The Sonnite remarked: “Thou thyself agreest that Abu Hanífa was a follower of the Imám Jâfr, therefore he most likely practised what was conformable to the religion of the Imám Jâfr. We do not admit that your people are attached to the religion of the Imám; we rather believe that they are Magi; for when your ancestors were conquered and subjected, they, by necessity, joined the Islámian, but mixed the right faith with the creed of the Magi: as it appears from the worship called nóu róz, which is a custom of the Magi; according to whom they likewise perform divine worship three times a day. They think it right to turn the head in praying to the left, which is turning off from the Kiblah (of Mecca); they assert that the five prayers every day are improper, as they are not able to perform them exactly; they maintain, however, as requisite those at midday, before sunset, and in the evening on going to sleep. In the same manner, they took the matâh, or temporary matrimonial unions, from the Mazhdakian.”[51]
All the Shiâhs have founded their creed upon two rules: the first is the Bedas (Védas); these were promulgated with the view to surround us with power and magnificence, or with the modes of happiness, which brilliant prospects have not been realized; it was said that the lord of divine majesty dictated the Veda. The second rule is godliness; by which men are freed from all the propensities of nature. The Shiâhs are of this persuasion; and when they are asked about the manner of it, they say: By means of godliness we experience the non-reality of exterior things.
The Vedá treats of theology, and of what may appear contrary to divinity; it explains the will[52] which on the part of the perverse may be manifested contrary to the will of the (supreme) judge. The Véda moreover treats of practice: when an action tends towards one thing, and when, after or before its accomplishment, it turns towards something else.
The unbelievers, who are in opposition to the prophet assert, that he has adopted the morals of Amrál Kaîs[53] and mixed them with the Koran, that likewise he has frequently made use therein of the ideas of other poets, and even frequently gave place in it to the usages of paganism, with which he had been pleased. There are other controversies current. It will be best to attend to the following observation: What avail the doubts of the Shiâhs? They attack in their speeches the Vicars of the prophet; when the first party (the Sonnites) repress the answer to it upon their tongues, let the other party too refrain from dispute.
The arguments being carried to this point, the khalif of God dismissed the parties.
One day a Nazarene came to pay his submissive respects to the khalif of God, and challenged any of learned among the Muselmans to dispute with him. The proposal being accepted, the Nazarene began: “Do you believe in Aisa (Jesus)?” The Muselman answered: “Certainly; we acknowledge him as a prophet of God; our prophet bore testimony to the divine mission of Jesus.” The Nazarene continued: “This prophet (the Messiah) has announced that after him many will appear who will pretend to a prophetic office; yet ‘believe not in them, nor follow them, for they are liars; but remain you steadfast and firm in my faith, until I come again.’ There is no mention of your prophet in the Gospel.” The Muselman replied: “Mention of him was in the Pentateuch[54] and in the Gospel,[55] but your principal men obliterated it.” The Nazarene asked: “Do you possess that Gospel which is correct?” The Muselman avowed: “We do not.” Then the Nazarene resumed: “Hence your falsehood is evident; you deny the Gospel; for if you did not, you would preserve it, as we, who are Christians, preserve the Pentateuch, which is the book of Moses; but you keep neither the Pentateuch nor the Gospel, and if there had been mentioned in the Gospel any thing of your prophet, we would without doubt, according to the words of Jesus, adhere to it, because, in conformity with our faith, our desire is to obey the precepts of Jesus. But now, whence can we know that your prophet is true?” The Muselman said: “From his miracles, one of which is the dividing of the moon.”[56] The Nazarene observed upon this: “If the dividing of the moon has taken place, the inhabitants of the world must have seen it, and the recorders of extraordinary things in all countries, and the historians of all nations would have written it down with the pen of truth. Now none, except Muselmans, give any information of it.” There was an Hindú present; the Nazarene asked him: “In the Kali yug, which is the fourth of your ages, has the moon been once divided?” And he addressed the same question to the Persians and Turks there present; all said: “We have not seen any thing like it, in our historical accounts.” The Muselman remained confounded.
