Did Jesus Redeem Mankind? — Page 110
110 (peace be on him) was a willing party to the act. The whole crux of the matter is that God would not remit the sins of men, and since He could not, He accepted the atonement of their sins through inflicting punishment on Jesus. Their argument is that if Zaid is in debt and Bakr comes forward to meet the former's liability, the debit account of Zaid is written off; that men have become indebted to God the Almighty through their sins, and because He is just, He cannot forgive, for, according to their view, justice demands that the sinner should incur punishment; He, therefore, remedied the situation by realizing the outstandings from His son! Suppose it was a correct stand, though a money debt is in no manner comparable to sin-on the contrary, the case in point is really akin to the instance of a victim of cancer; if in respect of him ten thousand persons would assert that it is they and not he who suffered from cancer and that they would readily bear his trouble, they could not. There are many other similar predicaments so frequently occurring in the world which are not susceptible of vicarious recompense, and sin is certainly one of these. But let us for the sake of argument accept the. Christian view-point that sin is susceptible of vicarious atonement. The question that would still remain to be answered is whether it is lawful to take away forcibly the money of A to square up the account of B? It is quite evident that it would be permissible for A to pay off the debts of B, if he so wished of his own free will. But if we refuse to write off the debt B owes us and force the sum out of A's pocket to square the account, not only do we fail in doing justice, but we commit a grave wrong. Failure of justice arose out of our not realizing the arrears from the debtor; an grievous wrong was done when the amount was forcibly realized from an unconcerned person. Therefore, if the act of