Wilson: The whole issue of Islamic monotheism, by your explanation, has
become clear. The Islamic teaching concerning Jesus also has been made clear.
Now I would like a summary of the points on which Islam and Chris-tianity
agree in regard to Jesus.
Chirri:
Islam agrees with Christianity, in general, on
the following points:
1. Islam advocates the holiness of Jesus. As a
matter of fact, it is an essential part of the Islamic teaching to revere
Jesus and to believe in his holiness, and that he lived in this world as a
pure person free of any sin. From the Holy Qur’an:
“When the angels
said: ‘O Mary! Surely God gives thee good news of a word from Him whose name
is the Messiah, Jesus, Son of Mary, worthy of regard in this world and the
hereafter, and of those who are highly accepted by God.’ ” 3:45
2. Islam declares the holiness of Mary, the
mother of Jesus. No Muslim can doubt the decency and purity of Mary. She,
according to the Qur’an, had been the most noble among the women of the
nations:
“And
when the angels said: “O Mary! Certainly God has chosen thee and made thee
pure and has preferred thee above the women of all nations.
“‘O Mary! Be obedient to thy Lord,
prostrate thyself and bow with those who bow (in wor-ship).’” 3:4243
3. Islam declares that Jesus was miraculously
born from a virgin mother with no father. From the Holy Qur’an:
“And
mention Mary in the book.
“When she withdrew to a place east of
her family.”
“She screened herself from them; then
We sent to her Our angel, and he appeared to her as a man in all respects.”
“She said: ‘I seek refuge in God
against you if you are righteous.”
“He said: ‘I am only a Messenger of
Thy Lord to grant to you a pure boy.’ ”
“She said: ‘How-can I have a son, and no mortal has yet touched me, nor have I
been unchaste?’ ”
“He said: ‘So (it will be). Thy Lord
says: “It is easy for Me; and that We may make him a sign to men and a mercy
from Us. And it is a matter decreed.”
“Then she conceived him; and withdrew with him to a remote place. And the
throes of childbirth drove her to the trunk of the palm-tree. She said: ‘Oh,
would that I had died before this, and had been a thing quite forgotten.”
“So a voice came to her
from beneath her: ‘Grieve not, surely thy Lord has provided a stream beneath
thee. And shake towards thee the trunk of the palm-tree, it will drop on thee
fresh ripe dates. So eat and drink and be pleased. Then if thou seest any
human, say: “Surely I have vowed a fasting for the sake of the Beneficent, so
I will not speak to any human today.” 19: 16-26
4. The Qur’an
attributes to Jesus many of the miracles which are mentioned in the Gospel.
According to the Holy Qur’an, Jesus was empowered by God to cure the sick,
revive the dead, and make the blind see:
“. . .
and He (God) will make him (Jesus) a messenger to the children of Israel
(saying):
“ ‘I have come to you with a sign
from your Lord that I fashion for you, out of clay, the like-ness of a bird,
and I breathe into it, and it beco-mes a bird by permission of God. I heal him
who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead by permission of God.
And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses.
“ ‘Lo! Herein verily is a sign
for you, if ye are to be believers.’ ” 3:49
In addition to this,
the Holy Qur’an ascribes to Jesus a miracle that is not recorded in the
gospels: Jesus spoke clearly while he was in the cradle:
“Then she came to her people with him,
carrying him. They said: ‘O Mary, thou hast indeed brought a strange thing. O
sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother an
unchaste Woman.’
“But she pointed to him. They said:
‘How should we speak to a one who is a child in the cradle?’
“He said: ‘I am indeed a servant of God. He
has given me the Book and made me a prophet; and He has made me blessed
wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and purity so long as I
live. And to be kind to my mother; and He has not made me insolent, unblessed.
And Peace be on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am
raised to life.(in the Hereafter).’ ” 19: 27-33
Wilson:
The points of agreement, by your
explanations, have become clear. I know that the followers of various
religions have differed on the issue of Jesus Christ. Some of them can be
considered anti-Jesus because they deny his holiness and the holiness of his
mother, disbelieve in his miracles and reject his truth; some of them are
neutral, nei-ther for nor anti-Jesus; and some of them are pro-Jesus,
be-lieving in his holiness and accepting all his teachings and believing in
his miracles.
According to your explanation, Muslims ought to
be considered pro-Jesus, as well as the Christians themselves. What remains
now is to see the points in which the Mus-lims and the Christians disagree
concerning Jesus.
Chirri: The area of disagreement between Islam and
Christianity, concerning Jesus, includes the following points:
1. Although
Islam accepts the holiness of Jesus, it denies his divinity. According to the
teaching of Islam, Jesus is no deity. He is not God, nor is he united with
God. He is worthy of reverence and great respect, but he is not worthy of
worship. Islam is uncompromising in its Monotheism. God is only One, and there
is no God but He, the Almighty, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsistent, the
Infinite in life, knowledge, and power. Jesus is not ever-living. He
was born less than 2000 years ago, and according to the gospels, he died after
a very short life. He is not almighty because he was a subject of persecution;
nor was he infinite. He could not be the Creator of the world because the
world is over four billion years old, while he was born less than two thousand
years ago. He is not worthy of worship because he himself was a humble
worshipper of God.
2. Jesus, according to the teaching of Islam,
is not a son of God. God does not have any son or child, because He is above
that. Bodily parenthood is inconceivable in His case because He is not
physical. Spiritual parenthood also is not conceivable, because He is the
Creator of every spiritual and material being. The Holy Qur’an is clear on
this point:
“And (they) impute
falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters unto Him. Glorified be He and
high exalted above (all) that they ascribe (unto Him).
The Originator of the heavens and the
Earth! How can He have a child when there is no consort for Him, when He
created all things and is Aware of all things? Such is God, your Lord. There
is no God save Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He taketh
care of all things.” 6:100-102
3. Islam denies the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus
did not die on the cross. The Holy Qur’an is clear on this point.
“And
because of their saying: ‘We slew the Messiah Jesus Son of Mary, the Messenger
of God.’
“They slew him not nor crucified
him, but appeared so unto them; and lo! Those who disag-ree concerning it are
in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof but the pursuit of a
conjec-ture; for certain they slew him not,
but God took him up to Himself. God is Ever-Mighty, Wise.” 4:157-158
Wilson:
This view is in a sharp
contrast with the statements of all the gospels. The four gospels clearly
state that Jesus died on the cross. How can we reconcile this with the
statement of the Qur’an which denies emphatically the death of Jesus on the
cross?
Chirri:
There is a way to
reconcile the Qur’anic statement with the statements of the gospels: The
difference between the two statements could be a difference between appearance
and reality. No doubt, some event had taken place at the time of what seemed
to be the crucifixion of Jesus and his death on the cross. The life of Jesus
was full of miracles, and so could be what seemed to be his death. It could
have been that another person (such as Judas, the one who betrayed him) was
miraculously likened to him, and he, not Jesus, died on the cross.
