Question # 2: Why do Other Believers in One God Belonging to Other Religions Need to Accept Islam:

Question: If the aim of Islam is to guide mankind toward monotheism, then why is it that religious battles took place in the early period of Islam with the Jews, when their revealed Books teach nothing extraneous to monotheism? What is jihad? Or why should it now be considered essential for the Jews and other monotheists to accept Islam for their salvation?

It is obvious that monotheism does not consist merely in repeating orally "There is no god but Allah" while the heart harbours thousands of idols. A person who thinks that his effort, stratagem, cunning or plan will suffice him instead of God, or who places such trust in a man as should be placed in God alone, or who gives himself importance as should only be given to God, is an idolater in the sight of God. Idols are not just the icons of gold, silver, brass, stone, etc. that are relied upon for some good by their worshippers, but every object, word or action that is glorified like God alone should be glorified is an idol in the sight of God. It is true that the Torah does not give a clear explanation of this form of idolatry, but the Quran makes this point abundantly clear. In the revelation of the Quran, therefore, it was one of God's purpose to do away with this form of idolatry that was sticking to mankind like a chronic illness. The Jews of that time were sunk deep in this idolatry, but the Torah was incapable of extricating them because it did not contain this subtle teaching. In addition, this scourge had become so widespread in the Jewish nation that its eradication demanded a living personality of eminent perfection to act as an immaculate exemplar of monotheism.

It should be remembered that real monotheism, which God demands of us and on which our salvation depends, requires pure devotion to Him, uncontaminated by any associate, be it an idol, man, sun, moon, a person's ego, stratagem or cunning. It requires acceptance of God as the Most Powerful, the Nourisher, the Most Honourable, the sole Helper, and the only one deserving of these attributes in their perfection. It dictates absolute devotion to God, and a conviction that He is the only resolver of fears, hopes, and problems. Thus monotheism cannot be complete without the following three specifications:

1. Unity of Person. This implies He is One -- the Creator, and that all created have no reality beside Him, are subject to annihilation, and are of no consequence in comparison to Him.

2. Unity of Attributes. This implies that the qualities of Divinity and Lordship, like the power to create, develop and sustain, belong only to Him, and that the apparent providers of sustenance and benefits are really only part of His scheme.

3. Unity in devotion. This implies total engrossment in Him as manifested by unadulterated love, sincerity and purity of worship, that is totally uncontaminated by other associates.

The Jews had lost the essence of monotheism, comprised of the three aspects described above, on which salvation really depends. They professed faith in God with their lips, but their immoralities bore clear testimony to the bankruptcy of faith in their hearts. Accordingly, the Quran charges the Jews and the Christians with want of faith, and declares that if they had kept to the guidance in the Torah and Gospel, they would have been blessed with spiritual and physical sustenance. They would have received Heavenly sustenance as evidenced by miracles, acceptance of prayers, visions and revelation, and also worldly sustenance. But they were left completely bereft of the heavenly sustenance, and as for the worldly sustenance, its acquisition was not by turning to God but by turning solely to this world. As such, the real blessing of both these sustenance was denied to them.

1. To teach the real meaning and practice of monotheism to the spiritually dead Jews.

2. To warn them of their errors.

3. To give detailed descriptions of issues that had only been dealt summarily in the Torah like, for example, the doctrines of Resurrection, the eternal life of the soul, and heaven and hell.

What a pity that the Judeo-Christian nations, from a love of this world, are heedless of the Quran whose light shines like the bright sun. They call a mere man a god, and accursed at the same time. However, they deny the great Prophet who came at a time when the nations of the world were spiritually dead, and question the need for the Book he brought.

O unmindful ones! The Quran came at a time of spiritual darkness unparalleled in the history of earlier prophets. It found the world steeped in darkness and gave it light, found it astray and provided guidance, found it dead and gave it life. Is there still need for any further proof to justify the revelation of the Quran? If it is argued that the Quran did not bring anything new because monotheism already existed, then it reflects an inadequate understanding of the issue. As already stated, monotheism that existed at the advent of the Quran was imperfect, and it is impossible to show otherwise. Moreover, the real spirit of monotheism had died, and it had ceased to exist in practice. The Quran, not only reminded the people of monotheism but perfected it. Consequently, one of the names of the Quran is Al-Zikr or the Reminder because it is a Book that reminds. Reflect with an unbiased mind whether even the monotheistic teachings of the Torah were entirely new, the like of which had not been given to any previous prophets? Is it not true that Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, and all other prophets who preceded Moses received the monotheistic doctrine? It could then also be argued that the Torah did not present anything new. O people! There isn't a new and different God every day. The God at the time of Moses was the same as at the time of Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph and hence the Torah expounded the same monotheistic doctrine that the earlier prophets had.

