Chapter VIII

DOUBTFUL ETHICS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

 In Mark we have:

“And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might’ find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.”    [Mark 11:12-14]

From this, it appears that:

(a)                Jesus who lived in a country where the fig tree was to be found in abundance did not know when figs were in season;

(b)                He was, it seems, so devoid of good manners that instead of being sorry for his own mistake, he proceeded to curse a lifeless tree, saying ‘No man eat fruit of thee hereafter’.

The Muslims do not believe Jesus is God. They regard him only as a Prophet of God. They cannot even believe that he could have said what is here attributed to him. One cannot but be amazed at those who regard him as the son of God, and as the best exemplar of morals, and who yet tolerate these descriptions which attribute unmannerly conduct to him. The Muslims never stop to think whether such things could ever be said by Jesus and whether they were not wrongly attributed to him by others.

Christian apologists today tend to explain away this passage. They suggest that the curse applies not to the fig tree but to the Jewish nation meaning that Jews hereafter would not be able to bring forth any fruit. The explanation is lame. Those who are conversant with ordinary literary forms cannot be impressed by such explanations. If the fig tree was to be used as a metaphor, was it necessary that Jesus should have walked up to one, at a time when he was suffering from hunger? According to the passage in Mark, Jesus saw the fig tree full of leaves, and he decided to go near it, hoping he would find some fruits. It was after he had seen it closely and found nothing but leaves (the time for figs had not yet come) that he cursed the tree. Jesus, in short, goes to the tree to satisfy his hunger. The tree has leaves on it and Jesus hopes to find some fruits. The narrator adds that the time of figs had not come yet. All this shows that this incident was not meant as a metaphor. The narrator makes it quite clear that Jesus went to the tree because he was hungry, and was hoping to find some fruit. But the time of fruit had not come yet. It is possible that this particular tree was late in yielding fruits, or that it suffered from some disease and failed to yield fruits. Jesus, however, became annoyed and cursed the tree.

If all this is correctly reported, have we not sufficient reason to ask whether those who curse inanimate objects like trees, rivers, mountains or stones be regarded as rational beings? Did the writer who attributed this to Jesus think that generations of readers, who would come after, would swallow this Scripture of a sane and decent person like Jesus. Christian devotees may be fooled by such a narrative, but the Muslims cannot attribute these things to Jesus not because he was in any way different from the other Prophets, but because we do not expect such things from even ordinary decent and well-behaved persons. 

In Matthew we have:

“Give not that which is Holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”    [Matthew 7:6]

What is here described as “Give” and as “Pearls” is really the revelation and Signs of God. “Dogs” and  “Swine” in the verse mean the people who had refused to believe in Jesus. There is no doubt that the Signs of God are Holier than the Holiest things. They are more precious than pearls. But there is no doubt either that things which are Holy and precious as pearls are meant just for those who have faith in Him. The Prophets do not bring faith only to those who already have it. This is apparent from history that Prophets have never appeared except in times of great disbelief. They have appeared only when the world is enwrapped in darkness, and their mission is to guide the world from darkness to light. Their message is addressed to those groping in the dark. It is for them that they come into the world. It does not seem possible that a beloved of God should describe as dogs and swine those whose only fault is that the light of faith has not yet dawned upon them. It is impossible that a prophet should say that the Signs of God should not be revealed to disbelievers for fear lest they trample them under their feet. If a prophet were to say such a thing, how will disbelievers ever come to believe? The attribution of such a saying to Jesus is cruel. It amounts to saying that the very people for whom he had come were described by him as dogs and swine and this for no fault of theirs, nor for any mischief which they had committed, but only because the truth had not yet become manifest to them. Contrast this with the example of the Holy Prophet of Islam as reported in the Qur’an:

“Maybe thou wilt kill thyself by over-exertion in the work because they believe not.”    [Qur’an 24:4]

The verse describes how anxious the Holy Prophet was to take his message to all disbelievers. If we contrast the Jesus of the Gospels with the Holy Prophet of Islam, we find a world of difference. One is prepared to work himself to death for the sake of those who will not believe; the other would turn away from them, calling them dogs and swine and ordering his disciples not to recite the signs of God to them.

