The expressions used in these verses of the Holy Bible, such as (son of God), (sons, or children, of God) are metaphors, and Allâhu ta’âlâ cannot be called (Father) by giving these expressions their literal meanings. Christians also interpret the word (Son) in these verses as (beloved born slave of God) and do not attribute divinity to any of the people mentioned in them. So far, all Christians accept the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ is the only Ruler. Yet when it comes to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, they swerve from the right way.]
Misunderstandings have taken place not only concerning the word (Father), but also in the word (Son). As a matter of fact, the Gospel of Luke, while mentioning the genealogy, fathers of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ (may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from believing or saying so) in the twenty-third and later verses of its third chapter, states that he was the son of Joseph, and lists the fathers of Joseph, finally saying, “... the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” (Luke: 3-23 to 38) Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ is not the son of Allâhu ta’âlâ in the actual sense of the word. Luke attributes Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ to Allâhu ta’âlâ because he was created without parents and Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ to Joseph the carpenter because he was born only without father. [Christians accept Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as a god because God’s spirit was breathed into him. Nevertheless, they attribute Joseph the carpenter as a father to him. Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was born without a father. On the other hand, Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ was created without any parents at all. Accordingly, they ought to accept Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ as a god greater than Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. No Christian has ever said ‘god’ about Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’.]
The word (Son) exists in the Old Testament section of the Holy Bible, too. For instance, it is written as follows in the twenty-second verse of the fourth chapter of Exodus: “And thou shalt say unto pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:” (Ex: 4-22)
It is written as follows in the ninth verse of the thirty-first chapter of the Book of Jeremiah: “... for I am a father to Israel, and E’phra-im is my firstborn.” (Jer: 31-9) [If the word ‘son’ entailed godhood, Isrâil and Efrâyim would have become a god each a very long time before Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Furthermore, they have been attributed the appellation of ‘the first son’, which means that they should have attained divinity long before another son who came later.]
The fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter of Samuel II states as follows about Suleymân (Solomon) ‘alaihis-salâm’: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son. ...” (2 Sam: 7-14)
The first verse of the fourteenth chapter of Deuteronomy states: “You are the children of the LORD, your God: ...” (Deut: 14-1) The nineteenth verse of the thirty-second chapter reads: “And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters.” (ibid: 32-19) The second verse of the first chapter of the Book of Isaiah states: “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.” (Is: 1-2) The first verse of the thirtieth chapter reads: “Woe to the rebellious children, ...” (ibid: 30-1) The eighth verse of the sixty-fourth chapter reads: “But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. (ibid: 64-8) The tenth verse of the first chapter of Hosea reads: “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” (Hos: 1-10)
Here, [and at many other places we have not mentioned, all the Israelites, and also many other people, are called (sons of God). If the expression (son of God) actually meant, (son of God), that is, if it were not a metaphor, the Israelites and] the Israelite Prophets, such as Isrâîl [Ya’qûb], Efrâyim, Suleymân, and others ‘alaihimus-salâm’, and Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ should have been gods. But Jewry, being fully cognizant of their native language, Hebrew, understood very well that such expressions as (son of God), (the first son), (sons) and (daughters) were metaphorically used, and thus they did not fall into error [by divinizing these Prophets]. After the Hawârîs (Apostles), however, copies of the Bible and preachings and admonitions of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, in pages here and there, were obtained by this person and that haphazardly, and were translated into other languages. And the translators, in their turn, being ignorant and unaware of the subtleties and the stylistic registers in the Hebrew language, translated whatever they saw, word for word without understanding (the message). Those who saw these translations afterwards did not dare to use the words in the translations in connotations other than their literal meanings. All these eventuated in void arguments, wrong, absurd theories, entirely unreasonable, implausible and bizarre doctrines.
Some hundred years after Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ there appeared a different creed, a different sect with a different Gospel in every country. While rewriting the codices of the Bible, fanatics affiliated with each sect, with a view to propagating their own sect and disproving other sects, inserted some words suitable with their purposes. So many copies of the Bible, and so many resultant controversies among Christians, appeared that in the Nicene Council alone fifty different copies of the Bible that were being read by Christians were rescinded. Hence, none of the four Gospels have the documentary capacity. Yet, as the Christian faith is based on these four Gospels, we, too, base our argument on their testimony in order to convince Christians.
