by
Mohammad Shafi
To
my friends,
Muslim and non-Muslim
alike.
C O N T E N T S
CHAPTER 1: Evolution vs. Creation
CHAPTER 2: One or More?
CHAPTER 3: Purpose of Creation
CHAPTER 4: The Hereafter
CHAPTER 5: The Messengers
CHAPTER 6: The Religion of Islam
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
If we have a form to fill in, in which personal particulars are required to be given, we generally mention our religion to be the same as that to which our parents are supposed to belong. We do not give much thought to the question of whether we really believe in that religion or not. It is as if we automatically inherit our religion from our parents as we inherit some of our physical features and mannerisms from them.
But religion, as a matter of fact, is not a thing to be inherited. It should strictly be a matter of our own individual consciences irrespective of the religious beliefs of our parents. Freedom is our birthright and freedom includes religious freedom. We cannot be the captives of the religious beliefs of our parents or guardians.
It was with these sentiments that I started my journey into my soul to probe whether it really believed in the declared religion of the family in which I was born and, if so, why. It was a long journey and not an easy one at that. On several occasions along the way, I was beset with doubts and pitfalls. And it is only in these evening years of my life that I have been able to gather my thoughts on the subject and put them in this booklet.
Through this booklet, I wish to share my thoughts with all those who would like to have such sentimental journeys into their own respective souls. They may not all agree with my beliefs. That is not my intention. My intention is to induce my readers to discover their own honestly felt faiths and beliefs and then to have the courage of conviction to act accordingly. One essential word of warning though. Freedom is of course our birthright, but it has its limits. We cannot have the freedom to spread chaos, anarchy, and corruption in this world.
One other motivating force inducing me to write this booklet came from my friends, non-Muslim ones particularly. Their impressions of Muslims and Islam were not good. Muslims were not fit to live or make friends with, some of them had thought. “But you are different”, they used to tell me. I tried to explain to them the real position, but it was of no use. Occasionally given oral and impromptu explanations can hardly erase any deep-rooted misunderstandings. This booklet is my humble attempt to give a more detailed written explanation of the reality of Islam.
Mohammad Shafi
Mumbai-95
14th August 1999
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
Except for a change in the very last sentence of the booklet and for a cosmetic change enabling direct links from Contents Page to the various sections, this Edition remains essentially the same as the First.
Mohammad Shafi
Mumbai-95
26th July 2001
The earlier editions were designed as e-books. This one is for print, with consequential changes. The contents are otherwise the same, except for a slight change in the title.
Mohammad Shafi
Mumbai, INDIA.
23rd June 2007
Evolution vs. Creation
The universe is an enigma. It is an enigma because, apparently, it has come into being on its own. But can this - coming into being on its own - happen, scientifically speaking? No; for it is against the scientific principles of cause and effect. What is the cause of this effect - the universe?
Those who subscribe to the Darwinian theory of evolution say that the universe has evolved by itself on principles like 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest'. This answer does not convince me. It is just like saying, say, that the clock on the wall has evolved by itself. The Darwinians would argue that whereas everyone knows that man in factories manufactures clocks, no one knows for certain who has manufactured the universe. So, the Darwinians' argument is, as a matter of fact, prompted by their ignorance rather than on any scientific basis.
For, the Darwinians' above argument is based, in its ultimate analysis, on the fact that no one has seen the Creator of the universe. But has anyone seen electricity? No. And yet, none would deny its existence. Why? Because we recognise its existence from the effect it produces. We recognise the electric current present in a cable, from the lighting of the electric bulb, the blowing of the electric fan, or the running of any electric machine. If an uneducated cave man refuses to believe that there is electricity in the cable because he does not see it, we, the educated, would attribute the caveman's refusal to his utter ignorance. We would not subscribe to the caveman's theory about the lighting of the electric bulb etc. being a magical happening or a miracle. We know that the caveman is uninitiated in scientific thinking and therefore he cannot comprehend that there has to be a cause, although invisible, for the electric bulb lighting, which cause we call as electric energy.
On this earth and in the wide open universe, however, we know of things continuously happening, which are far, far more complicated, intricate and fascinating than any wonder wrought by electricity. Leave alone the universe, and take only this wonderful earth, enveloped by its gaseous atmosphere. So far as human knowledge goes, this is the only heavenly body, among the infinite number of such bodies orbiting in the vast universe, which has this unique atmosphere. It is tailor-made for living things to exist and subsist here. Not just the gaseous atmosphere, but everything, over the earth and under it, is tailor-made for the purpose. Take, for instance, the water cycle, the inclining of the earth's axis at a particular angle vis-a-vis the sun, the transparently intelligent and exquisite natural arrangement for reproduction, and thereby the continuity of every kind of life, human or otherwise. All these things, and, for that matter, all other things naturally happening, unmistakably point to superlatively intelligent planning inherent therein.
