Kitāb al-Anwār wa'l-Marāqib: Discourse V · Ch. 25: The twenty-fifth chapter regarding “is it permitted to desecrate the sabbath to save lives or not?”

فمما يفسد قولهم أنا قد بينا في المقدمات التي جعلناها أصولا لمعرفة الفرائض ان من رأى من يقتل ظلما وكان يتهيأ له خلاصه فلم يخلصه فكأنه هو قتله ودللنا على ذلك بدلائل منها قوله لאחאב (מלכים ב כא:יט) הרצחת וגם ירשת وقوله (משלי כד:יא) הצל לקוחים למות وغير ذلك وأوكد من ذلك كله قوله (יחזקאל לג:ו) והצופה כי יראה את החרב באה ולא תקע בשופר והעם לא נזהר ותבוא חרב ותקח מהם נפש הוא בעונו נלקח ודמו מיד הצופה אדרש نظير قوله (בראשית ט:ה) ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרש فأخبر انه مات بذنبه وانه يطالب الدربان بدمه لانه لم ينذره ويحذر وهذا في غاية التأكيد في الدلالة على ما قلنا لانه اذا كان من لم يحذر من القتل كان مطالبا بالدم كان من تهيأ له ان يخلص فلم يخلص أولى ان يكون مطالبا ولا خلف في انه حرام على الإنسان ان يقتل نفسه وسنبين ذلك ايضا بالبرهان فيما يستأنف فمن بذل نفسه للتلف فقد أتلفها فبذل الإنسان نفسه للقتل حرام ومتى فعل ذلك كان سبيله سبيل من قتل واذا كان ذلك كذلك كان استبقاؤه لنفسه ومنعه من تعريضها للتلف أوجب من كل واجب وأثقل من كل ثقيل فوجب من ذلك ان العمل في السبت لاستبقاء النفوس ولئلا تبذل للتلف أوجب من إقامة السبت اذ كان مع ذلك قتل النفوس.

Amongst what disproves their view we already explained in our introductions regarding what is foundational for knowledge of the commandments that one who sees someone kill wrongly, and it is possible for him to save him and he does not save him, it is as if he killed him. And we proved this with various proofs including the verse to Ahav (1 Kings 21:19) “And thou shalt speak unto him, saying: Thus saith the LORD: Hast thou killed, and also taken possessions? and thou shalt speak unto him, saying: Thus saith the LORD: In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine.'” And His verse (Proverbs 24:11) “Deliver them that are drawn unto death; and those that are ready to be slain wilt thou forbear to rescue?” etc... And we emphasized more than any of this His verse (Ezekiel 33:6) “But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the horn, and the people be not warned, and the sword do come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand” parallel to His verse (Genesis 9:5) “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man” and it says that he died by his sin, and that he requires his blood in two ways since he did not warm or alert them. And this is the most emphatic of the proofs for what we said, since if one who was not warned regarding murder is liable with his blood, one who it is possible to save someone and does not save him, is even more deserving of being liable. And nobody disagrees that it is forbidden for a person to kill themselves and we will explicate this with proofs subsequently. And one who allows himself to be killed, it is as if he kills himself. And it is forbidden to allow oneself to be killed, and when this is done his ruling is as one who killed. And if this is the case, saving a life and preventing one from facing danger is the most obligatory of the obligations and more stringent than any of them. And it is obligated to do work to save life on the Sabbath and not to allow killing to occur, which is more obligatory than fulfilling the Sabbath when that would cause killing to occur.

ووجه آخر وهو ان الإنسان قد يجوز له قتل من يطلب قتله اذ يقول (שמות כב:א) אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב והוכה ומת אין לו דמים فانما جاز للذي أصاب اللص في النقبة أن يقتله لأنه لم يكن يأمنه على نفسه لان سائر القصة يدل على ذلك ومثل ذلك قوله في יואב (מלכים א ב:ה) וישם דמי מלחמה בשלום وذلك ان אבנר قتل עשהאל لانه طلب نفسه فلما قتله יואב بأخيه وجب عليه القتل اذ كان قتل من لم يجب عليه القتل فدل ذلك على ان من طلب نفس رجل جاز للمطلوب ان نقتل طالبه اخلاص نفسه فثبت من ذلك ان استبقاء الإنسان لنفسه وتخليصه لها فوق كل فرض وأوجب من كل واجب اذ كان قد يجوز له ان يقتل غيره لاستبقاء نفسه واذا كان ذلك كذلك كان استبقاؤه لها بإحلال السبت أولى ولذلك ايضا دلائل أخر سنذكرها في القول على(שמות כ:יג) לא תרצח.