The Taurah, the part of the Bible called Old Testament, contains no document to testify to the Christian doctrine of trinity. [This fact is also avowed by some priests we have met.] Their strongest proof, the Gospel of John, which is the most dubious and complicated of the Gospels, consists of a few ambiguous statements in the details contained in the other Gospels. For instance:
They deduce divinity from the twenty-third verse of the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John, where Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ states: “... ye are of this world. I am not of this world.” (John: 8-23) They give such explanations as, “He descended from heaven and changed into a body,” for their attributing godhood to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. The meaning of this verse is: “You are busy with worldly connections. I am not.” This statement cannot be interpreted as divinity. Besides, the Gospels contain verses contradicting this verse.
The nineteenth verse of the fifteenth chapter of the Gospel of John states: “... ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.” (ibid: 15-19) The sixteenth and eighteenth verses of the seventeenth chapter state: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (ibid: 17-16) “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.” (ibid: 17-18) These statements contradict the verse, “I am not of this world,” in the eighth chapter of John (verse: 23).
In these verses, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ holds himself and his disciples equal. And the statement, “You are of this world,” means, “You aspire after this world.” Such figures of speech and idioms are used in every language. (In fact, the English language teems with similes, metaphors, synecdoches, metonymies, allegories, symbolisms, hyperboles, litotes, ironies, innuendos, rhetorical questions, etc.) The Arabic language, on the other hand, has the expressions (Ibn-ul-waqt), (Eb-ul-waqt), (ebnâ-i-zamân), and (ebnâ-i-sebîl), which mean, respectively, (son of the time), (father of the time), (sons of the time), and (sons of the way). [Time or way cannot have a son. These are all symbolic expressions.]
Another evidence which Christians put forward in their endeavour to validate trinity is the thirtieth verse of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John. This verse quotes Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as having said, “I and my Father are one.” (John: 10-30) This statement cannot be interpreted as divinity or identity, either. For, supposing that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ really made this statement, he was a human being with a (self) when he said it, so it is impossible for him to have united with God. [Christians, who indicate this verse as an evidence to prove the divinity of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ ought to read on to see what comes after the verse. It is written as follows in the thirtieth and later verses: “I and my Father are one.” “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.” “Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?” “The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;” “Say ye unto him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.” “But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” “Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand.” (ibid: 10-30 to 39) People who saw Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ himself did not say be was a god. On the contrary, they attempted to kill him on account of this figurative word. Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, whom Christians accept as a creative god who always has existed and will exist eternally, flees from the Jews. What kind of a god is he who runs away from his creatures?
Another point here is the thirty-fourth verse, “I said, Ye are gods,” which Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ quoted in order to prove his statement, “I and Father are one.” It is written in a footnote of the copy of the Bible we have that this verse is the sixth verse of the eighty-second chapter of the Zebûr (Psalms) in the Old Testament. The final part of this verse reads as follows: “... and all of you are the children of the most High.” (Ps: 82-6) According to the facade meaning of this verse and the statement made by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, in addition to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, people who are addressed as, “You are gods”, become gods. We wonder if any Christian has ever accepted them as gods. Christians, who have posed the statement, “I and Father are one,” of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as a testimony for his divinity, reject the gods who are declared in the continuation of the discourse, thus becoming sinners and rebels by disagreeing with Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, whom they recognize as a god. Will a god lie? If you ask Christians why they do not accept that part, they will say, “Well, that statement is figurative. The statement, ‘You are gods,’ cannot be taken in its literal sense.” If you ask, “Isn’t the statement, ‘I and Father are one’, of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ figurative?”, they will answer, “Jesus the Lord is divine. This is the basic doctrine of Christianity.”] Another explanation which Christians make of these statements in the Gospel of John is that “Jesus Christ is not only a perfect human being but also a perfect god.” Yet, since the human properties cannot be separated from man, actual unity of man and god is out of the question. Moreover, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ uses this expression not only for himself, but also for the Hawârîs (Apostles).
Here are some verses from the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel of John: “... as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: ...” (John: 17-21) “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (22) “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” (23) The expression ‘being perfect in one’ in these verses means ‘stringent obedience to religious commandments and doing pious deeds,’ in which case nothing pertaining to divinity will even occur to one’s mind.
Another document which Christians have recourse to as an evidence for trinity is the following episode narrated in the eighth and later verses of the fourteenth chapter of the Gospel of John: “Philip saith unto him, Lord shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (John: 14-8, 9)
This argument is false from two different points of view:
Firstly: It is a fact admitted by Christians as well that it is impossible to see Allâhu ta’âlâ in the world. In fact, this ma’rifat (of seeing) is interpreted as ‘knowing’ in the introduction of the book Iz-hâr-ul-haqq. Knowing the Messiah does not mean knowing physically. Hence Christians deduce that it is knowing the Messiah as regards divinity and unification. This deduction is mandatory according to Christians who believe in trinity. Yet this deduction is wrong, too. For deduction should not be contrary to logical proofs and authentic narratives. This deduction is contrary to logical proofs. For, as we have mentioned earlier, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ holds the Hawârîs equal to himself.
