Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (1925-2021) was an Islamic scholar, spiritual guide, and an Ambassador of Peace. He authored over 200 books and recorded thousands of lectures giving the rational interpretation of Islamic concepts, prophetic wisdom, and the spiritual meaning of the Quran in the contemporary style. His English translation, The Quran, is widely appreciated as simple, clear and in contemporary style. He founded Centre for Peace and Spirituality (CPS) International in 2001 to re-engineer minds towards God-oriented living and present Islam as it is, based on the principles of peace, spirituality, and co-existence. Maulana breathed his last on 21 April, 2021 in New Delhi, India. His legacy is being carried forward through the CPS International Network.
The End
ASK MAULANA
Who is responsible for bomb blasts?
Bomb blasts have become a regular feature of
our daily existence. The worst aspect of this is
that the lives of innocent people are lost, without
the interests of the perpetrators of such crimes
being served in any way. Moreover, the suicide
bomber is also killed, thereby causing his family
suffering and disgrace.
The truth is that the bomb blast is beneficial
neither for the perpetrator of the crime nor for
those targeted by it.
Then why do such futile bomb blasts continue, and who is responsible
for them? I think that a very small share of the responsibility is that
of those immature individuals known as ‘suicide bombers’. In actual
fact, the major share of the responsibility for such dastardly activity is
that of the intellectuals or leaders who, by means of their emotional
speeches and writings, incite people to commit such gruesome acts.
And when such acts have been executed, it is they who justify them. It
is they, therefore, who must be held to account for the continuation of
such inhuman activities.
In this regard, Islam lays emphasis on two important precepts. Firstly,
violent activism is totally unlawful in Islam. Under no circumstances are
Muslims allowed to adopt violent methods to achieve their goals. They
must necessarily remain within a peaceful sphere of action. According
to the teachings of Islam, there is nothing that cannot be achieved within
this sphere. And if things cannot be immediately attained by adopting
the peaceful method, they must simply be waited for patiently.
Secondly, it is the duty of the senior members of society to try to place
curbs upon evil-doing by giving sincere advice, acting thus as the wellwishers
of those prone to violence. It is a duty, which, if not performed,
criminalizes — in the eyes of God — all those who, despite having the
ability to reform people, remain passive in crucial situations.
All those who issue statements which, directly or indirectly, justify these
acts will be taken to task in the Hereafter by God. Their crime becomes
all the more serious when they distance their own children from violent
activities, placing them in the safe havens of higher education, while
justifying through the media the militant activities of the youths who
will ultimately destroy themselves along with their innocent victims.
Many different kinds of problems — political, economic, and national
— now vitiate society. No social group can be entirely free of them. This
being so, there is only one course to follow and that is peaceful effort
for the attainment of one’s lawful goals. In no situation, and for no
one, can violent struggle ever be lawful. As well as being the essence of
Islamic teachings, this is what reason demands.
How to put an end to the destructive gun and bomb culture?
We can say with absolute certainty that if we opt to counter violence
with violence, we shall never succeed. The clear proof of this is that,
over the last 50 years, there has been an ongoing effort to counter
terrorism with terrorism: had this been the right method, militancy
would by now have been eliminated.
The failure of this approach of counter-terrorism is a factual proof that
it is not a solution to this problem. Obviously, a method which has
shown no results whatsoever, even after a fifty-year struggle cannot
be expected to succeed in future. The truth is that recourse to violence
has become commonplace because of the overwhelming influence of
a negative ideology. Therefore, nothing but a strong, positive ideology
can solve this problem.
This positive ideology advocates educational activism taking the place
of violent activism. With continuous ideological effort, people should be
convinced that no goal can be achieved through violence. Destruction
may be achieved through violence, but not construction. It should be
impressed upon the people, in the light of both history and ideology,
that violence is only an ill-considered reaction. It is not the result of
well-thought-out planning. No group or nation in human history has
ever achieved any worthwhile success through violence; and it is
certainly not possible, even today.
THE WORD OF GOD
THE Quran is the book of God. It has been preserved in its
entirety since its revelation to the Prophet of Islam between
610 and 632 A.D. It is a book that brings glad tidings to mankind,
along with divine admonition, and stresses the importance of man’s
discovery of the Truth on a spiritual and intellectual level.
Translated from Arabic and commentary
by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
The true servants of the Gracious One are those who walk upon the
earth with humility and when they are addressed by the ignorant ones,
their response is, ‘Peace’; and those who spend the night prostrating
themselves, and standing before their Lord, who say, ‘Our Lord, ward
off from us the punishment of Hell, for its punishment is a dreadful
torment to suffer. Indeed, it is an evil abode and evil dwelling-place.’
They are those who are neither extravagant nor niggardly, but keep a
balance between the two;
A man’s way of walking symbolises his whole personality. Those in
whose hearts belief in God has taken firm root, become the embodiment
of humility and modesty. The fear of God takes away any sense of
superiority they may have. This sense of servitude to God permeates
all aspects of their lives.
But this is not all. The realisation of God makes them (the believers)
true advocates of His cause. In discharging this responsibility, they
often face strong opposition from their addressees. The promulgation
of the truth by the believers becomes unbearable to those who deny
the truth and they take aggressive action against the preachers. But
the fear of God prevents the believers from retaliating; they simply
avoid conflict and pray for their opponents to be guided.
The realization of God results not only in their calling upon God during
the daytime but also in their nights being filled with the remembrance
of God.
Similarly, realisation of God makes them extremely prudent. They earn
with a sense of responsibility and spend with a sense of responsibility.