There is another way to
reconcile the two statements without resort to assumption of any miracle:
Suppose Jesus was put on the cross, and that he had fainted, so he appeared
dead, while he was still alive.
This assumption is not
without evidence from the gospels: The gospels state that Jesus did not stay
very long on the cross. He was taken down hurriedly, without breaking his
legs, while it was the custom to break the legs of the cru-cified. The Jews
were preparing to celebrate Passover. They did not want him to stay on the
cross until the next day, Saturday, on which they are not supposed to do any
work such as burial. As Jesus did not stay too long on the cross, he could
have remained alive.
The gospels state also
that after Jesus appeared to be dead, a man struck at his body with a lance,
and that the blood gushed out from his body. We know that blood does
not flow from a dead body. This indicates that Jesus was still alive.
The gospels state that
Jesus was laid in his tomb, and that a heavy stone was laid above the tomb,
and that on Sunday, the body was missing, and that the stone was re-moved from
the mouth of the tomb. We have the right to suspect that some of the disciples
of Jesus removed the stone and rescued him. Were Jesus resurrected
miracul-ously, there would have been no need for removal of the stone. God is
able to raise him from the grave and keep the stone where it was. The removal
of the stone seems to be a human, and not a Divine, work.
In addition to this,
the gospels state that Jesus appeared several times to his disciples after the
event of crucifixion. All these appearances seemed to have taken place in
secrecy, and that Jesus was not willing to appear openly. Were he miraculously
resurrected, he would not have had to hide from his enemies. The secrecy of
his appearances indicates that he was still living as he did before, and that
his life was not interrupted by a short death, and that he was still afraid of
the pursuit of his enemies.
The international
society of the Holy Shroud has recently concluded that the stains of blood on
the shroud of Jesus indicate that Jesus was still living when he was taken
down from the cross. Otherwise, there would be no blood on the sheet which
covered his body afterwards.
A Christian, believing
in the crucifixion of Jesus, would have a hard time reconciling two of the
principles in which he believes, namely: Jesus is God, and Jesus was
crucified. A crucified person cannot be God because he is unable to protect
himself, let alone be almighty.
A Muslim, on
the other hand, does not have such a problem. He believes that Jesus is a
prophet and no more. A prophet may be persecuted and crucified, because a
prophet is not supposed to be almighty. Although Islam does not have the
problem of contradiction, it has solved the problem which it does not have.
Jesus was not crucified. God had protected him.
4. Islam
disagrees with Christianity on the Doctrine of Redemption. The Doctrine of
Redemption is based on the Doctrine of the Original Sin: that mankind had been
con-demned by God because of the sin of Adam and Eve which was consequently
inherited by their children. Islam denies the whole Doctrine of the Original
Sin; God did not con-demn mankind because a sin was committed by a couple at
the beginning of time. (This will be made clear in the fol-lowing inquiry.)
There is no original sin; therefore, there is no need for redemption to
mankind out of a sin that did not exist.
Furthermore,
suppose that there is an original sin. To forgive mankind their original sin,
God does not need a sinless person, such as Jesus, to be crucified. He can
forgive the human race without causing an innocent person to suf-fer. To say
that God does not forgive mankind unless man-kind crucifies Jesus, is to put
Him in the position of a ruler who was disobeyed by his own subjects. When the
children asked the ruler to forgive the sin of their fathers, he refused to do
so unless they kill one of his beloved ones. If they co-mmit such a terrible
crime, he will forgive them; otherwise, he will not. I do not think that the
advocates of the original sin would be willing to put God in such a position.
God, the Most Just and Merciful, does not condemn people because of their
ancestor’s sin. He may forgive them their own sins without requiring them to
commit a bigger one.
Wilson:
I know that the Holy Qur’an is clear on
certain attributes of God such as The Merciful, The Wise, The Benevolent, the
Ever-Living, the Creator of the universe, the One without a partner,
associate, or son. But I would like to know if The “Just” is one of the
attributes of God. I was told by some Muslims that it is one of His
attributes, and by some others that it is not.
Chirri:
No logical religion can afford to deny or doubt the justice of God and
His fairness. To deny His justice is to undermine the religious concept
entirely. No religious belief, not even the belief in the existence of the
Supreme Being, would avail us without the belief in His justice.
An unfair
ruler may reward the wrongdoer and penalize the good doer. If one obeys him,
he will not necessarily secure his satisfaction. If one disobeys him, he will
not be certain that he is out of his favor .
Furthermore,
we believe in heavenly messages and God’s messengers because we think that He
is fair enough to tell His human servants what He wants from them. But an
unfair God may not tell us anything or may tell us something He does not mean
to tell. By this, the whole doctrine of pro-phethood will collapse.
Denial of
the justice of God would also lead to denial of the Hereafter, because the
Hereafter is the world of carrying out justice by rewarding the good doers and
punishing the wrongdoers.
In short,
the concept of justice of God, to us, is as important as the concept of His
existence and His oneness; and the denial of it is as destructive to religion
as the denial of the existence of God or of His oneness. Therefore, the
concept of justice of God ought to be considered part of the foundation of
religion without which no religion can logi-cally be established.
Islam is
entirely in accord with this sound and logical thinking. The Holy Qur’an
states the justice of God as emphatically as it states the oneness of God and
His exis-tence. In scores of passages, injustice has been denounced. In many
passages, God is described as just, or that He does not want to do injustice
to His servants, or that He will not waste the deed of any doer, or that He
will not cause anyone to lose one atom’s weight of good.
“The Almighty bears witness that there is
no god but He, and (so do) the angels and those possessed of knowledge, (He
is) maintaining justice. There is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise.” 3:18
“So whoever does an
atom’s weight of good will see it (on the Day of Judgment), and whoever does
an atom’s weight of evil will see it.” 99:7-8
Wilson:
Your statement about the justice of God is
one of the most reasonable statements I have ever heard. In fact,
the importance of this
religious doctrine cannot be exag-gerated because the concept of God without
His justice will not benefit us. We can neither trust nor please an unjust
god. Judaism and Christianity share with Islam the same view, and no Christian
or Jew doubts the justice of God and His fairness. The Doctrine of Justice of
God, therefore, is Christian and Jewish as well as Islamic, and
I do not
see any difference among the three faiths in this respect.
Chirri:
The difference between
Islam and the other faiths in this respect is not about the concept of justice
of God itself, but about the concepts which stem from this doctrine. Islam
does not subscribe to any doctrine that contradicts the concept of the Divine
Justice. Islam preaches and upholds all doctrines that may stem from the
concept of the justice of God.
Wilson:
Will you cite some of
these doctrines which stem from the justice of God?
Chirri:
I
shall cite three of these principles which
stem from the doctrine of Divine justice:
1. God does not
ask His human creature to do what he cannot do. From the Holy Qur’an:
“God does not impose on a soul a duty but to the extent
of its ability.” 2:286
What is beyond
your power is impossible for you. The Just God does not ask the impossible.