And another perspective is that a person is permitted to kill one who is trying to kill him, since it says (Exodus 22:1) “If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him” and it is permitted for one who runs into a thief in his home to kill him since he is not able to protect himself since the rest of the story proves this. And like this is the verse on Yoav (1 Kings 2:5) “Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did unto me, even what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet” and this is because Avner killed Asael since he tried to kill him, and when Yoav killed him on his brother’s behalf, he is culpable for killing since he killed one who was not obligated to be killed. And this proves that one who seeks to kill a person, the one being sought is permitted to kill the seeker in order to save himself. And from this it is established that preserving one’s own life is above all the commandments and is the most obligatory of the obligations since it is permitted for him to kill another in order to preserve his own life. And if this is the case, preserving his life by means of desecrating the Sabbath is preferable, and there are many other proofs for this that we mention in our teaching of (Exodus 20:12) “Thou shalt not murder.”

واما بنيامين فزعم ان داود عليه السلام هرب في يوم السبت لقوله (שמואל א כא:ז) לשום לחם חם ביום הלקחו وذلك اليوم هو يوم السبت لقوله (ויקרא כד:ח) ביום השבת ביום השבת יערכנו לפני ה' תמיד لانه لا يكون حارا الا في وقته وفي ذلك اليوم هرب لقوله (שמואל א כא:יא) ויקם דוד ויברח ביום ההוא מפני שאול وقد غلط في ذلك غلطا بينا لان الكتاب قال (שם שם:ז) כי לא היה שם לחם כי אם לחם הפנים המוסרים [מלפני ה'] وتمامه فأخبر انه لم يكن هناك خبز غير ذلك الخبز وقوله بعقب ذلك לשום לחם חם ביום הלקחו ليس ذلك إخبارا بأنه في ذلك اليوم آخذ وجعل بدله وانما هو إخبار بما من شأنه أن يفعل به اذا أخذ وانه في وقت يؤخذ يجعل بدله خبز حار وقد يجوز ان يبقى بعد ان يؤخذ من فوق المائدة يومين وثلثة والى آخر الأسبوع.

And the Rabbanites and Anan and Binyamin already agreed that Joshua, peace be upon him, surrounded the walls of Jericho on the Sabbath day, and in our view the matter is not like their view, and we will explain this subsequently. However regarding the Rabbanites, we already said that they argue that they violate the Sabbath to keep a child alive, and do not violate the Sabbath for the sake of David, King of Israel, because the child will keep many Sabbaths. Oh, glorious God, how clearly erroneous is this teaching, and how blind is the heart of who said it, since it is possible that the child will die one day later and not fulfill a single Sabbath, while David and the rest of the people and the elders may live many years and thus fulfill hundreds of Sabbaths. Just as they additionally contradict themselves with this teaching in other places, such as they argue in some of their teachings that if enemies head towards the houses of Israel to take from them straw, it is permitted to fight them on the Sabbath to prevent them from this. And from [their erroneous teachings is] their permitting to heal a person from illness and sickness in any way except for three things which are idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality, and from [their erroneous teachings is] their teaching that Joshua fought on the Sabbath.

ومما يبطل قول بنيامين ايضا ان ذلك كان يوم السبت أن ذلك لو كان لأنكره אחימלך ولم نره أنكره ولا أعلمه داود عليه السلام ايضا انه هارب ولا ان שאול يطلب نفسه فيعذره فيه بل انما أوهمه انه مار في حاجة لשאול لقوله (שמואל א כא:ג) המלך צוני דברوسائر القصة وأعجب من هذا قوله انه حمل سلاحا في يوم السبت يعني (שם שם:י) חרב גלית فإن كان هرب في يوم السبت من مخافة القتل فحمله للسلاح لماذا كان فان كان ذلك لانه يأمن أن يلقاه عدو في طريقه فكل من كان في أمر لا يأمن فيه عدوا فجائز له إحلال السبت وهذا ايضا باطل لان إحلال السبت انما يجوز فيما لا يشك انه إن لم يحلها كان هالكا لا محالة على الأمر الأعغلب ولو كان هذا ايضا على ما قال لقد كان אחימלך ينكره غاية الإنكار كيف وهو دفع ذلك اليه فهب داود عليه السلام استجاز أخذ ذلك وحمله للخوف من أين جاز لאחימלך دفعه اليه اذ يقول (שם שם) אין כמוה תננה לי وهذا ايضا مما يبطل أن ذلك كان يوم السبت وانما كان يوم الجمعة على ما بينا.