It is their sense of accountability to God which makes them moderate
and cautious in the matter of income and expenditure. A tradition of
the Prophet says, ‘Wisdom lies in man adopting the path of moderation.’
Those who never invoke any other deity besides God, nor take a life
which God has made sacred, except with the right to do so, nor commit
adultery. Anyone who does that shall face punishment: he shall have
his suffering doubled on the Day of Resurrection and he will abide
forever in disgrace, except for those who repent and believe and do
good deeds. God will change the evil deeds of such people into good
ones: He is most forgiving and most merciful. He who repents and
does good deeds has truly turned to God.
Three sins have been mentioned in this verse — polytheism, the killing
of a person without justification, and adultery. These three forms
of wrongdoing are great sins against God and His subjects. The sign
of real faith in God is that a man abstains from them. Those who
have indulged in these sins can save themselves from retribution by
repentance, but for those who die without repenting and reforming,
there will be severe punishment before God at God’s behest, which
they will in no way be able to avoid.
Real virtue in the eyes of God is a man’s becoming God-fearing. Any
virtue which makes a man fearless of God is, in fact, a sin, while that sin
which makes a man God-fearing is in fact, in terms of its result, a virtue.
If a man happens to commit a sin but later on, seeing the error of
his ways rushes towards Him in repentance (tawbah) and seeks His
pardon, then God will mercifully add this sin to the list of his virtues,
because that had made him turn towards Him.
And those who do not bear false witness, and when they pass by
frivolity, they pass by with dignity; who do not turn a blind eye and a
deaf ear to the signs of their Lord when they are reminded of them;
who say, ‘Lord, grant us joy in our wives and children and make us a
model for the righteous.’
In the present world, Satan has been at pains to glamorise wrongdoing
and has taught the worshipper of untruth to present his case in the most
appealing way. People, deceived by appearances, are therefore drawn
towards evil. But if the outer covering of deceit could be removed, the wickedness thus uncovered would appear so ugly that people would be
sure to keep their distance from it. From this point of view, every bad
thing in which a man indulges is a falsehood. In the present world, the
test of a man is that he should recognise falsehood. He should be able
to tear down the outer curtain and see things in the light of reality.
When a man is given advice which goes against his whims and fancies,
he immediately becomes annoyed. In the eyes of God, such a person is
blind and deaf, because he has not used his eyes to see reality and has
not used his ears to hear the voice of Truth. If he has not welcomed the
advice, it is because he is like a man deprived of the powers of hearing
and seeing. In the eyes of God, a man capable of seeing and hearing is
one who avoids pointless things when he sees them, but if true advice
comes his way, immediately accepts it.
Every man with a family is the leader (imam) of his family. If his family
members are God-fearing, he is the imam of God-fearing people. But if
his family members are forgetful of God, he is at the head of those who
are oblivious of God.
These are the ones who will be rewarded with lofty mansions in
Paradise, for their steadfastness. They will be received therein with
greetings of welcome and salutations of peace. There they shall abide
forever: blessed dwelling and a blessed resting place. Say, ‘What
would my Lord care for you, if you do not call on Him. Because you have
indeed rejected the truth and His punishment is bound to overtake
you.
Those who had humbled themselves in this world for the sake of Truth,
will be lodged in the loftiest dwellings of paradise. They lived with
humility in this world so, in the Hereafter, God will reward them with
high status. This was expressed by Jesus Christ as follows: ‘Blessed are
those who are poor in this world. It is they who will enter the Kingdom
of Heaven.’
Paradise is the place on high where all desires will be completely
fulfilled; the qualities which take a human being to paradise may
be developed by one who is prepared to exercise patience. For, in
exercising patience, he will be able to fully curb his desires in this
world. This is the price one has to pay for entering Paradise. One who
is not prepared to pay the requisite price of patience in this world will
be doomed to live forever in hell.
BELIEF AND DISBELIEF
MAN has an innate need for something to depend upon in this
world; something which he can look up to. To believe in God is
to look up to Him alone, while disbelief is to live in veneration
of others besides Him.
In ancient times, awe of natural phenomena, such as the moon and the
sun, dominated people’s lives. In the modern age, however, man has
become more materialistic, finding fulfilment in such things as wealth
and the greatness of other human beings. Whatever the object of his
veneration may be, man is satisfying an instinctive urge in looking up
to these things and depending upon them. The urge is real enough, but
such means of fulfilling it, which amount to worship of others besides
God, are false.
To truly believe in God is to find the true answer to the human search
for a superior Being. It is to see beyond superficial forms to the Ultimate
Reality that lies hidden within all things.
Man has an innate need for something to depend upon in
this world; something which he can look up to.
A believer is one who is not beguiled by the outward splendour
of worldly things. He realizes that everything has been created by
God. He is not overawed by things of material grandeur, because he
knows that they, like him, have been created by God. He does not
look to mortals for fulfilment of his needs, for he knows that they
themselves are helpless before God — that all are in truth His humble
servants. He presses on until, passing by all creation, he reaches the
Creator himself.
A believer is one who acknowledges that everything is from God.
Seeing that he has no power in this world, he looks to God for help
and protection. The beauty of this world serves to remind him of God’s
beauty; the greatness of natural phenomena impresses on him the
greatness of the One who created them. So absorbed is he in the glory
of God that he loves nothing more than to spend his time singing the
praises of the Lord.
To believe in God is to see the invisible force behind visible objects.
This requires a special vision, enabling one to penetrate superficial
forms and perceive the reality of all things.
To truly believe in God is to find the true answer to the
human search for a superior Being.