An excellent measure of the success of any prophet is to see the conditions prevailing at the time of his advent and the quantum of reforms he instituted. It behoves one not to be distracted by the clamour of prejudiced, mischief mongers and to apply this test honestly. The key is to examine the facts of each prophet, and to see the condition the people were in when he was charged with their reformation and then to observe the factual change that he caused in their faith, character and conduct. This would clearly show the ranking of the prophets by the dire need for their advent. The need of a prophet for sinners is exactly analogous to the need of a doctor for the sick. Just as the abundance of sick patients requires a doctor, so too does an abundance of sinners requires a reformer.

Consider, for example, what was the need for the advent of Jesus and whether there is any proof that the need was indeed fulfilled? Did he cause any significant change in the morality, habits and faith of the Jews, or did he purify his followers to perfection? None of these changes can be proven. The only thing that can be established is that a few greedy persons became his followers, and in the end betrayed him shamefully. And if Jesus met with a self-invited death, I can find no justification for such a suicidal action that forever mars his humanity and intelligence. Can an intelligent man commit an action that even under all man made laws is a crime? Certainly, not. We ask, therefore, what did Jesus accomplish? Just the accursed sacrifice that appears futile both to our intelligence and sense of justice?

Impartial Christians admit that the Gospels are a summary of Jesus' favourite passages from the Jewish scriptures, and argue that the purpose for the coming of Jesus on earth was not to bring any new teachings, but to offer his person as sacrifice. So it is back again to the accursed sacrifice that, however, I forbear to criticise any further. Thus, Christians are under the mistaken belief that the religious law for man's conduct, i.e., shari'ah was completed in the Torah. Jesus, therefore, did not bring any new laws but instead brought the means for the salvation of the world. They contend that the Quran started a new code of conduct that was unwarranted because the previous code was complete. This mistaken supposition has kept them from believing in the Quran.

Their premise though is faulty. The fact is that human beings are prone to omission and forgetfulness so that the practical observance of God's commandments wanes with the passage of time. Consequently, there is always a need to remind the people anew and to impart spiritual strength to them. The Quran came to fulfil these two needs but these were, by no means, the only reasons for the revelation of the Quran.

Although the real spirit of the teachings in the three Books is the same, there is a difference in the degree of emphasis. The Torah may expand and expound one aspect of an issue, and the Gospels may do the same with another aspect. The way of the Quran, however, is always to follow a middle course, in line with the nature of man. Since wisdom demands that the situational requirements be considered, the Quran is quite unique in imparting this wisdom. Like blood, when it comes into the breast, becomes the source of milk, the commandments of the Torah and the Gospels, when amalgamated in the Quran, become a source of wisdom. If the Quran had not been revealed, the efficacy of the commandments of the Torah and the Gospels would have been like the efficiency of a blind archer whose arrows may find the target once or twice but miss more often. In short, the religious code of conduct came to us from the Torah in the form of stories, and from the Gospels in the form of analogies, but the Quran cloaked them in wisdom and made it available for the seekers of truth.

However, I would like to make another proposal to them. If they consider their Torah and their Gospels the perfect exponent of the Divine word and the repository of complete wisdom and truth, then let them produce from their voluminous scriptures, which number about seventy, as I would from the Fatiha, the distinctive characteristics of the Divine word -- the facts and knowledge of Divine ordinances, the wisdom and gems of knowledge contained therein and the beauty of the arrangement and structure of ideas. If the Christian clergymen can produce anything comparable, I am willing to pay them Rupees five hundred as reward, and if they consider this amount small, I am willing to increase it, at their request, to any amount I can afford.

To obtain a final judgement on this issue, I will first prepare and publish an exhaustive treatise on the Fatiha. I will show in it the extraordinary marvels of truth and wisdom contained in the Fatiha, quite impossible to find in a human work, and furnishing proof, thereby, of its Divine origin. It will then be the duty of the Christian clergymen to prepare a similar work using the Torah, Gospels and their other scriptures as a source. If they choose to enter this contest, both the documents will then be submitted to three judges belonging to other religions. If the judges rule that the finer points, knowledge, and the distinctive characteristics of the Divine word shown to be in the Fatiha are also proven in the passages presented by the Christian clergymen, then I will forfeit the Rupees five hundred reward money, which I am willing to deposit beforehand with a person they trust.