However, Binyamin argued that David, peace upon him, ran away on the Sabbath according to the verse (1 Samuel 21:7) “So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away” and that day was the Sabbath according to the verse (Leviticus 24:8) “Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before the LORD continually; it is from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant” since the bread is not hot except in its time and that is the time he ran away according to the verse (1 Samuel 21:11) “And David arose, and fled that day for fear of Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath.” And he made a clear error in this, since Scripture said (1 Samuel 21:7) “So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away” and taught that there was no bread other than that bread. And subsequently his words “to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away” does not teach that it was taken that day and replaced with new bread, but rather teaches us what is his responsibility to do if the bread is taken, and that when it is taken he puts a replacement of hot bread, and it is permitted that the bread after it is taken to remain on top of the table for two or three days until the end of the week.

واما قول الجميع ان יהושע كان يدور بسور יריחו في يوم السبت لقول الكتاب (יהושע ו:ג) וסבתם את העיר وقوله (שם שם) כה תעשה ששת ימים وقوله (שם שם) וביום השביעי תסבו את העיר שבע פעמיםفانه ايضا باطل من حيث لم تكن ضرورة يوجب ذلك ولا جاءهم العدو ليحاربهم فكان يجوز لهم محاربته لخلاص أنفسهم وانما كان القوم داخل القرية والأبواب مغلقة عليهم ليس أحد يدخل ولا يخرج لقوله (שם א) ויריחו סגרת ומסגרת وتمامه وانما يجوز العمل في السبت لخلاص الأنفس اذا كان مما قد وقع التخوف منه فاما إن وقع منا ابتداء بغير سبب يوجبه فان ذلك محال فإن ادعى مدع منهم انهم فعلوا ذلك لانهم لم يكونوا يأمنوا انهم إن قعدوا وعلموا الأعداء انهم مسبتون انهم يخرجون اليهم فيجتاحونهم قلنا قد كان يجب ان لا يبتدئون بل يقعدون متشوفين متوقعين فان أحسوا منهم بشيء نهضوا اليهم بالسلاح لان أولائك انما كانوا شرذمة سيرة وأهل قرية وهولاء كانوا خلقه عظيما لا يحصون.

And what additionally nullifies Binyamin’s argument that it was the Sabbath day, if such were the case, Ahimelekh would have disapproved of this and we do not see his disapproval. And David, peace upon him, also did not inform him that he was running away and that Saul was seeking his life such that he forgive him, but rather tricked him to believe that he was passing by on behalf of Saul’s business according to the verse (1 Samuel 21:3) “And David said unto Ahimelech the priest: 'The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me: Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee; and the young men have I appointed to such and such a place” and the rest of the story. And the most wondrous of this teaching is that he carried a weapon on the Sabbath, in other words (1 Samuel 21:10) “And the priest said: 'The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the vale of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod; if thou wilt take that, take it; for there is no other save that here.' And David said: 'There is none like that; give it me.” And if he was running away on the Sabbath out of fear of being killed and carried a weapon, why? If this was the case because he was not safe that an enemy would meet him on his path, anyone who is unsafe with an enemy is permitted to violate the Sabbath. And this is also nullified since violating the Sabbath is only permitted when there is no doubt that if he does not violate it he will be destroyed without a doubt with a high degree of probability. And additionally if it was according to what he said, Ahimelekh would have disapproved strongly, but rather he led him to this. And let us assume that David, peace upon him, believed it permitted to take a weapon and carry it out of fear, how would Ahimelekh lead him to this, since it says (1 Samuel 21:10) “And David said: 'There is none like that; give it me”? And this also nullifies that it was the Sabbath, but rather it was Friday according to what we explained.