As it is known by historians, the doctrine of three hypostases, or trinity, is not something new; it is a credo adopted from polytheistic cults. As the number of gods increased so as to attract the attention of the nescient populace and stir up feelings of alertness in them, notables of a polytheistic community would arrange the gods in order of superiority, appointing some of them as chiefs and others as their inferiors. They decided to keep the investigation of this arrangement as a secret among themselves. Zerdusht (Zoroaster or Zarathustra), [the founder of magi, the basic religious system of ancient Persia], chose two of their idols, Yezdân (Ormuzd or (Ahura Mazda) and Ehremen (Ahriman), as two hypostases, and established an unprecedented system of belief which was based on a curious conflict between Yezdân the god of light and good and Ahriman the god, or spirit, of darkness and evil.[56]
Maz-hâr Jân-i-Jânân,[57] a great Indian savant, states in his fourteenth letter: “Brahminism was a heavenly religion. It was degenerated afterwards.” The expression ‘three hypostases’ was first heard from these people (Brahmins).
[It would be more correct to call it a philosophy, or a doctrine, instead of a religion. It is understood that it was founded by the mutilation of a heavenly religion seven hundred years before Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. The agent of this mutilation is Brahma. (In Sanskrit) Brahma means holy word. This expression has been used for Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in Christianity. When Christians are questioned about the divinity of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, their first evidence to prove it is some verses in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, which are, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” [John: 1-1], and “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father,) full of grace and truth.” [ibid: 1-14] An exact analogue of Brahminism.] Likewise, members of the Brahministic caste believe in a deity who became a reality in the name of (Brahma). According to their doctrine, a most perfect, ever silent god is the real essence of all. Yet this god does his work through two other gods: Vishnu and Siva (or Shiva). They say that they are one god manifesting in a triad.
According to Brahmins, (Brahma) is the creator of all and the world. He does all the work of creating, and his symbol is the sun. Vishnu is reason. He is a god protecting all. He rules over the time lived in. His symbol is water. And Siva is the god of life and death. He rules over the time lived in and future. Justice and vengeance are his responsibility. His symbol is fire. [Brahmins believe that their god Vishnu lives in heaven. The other gods tell Vishnu that some demons have appeared on the earth and deranged the quietude and order of the earth, and therefore he must be born incarnate on the earth for the chastisement of those demons. Vishnu accepts this suggestion and incarnates as Krishna, the warrior, being born from a virgin of a warrior family in order to purge the earth of evils and demons. The virgin has dreamt of this event beforehand. Krishna learns all knowledge in sixty-four days. He works as a shepherd. He travels far and wide. He displays wonders in places where he travels. Upon seeing this, Brahmins accept him as a deity that has descended to earth in a human figure. Many other myths are told about Krishna by the votaries of Brahma.
Likewise, Buddhists accept Buddha as a deity. According to Buddhists, Buddha lived in heaven before descending to earth. He looked for a place to appear on earth and eventually decided to be born as a member of the Sudhodana family. (The myth is as follows:) His mother, fasting as she is, falls asleep on the roof of the palace, and has a dream. In her dream a white elephant emitting haloes all around itself descends from heaven and, to her astonishment, enters her womb from her right flank. Many symptoms are seen towards Buddha’s birth. His mother leaves her town and delivers her divine son under a tree. Buddhism teems with things which reason or logic could never accept. Brahminism, Buddhism, and the Christian credo, trinity, are analogous, similarities between them, such as a god’s entering a virgin and being born from her and people’s accepting him as a deity. Here are some of them.
1 — According to Christians, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ died, and resurrected three days after death. Krishna, too, resurrected after death, and ascended to heaven.
2 — Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ resurrected from his grave, and Buddha from his coffin.
3 — Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ said beforehand that he would be killed, saved the souls in dungeons, that is in Hell, and after resurrecting from his grave sat on the right hand side of God. And Buddha said he would withdraw from the world and go to nirvana.
4 — When Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ went up to heaven, he took over and began to control all the matters of the universe. Likewise, Buddha established the sultanate of heavens and began to dominate over the universe.