But, like the caveman mentioned above, our friends, the Evolutionists, refuse to believe that there is a cause for these effects, viz., the numerous natural happenings mentioned above. They refuse because, like the caveman, they do not see the cause, which is an obviously super-intelligent power, behind these happenings!! And the Evolutionists are supposed to be men of great learning - men of science!!! It appears to me that the intellect of these people has somehow - as if, under a spell - become dumb, nonplussed. Otherwise, how can one explain their obviously unscientific approach in this regard?
When one confronts the Evolutionists with this anomaly in their thinking, their inevitable poser is, “If there is a Creator of this Universe, who is the creator of that Creator?”
This is apparently a perplexing question. But the description of the Creator of the Universe, given in the Qur'aan and other original Books of Religion, takes the wind out of the perplexity of this question. The Creator is described in the Qur'aan as One who has been and will be ever-living i.e. who has no beginning or any end. Now, a created being has necessarily to have a beginning: there ought to be a dividing line in time before which it was not existing, the dividing line being its beginning. Therefore, there is no question of any power creating the Creator of the universe, who has ever been living and ever will be. The Creator ought to be the Ultimate Cause of all things created. The chain of effect and cause has logically to end somewhere. That end is the Ultimate Cause, the Creator. I believe this conclusion is not at all unscientific.
To me, the incredibly infinite varieties of living things sustaining on this earth, and the continuity of this vast and wonderful universe, constitute concrete evidence for the existence of their eternal Creator. The Evolutionists, however, have failed to produce any concrete proof of the correctness of their theory. They have ever been in search of that elusive `missing link', connecting the ape to man. There have been many stories of the alleged discoveries of the fossils of the link - the ape-man - but every such story has been proved to be a fraud perpetrated on mankind by misleading it away from believing in Creation.
I, therefore, reject the Evolutionists' theory and firmly and conscientiously believe that there is an eternal and super-intelligent Power, who has consciously created this entire universe, including, of course, the human being.
___________________
One or More?
In Chapter 1, the conclusion I drew was that there is a Creator of this universe. 'A Creator' indicates one Creator. This conclusion, of there being only one Creator and not many, was of course generated by my subconscious; I was brought up believing in one Creator. But, even otherwise, one could see, I think, a unity of purpose as well as planning in the diversity of this universe, if one would ponder a little deeper on the world around.
As is evident to me, this earth, and the entire universe around it, is tailor-made for the creation and sustenance of life - particularly, human life - thereon. This obviously would not have been possible if there were two or more mutually independent creators thereof. Such creators would have worked at cross-purposes and it would have been a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. That is why all the major religions in the world profess that the entire universe is created by only one Power. Some of these religions in their present forms, however, also profess that this Power has a holy family or has a number of (sort-of) subordinate deities who help that Power in the maintenance of the universe.
Let me first consider the case of those who believe in the Creator having a holy family. A family, such as those we humans have, consists of, at the least, a wife and a child, besides the head of the family. The human family serves the purpose of the continuity of the human race; for, one day, the head of such a family is bound to die. But what purpose does a divine family serve? There would be no such thing as `death' for its head; and so, there is no question of any compelling need for perpetuating a `race' of the Eternal Power. The entire idea of such power having a family is revolting to my intellect, which cannot, therefore, accept it.
Some of the protagonists of 'the holy family' say that the 'holy father' had to have a 'holy son' in order to put the latter to the agony of physical death to atone for the 'sin' of man, whatever that 'sin' be. My intellect cannot comprehend this argument either. The Creator can, if He wants to do so, simply pardon the `sin' of His creation, man. Where is the need for Him to have a `holy son' for the purpose? Even the 'holy son', after all, would be a creation of the Creator. How can the Creator be a perpetrator of injustice by making one of His creations, the 'holy son', suffer for the sin of another creation, man?
Then there are those who believe that the Creator has other gods helping Him in the maintenance of the universe and to do other sundry divine jobs. I have no quarrel with the idea of the Creator having His helpers, whom He may be using as His media or tools for His workmanship. But these helpers cannot have been eternal, independent creators by themselves. As we have seen herein above, there could be only one such Creator. The helpers ought to be, then, no more than created beings - created by that one eternal Creator.