والشبه التي اعترضت [على] أصحابنا في هذا القول توهمهم ان هذه الأيام سبعة أيام متتالية وليس الأمر كذلك بل قوله ستة أيام وسابع لوقوع فعل وذلك نظير חנכת נשיאים التي يقول فيها أول وثان وثالث الى ثاني عشر وليس هي أيام متتالية اذ كانت السبت خارجة عنها لعلة انه يكون فيها שלמים التي لا تجوز في يوم السبت فعلم من ذلك ان قوله سبعة أيام وثامن وتاسع وعاشر وحادى عشر وثاني عشر ان ذلك ليس على الولي وامنا ذلك سابع لفعل وكذلك ثامن وتاسع وما بعد ذلك وأوكد من ذلك قصة بني بنيامين مع بني إسرائيل اذ يقول انهم حاربوهم يوما أولا وثانيا وثالثا ولم يكن ذلك الثالث ثالثا على الولاء وانما كان ثالثا للحرب لانه قد كان بين الثاني والثالث فرجة وهي قوله انهم بعد اليوم الثاني جاؤا الى الله جل وعز وبكوا وصاموا وسألوا هل نعاود أم لا فأمرهم بالمعاودة ووعدهم بتسليم بني بنيامين في أيديهم فصح ان قوله ثالث انما هو ثالث للفعل لا على الولاء وكذلك سابع יהושע.

And regarding the teaching of everyone that Joshua surrounded the walls of Jericho on the Sabbath according to the verse from Scripture (Joshua 6:3) “And ye shall compass the city, all the men of war, going about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days” and His verse (Joshua 6:4) “And seven priests shall bear seven rams' horns before the ark; and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the horns,” this too is nullified from the perspective that there was no rational necessity for this and the enemy did not come to them to fight them and thus make it permissible to fight them to save themselves. Rather, the whole people were inside at the time and the gates were locked for them with nobody entering or exiting as it says (Joshua 6:1) “Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in.” And it is permitted to work on the Sabbath to save lives if there is something threatening present, but if it [the fear] begins from us without a reason that obligates it, that is impossible. And if one argues that they did this because they were not certain that if they sat and the enemy learned that they were sitting for the Sabbath they would exit and wage war against them, we say it was necessary for them to not start but rather to sit and watch and anticipate, and if they sensed something from them to rise against them with weapons since they were just a small group and villagers, while they were many, innumerable people.

وهذان القولان أعني قول بنيامين في هرب داود يوم السبت وقول الجميع في حرب יהושע في السبت وإن كان فيهما تأكيد لما نقول به من ان بدل يوم السبت جائز لخلاص النفوس فإنا لا نحب ان نثبت مذهدنا بهما هو فاسد اذ كان الفاسد لا يقوم الصحيح ولا يثبته الصحيح والصحيح هو ما قدمنا ذكره والاستدلال به ومما يدل على ذلك ايضا قصة الמאורשה المغصوبة التي قد كان يتهيأ لها ان لا تمكن من نفسها حتى يقع بها ما يكون فيه إتلاف نفسها فلما كان تحريم الفجور دون تحريم بذل النفس جاز لها ان تبذل نفسها للفجور دون بذل نفسها للتلف يؤكد ذلك ايضا صاحب الפילגש الذي أسلم امراته للفجور كراهة التلف على نفسه اذ يقول (שופטים כ:ה) אותי דמו להרוג فإن ادعى مدع انه كان مخطئا في ذلك قيل له كيف يكون مخطئا من قد عدل في قوله على أهل بلده بأسرهم وقتل بكلامه شبيه بسبعين ألف رجل وهل هذا الا مكابرة العيان.

And the false interpretation of this verse from Scripture that ّI oppose amongst our companions is from their false assumption that these seven days are consecutive days. And this is not the case, but rather His verse of six days and seven days are to the occurrence of an event. And this is parallel to the dedications of the Heads of the Tribes in which it says first, second, third until twelfth and these are not consecutive days since the Sabbath interrupts them, since the purpose is that these dedications were whole offerings which are not permitted on the Sabbath. We learn from this that the verse’s seven days and eight and nine and ten and eleven and twelve are not consecutive but rather the seventh day to an action, and similarly the eighth and ninth and what follows this. And even more certain than this is the story of the children of Benjamin with the children of Israel since it says that they fought the first and second and third day, and the third was not the third consecutively but rather the third day of the war, since there was a gap between the second and third. And this is His verse that after the second day they came to God, blessed and exalted, and cried and fasted and asked “should we repeat or not” and he commanded them to return and promised to deliver the children of Benjamin into their hands. And it is correct that His verse third is the third merely to an action, not consecutively, and similarly the seventh of Joshua.