2. God does not
hold any individual responsible but for his own deed which is under his
control. No one is res-ponsible for the deeds of others, even if they are his
friends or relatives, as long as their action is not under his control. From
the Holy Qur’an:
“Shall
I
seek a lord other than God while He is the
Lord of everything, and no soul earns (evil) but against itself. Nor does a
bearer of a burden bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your
return, so He will inform you of that in which you differed.” 6: 164
3. If this is true, the
human race could not be burdened by the action of Adam and Eve. To say that
the whole human race is burdened with the heredity of the improper action of
Adam and Eve is to say that the thousands of human gene-rations share with
Adam and Eve the responsibility of their action, and that they are condemned
by God for a mistake which occurred before the birth of any of those
generations. This, of course, is inconsistent with God’s justice.
A human judge
does not condemn a son for the sin of his parents which he did not share. How
can we conceive that the Just God places the iniquity of the parents on their
children or their great-grandchildren?
Therefore,
Islam emphatically denies the Doctrine of the Original Sin, and considers
every human being pure at the time of his birth and free of any sin. Actually,
Islam offers the human infant as a perfect example of a pure and
sinless being. Every human being, according
to the teachings of Islam, is born pure and free of any sin and
continues to be pure until he commits a sin as an adult.
By sinning at the age
of adulthood, the individual loses his purity, but a person can regain it
through a sincere repentance. When a person genuinely changes his attitude and
sincerely intends not to repeat his sin, and truly pledges obedience to God,
the Most Merciful will forgive and erase the sin.
Wilson:
Let me digress for a moment: Adam and Eve were
individuals like us. Let us assume that they repented sincerely after
they made a mistake. Does that mean that their mistake was erased?
Chirri: If you assume that Adam had repented after he did the improper,
you will not be wrong. Nor will you be mistaken if you believe that Adam was
forgiven by God upon his repentance. The Holy Qur’an informs us that the Most
Merciful accepted the repentance of Adam, and by this, the action of Adam was
forgiven:
“. . .
and Adam received from his Lord words, and He relented towards him. Lo! He is
the Rele-nting, the Merciful.” 2:37
Wilson: If Adam was forgiven, why was he expelled from the paradise of
God?
Chirri:
The fall of Adam from paradise is not necessarily a punishment for a sin.
It may be a necessary result of the change of his status. At the beginning,
Adam was worthy of communicating with God at any time, and this was his bliss
and paradise. By acting improperly, he became susceptible to slip again; that
is, he had lost his immunity from impropriety: So unimmuned, he was no longer
in such a high position that enables him to communicate with his Lord at any
time. Now he is able to do so only at the time of his firm purity. His firm
purity, of course, is no longer permanent as it was before he slipped, because
he may slip once again.
Wilson: The Old Testament informs us that the sin of Adam was his
eating from a tree, and that that tree was the tree of knowledge which God
told him to avoid. What is the version of the Qur’an of this subject?
Chirri:
The Holy Qur’an states that there was a prohibited tree and that the
mistake of Adam was his eating from it. But the Qur’an is not specific on its
kind. Knowing the logical spirit of Islam, I am sure that the tree was not a
tree of knowledge because knowledge comes from learning and experience, and it
does not grow on trees. There might have been no significance attached to the
tree or its kind in the whole issue. The significant matter could have been
the prohibition itself which God decreed to test the will of His servants Adam
and Eve. Furthermore, God, according to the Holy Qur’an, loves knowledge; how
would He forbid it?
Wilson:
Let us end our digression and go back to
the sub-ject.
I am now
convinced that Islam stands on a solid ground in preaching the purity of the
human race and that its teaching in this field is very sound and consistent.
It has, so far, adhered to the principle of justice of God and upheld the
principle of the individual’s responsibility which is inse-parable from the
justice of God.
When the
Christians preach the Doctrine of the Original Sin, they actually construct a
base to another doctrine, namely: the Doctrine of Redemption. Mankind, they
say, is sinful and condemned because of the original sin. In other words, by
inheriting the sin of Adam and Eve, we became sinful; therefore, we need to be
redeemed in some way. Someone should pay for our sin. Jesus paid for it by
being crucified. Thus, Jesus became the redeemer and the saviour of mankind.
By the
denial of the original sin, the Doctrine of Redemp-tion is left without
foundation. You have already spoken on the subject, but now it has become
clear that the Doctrine of Redemption is one of the principles which are not
in accord with the concept of the justice of God.
Chirri:
The whole issue of the Original Sin is, as we ad-vanced, entirely opposed
to the justice of God. Even if we forget about its inconsistency with His
justice, we cannot conceive that the Most Just makes one person, an innocent
person, Jesus, pay for the sin of the whole human race. Again, how can we wash
a small sin, such as eating any apple, by the most terrible sin, the murder of
a holy person, such as Jesus. Sin may, conceivably, be washed by a good deed,
not by murder. Furthermore, how can we conceive that God, the Most Wise, would
demand the blood of His dear messenger as a price of forgiveness?
Wilson:
There is an important issue which has a
bearing on the concept of the Divine justice, and it is highly con-troversial
in philosophy as well as religion; namely: man’s freedom. The philosophers as
well as the religious schol-ars differ on this question. Some of them advocate
man’s freedom, and that whatever he does he does by his free will; some of
them deny this freedom, and think that what appears to be a free action or
inaction of man is pre-arranged or a result of a certain cause or chain of
causes.
I have read in some
Islamic literature that Islam ad-vocates predestination, and that all man’s
works were predestined by God, and that man cannot change the cour-ses which
he takes. I read, also, a different Islamic view which advocates man’s freedom
and denies the concept of predestination in man’s action or inaction. I would
like now to discuss with you this question and find out what Islam, actually,
teaches in this important issue.
Chirri:
To define the subject
of our discussion, it would be necessary to make clear that our discussion
does not include certain conditions not caused by man’s own will, such as
sickness, blindness, and death. In this area the absence of man’s freedom is
obvious. No one should claim that man has freedom in having such conditions,
because these things do not come by man’s choice. Our discussion includes only
the area of man’s work and action where man seems to be acting by his own
choice and will. It is here that the old controversy is still burning and
dividing the people into two camps: the camp which advocates man’s freedom,
and the camp which advocates predestination or Determi-nism.
Islam, as you know,
informs us that God has revealed certain commandments; that He will reward the
obedients of His commandments; and that He will punish the disobedients who do
not comply with these commandments. A religion which preaches this can be
consistent only if it advocates man’s freedom, unless such a religion denies
the concept of justice of God.
A religion that
advocates both God’s justice and predes-tination would clearly contradict
itself when it states that God will reward the obedient of His commands and
pe-nalize the disobedient. When man’s actions or inactions are pre-arranged by
God, man will be unable to change his course. He will not be able to do one
thing when he is predestined to do something else. Man would be like a
machine. A machine is not able, by itself, to change its course, and it would
be ridiculous to tell a machine to comply with a certain order or to reward a
machine or penalize it.
Remove man’s
freedom, and the whole concept of religion is destroyed. As a matter of fact,
if we deny man’s freedom, there will be no need for any heavenly revela-tion.