It would be an anomaly, therefore, to equate such created beings, the helpers, with the Creator Himself. I would do no such thing. It is naturally the prerogative of the Creator that He be worshipped by the created beings. I would not violate this prerogative of the Creator, by worshipping others, who are also created beings like me. If I did so, my action would be illogical, unreasonable, unjust, and therefore completely wrong.
What do we mean by `worship', by the way? The word may have other connotations. But, here, its meaning, that we are concerned with, is to adore the Being who has absolute power over ourselves as our Creator - the power to do anything with our lives, including the power to grant us our personal wishes in absentia (i.e. without the Creator being physically seen by us), as it were. Self-centred as we generally are, it is for the fulfillment of these wishes, mainly, that we pray to a deity. To pray to, in that sense, is to worship. Therefore, I would not so pray to any being, imaginary or otherwise, other than to the One Creator. No one else has absolute powers to grant me such prayers; if any one else had, there would be absolute chaos in this world.
Purpose of Creation
What, indeed, is the purpose of creating the entire universe, which is virtually unlimited, going by the limited human perception? Human intelligence, by itself, cannot comprehend the purpose.
That is why the so-called, and self-proclaimed, rationalists have come up with the irrational plea that the universe has evolved by itself and that therefore there is no question of there being any purpose behind it. They think that the universe has come about as a result of an accident or a series of accidents, and accidents cannot happen on purpose. The mere presumption of purpose behind the universe would entail its conscious creation, and creation is anathema for evolutionists.
In Chapter 1, I have explained at length why the evolutionists' above plea is irrational and therefore cannot be accepted. What unaided human intelligence can at best infer is that there ought to be some purpose behind the creation of the universe. What that purpose really is, only the Creator should know. Humans can come to know of it only if He has chosen to reveal it to them. There are a number of religions claiming revelations from the Creator. Willy-nilly, we have to refer to these religions in search of the purpose, and then see if our intelligence accepts, what we gather therefrom, as feasible.
What I could personally gather from my limited studies of the religions is not much, I am afraid. Perhaps, the Creator has not thought it fit or necessary to reveal fully the purpose of His creating this vast universe. The only purpose that I could glean, through authentic books of religion, is to demonstrate to human beings that His power of creation is infinite, in comparison with which the combined power of creation of the entire human race is infinitesimal! That may not be the only purpose, but it is the purpose with which the human race is concerned. The purpose is not to be misconstrued as ‘showing off’ the Creator's power. The Creator does not need to show off to His own creatures. He is beyond any need. It is the human beings, the creatures, which are needy. They need to be shown their place. They need to be made aware of the fact that they count for nothing before their Creator. Otherwise, forgetting that they themselves are created beings, they become unduly proud of their little achievements and start thinking that they can do anything. Their pride goes to their heads, and they deny their own Creator.
I have no reason to quarrel with the above-mentioned purpose and the rationale thereof, gleaned from books of religion, of creating this vast universe, and I accept the same. But what is the purpose of creating us, human beings? That is the fundamental question I shall try to address in the paragraphs below.
Let me begin, as before, with the atheists. They have their pet theory of Natural Evolution. Under this theory, everything in this universe, animate or inanimate, has evolved of its own volition, without any intelligent power purposely shaping, designing, or making them. We have seen, earlier in this book, why this theory is unacceptable. But just for the sake of understanding the would-be consequences of accepting such a theory on human character, let us assume it to be true.
Human beings are, of course, rational enough to realise that they cannot freely act on their individual whims and fancies. This world would be a virtual hell if they did so. They would, therefore, in any case, make necessary laws and abide by these laws in order to regulate their lives. But they would be devoid of any moral responsibilities. If a man would come to think that another man is an impediment to a better worldly life, the former would have no moral compunction in secretly doing away with the latter provided he takes adequate steps to avoid being caught under the existing man-made laws. He would ensure that no clues are left behind and, even if the law-enforcing authorities were able to lay their hands on some evidence, the culprit would sufficiently bribe them to hush up the case. Such murders do take place, in real life, in similar circumstances, where the murderers have no real belief in their Creator keeping a close watch on them, although they may outwardly profess to be God-fearing men. Perpetrators of similar other crimes, like usurpation of others' properties by cheating, stealing, or strong-arm methods, for personal aggrandisement or other selfish motives, are, at heart, hard-core atheists or have at least temporarily lost faith in the Creator having the power to punish them for bad deeds.