 There is no doubt that the Holy Prophet of Islam [PBUH] transcends all the other Prophets in his moral example. But we cannot believe that Jesus was as devoid of good morals as the Gospels make him out to be. True, he had not reached the spiritual heights which the Holy Prophet of Islam had, nevertheless, he was a prophet of God and had been sent by Him to teach people morals and the ways of the spirit. His example must have distinguished him from millions of other human beings, but woe to the writer who attributes such unmannerly conduct to him.

In this connection, we cannot omit to mention the incident relating to the woman of Canaan mentioned in Matthew (15:21-26) and Mark (7:24-27). This woman approached Jesus in great humility. In accordance with the custom of her people, she fell at his feet and wanted only guidance from him. But Jesus, according to the Gospel writer said:

“It is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it unto the dogs”.    [Matthew 15:26]

This poor woman must have approached Jesus with great longing and expectation. And she went not to beg for bread or cloth or for any such material thing; all she wanted was spiritual guidance. She wanted from him just what Jesus had come to give. But the Gospel reports that Jesus sent this woman away and abused her to her face, called her a dog and dishonored her. Jesus, if the Gospel account is true, did not only dishonor this woman from Canaan but also dishonored the entire fair sex and proved by his own utterance that he had nothing to give to poor women. All his thoughts were concentrated on the well-being of the Jewish race. He would prefer to have his feet anointed by ‏ a sinning Jewish woman (Luke 7:36-38) rather than saying a word of comfort to a non-Jewish woman. If Christians accept this part of the Gospel narrative as true, they are quite welcome. But for our part, we cannot believe that his disciples could have said such a thing about him. We therefore regard these remarks as fabrications of later writers. And they were made at a time when the real Jesus had disappeared from the world and an imaginary Jesus was being manufactured by ignorant writers. In John we have the following:

“And the third day there was a marriage in Canaan of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him. They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.”     [John 2:1-4]

Similarly in Matthew we have:

“Then one said unto him. Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother and who are my brethren?”    [Matthew 12:47-48]

These passages from John and Matthew respectively show that Jesus did not have much regard even for his mother, a relationship which is held in the highest respect and esteem by all decent persons. Will an ordinary Christian today address his mother saying, ‘Woman what have I to do with thee”?  Will any Christian today dismiss his mother contemptuously and yet be counted as decent? Why then did the Gospel writers single out Jesus for such a ridiculous description? Respect for mothers is a common virtue even among primitive communities. It is an aspect of good manners which the worst of human beings display. But if the Gospel narrative is to be believed, this last teacher of Israel, this hero of the Mosaic tradition, who came to lead a people from darkness into light and to teach them good morals, was rude to his mother and behaved insolently towards her.

According to Christian belief, Jesus was the son of God. Why was he born in the lap of Mary? If he had accepted being born in Mary’s lap, and had subjected her to a mother’s travails for nine months, and sucked at her breast for two years, and had for years burdened her with the duty of his upbringing, could he not have repaid a mother’s debt by showing the courtesy and respect due to her?

The truth seems to be that these are only apologies. Christians do not hold Jesus in half the reverence in which they hold the fabricated Gospels. The fabricated Gospels are their own creation and Jesus was a creation of God. They are not prepared to adopt the straight course of admitting that the Gospel accounts are mistaken. They would rather have Jesus defamed than reject the Gospel accounts. But rational and decent human beings who have pondered over the life of Jesus and tried to grasp his purifying example cannot but admit that the Gospels as we find them today are full of fabrication and errors. They contain elements which do not promote, but which tend instead to destroy the spiritual cravings of man. With the Gospels in such a plight, it was necessary that God should have sent to the world a new revelation free from errors and capable of inculcating in man not only high morals but also a high spiritual outlook. That revelation is the Holy Qur’an.