Another day, a Jew presented himself; the lord khalif of God placed the Nazarene in opposition to him for a religious discussion. The Jew began: “In the Pentateuch, there is no mention made of Jesus.” The Nazarene replied: “How not? Does not David say: ‘My hands and my feet fall off, and all my bones are counted.’ This is a prediction of the sufferings and of the crucifixion of Jesus.” The Jew remarked upon this: “Whatever David may have said of himself, and the All-Just have announced by his tongue, should all this be taken for a prediction of Jesus?” The Nazarene pursued: “But the conception of a virgin was predicted, and this virgin was Mary.” The Jew objected: “Amongst us, the virginity of Mary is not proved, as, according to your belief, before the birth of Jesus, she was married to Joseph the carpenter, and Jesus is said to be the son of Joseph the carpenter.” The Nazarene admitted: “This is true; but,” he added: “Joseph had never touched Mary.” The Jew opposed: “How is that proved?” And this was the question which the Jew repeated at every thing which the Nazarene brought forward, so that the latter was reduced to silence.
A learned philosopher came into the hall, where Hindus also were present, and three other learned men; a Muselman, a Nazarene, and a Jew: these were summoned, and ranged in opposition to the learned philosopher. The latter opened the discussion in this manner: “The divine mission of your prophets has not been proved, for several reasons: the first is, that whatever the prophet says ought to be conformable to reason; the second is, that he ought to be free from crime, and not hurtful to other beings. But Moses, according to the opinion of the Jews, was brought up by Pharâoh, and yet he caused him by a stratagem to be drowned in the waters of the Nile, and listened not to his repentance. What they say of the water of the Nile having opened a passage to Moses, is an error. Nor did he attend to the repentance of Kárún (Korah),[57] but, from covetousness of gold, he caused him to be swallowed up by the earth. Jesus permitted the killing and ill using of animals. And Muhammed himself attacked the forces and caravans of the Koreish; he shed blood, nay, with his own hand put to death animated beings. He besides exceeded all bounds in sexual connexions, and in taking the wives of other men; so that, on account of his gazing, a wife was separated from her husband,[58] and the like are notorious of him. With these perverse qualities, how then shall we recognise a prophet?” All concurred in declaring: “By miracles.” The philosopher asked: “What are the miracles of your prophets?” The Jew answered: “Thou must have heard of Moses’s wand, which became a serpent.” The doctor immediately took up his girdle, breathed upon it, and it became a great serpent, which hissed and turned towards the Jew; but the philosopher stretched out his hand, and took it back, saying: “Lo, the miracle of Moses!” whilst the Jew, from fear, had scarcely any life left in his body, and could not recover his breath again. Now the Christian said: “The Messiah was born without a father.” The doctor replied: “You yourselves say that Joseph, the carpenter, had taken Mary to wife; how can it be made out that Jesus was not the son of Joseph?” The Nazarene was reduced to silence. The Mahomedan took up the word, and said: “Our prophet brought forth the Korán, divided the moon, and ascended to heaven.” The philosopher observed upon this: “It is stated in your sacred book:
“‘And they say: We will by no means believe on thee, until thou cause a spring of water to gush forth for us out of the earth, or thou have a garden of palm trees and vines, and thou cause rivers to spring forth from the midst of this palm plantation; or that thou throw down upon the earth the heaven torn in pieces; or that thou bring down God Almighty and the angels to vouch for thee; or thou have a house of gold; or thou ascend by a ladder to heaven: neither will we believe thy ascending, until thou cause a book to descend unto us which we may read. The answer is in this way: Say, O Muhammed, pure is God the nourisher, I am but a man-prophet.’[59]
“From this an equitable judge can conclude, he who could not cause a spring of running water to come forth, how could he have shown the miracles which are related of him? when he had not the power of tearing the heaven in pieces, in what manner could he divide the moon? when he was unable to show the angels, how could he see Jabrííl with his own eyes? and his companions too did not behold him in the shape of an Arab; when he was unable, in the presence of unbelievers, to go to heaven with his body, how did he perform the bodily ascension (ascribed to him in the Koran)? As he brought thence no writing, in what way came the Koran down from heaven?”