the Bible as well as to the Qur'an, we find that it agrees with Surah V., Al Maidah, 52, where we are told that the Qur'an is a safeguard to the Bible. But in any case the statement that none can change the Word of God is general and not particular, and it applies quite as much therefore to the Bible as to the Qur'an, since in Surah II., Al Baqarah, 70 the Bible is called God's Word. This is the logical conclusion from the verses of the Qur'an which I have quoted, and all who are acquainted with logic must accept this argument. Hence, if the Qur'an’s statements are worthy of credence, it follows that the Bible, being God's Word, cannot have become corrupted. In this matter the Qur'an is in complete accord with the Bible (compare Isa. xl. 8; 1 Pet. i. 24; Matt. v. 18; Luke xvi. 17; Matt. xxiv. 35; Mark xiii. 31; Luke xxi. 33); and you Muslims, although doubting many parts of the Bible, hold that its teaching is to be accepted when it is in accord with the Qur'an.

12. M. Have you no better answer than this to give to the universal assertion of all Muslims that your Scriptures have been corrupted?

C. It is by no means correct to say that all Muslims hold that the Bible has been corrupted. Among ancient commentators Imam Muhammad Isma'il Bukhari, Imam Fakhru’ddin Razi (as well as Shah Waliu’llah), and others, were of opinion that it was not corrupted. In our own times in

India hardly any learned Muhammadan who has examined the evidence to the contrary asserts that it is so. But even if all Muhammadans did agree in asserting the corruption of the Bible, mere assertion is not proof, and we wait in vain for your proofs. Even a well-supported tradition (Hadith) is not deemed by learned Muslims worthy of acceptance if it is contrary to the Qur'an, and this assertion of the corruption of the Bible is contrary to it.

13. M. Apart from the Qur'an, which you do not accept, what evidence have you that the Bible has not been corrupted since Muhammad's time?

C. We have in abundance both the kinds of evidence which you Muslims consider admissible— both عقلي ('aqli, evidence from Reason) and نقلي (naqli, evidence based upon Testimony). I shall briefly mention a few proofs of each kind.

I. عقلي ('aqli). What possible object would either Jews or Christians have had in endeavouring to corrupt their own Scriptures? In Rev. xxii. 18, 19, a terrible penalty is denounced upon those who add to or take away anything from God's Book. The Jews also were commanded to avoid this sin (Deut. iv. 2; xii. 32; Prov. xxx. 5, 6). By corrupting their own Scriptures and still continuing to believe in them (if that were possible), or at least to hand them down to their descendants as God's Word, the People of the Book would be destroying both themselves and their children, and that too without any hope of gain. Moreover, long before