One endowed with such vision sees God's greatness everywhere; he
looks only to God as great. He submits entirely to God, and trusts in Him
alone. So engrossed in God’s overpowering greatness does he become
that all worldly creatures, including himself, fade into insignificance in
his sight.
True Character
Inclinations towards peace or violence serve as
indicators of the true character of the human being.
If the former proves the humanity of the individual,
the latter proves his animality, despite his
appearing to be a human being.
THE CONCEPT OF STATE IN ISLAM
The following Quranic verse provides us an insight into the Islamic
understanding of political power:
Say: “O God! Lord of Power, You give power to whom You
please, and You take away power from whom You please.”
THE QURAN 3: 26
THE actual possessor of power is God, and it is He who grants
power on earth to whom He wills. It is also He who takes away
power from whomsoever He wills. So, the whole matter in this
regard rests with God. If someone receives power, it is not due to his
own effort: it is given to him by God alone. Similarly, when power is
taken away from him, it is done by God alone.
Thus, the dominance or subjugation of any group is ultimately for God
to decide. Political power is totally governed by God, just as the entire
universe is running in accordance with the Divine plan. It is like saying
that God alone is the controller of the universe and that He alone has
the final word as to who is going to be given political power. Just as God
exercises full power over the setting and rising of the sun, so also He
has full power over the granting of political ascendancy.
Just as God exercises full power over the setting and
rising of the sun, so also He has full power over
the granting of political ascendancy.
This is an incontrovertible fact. There is another Quranic verse in this
connection which throws further light on the issue:
And He will bestow upon you other blessings which you desire;
help from God and a speedy victory.
THE QURAN 61: 13
In this verse, 'other blessings' includes political power. This has been
characterized as something secondary. When we take this verse in
its literal sense, it transpires that the status of political power has a
secondary rather than a primary position in Islam. Primary place
is given to the purification of the self through intellectual and
spiritual development.
Another point made clear in this verse is that the receiving of political
power depends solely upon Divine succour. Victory and defeat
apparently belong to the human world, but both are totally governed
by God.
As we learn from the Quran, God grants victory to whomsoever He
wills and defeat to whomsoever He wills. From this understanding, it
emerges that political power is a promise from God, and not a target.
That is, it is not something that Muslims should aim at, for they can
receive it only by divine edict.
Another point that we learn from this verse is that power is not granted
to any group simply because of its struggle for that end, but, rather,
on the fulfilment of two specific conditions. The Quran makes it clear
that true faith and virtuous character alone are the deciding factors in
receiving political power.
The actual possessor of power is God, and it is He who
grants power on earth to whom He wills.
What is meant by faith is that the group who is to be the recipient of
political power should have undergone the intellectual and spiritual
revolution called Iman (faith) in the Quran, that is, they should evince
absolute trust in God, total submission to the Prophet, full conviction
regarding the existence of the angels, of the hereafter, of hell and
heaven; in short, they should display a keen desire to mould their lives
in accordance with the spirit of the Quran. When such qualities of faith
are produced within a group, the time will come for it to be considered
by God for the grant of political power. Good deeds necessarily entail
full conformity with the divine commands regarding worship, moral
character and the upholding of justice. In the words of the Quran, our
lives should be wholly dyed in God’s hue. When this quality of good
character has been developed in the majority of the people, only then
is political power given to that group by God’s command.
Then there is another verse in this connection which throws further
light on the subject. This is in the context of the granting of political
power to the Prophet Solomon. The words uttered by the Prophet
Solomon after receiving power was ‘le-yabluwani’ (This is meant as a
test for me). These words tell us that political power is given in order
to try us. The test contrives to separate the grateful from the insolent
servants of God. (THE QURAN 27: 40)
According to the Quran, the nature of political power in this world is
exactly the same as that of other things. That is, when an individual is
given wealth, offspring or anything of a material, worldly nature like
success, all that is designed to test him. All these blessings serve as
‘test papers’. And political power is also a ‘test paper’.
Therefore, according to the Quran whoever receives power should
realize that power is given to him in order to test him. It is not something
to take pride in, nor is power to be considered as a gift from God.
Victory and defeat apparently belong to the human world,
but both are totally governed by God.
The concept of the State that emerges from these verses of the Quran
makes it clear that political power is not the target or goal of our
activities or actions. Rather it is the result of some other set of actions.
That is to say, according to the Quran, the objectives of our struggle
should be faith and good character. These conditions have to be
fulfilled, and only then can a group be blessed with political power by
God, if He so desires. We might say, by way of analogy, that the position
of faith is that of the seed and the position of power is that of the fruit.
According the Quran, the whole matter can be likened to a tree. The
position of the seed in this example is that of action and the position of
the fruit is that of receiving the reward of that action. In this way, those
who sow the seed of Iman and good deeds may receive political power
as a gift from God.
We must then consult the Quran and Sunnah as to what is the structure
of political power in Islam. In the Quran, the first principle that comes
before us is in the form of approbation of ‘those who conduct their
affairs by mutual consultation’. (THE QURAN 42: 38)
This verse alludes to a basic principle of conduct so far as the political
structure of Islam is concerned. This shows that the political system
of Islam is based on mutual adjustment, this being one of the most
important social principles of Islam, which is equally desirable, both
prior to and after receiving political power.
It is noteworthy that this verse enjoining Muslims to settle their affairs
by consultation was revealed in Makkah, whereas Muslims received
political power only in Medina after their migration. The revelation of this verse in Makkah shows that this principle of consultation is
an all-time social principle. The practical proof of this principle at all
times is made clear by the fact that whenever any social problems
arose, the Prophet would always call his companions for consultation.
