VI. Attitude To Other Faiths.

No scripture in the world teaches such a "comparative religion" as the quran QurŸån. Assertions regarding its attitude to the earlier faiths form, as we have seen, both the woof and the warp of the book, its strength and its weakness, and this has come out in all the fundamental doctrines. Its clear claim is to confirm and perfect the teachings of the former Prophets and Scriptures, allowing for as much abrogation of previous ordinances as may be necessary for the new time. The question remains to be answered: How does this claim actually work out? What has the quran QurŸån set aside of the former teaching as unnecessary, and what has it added to the world's stock of religious knowledge and inspiration?
The quran QurŸån has three words for religion. The first is millah, the derivation of which is disputed, but its general use in the book (ten times out of fourteen) is to signify the religion of former prophets (especially Abraham) whom Muslims should follow, subject to the new light brought by muhammad Muøammad. The second term is din dæn, meaning religion as observance. This is also used of the religion of former prophets, especially Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus. Of din dæn muhammad Muøammad at first says: "To me my religion, to you your religion," but later he pronounces that islam Islåm is the only acceptable religion. The third term is ummah, i.e. religious community. Of this it is said that mankind were originally one ummah, and that allah Allåh, had He pleased, could have kept them so, but He was pleased to grant every ummah a special apostle and a scripture and observances of its own. Muslims are the central ummah and the best of all. What is it that this best of ummahs has which others have not?
The massive simplicity of the outlines of quranic theology make the answer to this question comparatively simple. Against the paganism of Arabia the quran QurŸån is one long protest, which is not substantially affected by the adoption of the kabah kaaba Kaÿbah with its Black Stone fetish into the central ritual of islam Islåm. The Sabean and Zoroastrian cults hardly come into practical account. It is to the prophets and scriptures of the Old and New Testaments that the constant appeal is made.
In its dealing with the Old Testament the quran QurŸån has made only one essential change. The confusions in its reproduction of Old Testament histories and the modification of ceremonial laws touch no essential point, nor does the quran QurŸån refuse to recognise the Messiah, though it contradicts later Judaism in allowing that Jesus of Nazareth has the rightful claim to that title. But in one vital aspect the messianic ideal of the Old Testament has undergone a radical change. The Coming One who has appeared is indeed a prophet and likewise a prince, but His priestly character is eliminated, and the idea of atonement wrought by Him is set aside. Neither He nor His people are to bring salvation and victory by sacrificial suffering.
On the New Testament side the difference is far greater. The conceptions of divine Fatherhood and Sonship are not only eliminated but fiercely combated. The divine incarnation in Jesus the Christ is utterly rejected, and the historical fact of His death, carrying the implication of His atonement and resurrection, is denied. The claim of Jesus to be the Saviour and Judge of the world is set aside. The Holy Spirit appears only as an angel, and the Trinity of the Godhead is misunderstood and repudiated. Yet, with all this, we have seen that fragmentary indications of Christian doctrine crop out from time to time, though they exercise little effect on the deistic trend of the teaching as a whole.
The new elements of religion added by the quran QurŸån are two-one doctrinal, the other ethical. Obviously the first is the apostleship of muhammad Muøammad as superseding Jesus and all earlier prophets. The second is the strenuous inculcation of the duty of warfare for the propagation of the faith. It is hardly necessary to point out that the jihad jihåd of islam Islåm is essentially different from the Old Testament wars of conquest or defence which had no reference to imposition of a new creed or worship. In modern times the duty of warfare for the faith has more and more receded into the background by reason of long-drawn political changes, and it seems likely to give place to a zeal for purely religious propaganda. The future attitude of Muslims towards the fundamental issue-muhammad Muøammad or Jesus Christ-will depend even more on the life than on the preaching of Christendom.