty in the presence of doubt. As the evangelists incompletely recorded the words of Christ in this particular instance, they might have done the same in other places too, and they might have not recorded the exact words used.

Moreover, if we overlook this point for a moment, it only proves that these particular sentences are the words of Christ, it does not in any way help us to believe that all the contents of the gospels are the genuine words of Christ. The knowledge of a certain statement cannot be an argument for the acceptance of other statements. If that were the case, all the rejected gospels would have to be accepted as genuine simply because some sentences of Clement bear some similarity with them.

We are also confident in our refutation of the claim that Polycarp also used the method of copying from the gospels in spite of his own knowledge, gained by being, like Clement, also a companion of the disciples of Jesus. Both of them are of equal status. His copying from the gospels cannot prove their genuineness. It is, on the other hand, possible that like Paul he might have ascribed some statements to Christ.35



Eusebius and Jerome both mentioned certain of his letters. Apart from these some other letters are also attributed to him, which are generally considered by most of the scholars to be false and concocted. My opinion is no different. There are two copies of his seven letters, the large and small. Except for Mr. Weston and a few of his followers, all the scholars have decided that additions have been made in the larger one, the smaller version, however, can possibly be ascribed to him.

I have carefully made a comparative study of both the texts and my study revealed that the smaller version was turned into a larger one by the inclusion of many additions and insertions. It is not the case that the larger was turned into the smaller through the exclusion of some of the contents. The ancient writings, also, are more in accordance with the smaller version.

The question whether Ignatius really did write these letters remains to be settled. There is great dispute and disagreement on this point. The great scholars have made free use of their pens in expressing their opinions. The study of the writing of both the camps has made the question all the more complicated. However, in my opinion, this much is settled and decided; that these are the sames letter which were present in the time of Origen and were read by Eusebius. Some of the sentences are not appropriate to the time of Ignatius. It is therefore better if we accept that these sentences are later additions instead of rejecting all the letters on the ground of these sentences, especially keeping in view the crisis of shortage of copies which we are facing.

It is also possible that some of the followers of Arius36 might have made additions to the smaller version just as they did to the larger Additions may also have been made by others.

Paley writes in his footnotes:

"In the past, the translation of three letters of lgnatius were present in the Syrian language and were printed by William Cureton. It is almost certain that the smaller letters, which were revised by Ussher, contained many additions.”

The above writings of the Christian scholars bring out the following facts:

1. All the 1etters except these seven letters are definitely fabricated and forged according to the Christian scholars and are therefore unacceptable.

2. The larger version of the letters is similarly not genuine in the opinion of all the scholars except Mr. Weston and a few of his followers.

3. As far as the smaller collection is concerned, there is great dispute and difference of opinion among great scholars with regards to its authenticity. Both the groups of scholars have their own arguments against or in favour of its authenticity. The group of scholars who have favored it also admit its having been subjected to later modifications their by Arius or by others, with the result that this collection also appears to be equally of doubtful authenticity.

It seems most probable that this collection of letters was also put together in the third century AD similarly to the other letters. This should not present too much of a surprise, in view of the general practice of the theologians of early centuries who frequently prepared false writings and attributed to other writers to suit their whims. Historical records bear witness to the fact that there were not less than seventy-five gospels which were falsely attributed to Christ, to Mary and to the disciples of Christ. It does, therefor, not seem particularly far-fetched to assert that these seven letters, too, were prepared and attributed to Ignatius, similar to other such letters and similar to the gospel of Tatian 1[1] which was falsely attributed to him. Adam Clarke said in the introduction of his commentary:

The book which was genuinely ascribed to Tatian has disappeared and the one which is now attributed to him is doubtful in the eyes of most of the scholars, and they are right in their suspicion.

Let us ignore all the above points for a moment and take it that the 1etters in question really were originally written by lgnatius. Even these does not help much because, after the additions and modifications inserted by later people, they have lost their originality and are no longer acceptable.

According to the scholars some sentences of these letters were certainly added later on and so there is nothing to remove suspicion from other sentences which are supposed by them to be original. They, likewise, might have been added to or modified in subsequent times.

Eusebius said in chapter 23 of the fourth volume of his history:

Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth, admitted that he had written several letters on the request of some of his friends, but those deputies of Satan filled them with profanities and altered some parts and added others. This made me all the more, aggrieved. Therefore, there is no wonder if someone made intentional additions in the holy books of our Lord, because they had no qualms in respect of the books of other authorities.