Therefore we find in the books of Seerah (the Prophet’s biography)
a number of examples which begin with these words, “O people, give
me advice.”
After the death of the Prophet in Medina in 632 A.D, Abu Bakr Siddiq
was appointed as a leader of the Believers, and first successor of the
Prophet. Events prove, that the Prophet was of the opinion that this
task of leadership should go to Abu Bakr, but he never nominated the
latter, nor did he prepare a will.
According to the Quran whoever receives power should
realize that power is given to him in order to test him.
There were, however, certain indications of his wishes during his
lifetime. For instance, the task of congregational prayer is such as
performed only by the head of the State. That is why the Prophet of
Islam used to lead the prayer himself. For, according to Islam, the
Imam of the mosque should be one who is the leader of the political
institution, or he could be one appointed by the head of the State as his
deputy. It is significant that the Prophet of Islam made Abu Bakr lead
the prayer several times. This stand of the Prophet was to make it clear
to the people that the appointment of the leader of the believers should
be in accordance with the opinion of the people. That is why after his
death, when the companions gathered together at an assembly hall in
Medina, Abu Bakr was appointed the successor of the Prophet, after a
long consultation.
Although the Islamic system is democratic in its nature, it would be
appropriate to say that democracy in Islam is indirect democracy
rather than direct. That is to say, the entire public is not consulted in
the Islamic democratic system. Instead we find different methods in
that period of Islam ruled by the ‘Rightly Guided Caliphs’.
None of the Caliphs of this period were appointed after consulting the
public. Only the senior people available in Medina were consulted. This
pattern was adopted concerning the appointment of all the four ‘pious’
Caliphs. With these standard examples during this period before us, we should not be wrong in saying that the democratic system of Islam
is almost the same as what is called indirect democracy in the parlance
of today.
This system entailed selecting a central body consisting of intellectuals,
leaders and others who have a say in society after seeking the opinion
of the public. This body then selected the Caliph. That is to say that this
decision-making body will be formed by public opinion and this body in
turn will be entrusted with the task of selecting the leader.
Muslims have been enjoined to settle their affairs
by mutual consultation.
The political structure of Islam is not an unchangeable, rigid structure,
but has sufficient flexibility to suit different circumstances. For instance,
the selection of Abu Bakr took place after a discussion among the
companions, while Umar Faruq was appointed by Abu Bakr Siddiq, the
leader of the Believers himself, during his last days. Then, the third
Caliph was selected by a six-member board nominated by Caliph Umar.
So far as the selection of the fourth Caliph is concerned, it took place in
an emergency situation, due to the murder of the third Caliph Uthman;
the circumstances did not allow holding normal discussions. Therefore,
a group of Muslims declared Ali ibn Abu Talib to be the fourth Caliph
and the Muslim community accepted his Caliphate.
During the Umayyad period, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, who is known as the
‘fifth pious Caliph’, was selected. His election took place in the following
manner. The preceding Caliph, Sulaiman ibn Abdul Malik, had left his
will in a sealed envelope with instructions that it should be opened only
after his death. So, this letter was opened in the mosque of Damascus
after his demise.
This announcement was made by Reja ibn Haywa, who was appointed
by Caliph Sulaiman to read out this will to the large number of people
gathered in the mosque. It was an official announcement of the
nomination of Umar bin Abdul Aziz as Caliph. But Umar bin Abdul Aziz
publicly declared that he was returning this nomination to the people
and it was up to them to choose whoever they wanted. At this turn of
events, all the people gathered in the mosque chorused: “We accept
you as our Caliph.” Only after this general consent did Umar accept
the Caliphate.
The first phase of Islamic history is known as the ‘golden phase’. There
is no doubt about it that consultation is an established practice in Islam
and we see this from the precedent set in this golden period. Yet there
is a high degree of flexibility in the principle of consultation in Islam. It
is not a hard and fast rule. That is why we find that all the five Caliphs
were appointed by different methods. Then another fact is that the area
of this principle of flexibility in Islamic democracy is very vast. As we see
during the Umayyad period, Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufiyan, the founder of
the Umayyad Caliphate, nominated his son to succeed him. This was
clearly the way of kingship or dynastic rule, going patently against the
precedents set in the golden period. But this method introduced by
Muawiyah became so common that it was adopted by almost all the
succeeding Caliphs right from Muawiyah to Aurangzeb. Yet, the Islamic
scholars in general accepted their Caliphates, giving them their silent
approval. This shows that there is great flexibility in the Islamic concept
of democracy based on consultation.
The position of political rule in Islam is not that of the
target of action, but is rather the result of action.
This flexibility goes to the extent of even accepting dynastic kingship,
if circumstances demand it. As for the governments established on the
principle of dynastic rule, the scholars held the view that a government’s
fulfilling its social, economic and religious responsibilities was more
important than this or that political structure.
That is why in later history we find that although the Muslim scholars
did not react to this dynastic rule, they did speak out openly about their
responsibilities towards social justice.
The religious scholars (Ulama) never shirked their role of reminding the
kings of their social duty. Most of the scholars refrained from accepting
any government post so that they might not have to yield to any undue
pressure. They thought that by remaining independent they would be
able to play their role of censuring the policies of the government and
of reminding the rulers of their duties.
That is why in later periods of Islamic history, when dynastic rule had
become the order of the day among the Muslims, the rulers, more or
less, could not deviate far from the Islamic principles of justice. For
instance, the ruler had to come to the mosque to pray with the public; he had to spend the money of the treasury to fulfil the requirements of
the public; he had to discharge his religious responsibilities and see to
it that the public had no difficulty in discharging religious rites. Anyone
could approach the king to register his or her complaint. And there
was a proper arrangement by the government for the free religious
education of the people, etc.
