3. Aal-i-Imraan

The Makkan polytheists called their religion the faith of Abraham. Jews and Christians too bracketed their religious history with that of Abraham. In every age people have used the names of their prophets and saints to justify their own additions to and inventions in religion. After the passage of time, people fail to differentiate between the original religion and its later version. The later version is ultimately taken to be the real religion. The atmosphere surrounding it is such that, when the call to return to true and pure religion is given, its opponents find the easiest way to discredit it is by making public allegations that the caller is against the religion handed down to them by their saints. One who is the true representative of the religion of ‘saints’ is now rejected in the name of former saints. This is because what his opponents hold up as their yardstick is not actually the original version of religion as given by the saints of the past. Instead it is the body of alterations and additions made by later followers and subsequently accepted as the ‘religion of the saints’. This is like drawing a veil of falsehood over the truth. That is, making pronouncements which are invalid from the religious and logical point of view. But since the public does not have the ability to analyze them, it deems them to be right and is thus distanced from the truth. The hanif (monotheist) is one who treads the straight path of monotheism and the non-hanif is one who deviates from the straight path, going instead into by-lanes. Sometimes the secondary aspects of religion are so emphasized by the interpretation put upon them that they appear to be the main foci, the actual core of religion. In this way its fundamentals lose their significance and people stray from the straight thoroughfare of monotheism into the byways of unimportant issues.

A community into which prophets and reformers have been born and in which religion has held sway for a considerable period of time, is often mistaken in thinking that their ethos and the truth are synonymous (that is, whatever they believe and practise is nothing but the truth). It comes to believe that guidance has something to do with a particular community rather than being a matter of principle, and is unwilling to accept such truth as has been revealed elsewhere. This was the case with the Jews. Under the influence of historical traditions, they began to believe that whoever was one of them was on the right path, and that whoever was not, was misguided. Even today, they tend to forget that truth is something that comes from God and not from an individual or a community. Although they are ostensibly adherents of a divine religion, in reality for them their community is supreme, while God is relegated to a secondary place. This mentality casts such a veil over their eyes that they become unable to see any merit outside their own fraternity. Even in the face of clear signs and arguments, they doubt the veracity of any outsider, and strongly oppose any call of truth which comes from without. In obedience to their false standards, they try to stifle such a call. They would not hesitate to adopt unjust methods to curb the activities of the preacher. They would even resort to spreading false propaganda to cast doubt upon his veracity. Going against God’s commandments, they adopt two separate criteria of behaviour, one for the members of their own community and another for outsiders.

A community into which prophets and reformers have been born and in which religion has held sway for a considerable period of time, is often mistaken in thinking that their ethos and the truth are synonymous (that is, whatever they believe and practise is nothing but the truth). It comes to believe that guidance has something to do with a particular community rather than being a matter of principle, and is unwilling to accept such truth as has been revealed elsewhere. This was the case with the Jews. Under the influence of historical traditions, they began to believe that whoever was one of them was on the right path, and that whoever was not, was misguided. Even today, they tend to forget that truth is something that comes from God and not from an individual or a community. Although they are ostensibly adherents of a divine religion, in reality for them their community is supreme, while God is relegated to a secondary place. This mentality casts such a veil over their eyes that they become unable to see any merit outside their own fraternity. Even in the face of clear signs and arguments, they doubt the veracity of any outsider, and strongly oppose any call of truth which comes from without. In obedience to their false standards, they try to stifle such a call. They would not hesitate to adopt unjust methods to curb the activities of the preacher. They would even resort to spreading false propaganda to cast doubt upon his veracity. Going against God’s commandments, they adopt two separate criteria of behaviour, one for the members of their own community and another for outsiders.

Being particularly chosen to represent His religion is one of the special blessings of God. Such a choice is not based on one’s belonging to a certain community. The recipient of this blessing is one whom God selects for his spiritual virtues. And God likes one who is so attached to Him and who so fears Him that He becomes his Keeper, and his Lord in the true sense of these words. Indeed, when the believer enters into a covenant with his Creator, he is not able to go back. God’s chosen servants are those who fulfill their trusts and do not break their promises. It is people such as these who are showered with God’s blessings. On the contrary, those who are careless in the fulfillment of trusts and are negligent about keeping their promises are of no value in the eyes of God. They will be denied God’s mercies and blessings.