A society predominantly made up of atheists, therefore, would be difficult to be controlled by democratic processes of governance. The general public, in such a society, can be kept under check only under authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, like those of the Communists. But, as the saying goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. History is replete with examples to demonstrate the truth of this saying. Such regimes tend to be a curse on society because of their inherent corruption, and, ultimately, collapse. We have Hitler's Germany or Communist Russia as examples from recent history.
I, therefore, reiterate that I cannot accept the theory that humans have just evolved and that therefore there can be no definite purpose in their being here.
Among those who believe in the Creation theory, there is a sort of confusion of thought, as regards the purpose of creating humans. But all religions, advocating belief in the said theory, agree, more or less, that the present life of every human in this world is but a huge, prolonged, test for him/her. They also agree that there would be life/lives after death for every human, in which he/she would be rewarded or punished for his/her good or bad overall performance in the present world.
Is this doctrine - that this world is a testing ground for a better life after death - acceptable to human intellect? Let us now logically examine this moot question.
The first objection that human intellect would throw up is as to how a human being can be resurrected, after death, when he/she is reduced to mere dust or ashes. Well, there should be no difficulty for the human intellect to accept the feasibility of a human's resurrection, once it accepts his/her creation in the first place. We have already seen, in Chapter 1, that the creation theory is acceptable to human intellect. In these days, even human scientists have been able to clone an animal (i.e. reproduce its exact equal) from a mere cell. It should not at all be therefore difficult for the human intellect to accept the feasibility of the all-powerful Creator resurrecting humans even from mere specks of their mortal remains.
But what test are humans put to? What are humans expected to do to pass the test? These are the questions that arise next for the human intellect to ponder.
The different religions based on belief in creation, in their presently existing forms, appear to have different concepts in this regard. These apparently different concepts, however, seem to be only variants of one basic concept.
That basic concept is that this world is only a testing ground for humans. The test, mainly, is to find out whether they, the humans, recognise Reality. And the Reality is as under:
There is only one Creator of the entire universe and of every single naturally occurring thing therein. After creation, the Creator has not just left the created things to fend for them themselves. He sustains, protects, and guides them all, whether they are animate or inanimate. All the creatures are programmed to do predetermined things - things as determined by the Creator. They have all willy-nilly to submit absolutely to His will. The humans are His special creations who have been additionally endowed with a little of the Creator's powers of creation, with the faculty of distinguishing between right and wrong, and with freedom of choice.
Humans are expected to realise Reality by making use of their faculty of distinguishing between right and wrong. Once they do so, the humans are to do the right things as expected of them and then submit themselves completely to the will of the Creator. The humans, who do so, with their own free will, pass the test of this worldly life, and those who do not do so, fail. There is a life after death, and in that life will humans taste the fruits of their success or failure in the said test.
The variants, of the above-mentioned concept of human life being a test, arise from the belief in the plurality of deities. In Chapter 2, I have stated why the concept of the plurality of deities is not acceptable to me. All concepts, which are based on this unacceptable concept, are also consequently not acceptable. I, therefore, reject the variants deviating from the main concept of Reality as described above. I however wish to reiterate the fact that the main essence of the said Reality forms the core of all the religions advocating belief in the Creation theory. For instance, the Bhagwad Geeta advocacy of doing one's duty, leaving the results in the hands of God, is essentially the same as the Qur'aanic advocacy of complete submission to the will of God.
It is now to be seen whether the concept, of Reality and the Test as described above, can be considered feasible, and therefore acceptable, by human intellect.
It has already been seen, in Chapters 1 and 2, why part of the Reality - that of there being only one Creator of every natural thing in the entire universe - is feasible and acceptable. It is also a thing known to human intellect that human beings are exclusively endowed with certain powers mentioned above. What remains for the human intellect is to examine the feasibility of the humans doing the right things, of their own free will, in the conscious belief that their doing so is ordained by their Creator, and then submitting completely to His will and thereby passing the test.
But is there any real and feasible alternative to such submission? A man does everything to enable his bright child to come up with flying colours in his annual examination, but on the day of the examination, the child is ill with a high fever and cannot leave his bed. What can the man do but submit to this fate? Or take a case where a young man is on the threshold of a very bright future after a brilliant academic career. Tragedy strikes at that point in time, and the promising young life comes to an abrupt end in a road accident. What can the grief-stricken parents do except for accepting their fate? There could be innumerable instances like these where humans have willy-nilly to submit to their fate, or, in other words, to the will of their Creator. They have absolutely no alternative. There is, however, an alternative to their fretful acceptance of the inevitable. They can accept fate without cursing it, or fretting and fuming over it, being aware that it is part of life, part of the great test of this earthly life. The adoption of the latter course certainly mitigates suffering and humans are better motivated to carry on with life, as they should.