It would be futile to send prophets to teach and lead mankind. When a person
is predestined to be an atheist, he shall not be a believer, and no prophet
will be able to change his heart. A predestined criminal is not going to be a
good citizen, regardless of any teaching he may receive.
Man’s freedom,
in fact, underlies the whole concept of religion, and Islam clearly advocates
man’s freedom.
Wilson:
From our past
discussions, I know that Islam ad-vocates strongly the Doctrine of the Justice
of God. Islam, therefore, is expected to advocate man’s freedom and oppo-se
the idea of predestination or what is called, in philo-sophy, “Determinism.” I
would like to know if the Holy Qur’an indicates man’s freedom clearly.
Chirri:
The Holy Qur’an has indicated, in more than
one way, that man is a free agent. It declares that man is capable of changing
his condition.
“Surely the Almighty
changes not the condition of a people unless they change that which is in
themselves.” 13: 11
Were man predestined to
take a certain course, he would not be able to change that course. Whatever he
does or avoids will be done or avoided, not by choice, but by necessity.
The Holy Qur’an
has, also, declared that God does not ask the individual to do the impossible,
nor does He place hardship on His servants:
“The Almighty imposes not on a soul a duty but to the
extent of its ability.” 2:286
“The Almighty desires not to
place a hardship on you but He desires to purify you and to complete His favor
upon you, so that you may be thankful.” 5:8
For example, if man
were predestined not to pray or to commit a murder and God tells him not to
kill or to pray, He
will be placing
the greatest hardship on him, and He will be asking him to do what is
impossible for him. He will not be asking him to do what is within his ability
because he was predestined, before he was born, to kill and not to pray. Thus,
He would not be able to comply with the order of God. The very fact that he is
commanded to pray and prohibited from killing indicates that God views His
human servant as a free creature, and that whatever he is comma-nded to do or
not to do is within his ability.
The Holy Qur’an has, also, indicated man’s
freedom by stating and stressing the responsibility of every individual for
what he does:
“Whoever goes aright, for his own soul he goes aright;
and whoever goes astray, to his own detriment he goes astray.” 39:41
“And no bearer of a burden bears
another’s burden. . . .” 53:38
“Say: O people, the truth has come to you from your
Lord; So whoever goes aright, goes aright only for the good of his own soul:
and whoever errs, he errs only against it.” 10:108
The very concept of responsibility of the
individual indicates clearly that the individual is a free agent. Other-wise,
he cannot be held responsible for anything that may be produced by him.
Responsibility is inseparable from freedom.
Wilson:
The verses which you have quoted from the
Holy Qur’an truly indicate that man is endowed with a sufficient amount of
freedom that makes him responsible and deserving of reward or punishment for
his work. How-ever, there are some verses which were quoted from the Qur’an by
the
advocates of
predestination. These verses indicate that man’s action is controlled by God.
Of these verses are the following:
“Surely this (the Qur’an) is a reminder ; so, whoever
is willing, he may take a path to his Lord. And you do not will unless God
wills. . . .” 76:29-30
“It is naught but thy trial.
Thou causest to err thereby whomever Thou pleasest and guidest whomever Thou
pleasest. . . . ” 7:155
These verses
indicate the opposite of what the verses which you quoted indicate. This leads
to confusion and creates a dilemma.
Chirri:
To a Muslim, the Holy
Qur’an is the accurate record of revelation. It contains only the truth, and
all the contents of the Holy Qur’an must be true. A truth never contradicts
another truth. Whatever may seem to be a contradiction could not be genuine.
It would only be an ap-parent contradiction.
When there are two
groups of Qur’anic verses appearing to oppose each other, they have to be
treated in a certain manner. When one of the groups has a clearer indication
on one side of the issue than the indication of the other group on the
opposite side of the same issue, the clearer group will be followed. The other
group ought to be interpreted in a way that will not disagree with the first
one. This treat-ment would be obviously necessary when the clearer group is in
accordance with the logical side of the issue. And this is the case in the two
above quoted groups.
Keeping this in
mind, we may be able to understand the two groups and interpret the latter one
in a way that it would not disagree with the former. We may understand from
the first of the two verses in the second group that man’s ability to choose
is from God. Man may choose a certain course but his capability of choosing is
the gift of God. God is able to deprive him from this capability and interfere
in His will. But God does not usually do that.
The second of the two
verses, also, can be interpreted in a way that will not disagree with man’s
freedom: God may guide an individual to the right path, and He may leave
another individual in error. But we cannot expect God to grant guidance to
someone and to leave another in error on a random basis.
He may help a person by
granting him a clear guidance when such a person is trying to find the truth
and willing to follow it. He may leave a person in error when that person is
not willing to accept the truth. By this interpretation, there will be no
dilemma. The first group of verses would
remain without
opposition, indicating clearly man’s freedom.
Wilson:
God is the Creator of the whole universe, all
its segments and all its events. No event in this world is out-side His
creation. Man’s will is one of the events which take place in this world. Man,
therefore, has no free will.
Chirri:
If this is true, we
have to ascribe to God all the injustices, aggressions and crimes which man
commits. But no believer in God would ascribe to Him our vices and sins.
The truth is that God
has created in man the power of choosing, and this means that He granted him a
free will. God can direct man’s will and make him choose a certain course if
He wants to, but nothing in our life indicates that God usually interferes in
our will. Since He granted us the power of choosing, we should expect Him to
leave us with-out intervention. This means that He expects us to use our power
of choosing and make our own decisions and have our own choices.
Wilson:
God knows our future as
well as our present and past. He knows what I shall do in the distant future
as well as what I am doing right now. He knew before we were born what course
we would take after our birth and in the future. Since everything is known to
Him in advance, our action must have been predetermined long before we act.
We would be unable to
take a new course that is not known to God, nor can we fail to take the course
which has been foreseen by Him. Our failure to take the very course which He
knew, would be a failure in His knowledge. The knowledge of God never fails.
Chirri:
our knowledge of
certain events does not deter-mine those events, nor does our knowledge cause
those events to happen. I know, for example, that all the workers at a
particular factory eat their lunch at noon. This does not mean that my
knowledge or expectation has caused them to take their lunch at that time.
God, no doubt, foresees our future, but this does not necessarily mean that
all our future actions are caused by His knowledge. Each and every one of our
actions has its own cause, and the main factor is the particular human will
which calls for such an action.
In addition to this,
God knows that I will do a certain thing by my own free will. Since the
knowledge of God does not fail, my action has to be a free action caused by my
free will. Should my action prove to be a product of compulsion. the knowledge
of God would fail. The knowledge of God never fails; therefore, I will not
fail to make my own deci-sion, by my own free will.
Wilson:
This discussion has
made the issue entirely clear. The last point which you stated is very
important. As a matter of fact, the last argument which I introduced con-fuses
the knowledge of an event with its
cause, but every event usually has its own cause. We know that God knows that
every particular action of ours is to be the product of our own will. And
since God has given us the power of choosing, our will must be a free product
of that power. The knowledge of God will never fail. Therefore, we will not
fail to have our actions as the products of our own free will.
