The Holy Quran with Five Volume Commentary (Vol 1) — Page cccli
GENERAL INTRODUCTION make an impartial adjudication upon the matter in dispute between the parties having regard to the rights and obligations of each. God is not so bound, for though when He pronounces His judgement no man is wronged or is cheated of his due, He is free to remit as much as He may choose out of what may be due to Himself. He does not insist upon the proverbial pound of flesh. As a master may treat his servants with mercy and act benevolently towards them and bestow favours upon them, so may God forgive the trespasses of His creatures and overlook their defaults and bestow His favours upon them. Failure to appreciate this attribute of God has led to the adoption by Christians of so untenable a doctrine as that of Atonement. The Christian doctrine is that God has, like a secular judge, no power to forgive any person his default. In making this erroneous assumption Christians overlook the fact that a judge is called upon to adjudicate between two parties and that he himself possesses no rights in respect of the subject matter of the dispute. The relationship between God and His creatures is, however, very different from that between a judge and the parties to a dispute. God is both a claimant and the authority entitled to make the award. A judge is never himself a claimant. He is called upon merely to determine the rights of the parties before him. In other words, a judge has to arrive at a determination between two persons, one making a claim against the other. These persons may be both private individuals or one representing the State and the other a private individual. God determines between Himself and His creatures. He thus occupies dual position. He is both claimant and judge. As a claimant He is entitled to remit the whole or as much as He chooses of His claim. Such a remission would be mercy and not injustice, for the remission relates to God's own claim and does not operate to deprive any person of his right. This is in perfect accord with reason. On the other hand the doctrine of Atonement is wholly opposed to reason. If belief in the crucifixion of Jesus is indispensable for the remission of sins, then how did the Prophets who appeared before Jesus and their followers attain salvation? Was it not necessary for the crucifixion to have taken place at the inception of the universe so that all mankind should have attained salvation? Again, how is it that sins may be remitted through belief in the crucifixion but not through repentance, which is the natural means of purification of the heart. Belief in an external matter is not a natural means of purification of the heart, whereas remorse and contrition, which inflict a kind of death upon a man's longings and desires and inspire him with a fresh determination to lead a virtuous life, are a natural and certain means of purification of the heart. It is surprising that Christians should believe that a sinner's heart is purified by belief in the crucifixion of Jesus and that God in consequence forgives him his sins, but they should refuse to accept the truth that when a sinner experiences remorse and admits his fault before God and CCCXXV