One may still argue that, okay, one has to submit to the inevitable; but, why has one necessarily to live righteously, holding oneself wholly answerable, for every bit of one's actions, to the Creator, who would judge us and suitably reward or punish us in some future life? Does this requirement sound feasible to the human intellect? Well, it should; for, otherwise, judging only by the lifestyles of human beings on this earth, there is an apparent prevalence of injustice here. We have many examples of people committing crimes and getting away with them. There are people apparently enjoying their ill-begotten wealth impudently. It would not be in conformity with the belief in a Lord, who is Creator, Sustainer, Guide, Protector, Provider, and a just Judge, all rolled into one if this earthly life were to be the be-all and end-all of human existence. The belief in one Creator automatically generates belief in His other attributes enumerated in the preceding sentence. There ought therefore to be another life - a life after the present earthly life ends - where the humans would be justly judged on the discharge of their responsibilities in this earthly life and, rewarded or punished suitably.
I, therefore, consider it to be quite rational to believe that the purpose of this earthly life for humans is to put them to a gruelling long-drawn-out test for a veritable Utopia after death.
_______________
The Hereafter
In the last Chapter, it has been seen that the possibility of human resurrection after death is acceptable, as being rational, to the human mind. It has also been seen therein that life after death is a distinctly logical follow-up to the unfulfilled, unsatisfactory, often suddenly terminated, or otherwise seemingly illogical span of life in this world. But what exactly is the nature of this life after death?
All the different religions, advocating belief in the theory of creation, do also believe in such a life after death. But there is no unanimity amongst them as regards its nature. The belief, in one of the religions in its present form, is that a human being may have a series of rebirths, in this very world, till he/she attains salvation. The idea appears to be that the present worldly life of a living being (and not just of a human being) is the result of its performance (karma) in the preceding life. If that is so, well, I, in my present worldly form of a human being, have no recollection at all, of the form in which I lived my previous life. If I had lived as an animal, other than man, or as a tree, my performance, then, as per this theory, ought to have been good, if not excellent; for, I am a human being now, an obvious upgradation in the hierarchy of life on this planet. But the human intellect cannot accept the possibility of such a thing happening. Animal or plant life, so far as human knowledge goes, is programmed to do things in a predestined manner only. Animals and plants do not have freedom of choice as we humans do. There is therefore no question of the performance of an animal or plant being good or bad, ethical or unethical. My intellect refuses to accept the theory that I could have been an animal or a plant in my preceding life.
The only alternative then, if this theory of a series of rebirths is to be believed, is that I was in a human form only, in my previous life. My performance then was not good enough for me to attain salvation. So, I had to be reborn to go through the grind of human existence all over again. If I have been suffering too much in my present life, this suffering, as per this theory, is the result of my ‘karma’ in my previous life. Now, this is the thing I do not understand. In any administration of justice, it is a basic principle that the person, to be punished for any crime or sin, should know for what crime or sin he/she is being punished. But here I am, being punished for a crime supposedly committed by me in my previous life. And I am not aware of any such crime committed by me. I am not aware, even, whether I had such a previous life. My intellect, therefore, cannot comprehend or accept this doctrine of a series of rebirths.
What remains then to be considered is the belief that every human being has only one life in this world, as we know it. In this one life, the Creator does not manifest Himself to the human being. But he/she has been endowed with faculties, not given to other animals or plants. Human beings are endowed with these special faculties to enable them to recognize the existence of the Creator without specifically seeing Him. These special faculties are foolproof so if one makes use of them honestly and conscientiously, one is bound to recognize the existence of One Creator and live one's life in obedience to His laws of nature. This one worldly life, in other words, is a test, designed by the Creator specifically for human beings. If they fail this test, the human beings are only themselves to blame; for, in that case, they are transgressing the laws of nature by not making use of the special faculties given to them. If this transgression goes beyond a limit, the guilty persons are given the punishment, in this life itself, just necessary for the continuity of life on this earth for a predestined period. Such guilty persons will get the real retribution only when they will be resurrected, after their death, in the hereafter. The nature of this retribution is beyond the power of understanding given to us in this worldly life, but it is to be in a state of continuous suffering for an indefinite period. And, as for those who pass the test of this worldly life, they are to be in a perpetual state of happiness in the hereafter – the happiness that we perpetually seek in this worldly life, but never get it here.