فان عارض معارض بقصة חנניה מישאל وעזריה عليهم السلام وبذلهم أنفسهم لأتون النار ولم يسجدوا للصنم وكذلك דניאל عليه السلام في بذله نفسه لجب الأسد من دون ترك الصلاة قلنا في جواب ذلك ان الذي دعى اليه חנניה מישאל وעזריה كان عبادة الأوثان وذلك كفر بالبارئ تعالى جده ومن كفر بالبارئ جل وعز وعبد وثنا فقد ترك جميع الافتراضات ونحن فانما نحرم بذل النفس في فريضة هي دون تحريم القتل فاما في الكفر وعبادة الأوثان التي هي فوق كل فرض بل ذلك مشتمل على جميع الفرائض فان بذل نفوس الخلق بأسرهم أولى من الكفر.

And these two teachings, meaning the teaching of Binyamin regarding David running away on the Sabbath and the teaching of everyone that Joshua fought in war on the Sabbath, even if they emphasize what we say regarding the permissibility to violate the Sabbath in order to save lives, we do not strengthen our view with void arguments, since what is void cannot establish what is correct nor strengthen it. And what is correct is what we highlighted earlier and brought proofs for it. And what additionally proves this is the story of the raped betrothed woman in which it was possible for her not to allow herself something which could kill her. And since the prohibition of sexual immorality was less than taking a life, it was permitted to her to offer herself to sexual immorality and not offer herself to be killed. This is confirmed also by the husband of a concubine who is forced to deliver his wife to sexual immorality to prevent his own life being taken, since it says (Judges 20:5) “And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night; me they thought to have slain, and my concubine they forced, and she is dead.” And if one argues that he was mistaken with this, say to him “how can one be mistaken who was just with his word on the entire town completely, and was killed by his words, along with seventy thousand men?” And is this any more than denying the truth?

فان قال قائل فان الكفر انما هو بالاعتقاد فقد كان يتهيأ لهم ان يظهروا السجود للذي طلبه منهم الخلاص أنفسهم ويعتقدوا الحق قلنا ليس الكفر بالاعتقاد فقط بل يجب ان يكون مع الباطن ظاهر ايضا وقد كان القوم أولياء لله عز وجل ولم يكن يجوز لهم إظهار السجود للصنم فيقتدى بهم غيرهم ممن لعله لا يعلم اعتقادهم فيرخص ذلك لنفسه معما يقع في ذلك من معيرة الأعداء والمخالفين فاما قوم من أصحابنا فانهم أجابوا هي هذه القصة بأن زعموا ان القوم كانوا أولياء الله وكانوا واثقين من الله تعالى جده انه لا يسلمهم بل سيخلصهم من تلك النار ومن ذلك العدو ثقة لا يشوبها ريب ولا شبهة واستدلوا على ذلك بقولهم له (דניאל ג:יז) הן איתי אלהנא די אנחנא פלחין יכיל לשיזבותנא فان ادعى مدع ان هذا القول انما هو إخبار بأن الله قادر على تخليصهم وليس إخبارا بأنه لا بد من ان يخلصهم قيل له انهم قالوا قولين أولا أخبروا بأنه قادر على ان يخلصهم بقولهم יכיל والثاني أخبروا فيه بأنه سيخلصهم جزما وذلك في قولهم (שם שם) ומן ידך מלכא ישזיב فهذا إخبار جزم انه يخلصهم من يده يؤكد ذلك ايضا ما تقدم من المعجزة التي ظهرت فيهم وهي قول דניאל (דניאל א:יב) נס נא את עבדיך ימים עשרה وتمامه وقال في آخر القصة (שם שם:טו) ולמקצת ימים עשרה נראה מראיהם טוב ובריאי בשר وهذا برهان عجيب وآية جليلة أخبر بها דניאל انها تقوم فيهم فتم ما قاله فعلم من ذلك انه لم يقل ذلك ولم يخبر به الا من حيث كان منه على غاية الثقة واذا كان ذلك قد وقع وتم في امتناعهم من المأكول الذي أمره أسهل من أمر السجود للصنم كانت ثقتهم في الامتناع من السجود للصنم الذي هو أغلظ بأضعاف مضاعفة أوكد وأولى ومثل ذلك القول في صلاة דניאל وقلة التفاته الى أمر الملك.