5 — The Gospels unanimously enumerate the fathers of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ up to Dâwûd (David) ‘alaihis-salâm’, whom they call the first Melik (King, Ruler). Likewise, Buddha’s genealogy is said to begin with Makavamat the first Ruler.
Trinity and metempsychosis, i.e. belief in the transmigration of a dead person’s soul into a new body, existed not only in Indian religions, but also in the ancient Egyptian religions. The best known of the Egyptian deities is (Amonra). His symbol is the sun. He was believed to have created this world with his will and speech. (Osiris), his assistant, is their second deity. Osiris came down to earth, underwent various afflictions, and was killed. He resurrected and ascended to heaven with the help of (Isis), their third deity. Thus Osiris became the god of the dead. Also, in ancient Egypt, kings, or Pharaohs, were believed to be the sons of Amonra (the sun).
Ancient Egyptians believed that when a person died he was called to account by Osiris.]
The inventor of the doctrine of three hypostases in the west is the philosopher Time (Timaios), who lived in the city of Lokres some five hundred years before the Christian Era. He was one of the pupils of Pythagoras. He learned this doctrine of three hypostases [beings, bases]. [Pythagoras was born on the Island of Samos in 580 B.C. It is narrated that he died in Metaponte in 500 B.C. There are differing narratives as to the dates of his birth and death. He came to the Kroton city of Italy when he was young yet. Thence he travelled to various places, having long stays in Egypt and the Middle East. During his stay in Egypt he acquired extensive knowledge about the ancient Egyptian religions and cults. Learning the belief in three gods and metempsychosis from the Egyptians, he accepted them. Another thing he learned in Egypt was Hendese (geometry). The theorem known as Pythagoras’ proposition (theorem) today was known pragmatically in Egypt in those days. They (such pieces of information as this theorem) had come to Egypt from Babylon, which was at that time very advanced in ’ilm-i-nujûm (astronomy), mathematics and astrology. And Babyloneans, in their turn, had been taught these branches of knowledge by the great Prophet Idris[58] ‘alaihis-salâm’. Pythagoras went to Babylon and learned them well. On his returning to the city of Kroton he opened a school, and established a new way, or a new sect, named after him. His votaries have fabled many myths about him and claimed that he was a prophet, and some of them have professed his deity.
Pythagoras said that the essence of being was numbers (arche). He accepted numbers up to ten as sacred. He accepted the numbers of one, two and three as the three essences. Pythagoreans claim that the number one is the unchangeable and eternal source of the universe and therefore the first hypostasis, the number two is feminine and all the world has come into existence through her and she is the second hypostasis, and the number three is the third hypostasis representing the eternal triad in the universe. They assert that these three hypostases are the essence of the world and of the universe. They interpret the essence of universe as (body, life and soul). They say that the universe consists of three worlds, namely (the natural, the human, and the divine worlds). According to the Pythagoreans, as everything is made up of three, creation originates from this triad, which is made up of the creative will, the current of stars, and the ever improving universe. There is detailed information in the book (La Pensee Grecque) by Gomperz about Pythagoras’ numbers and other philosophical views. According to Pythagoras, the first hypostasis, i.e. God, who is able to do whatever He wishes, cannot be comprehended mentally. The Pythagoreans, who believe that soul is eternal [immortal] and that a dying person’s soul may transmigrate into an animal, do not eat meat. Time, an outstanding disciple of Pythagoras’, followed his master’s way.]
Time states in his book Rûh-ul-âlam (Essence of the Universe): “First of all, creatures have a fikr-i-mithâl-i-dâimî (the eternal ideal pattern), which is the first word, the first hypostasis, which is spiritual, not substantial, and therefore, cannot be comprehended by mind. The second grade is the madde-i-ghayr-i-muntazima, which is the second word pronounced, the second hypostasis. The third grade is the world of son, or meaning, which is the third hypostasis. All the universe consists in these three classes. The son wanted to make a beautiful god, and made a god which was a creature.” These statements, complicated and incomprehensible as they were, reached Plato. [There is a narrative stating that Time was one of Plato’s teachers. For Plato says that his great master Socrates and Time had been together in a gathering. Time had three works, namely (Mathematics), (Life of Pythagoras), and (Essence of the Universe). Two of them were lost. His book (Essence of the Universe), the one which was not lost, should have busied philosophers very much. For there is not much difference between the idea derived from the first six chapters of this book and the idea in Plato’s speech on Time (Timeios).]
