In the modern age, the right to govern a people is secured by popular support. However, that was not the case in pre-democratic times, when kings sanctioned their rule over their subjects by laying claim to being some kind of divine incarnation. Nimrod, a king of ancient Iraq, was a case in point. A contemporary of Abraham, he was one of those monarchs who used this method to back up his right of sovereignty over the people. The sun was believed by his people to be the Chief of the gods and was thus revered by them as an object of worship. Nimrod claimed that he was an incarnation of the sun-god, a position which gave him a divine right to worldly sovereignty. When Abraham preached the message of the One God in the land of Iraq, his teachings had no direct connection with politics or government in the country. All he did was to impress upon the people that there was but One God; He was their sole Lord and Master. There were no partners with Him in the godhead, so mankind should worship Him alone, fearing Him and placing their hopes in Him. Though Abraham’s message was apolitical, it nevertheless appeared to Nimrod as a threat to his political claims, for according to the message taught by Abraham, even the sun was part of God’s creation. It had no power of its own, but was controlled by God Almighty. Had his subjects accepted Abraham’s message of the One God, it would have amounted to demolishing the theological base on which the edifice of his political power rested. It was for this reason that Nimrod turned vehemently against Abraham and his teachings. The dialogue conducted between Abraham and Nimrod shows us the method adopted by the prophets in the communication of their message. First of all, Abraham pointed out that his Lord had control over life and death. Immediately, Nimrod disputed this, claiming himself to have power over life and death. Abraham, of course, could have answered this claim made by Nimrod, but he did not want the conversation to deteriorate into a heated polemical discussion. So, instead of persisting with this point, he changed the subject and chose another example, one with which Nimrod would not be able to argue. Abraham did not consider Nimrod his enemy or rival. Rather, he had compassion for him as a madu‘ (addressee) and earnestly wished to communicate to him the message of Truth. It was this compassion which showed Abraham the correct method to be adopted in addressing the Iraqi king. Since the present world is a place where man is being tested, there are always different options open to everyone. This causes people to construe situations in different ways. For instance, should one be endowed with worldly wealth and power, one may consider these to be a personal success, the outcome of one’s own talent. One may, on the other hand, look at them purely as blessings from God. The former way of seeing things amounts to grave injustice, while the latter shows a grateful disposition. For one who is thankless in his outlook, everything in this world will only serve to lead him further astray. Everything he experiences will only add to his pride and conceit. But for those who are grateful for what they have been given, everything they experience in this world leads them closer to God. The world, and all that it contains, serves to stimulate their faith in God.