When we subscribe to the doctrine of man’s
freedom, we will be consistent and safe from contradiction. The Doctrine of
the Justice of God could not be reconciled with the Doctrine of
Predestination. We cannot say that man’s action is necessitated by God, unless
we deny the Divine justice. Since we are not willing to give up the Doctrine
of the Justice of God, nor are we willing to beli-eve in contradiction, we
have to deny, categorically, the Doctrine of Predestination.
Wilson:
The history of the monotheistic religions shows that all their prophets came
from the semitic race and that most of them came from the descendants of the
Prophet Abraham, either from the children of Isaac or from the children of
Ishmael. This might be construed as a privilege by which the Israelites and
the Ishmaelites were disting-uished from the rest of mankind. But it is very
difficult to believe that God would present only these two communities with
the heavenly message. God is the Lord of all nations and His message should
have been revealed to other nations as well.
If the
history of religion is correct, there must be some reason for confining the
prophethood to these two communities.
Chirri: The history of the human race shows us that the human
understanding, in the early times, was incapable of rising above the sensuous
surroundings, or of conceiving the high and universal ideas. As for human
interactions, the individual was limited to love of family and friendship of
relatives. All other tribes were strange or gentile to him. National and
humane concepts rarely took place in his thinking.
However, some gifted individuals had lived
among those people and were capable of profound understanding and rising above
the sensuous limitation and ready to take the responsibility of guiding and
teaching. Knowing their unusual capacities, the Most Benevolent revealed to
them the truth and commissioned them with the hardest task, the guidance of
humanity.
These individuals were chosen for their
own merits, not for their relation to a particular race or community. As
expected, these individuals were confronted with insur-mountable difficulties.
People were not ready to follow or accept their teachings, and most of them
were either like Noah who gained a very small number of followers, or like
Abraham, who lived almost as a prophet without followers.
As
society refused to change, it is presumed that a prophet like Abraham was
required to try to secure the continuity of his religion through his children,
Ishmael and Isaac, who faithfully followed the faith of their father and
conveyed it to their children. The religious teaching continued to spread
narrowly through a tribal line. Centuries elapsed, and the faith neither
gained followers from outside, nor was it believed by all the descendants of
Abraham.
The heavenly purpose, however, was not to,
confine the faith within tribal or national borders. The Most Merciful and
Compassionate planned to spread the faith throughout the world and to show all
mankind the right path. The Almighty administers the universe through the
usual and natural courses and subjects all the events of the world to the law
of cause and effect. He preserved the revealed faith and kept it alive, though
at a standstill, through a small Community, which was blessed by inheriting
that faith from its holy father. He caused that faith to inflame and spread
when that community grew and acquired a power adequate to the great task of
spreading the faith.
That small community was destined to grow
through two lines, the Ishmaelite and the Israelite. Both of them were blessed
and both were tested and commissioned with the great task of preserving and
spreading the faith, but the two tests were not simultaneous. Though Ishmael
was the first son of Abraham and acquired a heritage of faith and blessing
like that of his brother Isaac, God put off the test of his descendants for
many centuries. He was preparing them to continue the mission which the
descendants of Isaac had started.
To begin with the line of Isaac, the Almighty
God established a covenant with him. From the Old Testament:
“As for
Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and
multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will
make him a great nation. But, I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom
Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year.” Genesis, Chapter 21
Wilson:
According to your statement, the heavenly
pur-pose was not to confine the faith to one or two communities or nations but
to spread the true faith throughout the world and to introduce the heavenly
principles to all nations. This, however, does not seem to be the case. The
Old Testament repeatedly calls the Israelites God’s chosen people. It calls
the other people gentiles. This shows that the Israelites were the main
concern of the heavenly message.
Chirri:
With the covenant which was established bet-ween God and Isaac, the
children of Israel were supposed to embrace and follow sincerely the heavenly instructions
and to lead the rest of the nations to the path of God. But the Israelites did
not live up to this expectation. Only a small minority adhered to the heavenly
teaching and that minority was incapable of conceiving the faith as universal
or humane.
As a result, the successive prophets of
Israel spoke to their people according to their understanding. Under the
circumstances, the faith was characterized as tribal or na-tional; God is God
of Israel, and the Israelites are His cho-sen people. The prophets had
endeavored to make the Hebrew community adhere to the faith sincerely. All the
prophets of Israel were concerned mainly with that com-munity, and none of the
gentile nations concerned them. Even the great Jesus, according to Matthew,
had the same attitude:
“Then Jesus went thence, and departed into
the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Cana-an came out of the same coasts. And cried unto him, saying, have mercy
on me, O Lord, thou the son of David; my daughter is
grievously vexed with a devil. . . But he answered and said, I am not
sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel. Then came she and worshipped him,
saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, it is not meet to take the
children’s bread and to cast it to dogs.” Matthew, Chapter 15
Wilson: The Bible informs us that God had ordered Abraham to harken to
Sarah, his wife, and to cast Ishmael in the desert of Paran, where there was
neither food nor water. This does not only seem to be unmerciful, but also
suggests that God did not have any purpose in Ishmael and his children.
Chirri:
The preparation of the Ishmaelites had been started since God advised His
obedient servant Abraham to hearken to his wife, Sarah, by taking Ishmael and
his moth-er Hagar away to the wilderness of Paran. The readers of the
Old Testament are
entitled to wonder about the wisdom of such advice which seems to be very
merciless and ruth-less. But when we ponder on the subsequent events which
took place in history, we may understand the wisdom.
The task of spreading a true religion
is the task of transforming the characters of the individuals and changing the
lives of the nations. The first thing this task encounters is a disagreement
between the teacher of the new ideology and those whom he attempts to
influence. Such an attempt usually meets resistance, and it is not unusual for
this resis-tance to lead to an armed conflict. In such a case, the freedom to
believe, preach, and practice is threatened, and can be secured and protected
only when the camp of the new ideology is ready to accept the challenge and
meet violence with violence. The mission, then, needs a heavenly leader
supported by a strong, brave and obedient commu-nity which is ready to make
any sacrifice without hesitation.
From all
nations of the Middle East, the Arab nation, for many centuries, had been
distinguished and, therefore, qualified for
such a performance. The
Arabian Peninsula had
remained inaccessible to invaders and unsubdued by any foreign power. The
individual Arab had enjoyed a free-dom rarely checked by rulers. He became
self-confident, ready to protect himself and his freedom by his own power and
to translate his will into action. A nation composed of such individuals is
qualified to carry a great mission; and when it is inspired by a heavenly
leader, it would be capable of performing wonders.
To impart the religion
of Abraham to that strong and brave nation and to prepare that nation for its
great destiny, the Almighty advised His servant Abraham to hearken to his
wife, Sarah, by sending his son Ishmael away so he may dwell among the Arabs.
Through intermarriage, the desce-ndants
of Ishmael were to be united with the Arabs
and become a great nation that was destined to bear the great mission in the
future.