To my mind, the raison d’être, given in the foregoing paragraph, for human life in this world, is logical, and, in the light of my findings in the preceding Chapters, rational. But, the human mind, of its own volition, could not have guessed this purpose without the Creator specifically giving it guidance in this regard. How this guidance was communicated to humanity, would be the subject matter of the
next Chapter.
The Messengers
In the previous Chapter, we have seen that knowledge about any life after death could have come to mankind only through divine guidance. ‘How was that guidance communicated’ is the subject of this Chapter.
One religious belief is that the Creator (let us hereafter call Him God, the name given to Him in the English language) has manifested Himself, on this earth, from time to time, in different human forms, to give guidance. Let us now examine whether the human intellect can accept this concept as rational and feasible in the light of the findings in the preceding Chapters.
Well, in that light, the concept is neither rational nor feasible; for, as we have already seen in earlier Chapters, this worldly life is but a test. The test, mainly, is to see whether human beings recognize the existence of God without actually seeing Him. There would be no meaning to such a test if God manifests Himself to them. If God were to come in person and show the people appropriate signs of His divinity, people would be left with no choice but to accept His existence and obey His commands absolutely. Human beings would then be no different from other living creatures that too have no choice. There would be no justification then for this elaborate creation of the world and for human beings therein.
Could God then have sent angels for the purpose? Angels are extrasensory beings, said to have been created of energy, unlike humans who are created of matter. Despite being ethereal in nature, the angels could assume human form and communicate necessary divine guidance to the general public directly. But could such guidance ideally serve the purpose?
It could not serve the purpose primarily because the people would still have no freedom of choice. The messenger angels would not be subject to the stresses and strains of a normal human being. It would soon be very much apparent to the public that the messengers are, without any sort of doubt, sent by God Himself. The elaborate arrangements otherwise made by Him for testing the humans would be an exercise in futility. Few would dare to deny His existence and disobey His instructions, conveyed through such extraterrestrial beings. It would leave no scope at all for acting otherwise.
There would be another logical objection to the angels directly acting as guides and messengers of God to the general public. Despite the angels themselves providing explicit evidence of the existence of God, there could still be some people who would deny His existence and/or refuse to abide by the guidelines given by the messengers. Such hard-to-convince deniers would say, “It is easy for the angels to tell us what to do and what not to do. Had they been humans like us, they would have realised how difficult it is to implement their guidelines.” It is a basic principle of good leadership that the leaders should lead from the front, setting good examples of them themselves implementing what they preach. The leaders have necessarily to be one of those whom they lead, or preach.
My intellect, therefore, rejects any belief proclaiming that God’s messengers have been other than humans. The messengers had to be born to other humans. They had to eat, drink, sleep and die like other humans. They had, in short, to be subject to all the stresses and strains of living as any other human being. Although they were persons specifically chosen by the Almighty God, they could not claim any immunity from the normal rigours of life.
Since the messengers all came from the same God, the messages they brought ought basically to be the same. What then could be the need for the messengers to be sent again and again? Apparently, every community in the world has its own separate messenger, and some communities have more than one. Some of these messengers claim to have brought books of laws and guidance for mankind to abide by, not authored by them but divinely revealed to them. What again could be the need for the different divine books, if they all came from the same God?
All the major religions advocating belief in God also advocate that initially, God created one couple and that the entire, ever-increasing, human race has descended from that one couple. It is a scientific truth that, basically, the physical constitution (except, of course, for the sex difference) of all human beings is the same although superficially they are different in colour and appearance. The difference in appearance is a necessity for distinguishing one human from another and, also, one human sub-race from another. I have therefore no difficulty believing in the common origin of all human beings.
So initially, when the human race consisted of only one family, life could have been very simple. There could not have been any need for an elaborate divine book of guidance. The head of the family could himself have been the messenger of God and could have given the necessary guidance for the right conduct of life. This guidance could have been passed on to a few succeeding generations by word of mouth. But then the expanding humanity ought to have come to a stage when its individual members tended to forget or even ignore the guidelines given by their founding father because of the alluring temptations of life. Moreover, the extension of one family into a number of families spreading on the wide earth ought to have made life more complicated. It was time therefore for the arrival of another messenger of God with fresh guidelines supplementing the original ones.
The earth was wide enough for the growing number of families to drift apart from one another in search of new pastures. With the passage of time, some groups of families could have thus lost complete contact with other groups given the inadequate modes of conveyance available at that time. In course of time therefore need could have arisen for different messengers of God for the different groups of persons inhabiting different parts of the earth. Coming as they were from the only God, the messengers ought to have conveyed essentially the same message with some supplementary instructions to deal with the different characteristics developed by the different groups living in long isolation from one another.