Plato modified this idea coming from Time. Plato proposed existence of three gods. He said:
The first one is Father. He is the highest one and the creator; he is the father of the other two gods. He is the first hypostasis.
The second one is the primordial, visible god, who is the representative of Father, who is invisible. It is named (Logos), which means word, reason, (account).
The third one is the Universe.
According to Plato, the essence of beings is meanings [ideas]. [The word idea, which Plato refers to, means entity, conception, archetype. In Platonic philosophy it means the unchanging, eternally existing pattern of which all classes of beings are imperfect copies. Plato divides the universe into two worlds. The first one is the perceptible world of senses. The other one is the real world, that is, the world of ideas. While the real world, or the world of ideas, is eternal, the world of senses continuously changes.] The existence of ideas is not dependent upon our mind or imagination, but they exist in an immaterial life peculiar to them. Plato refers each reality or idea to higher realities. Thus all realities and ideas are referred to the absolute (ONE). This ONE, which is (goodness) consisting of many high realities, is God himself. Other high ideas or realities are in His command. Lower ideas are (evils) and are the devil himself. Other low, evil ideas are in His command.
[Plato said that what he accepted as (ONE), who comprised ideas in Himself and whom he called ‘goodness’ and believed to be identical with God, was the (Father god), who had motion and life and who was the father of the universe. This is the first hypostasis. Father god, that is, the unity of ideas, created a spirit, which gave matter its systematic order and which was quite different from matter. This is the son of Father. This spirit is a being which intermediates between the creator and the creature, and is the second hypostasis.
Plato, as well as all the other ancient Greek philosophers like Pythagoras and Time learned their views and observations about the spirit which they called ‘the second hypostasis’ by reading the books of (the Prophets) Âdam and Shiet (or Shis) ‘alaihimus-salâm’, or from religious scholars who had read and knew those books, and attempted to explain them with their insufficient knowledge and short range mentalities, thus distorting them. Plato states in his Menon speech that the soul is immortal, that it has come to earth various times, and that it has seen everything in this perceptible (world) and in the imperceptible (hereafter). In his Phaidros speech he divides the soul into three parts: The first is mind, which has been inclined towards ideas. The second and the third are the parts pertaining to aspirations and sensations. One of them follows the mind and leads to goodness, i.e. to God, and the other leads to evil corporeal desires.] Carcass, or body, is a dungeon wherein soul has been hurled after a preliminary sojourn in the incorporeal world of ideas. [Thus mankind, composed of soul and body, came into existence.] The goal of ethics is to free the soul from the shackles tethering it to the dungeon of body, Seframk says that the way to happiness is in attaining virtue and perfection. Plato says, “Perfection of happiness fully exists in virtue. Virtue and perfection are the health, salvation and balance of soul. For attaining happiness, it will be enough to endeavour only for attaining virtue without thinking of worldly advantages or aspiring for the rewards in the hereafter.
According to the philosophy of (Rawâqiyyûn), “Goodness alone is virtue, and evil alone is sinful. Health, illness, wealth, poverty, and even life and death are neither good nor bad. It is up to man to make them good or bad. Man has to believe in the preordination of Allâhu ta’âlâ, that is, in destiny, and commit his will to the will of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Humanity is like a flock (of sheep). Their shepherd is the common reason, or (Logos), which is the creative power of nature. All men are brothers. Their common father is (Zoz), or (God). Zoz is the soul of all universe. He is eternal, one. Other gods are his component parts. [Philosophy founded by Zeno and followed by some Greek philosophers is called Rawâqiyyûn (Stoicism).]
Followers of the philosophy of (Ishrâqiyyûn) inculcate peace and mercy; so much so that the pleasure that a person takes in doing good to someone else is more than the pleasure felt when one is done good to, they say. [This philosophy is called (Illuminism), which is an extension of the way followed by Pythagoreans and Platonists. The founder of neo-Platonism is Plotin, who adopted Plato’s theory of ideas.] The statement, “The flavour in giving is more than the flavour in taking”, which the existing copies of the Bible attribute to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, is identical with the main principle of the philosophy of Ishrâqiyyûn. [This means to say that stoicists and illuminists present the pieces of information they acquired from religious books and religious scholars in a manner as if they were their own views and findings. The great Islamic savant Imâm-i-Muhammad Ghazâlî ‘rahmat-ullâhi ’aleyh’[59] expounds this fact in detail in his books (Al-munqizu min-ad-dalâl) and (Tahâfut-ul-falâsifa).
The philosophical school founded by Plato li