“And God heard the
voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said
unto her: What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not; for God hath heard the voice of
the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him into thine hand; for
I will make him a great nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of
water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.
And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness. . . and he
dwelt in the wilderness of Paran.” Genesis, Chapter 21.
By placing Ishmael in the Arabian Peninsula,
Abraham had planted the seed of his faith in the Arabian soil. To make the
seed grow and the faith continue, he laid the foundation of the future by
raising the foundation of the Sacred House, the Kaabah in the midst of Arabia,
as the first temple of
God in the world. As God foretold Abraham
and as Abraham expected, the House attracted the dwellers of
Arabia and became the holy center of the country. The holy city of Mecca later
was established around it, and since then the call of Abraham is annually
responded to by a large number of pilgrims who visit the Sacred House and
worship God at His temple. From the Holy Qur’an:
“And when We pointed
to Abraham the place of the House, saying: ‘Associate naught with Me, and
purify My House for those who make circuits and stand to pray and bow and
prostrate themselves. And proclaim to men the pilgrimage; they will come to
thee on foot and every lean camel, coming from every remote path; that they
may witness benefits (provided) for them, and mention the name of God on
appointed days over what He has given them of the cattle quadrupeds; then eat
of them and feed the distressed one, the needy.” 22:26-28
It was heart-rending to Abraham, to
settle his first son in the desert of Arabia where there is neither fruit nor
water nor town. But he had two goals to accomplish, and each was great enough
to make Abraham willing to offer such a sacrifice and to do his utmost.
The first of the two goals was
immediate, namely: to establish the Sacred House and to assign to that mosque
his son as a guardian who would worship God, conduct the service according to
the true religion of God, and teach his children and the people of the country
the right principles. By this, Abraham not only widened the scope of his faith
but also assured the continuity of that faith. Should the line of Isaac fail
in its religious task, the faith may continue through the children of Ishmael
in Arabia. From the Holy Qur’an:
“My Lord, I have settled a part of my offspring in a
valley unproductive of fruit near Thy Sacred House, Our Lord, that they may
keep up prayer; so make the hearts of some people yearn towards them, and
provide them with fruits; haply they may be grateful.” 14:37
We do not know the extent of growth of
Abraham’s faith on the soil of Arabia. History does not inform us clearly on
the religious situation in Arabia during the long period which extends from
the time of Abraham to the end of the fifth century of the Christian era. In
the sixth century we find the majority of the Arabs idolaters. But in spite of
this, we find, at the same time, some rites and practices which could be
attributed only to the teaching of Abraham. Among these are the pilgrimage to
the Sacred House in Mecca and the circumcision which was performed and
practiced by all the non-Christian tribes of Arabia. Along with these rites
and practices, we find a small minority among the Arabs, believing in God,
worshipping Him, and rejecting idols.
The second goal for Abraham was to
prepare the children of Ishmael and the nation with which they were united,
for the distant and glorious future- when the Arabic-speaking people would be
privileged and honored to have the Final Prophet among them; when they would
be ready to receive his great message and spread the word of God throughout
the world. From the Qur’an:
“And
when Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the House (with this
prayer):
“Our Lord, accept(this service) from
us; surely Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. ,
“Our Lord, and make us both
submissive to Thee, and (raise) from our offspring, a nation submissive to
Thee, and show us our way of de-votion and turn to us (mercifully); surely
Thou art the oft-returning (to mercy) the Merciful.
“Our Lord, and raise up in them
a messenger from among them who shall recite to them Thy messages and teach
them the Book and the Wis-dom, and purify them. “Surely Thou art the Mi-ghty,
the Wise.” 2:127-129
The prayer of the Prophet Abraham was
graciously answered in the seventh century A.D. The anticipated Prophet had
arrived with an unprecedented method of presentation which is capable of
supporting the truth, securing the needed freedoms and opening the way for the
heavenly doctrines. It is the method of using logic as the main means for
convincing and displaying strength in the face of anyone who threatened the
sacred freedoms.
Yes,
in the seventh century, the world was blessed by the advent of the Final and
Universal Prophet Mohammad, who rose from Mecca, the center of Arabia, to shine over the East and the West.
Wilson: Why does mankind need to have a prophet or a messenger from
God? Man is endowed with a mental abi-lity by which he can distinguish between
right and wrong. One can say that there is no need for heavenly guidance to
tell him what to do or not to do. The average individual is able to conduct
himself sensibly, so he may deal with oth-ers and with his own family in a
rational way without any need for Divine law.
Chirri: The prophethood is needed for many reasons:
Theoretically, man is capable of deducing the existence of the Creator through
his observation of God’s creations on earth. The free human mind is capable of
comprehending abstractions and universal ideas. Because of our biological
appetites or needs, we are closely bound to the material world. The material
attractions of the world divert the best of us. The average person does not
seem to be capable of a detached comprehension of his Maker. Nor can we expect
the average man to divorce himself from the material things in the world to
think clearly about God.
Moreover, the wondrous regulation of
the universe im-plies the existence of an Orderer, the Almighty God. But man
is too engrossed in his petty concerns to notice natural laws, let alone think
of their origins. Man has become too accustomed to the sun rising in the east
to think about why it does. Mankind falls short of the important recognition
of the Creator. The universal recognition of His existence by man is not the
result of common thinking but due to the teachings of some gifted individuals
who succeeded in lead-ing mankind to this conclusion.
People differ in education, abilities,
feelings and back-grounds; so they differ in their views. Many important
issu-es concerning man’s actions are highly controversial among individuals
and groups. Ethics and morals are strongly disputed. Philosophic
justifications can be found for almost any viewpoint. Rather than clarifying
the issues so that one finds it possible to make a rational choice, the
rational philosophies amplify the confusion. Reason and philosophy have failed
as a solution for ethical and moral questions. The answers we seek must come
from an incontrovertible authority to which individuals and groups should
submit. That authority is God.
Though a free thinker may be able to
recognize God and His greatness, he usually overlooks the importance of
ado-ration. Even if one recognizes the need for adoration, he does not know
how to do it. Some people may think it is important to sacrifice and burn
animals, others pursue ani-mal passions in the name of God. One believes the
ascetic life is loved by God, while others believe that life is an abomination
to God and destructive to the human race. Others adore God by singing and
playing instruments, while others believe in submission and kneeling as their
form of devotion. The acceptable form of devotion must accord with God’s will,
not our desires and whims. He should make His will clear to us through a
messenger or prophet.
Man, unguided and untrained, resembles
the animals in his instinctive constitution. Reason is subverted to the
ser-vice of satisfying his passions unless a restraining element is
introduced. Philosophy is not helpful in restraining our passions, since it is
available to only a few; nor is there a consistency in philosophy that urges
us to control the pas-sions. Some people reach the conclusion that we should
strive only for instinctive satisfaction. We are now struggl-ing against such
an ultramaterialistic ideology, the doctrines of which discourage the
restraint of passions for moral reasons. The ultimate moral and ethical
standards all lie with God. When His messenger transmits His word, it will be
a sound basis for ending dispute over these matters.