From our study of the Quran, Hadith and Islamic history, we come to
these conclusions:
1. The position of political rule in Islam is not that of the target of
action, but is rather the result of action. That is to say, fulfilling
the criteria of faith and good deeds alone makes one deserving of
political power.
2. There is no hard and fast rule for the political structure in Islam.
Rather, we find great flexibility.
3. Although there may be adjustment so far as the political structure is
concerned, there can be no adjustment or concession so far as the
Islamic spirit is concerned.
4. According to the study of the Hadith, our actions towards political
reform will be limited to the giving of advice, i.e. by peaceful means.
This should never go to the extent of launching violent movements
aimed at ousting the rulers. As the Hadith traditions have it: “When
you find corruption among the rulers, you must pay your due and
ask your due from God”. It is as if the principle of Jesus Christ is also
accepted in Islam: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Luke: 20: 26).
The Quran tells us: “God enjoins you to do justice”. This justice in its
basic sense pertains to individual character. It demands that everyone
in his personal life should develop a character based on justice. When
the number of these just people grows into a large group, then they
desire to lead their lives based on justice at the congregational or
social level. When this social life manifests itself in the form of an
organized social institution, it is called a state. This action (the desire
to lead a just life) will be called just character from the individual
point of view, and this same action at the social level will be the
mainspring of the just state.
KEY TO PEACE
PEACE is a must for the survival of our civilization. Peace is a must for
all kinds of constructive work. As such, it is of the greatest concern
to everyone. Everyone wants a peaceful society, a peaceful world.
Yet, for the greater part of humanity, peace remains a distant dream.
Why so? Why this sad state of affairs? Why this contradiction between
ideal and practice? It is time to resolve this matter. It is the duty of all
sincere people to inquire into the real cause of this contradiction so
that a viable peace formula may be evolved.
I have made an in-depth study of this problem from the historical as
well as the Islamic viewpoints. I should like to make a brief presentation
of my findings. According to my study, basically, there are two
viewpoints in this matter: the concept of peace as defined by social
scientists and the concept of peace as defined by the ideologists. The
scientists’ concept of peace is based on realities, while the idealists’
concept of peace is based on utopianism; or, in other words, on mere
wishful thinking.
Peace is not aimed at satisfying the concerned parties
in terms of rights and justice.
It is mainly the ideologists’ concept of peace which has created the
present crisis of peace throughout the world. The scientists’ formula
for peace is the only practicable one, for the idealists’ formula is merely
a formulation of people’s own wishes.
Academicians define peace as an absence of war. But the idealists
differ with this notion saying that the mere absence of war is nothing.
They hold that peace and justice should go hand in hand. To them the
only acceptable formula is that which restores justice in its ideal sense.
But the building of such a utopian world is simply impossible.
This concept of peace is seemingly beautiful. Because of its apparent
beauty, it has gained general popularity. The masses everywhere
are obsessed with the idealistic concept of peace. But one has to
differentiate between what is possible and what is impossible. There
is no other alternative. One has to be practical rather than idealistic if one wants to achieve a positive result. The objective of peace is only to
normalise the situation between two warring sides.
Peace is not aimed at satisfying the concerned parties in terms of rights
and justice. Rights and justice are totally different issues. Linking them
with peace is unnatural as well as impractical. These are goals to be
worked for separately and independently. Furthermore, in this world
of competition, no one can receive peace and justice in terms of their
own personal criteria. It is situations and circumstances which will
dictate to what extent we can achieve these goals.
In fact, in this competitive world, it is not possible for anyone to receive
perfect justice. So, one has to be content with practical justice (pragmatic
solutions). During my studies, I found that those people who seek
peace with justice fail to achieve anything positive. Moreover, in the
course of this futile pursuit, they lose what they already had in hand.
Conversely, those who delink justice from peace are always successful
in life. After making this study I have come to the conclusion that the
scientific concept of peace is the only correct and practicable concept.
Thus, peace is not meant to establish justice. The purpose of peace is
only to normalise the situation so that one may uninterruptedly avail
of the opportunities that are present.
In this competitive world, it is not possible for anyone
to receive perfect justice.
To illustrate my point, I cite here two examples from history, one from
the early period of Islam and another from the modern history of
Japan. It is a well known fact that the Prophet of Islam was repeatedly
challenged by his opponents. There were several instances of wars
and violence. Then, the Prophet managed to finalise a peace treaty
between the Muslims and their opponents known as the Hudaibiya
Peace Treaty. Now, how was this peace treaty finalised? If you examine
historical records, you will find that, in terms of justice being done,
several problems arose. The treaty could be concluded because the
Prophet was able to delink the question of justice from the question of
peace. This delinking of the two issues gave him the success which is
described in the Quran as a clear victory. (THE QURAN 48: 1)
Now, why does the Quran describe this as a victory, when in fact, it
entailed the acceptance of all the conditions imposed by his enemies?
The Quran called this a victory because, although the peace treaty
itself was devoid of justice, it instantly normalised the situation, thus
enabling the Prophet to avail of the opportunities present at the time.
What the Prophet lost in Hudaibiya, he gained on a far greater scale
throughout the whole of Arabia.
Now let us look at the example of Japan. In World War II, Japan was
defeated by the USA. Okinawa Island was occupied by the American
army after the conclusion of a peace treaty, the terms of which were
dictated by America. Japan, willingly or unwillingly, accepted this treaty,
in which justice was delinked from peace. But what was the result?