Also, at some point in time, when humanity had sufficiently developed the art of writing, the messengers could have gotten guidelines from God in the form of written documents. These could be copied and distributed among people living in different nearby habitations to serve as references for the proper conduct of human affairs. These written documents could have become necessary also because, with the increasing population, human relations became more complicated and more guidelines were needed to deal with them. Human memory alone could not be relied upon for proper remembrance of the increasing number of guidelines.
During those distant pre-historic times, however, there were no adequate means for the proper preservation of these divine documents. After the passing away of the messengers who brought them, some of these documents became completely extinct and others got corrupted through human meddling. A fresh document of divine guidelines thus became necessary.
This process of the repeated comings of the divine messengers and the divine documents had to continue till such time, as better means of communication would bring different peoples, living in different parts of the world, together and better means of preserving documents would become available. The world is in the midst of such a time, i.e. the historical time, at present. The messenger of God who came at about the start of this period with a divine written message was in a unique position that, after him, there would be no need for another. We are all witnesses to the fact that the tremendous advances made in means of communication, during this historical period, have reduced this entire world to one global village. There is no need now for further messages from God.
The messenger of God who came at the beginning of this historical period is Muhammad and the message he brought is the Qur’aan. There has been no claim ever thereafter of any divine message having been directly revealed by God on any man. It is said in the Qur’aan that Islam (i.e. self-surrender to the will of God and peace) is the religion for mankind. This is the religion, it says, that was advocated by all the messengers of God ever to come to this world.
_________________
The Religion of Islam
As was seen in the preceding Chapter, the last book claimed to be divine is the Qur’aan. God Himself is claimed to be the sole Author of the book, with no addition made thereto or deletion made therefrom of even a single word by any human including the last messenger, Muhammad. The message contained therein is claimed to be preserved verbatim, as revealed to Muhammad, to this day.
Can human intellect comprehend and accept the above claim? The comprehensive discussions made in all the preceding Chapters have already led to the inevitability of the emergence of a final divine book of guidance, for all humanity, till doomsday. But why should one accept the claim that the Qur’aan is that book?
For one thing, I know of no other book on behalf of which any such claim has been made. Claim to divinity had last been made in respect of the Bible, previously. But no such claim has ever been made in respect of any other book that appeared in this world after the Qur’aan. As for the Bible, it is a known fact that what are being read today, the world over, are only translations, purported to be of the Book, in various languages. The original, as revealed to Jesus Christ, in the language of its revelation, is not in existence anymore. And the Editorial Board of the translated versions openly says that they go on replacing words in the preceding edition of the Book with new ones considered more suitable or appropriate by the Board! I am, in the circumstances, unable to accept the Bible as that book referred to in the preceding paragraph.
The Qur’aan, on the other hand, has been preserved verbatim, in the language of its revelation, to date. A copy of the Qur’aan in Arabic available in India today is the same as any copy thereof available anywhere in the world. In this modern historical age, there is no danger of this book getting changed any time in the future. The ultra-modern facilities of this age, moreover, have ensured their reach to any nook and corner of the world in a matter of seconds. The Qur’aan, therefore, is eminently suited to be that book referred to above.
Besides, there is a criterion, mentioned in the Qur’aan itself, by which one can judge whether any book is genuinely divine or not. The criterion is that a divine book contains no errors, whereas any book of human authorship is bound to contain many. To err is human. The saying has proved itself time and again. It needs no reiteration. But for God, the Creator of everything, to commit such errors would be unthinkable. It would indeed be blasphemous even to think that He could commit any error. The criterion prescribed in the Qur’aan is therefore most appropriate and foolproof. Let us now examine whether the Qur’aan passes the test of this criterion.
The Qur’aan has been in existence for over fourteen centuries now. Besides the guidelines and instructions given therein for mankind, it contains several statements as to how the universe and all things therein including human beings were created. In one of its very first verses revealed, for example, it states that a human being is created out of a suspended clot of blood. This is an astonishingly clear description of the human embryo during the first three weeks of its existence inside a pregnant woman's uterus. The statement is astonishing because, at the time when it was made, human knowledge in any part of the world had not advanced enough for anyone to describe the initial state of the embryo so accurately. The Qur’aan abounds in many more such statements, none of which have ever been proved to be wrong or erroneous although mankind has not yet understood some of these. Mankind has not yet understood them, maybe, because they are still beyond his sphere of knowledge.