Is there a Christian priest who has the courage to accept this challenge? The word of God has the perfection of His attributes and is easily recognised by it, just as the Divine origin of the creation is recognised by the marvels it exhibits. It is absurd to discredit divine origin of some parts of God's word by arguing redundancies. For example, the sky is full of stars, but if a person points to a particular group of stars and states that this is not part of God's creation because there was no need for it, or names a few herbs, stones or animals and states that they are not part of divine creation because life would have continued perfectly well without them, then such an argument can proceed only from a deranged or a very foolish person.

This is what happened to the Israelites. By staying in servitude to the Pharaohs for an extended period, and having been subjected to all kinds of cruelty, their sense of justice atrophied. The first priority with Prophet Moses was to recreate this trait, and consequently the commandments of the Torah lay great emphasis on ensuring justice. There are some verses in the Torah that deal with mercy, but a closer look at them shows that these verses are meant to define the limits of just conduct so that unbridled emotions, and undue rancour may not transgress these boundaries. The real reason everywhere is to safeguard the provisions of the laws on justice and equity.

This, however, is not the objective of the Gospels that emphasise forgiveness and eschewing revenge. When we read the Gospels analytically, it becomes evident from the text that its addresser was convinced that the addressees were devoid of kindness, patience and forgiveness and that the addresser earnestly desired them not to covet seeking revenge, but instead to develop the traits of patience, tolerance, forbearance, and forgiveness. The reason for this is that in the time of Jesus, peace be on him, the moral condition of the Jews had degenerated to an extent where they had exceeded all limits of animosity and rancour, resulting in constant litigation. Under the pretence of being the supporters of justice, the Jews had completely lost the traits of forgiveness and forbearance. They were, therefore, admonished and advised in the Gospels, but these counsels were time and people specific and not meant to form the structure of an ever lasting law. Consequently, these injunctions were abrogated by the Quran.

On reading the Quran, it becomes obvious that the Quran seeks acceptance of its laws, limits and commands by appealing to the intellect. It does not confine an individual into a given personal set of do's and don'ts but instead provides a generic framework for action. For example, it lays down the generic principle to do good (ma'ruf) and to give up evil (munkar). These two principles, i.e., to do good and to shun evil, are so comprehensive that they provide the intellectual underpinning for all Islamic codes, and create an imperative in all situations to determine what constitutes real goodness in those circumstances.

Some examples of the use of these principles may be cited. In the case of a personal injury, one should examine what constitutes the greater good in that situation -- forgiveness or retribution. Suppose someone asks for a loan of Rupees one thousand and the proposed lender can loan the amount. However, the intended use of the money is to finance an extravagant wedding of a son following the family tradition of having firework display, marching band and singing girls. The principle of amr-bil-ma'ruf and nahy-'anil-munkar requires one to reflect whether the generosity of advancing a loan is misplaced. Thus, for the material and spiritual welfare of the believers, the Quran requires them to carefully evaluate the impact of all proposed good deeds.

Those who make the baseless allegation that the Prophet did not wage war during the first thirteen years of prophethood because he lacked an organised party belie the facts of history. Such allegations may have had some place if the opponents of the Prophet had refrained from cruel, bloody persecution and plans to murder or exile him, and if the Prophet had voluntarily migrated to Medina without an attack on his person underway. However, the facts are well known even to our opponents. For thirteen years, the Prophet patiently bore all manner of hardship, but strictly forbade his companions to seek revenge for the evils inflicted upon them. During this period, the opponents went so far as to murder some Muslims and the number that were wounded or grievously hurt by them is countless. Finally, they launched a plan to murder the Prophet, but God saved His Prophet from the evil of the enemies and brought him safely to Medina. God then gave him the good news that those who had raised the sword against him would now die by the sword. In all fairness, is it at all possible to conclude from this that the Prophet had been harbouring a design to fight from the very beginning and it was manifested when he was able to gather a few men around him?

Alas! The Christian critics of Islam are completely blinded in their prejudice. It does not even cross their mind that when the Muslims fought their very first battle against the Meccan army that was coming in their pursuit to Medina, the Muslims were far from being an organised group. There were only three hundred and thirteen Muslims, mostly young and inexperienced, who took the field in Badr against all the braves of Arabia. Is it at all conceivable that this little band of Muslims had set out to punish the hundreds of thousand of Arabs, Christians and Jews? Clearly, the Muslim presence in the battlefield was not the result of a man made design or plan to vanquish their enemies and be victorious. For if this was the case, then an army of at least thirty to forty thousand should have been put together to take on the hundreds of thousand opposing the Muslims. It is abundantly clear then that the Muslims fought this battle, under very trying circumstances, not because of any reliance on material resources but because they had been so commanded by God.