Being particularly chosen to represent His religion is one of the special blessings of God. Such a choice is not based on one’s belonging to a certain community. The recipient of this blessing is one whom God selects for his spiritual virtues. And God likes one who is so attached to Him and who so fears Him that He becomes his Keeper, and his Lord in the true sense of these words. Indeed, when the believer enters into a covenant with his Creator, he is not able to go back. God’s chosen servants are those who fulfill their trusts and do not break their promises. It is people such as these who are showered with God’s blessings. On the contrary, those who are careless in the fulfillment of trusts and are negligent about keeping their promises are of no value in the eyes of God. They will be denied God’s mercies and blessings.

On embracing the faith, the individual enters into a covenant with God that he will obey Him and that, living among human beings, and pledging himself to a life of constraint, he will fulfill all the responsibilities that God’s law imposes upon him. Such a life can be adhered to only by one who has risen above worldly interests. One who is ready to overlook the divine pact whenever his self suffers or his worldly interests are endangered barters the world for the Hereafter at a very paltry price: whenever the question arises of choosing either the world or the Hereafter, he always prefers the world. How can one who attaches so little value to the Hereafter be deserving of God’s mercies in the next world?

Those who buy the world in exchange for the Hereafter do not deny religion or the Hereafter outright. Rather, they fully associate themselves with their religion. Then how do they reconcile these two conflicting spheres? This is done in a devious way, that is, by putting a self-styled construction upon revealed teachings. Aspirants to material honour and glory pervert the teachings of their religion in order to justify their worldly ways, sometimes by altering the wordings of revelations and sometimes by a wilful misinterpretation supportive of their selfish interests. Instead of changing themselves, they change the book of God, so that whatever it takes to give a religious aura to their irreligious lives may be shown to be contained therein. The most heinous crime in the eyes of God is to attribute to God something which He has not said. The simplest and most certain testimony of the truth of any teaching is that it brings God’s servants closer to their Lord, that it directs people’s feelings of love and fear towards God. On the contrary, any teaching which produces a personal cult or any other cult for that matter, or which diverts peoples’ finer feelings and emotions towards anything other than God, should be considered based on falsehood, even if it be couched in religious terms.

Those who buy the world in exchange for the Hereafter do not deny religion or the Hereafter outright. Rather, they fully associate themselves with their religion. Then how do they reconcile these two conflicting spheres? This is done in a devious way, that is, by putting a self-styled construction upon revealed teachings. Aspirants to material honour and glory pervert the teachings of their religion in order to justify their worldly ways, sometimes by altering the wordings of revelations and sometimes by a wilful misinterpretation supportive of their selfish interests. Instead of changing themselves, they change the book of God, so that whatever it takes to give a religious aura to their irreligious lives may be shown to be contained therein. The most heinous crime in the eyes of God is to attribute to God something which He has not said. The simplest and most certain testimony of the truth of any teaching is that it brings God’s servants closer to their Lord, that it directs people’s feelings of love and fear towards God. On the contrary, any teaching which produces a personal cult or any other cult for that matter, or which diverts peoples’ finer feelings and emotions towards anything other than God, should be considered based on falsehood, even if it be couched in religious terms.

Those who buy the world in exchange for the Hereafter do not deny religion or the Hereafter outright. Rather, they fully associate themselves with their religion. Then how do they reconcile these two conflicting spheres? This is done in a devious way, that is, by putting a self-styled construction upon revealed teachings. Aspirants to material honour and glory pervert the teachings of their religion in order to justify their worldly ways, sometimes by altering the wordings of revelations and sometimes by a wilful misinterpretation supportive of their selfish interests. Instead of changing themselves, they change the book of God, so that whatever it takes to give a religious aura to their irreligious lives may be shown to be contained therein. The most heinous crime in the eyes of God is to attribute to God something which He has not said. The simplest and most certain testimony of the truth of any teaching is that it brings God’s servants closer to their Lord, that it directs people’s feelings of love and fear towards God. On the contrary, any teaching which produces a personal cult or any other cult for that matter, or which diverts peoples’ finer feelings and emotions towards anything other than God, should be considered based on falsehood, even if it be couched in religious terms.