Within a period of forty years the entire scenario had changed. Japan
lost Okinawa Island for a few years, but it gained the entire USA (North
American continent) as its industrial market. And now Japan enjoys the
status of a world economic superpower
Why is it, that reason and religion both advocate the acceptance of
reality or unilateral adjustment in times of conflict? This is because
in every adverse situation a status quo exists between the two sides.
If any party decides on a change in the status quo, the result will be
breakdown. Instead, by accepting the status quo each party will find
room for advancement towards its goal. The Quran says that of all
courses ‘reconciliation is the best.’ (THE QURAN 4: 128). That is, in matters
of controversy, the best policy is peaceful settlement rather than
confrontation. This is because conciliation or peaceful settlement
gives one scope to make progress, whereas confrontation arrests the
onward journey to success.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that peace is a must not only for
our advancement, but for our very survival. But peace can be attained
only by accepting two simple precepts: Make all efforts to change what
we can, and learn to live with the things which we cannot change. In
matters which we can change, we should be dedicated activists. In
matters which we cannot change, we should become status quoists.
Otherwise, peace for us will forever remain a distant dream.
Serenity Prayer
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
A GOOD SOCIETY
A GOOD society is the cherished ideal of every human soul. But
a consensus has yet to emerge on what constitutes a good
society. This is undoubtedly one of the most complex questions
facing us today.
It would be no exaggeration to say that three major initiatives,
designed in their separate ways to offer a solution, have been utter
failures. A hundred years ago it was generally assumed that the setting
up of a national government would provide the answer. It was felt that
foreign rule was responsible for the rot that had set in society, and
that indigenous rule alone could set matters right. In 1947, we finally
succeeded in establishing a national government, but it failed to yield
the desired result of a good society.
Similarly, the initiative which led up to home rule, i.e. the non-violent
movement started seventy five years ago by Mahatma Gandhi, did not
usher in any utopian ideal. It had come to be assumed that once the
principle of non-violence became the mainstay of Indian politics, it
would automatically be put into practice in society. But this transference
of a principle from the political to the social sphere did not take place.
We may have been successful in launching a political movement based
on non-violence, but we were to find that it took more than earnest
enunciation of the principle of non-violence to build a good society.
A good society is the cherished ideal
of every human soul.
The third initiative, carried out after independence, was the attempt to
bring about a good society by legislation. There are now scores of laws
aimed at social reform, each social evil having several specially framed
laws to counteract them. But this multitude of laws has done little to
bring a good society into existence.
As seen, our basic shortcoming is to think purely in terms of systems.
This has caused us to devote all our attention to overall ‘social reform’,
at the expense of the more worthwhile ‘reform of individuals’. Over a
period of a hundred years, all the major movements launched in our
country have been system-based, rather than individual-based.
The individual is the primary unit of society. If individuals are reformed,
society follows suit. And if individuals degenerate, society too goes into
decline. That is why our best efforts should centre on the individual,
who is, after all, the basic building block of the society. The day we
reform individuals in their thousands, we shall have set ourselves well
and truly on the path of successful social reform.
The solution to our problems lies in inter-community meeting, instead of
protests and demand meetings with the government. The most urgent
need of today is to hold inter-community dialogues at a national level.
Serious-minded and influential people from all communities should
participate in these interactions. Their goal should be the securing of
peace on the basis of purely non-political grounds.
Representatives of all communities should hold discussions with open
hearts. They must strive to put an end to controversial situations on
all sides and should discover a common basis by adopting which, all
communities can live together as good neighbours.
The soul of all reformation is the
reformation of the individual soul.
A dialogue of this kind is exactly in accordance with the Islamic
Shariah. The Hudaibiya peace treaty in Islamic history is an instance
of a successful dialogue of this nature. After the Prophet’s emigration,
relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in Arabia considerably
deteriorated. A number of battles and skirmishes ensued, and walls of
prejudice and hatred barred them from coming closer to each other.
Finally, peace could only be established at Hudaibiya near Makkah in 628
A.D. through peaceful negotiations between the Prophet Muhammad
and the non-Muslim Makkan leaders.
If such a dialogue is held with full justice and sincerity, a new chapter
will be opened in the history of India. It is this point of inter-community
relationship where the history of India is standing still. Once this
problem is solved and relations between communities improve,
nothing else will come in the way of India’s progress.
The dialogue, if it has to succeed, should not take the form of polemics.
Representatives should not become spokesmen of their respective communities during the discussion. What should be uppermost in their
minds are the vaster national interest and the paths of progress and
harmony for all.
All parties will have to commit themselves to differentiating between
issues and non-issues, so that they will not hold anything as a matter
of prestige; that they will not adopt the way of claim and counter claim;
that they will speak only with a vision of the result before them; that
their way will be one of impartiality; that while pressing their demands,
they will also be willing to concede; that while taking from others, they
will also be willing to give.
Dialogue means, an attempt to solve controversial
matters through negotiation; rather
than, through confrontation.
Dialogue is not a meeting of rivalry but is a brotherly meeting. Such noble
tasks are performed by rising above the victory-defeat psychology. Its
aim is to solve matters and not confound them. The feeling at work
behind a dialogue is one of reconciliation and not one of rivalry.
Dialogue means, an attempt to solve controversial matters through
negotiation; rather than, through confrontation. If a dialogue is started
with this spirit, its success is certain. The door to the progress of
our country has been shut for about half-a-century; and a dialogue
keeping this spirit in view, can surely open the closed door, provided it
is conducted with true spirit.