The guidelines and instructions contained in the Qur’aan had awakened a sleepy Arab Tribe into the most potent force of that time. It had made the Arab people strong and vibrant, not merely in political or military terms, but more importantly, in intellectual terms. It had generated scientific thought in its adherents making some of them great scientists, mathematicians, men of medicine, astronomers, etc. The knowledge generated by those great thinkers was passed on to the then comparatively wild and backward Western World, giving rise to the technological renaissance the world over. The question that arises then in the human mind is as to why there are no such great thinkers in the present adherents of the Qur’aan.
Why, indeed! Why is the Muslim world today generally backward in comparison to other ethnic groups? Why do the Muslims now generally not demonstrate the high moral standards that their forefathers were accredited with? Why are many of them accused of being terrorists and rogues? How can the adherents of a divine Book, claimed to be still in the original and unadulterated form, be so degenerated? The cause for the general downfall of the Muslims now has to be sought in the so-called Muslims themselves and not in the divine Book they profess to follow. The Qur’aan has already proved its worth by bringing about a cultural, moral, and technological revolution in the world. Can it be said that the Book is outdated now? It cannot; for, if it were so, there would have come another divine book to replace it. This would be the logical conclusion that would follow the conclusions arrived at previously in this booklet. Since no such divine replacement has come, we must conclude that the fault lies in the so-called adherents of the Qur’aan.
It has been the general divine law, throughout the ages, that God has been particularly severe in giving worldly punishment to people who start neglecting, overlooking, or openly disobeying the divine Book of guidance after being the direct recipients thereof. It happened to the Jews. Till recently, they had to live like hunted people, particularly in Nazi Germany, scattered as small minorities throughout the world. It also happened to the Christians when, in the Middle Ages, they suffered inquisitions at the hands of their intolerant priestly class. It is to be noted that such divinely given worldly punishment has had the purpose of warning them into self-reform. But once the people became incorrigibly defiant, they were left to their fate that would be theirs in the hereafter. So far as their worldly lives were concerned, divine retribution became restricted to the extent necessary for the continuation of this world without there being much chaos and disorder.
As it happened to the Jews and to the Christians and to all people, claiming adherence to other religions, so it happened to the Muslims. Slowly but surely the Muslims stopped taking guidance from the Qur’aan. Yes, they continued reading the Book and still do, but mostly without understanding. Reading the Qur’aan has become just a ritual. As they turned away from the Book, God’s grace turned away from them. They ceased to be leaders of mankind. Other communities surpassed them in knowledge and strength, leaving them backward and frustrated. Their frustration led some of them to the gun and Muslims, in general, became labelled as terrorists and rogues. Although Muslims and non-Muslims are both away now from God’s guidance, Muslims are apparently more in disgrace because they are the only people now having a book of divine guidance in the original, unadulterated, form, and yet they are turning away from it. The Muslims’ offence is, therefore, greater in comparison. They, as a distinct ethnic community, can have no special claim now to God’s grace.
We should not, therefore, make the mistake of considering the Qur’aan as outdated looking just at the generally sorry plight of its so-called followers, the Muslims. A dispassionate and unbiased study of the Qur’aan is required to be done to ascertain its relevance and validity today.
It is through such a study that I have found that the Qur’aan and its teachings have been very much misunderstood today. Misinformation and disinformation are being spread about the Book, and about the religion, Islam, it advocates. The essence of Islam is but the complete submission to the will of God. This doctrine of total submission is not to be misunderstood as inactivity, inertia, or passivity. If properly understood and acted upon, it, on the other hand, could be the most potent force that would destroy all evil in this world. The intellectual and political revolution that Islam brought about in the world after its advent is ample proof of its potency. Islam is also not to be thought of as a religion spread by means of ‘the sword’ as some people falsely propagate. These people who do so have not studied history dispassionately or in an unbiased manner. If what these say were true and Islam had really to depend on the brutal force for its propagation, this religion would not be the fastest growing one, as it is today, in the United States and many other advanced countries. This fact also nails the lie that religion is being spread by money power. Islam gives the utmost importance to peace; in fact, the other meaning of Islam is peace. It sanctions warfare only in self-defence. And the Qur’aan categorically states that there can be no compulsion in religion; one can become a Muslim if and only if one conscientiously believes in Islam.
The conclusions arrived at, at various stages throughout this booklet, are in conformity with the doctrines and principles of Islam as enunciated in the Qur’aan. I have given reasons why these conclusions are acceptable to my human intellect.
I, therefore, reaffirm - and reaffirm sincerely, honestly, and with my own free will - that
there is no god but God, and Muhammad was God's Messenger!
--
Keep us on the Right Path, Allah!