For a man who believes in God, it is highly
probable that his life may continue after death in some form. It is also
probable that there will be a Day of Judgment on which man will be rewarded or
penalized. If there is such an afterlife, man should prepare himself for the
judgment. Only God could know about the existence of an afterlife. Philosophy
is of no help here; nor can the human mind deduce the existence of the
afterlife from observation or experience in this world. Only God has the
certain know-ledge. He can transmit this information through a messen-ger so
that mankind will know and will be warned.
The answers to the questions raised
above lie with God. He can impart the knowledge to man in any way He desi-res.
One of these techniques is to send a prophet who clearly answers each of the
questions as a mediator between God and man. The teachings of such a heavenly
messenger would serve the following purposes:
A. To draw
the people’s attention to the real significance of the great order of the
universe, which becomes insignifi-cant to the common man, because of
familiarity. The unive-rse is truly infinite and full of wonders; and, if
contemplated attentively, it could lead to a strong and sound faith in the
Creator. Man’s attention can be drawn to those natural signs through the
prophet’s teachings and directions.
B. To
express the moral and ethical standards and codes with which mankind could
conform and settle the contro-versial ethical issues.
C. To make the
imperativeness of God’s worship evident and to teach us how to perform such
adorations.
D. To deliver to us
the codes which are needed for curbing our appetites and to stimulate our
aspirations for loftiness and purity which, if progressively increased, could
rank us with the angels.
E. To
inform us definitely that there is or there is not a life after death. This
information could only be received from the Creator Who alone knows whether or
not He will create the other world.
Wilson:
The heavenly teachings did not serve all
these purposes since we still dispute the ethical and moral issues.
Disagreement still prevails on the manner of worship of the Creator, His
existence, and life after death.
Chirri:
These purposes have been satisfactorily served, since a great portion of
humanity had agreed on most of the moral issues and believed in the Creator
and the Hereafter . With the acceptance of these heavenly principles by such a
great portion of humanity, mankind could restrict the loose appetites and
moralize the world to some extent.
Furthermore, the heavenly information
is necessary even if it does not serve any of these purposes. This holds true
because the Creator should bring about the opportunity which may enable us to
know Him and help promote our morality, which draws the actual line between
human beings and animals. When God creates the other world or plans to create
it, He should make it well-known to man-kind by His heavenly information,
which is the only way we can become aware of it. If the Creator does not send
his messenger to transmit to mankind this information, we may be excused when
we ignore it, and we will have no oppor-tunity to have a relative perfection.
Moreover, if He creates the other world and makes it unknown to us, its
creation would be utterly futile.
The historical facts had accorded
themselves with this hypothesis, the necessity of the heavenly teachings.
Provid-ence did not neglect the human beings since they were in their
primitive stage. Thus, many gifted individuals were chosen by the Creator to
perform the great and noble task of reforming and teaching.
Wilson: From the word “prophet” we understand that the prophet is
supposed to communicate with God and re-ceive His words. The human ways of
communication are physical, either through hearing some audible voice or
reading some written words. A prophet is a human being like us. He can hear
the voice by his ears and see the writt-en word by his eyes. But God is not
physical. He does not speak by voice, nor does He write by hand, How can a
prophet communicate with God?
Chirri: A prophet may communicate with God through one of the following
ways:
(a) He may receive the revelation mentally.
God may show him spiritually some specific truth by creating, in his mind, a
clear knowledge of that truth.
(b) God may create
some words audible to the prophet, in some non-speaking object. The first
revelation that was received by Moses came to him by this method. He heard the
words of God coming from a tree.
(c) A prophet may receive a clear message from
God through an angel messenger. The Prophet Mohammad re-ceived the Holy Qur’an
through the angel Gabriel. From the Holy Qur’an:
“And it is not fitting for a mortal that God should
speak to him, except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by sending a
messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He chooses. Surely, He is High,
Wise.” 42:51
None of these ways through which a
prophet communi-cates with God is usual to the rest of the people, and none of
them is beyond the area of possibility. The Creator is able to communicate
with His servant in any way He pleases. The recipient of revelation, however,
is supposed to have certain qualifications which place him spiritually above
the rest of mankind.
Wilson: History has witnessed many individuals who claimed prophethood.
These individuals appeared in various periods, and some of them are still
alive. We know that some of them were true prophets, and some of them were
untrue. How can we distinguish between true and untrue prophets?
Chirri:
A prophet is a messenger of God. He is an am-bassador of God to mankind.
An ambassador is supposed to have some credential papers, some signs which
demonstrate his truthfulness. No one should be received as an am-bassador on
his own claim. Therefore, we find that those individuals who are believed to
be prophets were equipped with some unusual powers which could not be found
with other people.
Moses was empowered by God to convert
his staff into a serpent, to transform water into blood, and to split the sea
with a strike of his staff. Jesus was empowered to cure the sick without
medicine, to make the blind see, to bring the dead back to life, and,
according to the Holy Qur’an, to speak to the people while he was in the
cradle. Mohammad was equipped with the superb speech, the Holy Qur’an, which
challenged mankind to produce its like in the Arabic language.
Wilson: Should the prophet be human or may God send to mankind a
non-human messenger?
Chirri:
A prophet is an example to mankind. He should share with them the same
nature, the same ability, and the same limitation. An attractive example to
the people must be obtainable. It must have the capability of inducing the
people to follow it. Should the prophet be from a different nature, people
will not attempt to follow his example. A relative perfection shown by a
prophet should be possible for his followers. Should a human being show me a
high degree of virtuous life,
I
may be tempted to try to attain that
degree. He and I
are human. What is possible for
him is possible for me. But if an angel shows me a high degree of morality,
I
may not attempt to follow his example. What
is possible for him may be impossible for me; he is not from the same nature.
There is
another reason to believe that mankind should
receive human prophets: We have advanced
that a prophet is
expected to
substantiate his truthfulness by showing people unusual performance. By doing
so, people would know that he is empowered by God because what he does is
beyond his natural ability. This will not work if the prophet is non-human, -
let us say an angel. A human prophet may, for example, show his truthfulness
by taking an unaided flight. Should an angel do the same, it will not
demonstrate his truthfulness. Such a flight will not necessarily be beyond his
natural ability, since he may not be affected naturally by gravitation .
Wilson:
What does the belief in
the prophethood include from the Islamic point of view?
Chirri:
The belief in the
prophethood, from the Islamic point of view, includes the following:
1. The belief in the prophethood of
Mohammad. Mohammad is a major prophet sent not only to a particular nation,
but to all mankind. From the Holy Qur’an:
“Say: O mankind, surely I am the messenger of God to
you all, of Him, Whose is the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth. There is
no god but He; He gives life and causes death. So believe in God and His
messenger, the unschooled prophet who believes in God and His words, and
follow him, so that you may be guided aright.” 7:158
2. The belief in the prophethood of all the
prophets who came before Mohammad because they are recognized by the Holy
Qut’an:
“Say: We believe in God and (in) that which has been
revealed to us, and (in) that which has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael
and Jacob and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Moses and Jesus,
and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord. We do not make
any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.” 2:136
3. The belief in Mohammad as the final of the
prophets whose death brought the prophethood to a close. From the Holy Qur’an:
“Mohammad is not the father of any of your men, but he
is the messenger of God and the ‘Khatam’ of the prophets, and God knows all
things.” 33:40
The
word Khatam means the seal which closes a con-tainer or the seal whose imprint
confirms the authenticity of certain contents of a written document or a
message. Sealing for closure or for confirmation comes at the end of what it
closes or confirms.