Importance of Education
Education makes man a right thinker and correct decision-maker.
Education brings him knowledge from the external world,
teaches him to reason, and acquaints him with past history,
so that he may be a better judge of the present.
THE SECTARIAN PHENOMENON
IN the later periods of any ummah or religious community, a
phenomenon inevitably appears — that of its religion being
divided up into different factions or sects. The Quran refers to
this phenomenon of people splitting up their religion and becoming
divided into sects, ‘each one exulting in what they have.’ (THE QURAN
religion—and I am your only Lord, therefore, fear Me. Yet they divided
themselves into factions, each rejoicing in what they had. (THE QURAN 23:
52-53)
These lines can be better understood in the light of another Quranic
verse: They have taken their learned men and their monks for their
lords besides God. (THE QURAN 9: 31)
From these Quranic verses, it appears that the phenomenon of a
religion splitting into factions is a historical process that emerges in
the life of every religious community. This has happened in the case of
Muslims, too. There is no exception to this rule.
A political interpretation of Islam is an example of an
error in reasoning, because Islam is a divine movement,
and not a political movement.
How and why does this happen? In the later period in the life of
a religious community, various reformers arise. These reformers’
interpretation of their religion is influenced by their circumstances.
They begin to invite people to accept their faith as interpreted by
them. Accordingly, a group of followers slowly starts to form around
them. Gradually, these followers begin to develop a strong prejudice
in support of their own particular school of thought. They believe that
whatever the leaders or founding-figures of their group have said is
the final word, the ultimate truth. This prejudicial mentality begins to
harden, until each group is transformed into a distinct sect. Each sect
becomes firmly convinced that it alone is true, and that all others are
deviant. This is the historical process that the Quran indicates in the
above-quoted verses.
In the light of this, one could say that the splitting up of a religion into
factions that the Quran refers is about people following the religion
fabricated by their leaders instead of the religion of God. When this
happens, it does not mean that a religious community ceases to take
the name of God and their prophet. Members of such a community
continue to talk of God and their prophet, but, in reality, they follow
the religion made by their leaders. They take the name of God and
their prophet, but this is only to seek to back their claim, with the
help of references to God and their prophet, that their particular sect
is correct.
It is undesirable, of course, for a community to be split up into rival
sects. Such sects, no matter whether they call themselves ‘religious’
or ‘divine’, are guilty in God’s eyes of factionalism. Their case has
nothing to do with genuine religious adherence. In God’s sight, they
are followers of a religion that their elders have fabricated, and not the
religion of God and God’s prophet.
Individuals from different sects, who, in their individual
capacity, remain firm on the straight path shown by God,
will be deemed worthy of salvation in the Hereafter.
This phenomenon of sectarianism is not something that was exclusive
to religious communities in the past, before the advent of the Prophet
Muhammad. In fact, it is something that happens with every religious
community when it declines in its later period. The Prophet Muhammad
predicted that this would certainly happen among the Muslim ummah,
too. According to a Hadith report (recorded in the Sunan al-Tirmidhi),
the Prophet said that the Children of Israel were divided into 72 sects,
and his ummah would be divided into 73 sects. All of them will be in the
fire of Hell except one. The Companions asked him who these chosen
people were who would be saved from Hell, and he replied that they
are those who follow his path and the path of his Companions.
The figure of 73 mentioned in this report is not to be taken to indicate
a particular number. Instead, it symbolizes a vast number. In other
words, the report tells us that a vast number of sects would emerge
among the Muslims. This Hadith also does not mean that all of the ‘
sects will be doomed and that only one sect will be saved. In accordance
with God’s law, salvation is always of individuals, not of communities or groups.
The concept of a single ‘saved sect’ or firqa al-najiya has absolutely no
basis. It has nothing to do with the Hadith of the Prophet quoted above.
This Hadith tells us that salvation in the Hereafter will not be on the
basis of one’s sectarian affiliation. Rather, individuals from different
sects, who, in their individual capacity, remain firm on the straight path
shown by God, will be deemed worthy of salvation in the Hereafter.
As mentioned earlier, the splitting of a community into sects always
starts with the leaders of that community. Under the influence of the
conditions they are faced with, these leaders present certain ideas,
which in later times, owing to exaggeration and prejudice, leads to
the emergence of separate sects. Later, these sects become clearlydefined,
separate communities.
This happens due to basically two factors. Firstly, what can be termed a
‘shift of emphasis’. The other is an error in reasoning, or what in Urdu is
called ijtihadi khata. Here are examples of both of these, from the past
as well as the present-day.
The concept of a single ‘saved sect’
has absolutely no basis.
Some Sufis provide an example of a ‘shift of emphasis’ in Muslim
history. Many leading Sufis appeared at a time when powerful Muslim
Sultanates had been established. The Sufis perceived that the minds of
the people had become overshadowed by politics, while, in contrast, the
spiritual dimension of Islam had greatly weakened among them. In this
context, some Sufis gave such great stress to the spiritual dimensions
of Islam or ‘the affairs of the heart’ as if they were everything, or Islam
in its entirety.
Leaving aside a few controversial methods employed by some of
them, the case of some of these Sufis was, in essence, one of a ‘shift of
emphasis’. As a result of this ‘shift of emphasis’ in the name of religion,
a certain esoteric religiosity spread among Muslims, and rational
thought and realism went into decline.