And if one opposes with the story of Hananya, Misha’el and Azarya, peace upon them, and their surrender to a fiery furnace and did not bow to the idols, and similarly Daniel, peace upon him, who surrendered himself to the tiger pit without stopping to pray, we say in response to this that Hananya, Misha’el and Azarya were summoned for idol worship and this is heresy towards the exalted Creator and one who denies the Creator, praised and exalted, and worships an idol has abandoned all the commandments. And we forbid sacrificing one’s life for commandments below the prohibition of murder, but heresy and worshiping idols are above all the obligations, even including all the commandments, thus it is preferable to surrender all the people’s lives and not commit heresy.

فلعل قائلا يرجع علينا فيما تقدم من قولنا فيقول فان كان يجوز للانسان ان يقتل غيره ليخلص نفسه فهل يجوز له ان يسلم غيره للقتل لمثل ذلك قلنا ان الذي أقمنا عليه الدليل هو انه انما يجوز للإنسان ان يفعل ذلك في من طلب نفسه فيجعل نفس طالبه بدل نفسه وذلك مما ذكرناه من قصة (שמות כב:א) אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב وفي قصة יואב وقول الكتاب (מלכים א ב:ה) וישם דמי מלחמה בשלום فاما هذا الباب الآخر فإنا لا ندري ما نقول فيه وقد رأينا الكتاب يخبر بأن الجوع يضطر الى إتلاف الأولاد وأكل لحومهم اذ يقول (דברים כח:נג) ואכלת פרי בטנך בשר בניך ובנותיך وايضا (שם נז) ובשליתה היוצת מבין רגילה وتمامه وتم هذا الوعيد اذ يقول (איכה ד:י) ידי נשים רחמניות בשלו ילדיהן وايضا (מלכים ב ו:כט) ונבשל את בני ונאכלהו وتمامه وفي ذلك ضروب من الكبائر منها ارتفاع الرحمة عن الأولاد وإتلاف نفوس من لم يقع منهم جرم وأكل لحوم الناس ولم نر من فعل ذلك وقع به ثلب ولا عذل وانما يخبر ان الجوع أفرط بهم حتى اضطروا الى أن فعلوا ذلك فليس ندري هل كان ذلك جائزا لهم مع تلك الضرورة التي لا تفي بها ضرورة أم لا يكون جائزا اذ رأيناه يقول (איכה ד:ט) טובים היו חללי חרב מחללי רעב فان كان أكل الأولاد جائزا لخلاص النفوس كان إسلام غير من هو ولد للقتل لخلاص النفوس أولى ان يكون جائزا.

And if one argues that heresy is just belief, and it was possible for them to appear externally to bow to what they were asked to save their lives, while believing the truth, we say that heresy is not merely belief, but rather it is obligatory for external appearance to match with the internal. And they were a loyal group to God, praised and exalted, and it was not permitted for them to appear to bow to the idols and have others imitate them who perhaps do not know the faith and thus allow this to themselves despite the humiliation of this towards the enemies and gentiles. However, a group of our companions answered with this story an argument that they were friends of God and were confident with no doubt or suspicion that the exalted God would not deliver them but rather would save them from that fire and from that enemy. And they attempt to prove this from their statement to him (Daniel 3:17) “If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us, He will deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and out of thy hand, O king.” And if one argues that this verse reports that God is able to save them, and not a report that he has no choice but to save them, say to him they said two statements. Firstly, they said that God is capable of saving them with their statement “is able” and secondly they said that he will save them certainly and this is in their statement “and out of thy hand, O king.” And this reports certainly that he will save them from his hand, and this is also is also confirmed by what precedes it with the miracle that He showed them and this is the statement (Daniel 1:12) “'Try thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink” and it says at the end of the story (Daniel 1:15) “And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer, and they were fatter in flesh, than all the youths that did eat of the king's food.” And this is an incredible proof and sublime sign that what Daniel reported occurred to them as He said. And he learned from this that he did not say that or report it, except out of complete trust. And if this occurred and was completed from the withholding of food, which is a lesser command than bowing to idols, their confidence from withholding from bowing to idols which is doubly as grievous was even stronger and more appropriate. And similarly is the teaching regarding Daniel’s prayer and his lack of attention to the King’s command.