Adam Clarke has said in his introduction to his commentary:

The great works of Origen have been lost and several of his Commentaries which are available contain an abundance of unfactual and imaginary comments which in itself is a powerful argument in favour of the fact that they have been interpolated.”

Michael Musaka, a Protestant scholar, has said in his Arabic work, Ajwibatu’l-Engeleer Ala Abateel-At-Taqleedeen, section one, chapter 10:

As far as their habit of distorting the statements of the ancients, we should first produce our arguments so that our position may not be similar to these of our opponents, that is to say, so that our claims may not be considered as baseless as theirs. We proceed to say that the book Afshin which is attributed to John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouth,2[2] and which is recited in the churches during the services of consecration, presents different texts. That is, the text recited by one group is different from the text recited by others. For, in the copy of the Orthodox, the Father God is besought to make descend his Holy Spirit on the bread and wine and turn them into flesh and blood, while in the text of the Catholics it is said that he should send the Holy Ghost on the bread and wine so that they may be transformed. But in the time of Maximus, it was changed by the people and they started to say that both the transformable things have39 fled away for the reason that the Orthodox had claimed against it. But the Catholics of Syria say it with these words, ’Send thy Holy Spirit upon this bread that is the secret of the body of Christ.’ There is no word denoting transformation present in this text. It is possible that this statement might have been of Chrysostom (the Golden Mouth) as the preaching of transformation was not introduced in his time. And Major Bobi Tompter, who had converted to Catholicism said in his speech to the Orthodox in 1722: ”I have compared these books with the Orthodox version possessed by the Basilians,3[3] and we did not find a single word in these books denoting transformation. This story of transformation of the bread and wine was invented by Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople, and is ridiculous. Now, when they could have made a play of such a pious text as Afshin and altered its contents to suit their unholy intentions and when they did not hesitate to attribute their distortions to such a pious man, how can they be trusted and how can they be free from the suspicion of changing and distorting the texts of their ancestors.

We have had our own experience in recent years that Deacon Ghariel of Egypt, who was a Catholic, took great pains and spent a lot of money in correcting the translation of the commentary of Chrysostom from the original Greek copy. The Orthodox scholars, who were expert in the Greek and Arabic languages, compared it in Damascus and testified to its accuracy, and then a certified version was prepared. But Maximus did not allow its publication in Tyre.41

This copy was given to Bishop Alexis of Spain who made a thorough examination of the book. Both of them were totally ignorant of the original Greek version. In order to make it correspond with the teachings of the Pope they made many changes through additions and omissions using their own discretion. Having so spoilt the whole book they attested to it with their stamps and then it was allowed to be published. It was not until the publication of its first volume, when it was compared with the original manuscript which was in safe custody with the Orthodox, that their unholy act of manipulation was uncovered, with the result that they became the subject of common reproach. Ghariel was so appalled at this incident that he never recovered and died of shock.

Musaka further said:

We produce the unanimous witness of their elders from one of the Arabic books generally available there. This is a report which was unanimously passed in a meeting, along with all its various parts, by the priests of the Maronites, their patriarchs and scholars, with the permission of Monsignor Samani. This report bears the seal of the Church of Rome. It was printed in Tyre with the permission of the chiefs of the Catholics. Discussing the ritual of the offerings this report said that the old liturgies were still present in the churches, free from errors and faults, but they have been attributed to some saints and the pious men who were not the authors of these books, nor could they possibly have written them. Some of them were included by the copiers only to suit their unholy needs. It is more than enough for you to admit that your churches are full of fabricated and forged writings.

He further said:

We are fully aware that our enlightened generation would not dare to make alterations in the holy books, as they are fully wise to the fact that they are watched by the eyes of the protectors of the gospels. However we are not sure of the circumstances which prevailed from the fifth century to the seventh century AD, known as the dark ages, when the Popes and the priests enjoyed a barbarous kingdom of their own. Some of them did not even know how to write and read and the helpless Christians of the East were living a very distressed life, always anxious to save their souls. What happened in that period is best known to them alone. Whenever we come to know the history of that terrible age, and think of the conditions ruling over the Christian church, which had become a symbol of corruption, our grief and sorrow knows no limits.

Keeping in view the facts reproduced above, we leave the judgment to our readers to see the truth of our claim themselves.

1[1] This is also called Diatessaron of Tatian. According to G.T. Menley this was put together by combining the present four gospels, but it is not known if it was in the Greek or in the Syrian language.


2[2]‏ Chrysostom, being a great orator, was called the Golden Mouth. He was born in 347 AD and was later made bishop of Constantinop1e.