The Prophet Mohammad said to his cousin Ali:
“Thy position from me compares to the Position of Aaron
from Moses, but there will be no prophet after me.”
Wilson:
The history of the
Prophet informs us that at the age of forty, while he was worshipping on Mount
Hira, the light of God shone upon him and he heard the voice of the Truth. At
that moment his commission as a messenger of God to mankind commenced. What
did the message of Hira reveal to Mohammad?
Chirri:
The message of Hira
revealed to the new prophet the facts that belong to the true concept of the
True God: The
power of creation, the power of transforming clay into a
human being, and the power of making the matter con-scious of itself and of
the world. The power of making the matter conscious is clearly demonstrated by
the human knowledge and the human capability of writing, which is the
foundation of the world civilization. From the Holy Qur’an:
“Read in the name of thy Lord Who creates,
Who created man out of clay. Read and thy Lord is the Most Generous, - Who
taught by the pen. Who taught man what he knew not.” 96:1-5
Wilson: How does Mohammad stand among the proph-ets?
Chirri: He stands in the record of the major prophets with clear
distinctions:
1. He is a part of both world and religious
histories. His message was an important factor in changing the history of the
world, and no historian doubts his existence and his role in world events.
2. He is the only prophet who witnessed with
his eyes the growth of his religion until it was adopted by a whole nation
during his lifetime.
3. He is the universal prophet who was sent,
not to a particular nation, such as the Arabs or the Hebrews, but to all
mankind. From the Qur’an:
“Say, O mankind, I am the Messenger of God to you all,
of Him Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the Earth. . . .” 7: 158
4. His message clearly opposed all
sorts of racial disc-rimination. Removal of all social barriers is an
essential part of his message. White, black, red, and yellow are equal.
No race is
superior to another race, and no nation is
inferior to another nation. Man is to be praised or blamed only for what
he does by his own choice. Being related to a particular nation or race is not
our choice, nor is it of our own making. Our distinction can come only through
our good deeds.
From the Holy Qur’an:
“Certainly, the noblest among you in the eyes of God is
the most righteous of you.” 49:13
5. He
founded and established, during his lifetime, a powerful state, based on high
ideals. The Muslim state was born in an age in which the government was
conceived as a ruling body, superior to the people and imposed on its subjects
without their choice. The people themselves never conceived their equality to
their rulers, nor believed their equality to one another . In the teaching of
Islam, the oppo-site is true. The government is a fruit of people’s belief in
one set of guiding principles. It is the legitimate child of their spontaneous
cooperation for promotion of such prin-ciples. Thus, the promoters of
such principles are related to each other and considered to be one
brotherhood.
6. He defeated all his opponents, and no party
was able to defeat him.
7. He is the prophet who declared the religious
freedom when he was powerful enough to deprive many people of such a freedom.
He and his followers were persecuted for thirteen years. He never spoke of
religious freedom when they were subject of persecution. When he defeated all
his opponents and was able to penalize the oppressors, he an-nounced the
following declaration:
“There, shall be no compulsion in religion; the right
direction is, henceforth, distinct from error.” 2:256
8. He is the only prophet who declared
himself as the Final Prophet whose death concludes the long history of
prophethood. Prophethood was claimed by many individ-uals after Mohammad, but
none of them was able to substantiate his claim. And now, after so many
centuries since his death, Mohammad is still standing in the history as the
Final of the prophets.
9. He is the only Prophet who introduced to the
world a book; that does not contain any human word. The Qur’an is not a
dialogue between God and man, as the rest of the holy
books; it is only the words of God which He
put in the mouth of Mohammad to be transmitted through him to mankind.
Wilson;
It is puzzling that the
prophets who preceded Mohammad such as Moses and Jesus had been empowered to
perform remarkable and supernatural works, while Mo-hammad did not show, or
rather did not rely on miraculous actions. He only relied, in proving his
prophethood, on the Qur’an. Why didn’t he perform miracles similar to those of
Jesus and Moses?
Chirri;
There are two reasons for the
difference between the type of Mohammad’s miracle and the types of miracles of
those prophets who preceded him:
1. The miracles of Jesus and Moses, it
is true, were very remarkable; but the fact remains that in spite of their
remarkability, they did not induce the people of their times to believe in
those prophets or to adhere to their teachings. History informs us that the
Israelites did not follow the Prophet Moses after he showed them all his
wonders. After they crossed the sea on their feet, they showed no true
adherence to his teaching. After he went to the mountain to receive the
commandments, he came back to find them straying from the Divine road. Jesus
was followed by mul-titudes, but when the crisis came, he was deserted even by
his own disciples.
People, in general, never were induced
by those wonders to adhere to the heavenly teachings. When they witnessed
supernatural performances, the majority of them called their performers
magicians and imposters.
Had the same
kind of miracles been repeated at the time of Mohammad, it would not have
produced better re-sults than it did before. For this, the type of
miracles had to be changed.
2. Suppose that those miracles of Moses
and Jesus were very productive, causing their witnesses to believe in the
truthfulness of their performers. The fact remains that they were not
permanent but only temporary miracles. No action can be seen twice. No action
would last long. Making a blind see his way or bringing a dead back to life is
a remar-kable action, but such an action disappears as soon as it is done. As
soon as the action is finished, it becomes history. Those who did not see it
have to rely on the testimony of those who had seen it.
A prophet
that will be followed by another prophet may rely on a remarkable performance
in convincing his con-temporaries. He does not have to worry about the future
generations who will not see his miracles, because he can rely on the prophet
who will come after him at a different period. The subsequent prophet will
perform his own miracles, and he will endorse the prophet who preceded
him.
With Mohammad, the case is different.
He was the Final of the prophets. He could not rely on any miraculous action,
because no action can last long enough to be seen by other generations. Nor
could he rely on the endorsement of a sub-sequent prophet, because he is the
Final of the prophets. He had to rely on some miracle, but his miracle must be
from a different type. It has to be a lasting miracle to be witnessed and
tested by the future generations as well as by his con-temporaries.
In a time
when there was neither camera nor film to make one action witnessable at
various times, we cannot conceive any kind of lasting miracles except the type
of speech. When a speech is superb and recorded in a book, its superiority can
be witnessed and tested at any time by any generation. If it is
unmatchable, it will
stay so forever, and its superiority call be judged by all generations. This
is the type of miracle which is fitting for a final prophet, and this was the
reason why Mohammad was equipped with the Holy Qur’an as evidence of his
truthfulness.