3[3]This was a Christian sect who were the followers of Basilius who was the bishop of Caesarea from 329 - 379 AD


The number of the canons passed by the council of Nicaea 42 was twenty. Subsequently many additions were made to them. The Catholics derive their arguments for the Popes authority from Canons No. 37 and 44. It is written on Page 68 and 69 of ’Les Treize Epitres’ of the second letter printed in 1849 AD:


The aforementioned council prescribed only twenty canons according to the witness of the history of Theodorus and the writings of Gelasius. The Fourth Ecumenical 1[1] council also affirmed that there were only twenty Canons prescribed by the Council of Nice.

Similarly many other false books were written which were attributed to several Popes like Calixtus, Sircius, Nectarius, Alexander and Marcellus.

The above book contains this statement on page 80:

Pope Leo and the majority of the Roman scholars have admitted that the books of these Popes are false and fictitious.

1[1]An ecumenical council. in Christian terminology, is a council inviting scholar from all parts of the world. Here the athor is referring to the council which was held Chaledon in 451 AD. This Council declared the Monophysites to be heretics. (Al Munajjid).



Mark, the follower and the translator of Peter, wrote the teachings of Peter after the death of Paul and Peter.

Lardner said in his commentary;

In my opinion Mark did not write his gospel before 63 or 64 AD. This period is also in accordance with the description of the ancient writer Irenacus, who said that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter and Paul. Basnage agreed with Irenaeus and said that Mark wrote his gospel in 66 AD after the death of Peter and Paul,

The witnesses of Basnage and Irenaeus are sufficient to prove that this gospel was written after the death of Peter and Paul, and that Peter certainly did not see the gospel of Mark, 1[1]

and the statement, often cited to prove that Peter saw it, is weak and unacceptable. It is why Se author of Murshid ut-Talibeen, in spite of all his religious preoccupations said on page 170 of his book printed in 1840:

He has falsely answered that the gospel of Mark was written under the guidance of Peter.

This claim of its being written in the life of Peter has therefore no grounds and hence, is rejected.

1[1]G. T. Menley said that in the Markine Preface of the gospel of Mark, which was written in 170, we are informed that Mark wrote his gospel in ltaly after the: death of Peter, and this seems to be correct. (Our Holy Books)



1. Firstly because the findings of the modem Protestant scholars are that Luke wrote his gospel in 63 AD in Achaias. It is established that Paul was released from prison in 63 AD. After that nothing is known about him up to his death but it is most probable that he went to Spain in the West and not towards the Churches of the East, and Achaias is one of the Eastern cities. Most possibly Luke had sent his gospel to Theophilus who was indeed the real cause of writing it. The author of Murshid-u-Talibeen wrote on page 161 of volume two, printed in 1840, discussing the history of Luke:

As Luke 1[1] did not write anything related to Paul after his release from prison, we know nothing about his travels from his release to his death.

Gardner said in his Commentaries printed 1728 vol. 5, p. 350:

Now we want to write about the life of the disciple, from his release to his death, but we are not helped by Luke in this regard. However we do find some traces in other books of the modem time. The ancient writers do not help. We find great dispute over the question of where Paul went after his release.

In the light of the above, the contention of some of modem scholars that he went to the Churches of the East after his release is not proved. He said in his epistle to the Romans 15:23,24:

But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you; for I trust to see you in my journey…

It is quite explicit from the above statement of their apostle that he had an intention to go to Spain, and at the same time we know that he never went to Spain before his imprisonment. It is therefore, quite logical that he might have gone to Spain after his release, because we do not see any reason for him to have abandoned his intention to travel to Spain. It appears in the Book of Acts 20:25:

And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

This statement also indicates that he had no intention to visit the Churches of the East. Clement, the Bishop of Rome, said in his letter:

Paul, in order to unveil the truth to the world, went to the end of the West and then reached the sacred p1ace (i.e. died).”

This too obviously implies that he went towards the West and not to the East before his death.

Lardner first reproduced the statement of Irenaeus as follows:

Luke, the servant of Paul, wrote in a book the tidings that Paul had preached in his sermon.

He further said:

The context of the description indicates that this (Luke's writing the gospel) happened after Mark had written his gospel, that is, after the death of Peter and Paul.

On the grounds of this statement it is physically impossible for Paul to have seen the gospel of Luke. Besides, even if we assume that Paul saw this gospel, it does not prove and thing because we do not consider him to have been inspired by God and a statement made by an uninspired person could not achieve the status of inspiration simply by the fact of Paul having seen it.

1[1]That is, in the Book of Acts, which is considered to be written by Luke.