A second factor for the emergence of sectarianism is, as we mentioned
above, an error in reasoning or ijtihad. An example of this is provided
from the Abbasid period. At this time, Hadith reports and the narratives
about the companions of the Prophet were collected and compiled in books. People now learned that among the companions there were
many minor differences in matters of the method of worship. Guidance
in this regard was provided in the Hadith, because the Prophet is
reported to have said about his companions that whichever of them
people followed, they would be rightly guided.
According to this Hadith report, minor differences in methods of
worship were because of the phenomenon of diversity. They were
not a question of truth versus falsehood. Each of these methods was
equally proper. But the fuqaha or legal specialists in the Abbasid period
engaged in ijtihad and declared, ‘Truth cannot be many’. Then, they
debated among themselves and adopted one or the other method of
worship and declared that the other methods ought to be abandoned.
Different fuqaha did this with regard to their particular methods of
worship. In this way, various schools of fiqh came into being. Later on,
exaggeration and bias led these schools to finally turn into distinctly
separate maddhabs of jurisprudence.
Splitting up of a religion into factions that the Quran
refers to is about people following the religion fabricated
by their leaders instead of the religion of God.
Consider an instance of a ‘shift of emphasis’ leading to sectarianism
from the contemporary period. This concerns the group commonly
known as the Tablighi Jama‘at. The founder of the Tablighi Jama‘at,
Maulana Muhammad Ilyas Kandhalvi (d. 1944), observed that people
had generally become lax about their prayers. In the words of the poet
Muhammad Iqbal:
Masjiden marsiya khwan hain ki namazi na rahe
(Mosques lament that sincere worshippers no longer remain)
Faced with this situation, Maulana Muhammad Ilyas Kandhalvi gave
great stress to the importance of prayer. He launched a full-fledged
movement to encourage people to pray. But later on, this movement
fell prey to exaggeration and prejudice. Its followers began to think that
religion was just another name for praying in mosques and travelling
from place to place. But the fact is that the message of Islam and the
Islamic mission are centred on the human being, not on the mosque An example of an error of ijtihad from the contemporary period is
provided by the Jama‘at-e-Islami, which is based on the ideas of Maulana
Sayyed Abul ‘Ala Maududi (d. 1979). Maulana Maududi was born at a
time when various political movements were powerful in different
parts of the world — communist movements, democratic movements,
movements for national independence, and so on. At this time,
generally speaking, people considered politics to be the most important
thing. Maulana Maududi was influenced by these conditions. And so he
presented Islam in such a way as if it were a political system and as if
its purpose was to establish its rule all over the world. In accordance
with this understanding, he developed a political interpretation of the
Quran and expressed the Sunnah or practice of the Prophet in political
terms. This was clearly an example of an error in ijtihad, because Islam
is a divine movement, and not some political movement.
Solution of the Problem
To solve the problem of sectarianism, each group must continuously
introspect. They should continuously examine in an impartial manner,
the ideas of their founding-figures or leaders. They should examine the
teachings and practices of their leaders in the light of the Quran and
the Sunnah of the Prophet. They must engage in this sort of analysis
with a completely open mind. No religious movement or group can
be exempted from this self-examination. It will help in elucidating the
truth and in enabling every group to once again discover the religion of
God and become established in it.
Salvation in the Hereafter will not be
on the basis of one’s sectarian affiliation.
To consider a religious scholar or leader's words said under the
influence of certain conditions, cannot, in its initial stages, be regarded
as always and necessarily akin to sectarianism. Rather, it may well
reflect his particular way of thinking, or his personal ijtihad. But when
a group emerges around this person, and this group is infected with a
prejudicial mind-set and gets crystallized as a distinct sect, the problem
of splitting religion into sects begins. This problem slowly begins to
grow, till it becomes extreme, so much so that every group, consciously
or unconsciously, begins to think that it alone is in the right and that
all other groups are false or deviant. This is called tahazzub in Arabic,
or ‘groupism’, which the Quran (
no matter how legitimate it may be.
Religious factionalism is certainly an issue. It is not, however, an
eternal problem. Under the influence of circumstances, this happens
with every religiously-defined community. But, alongside this, a
solution to this problem is also undoubtedly present — and that is,
introspection. An individual introspecting about himself or herself is
one sort of introspection. In addition to this, the Quran also teaches us
what can be called ‘collective introspection’, as the following Quranic
verse indicates:
Believers, turn to God, every one of you,
so that you may prosper.
THE QURAN 24: 31
From this verse, we learn that success, in the sense of reforming one’s
conditions, is linked to collective repentance. In this regard, Muslim
community institutions must clearly and openly decry sectarian rivalry;
they must issue relevant fatwas; and the Muslim media should publish
articles about this issue. In this way, joint efforts can be made towards
the collective repentance that the Quran talks about.
This is the way to help solve the phenomenon of sectarianism.
Positions of Power
Positions of power have
always been objects of envy for people.
However, these coveted seats lose their charm
as soon as they come within our grasp.
The price we pay for them is our freedom
— mental, moral, emotional and physical — and, surely,
renunciation of such freedoms is too great a price
to pay for anything so purely material.
WAR AS AN INSTRUMENT TO ACQUIRE POWER
The Quran lays down:
Fight them until there is no more [religious] persecution,
and religion belongs wholly to God: if they desist,
then surely God is watchful of what they do.
THE QURAN 8: 39
THIS verse has two parts. The same point is made, first in the form
of a negation, and then as an affirmation. The verse indicates
that persecution or fitna should be put an end to in such a way
that an environment entirely free of persecution is established.
The persecution that this verse mentions relates to compulsion in
religious matters, which, in ancient times, prevailed all over the world.
At that time, monarchy was the norm almost everywhere. The two
fundamental bases of power were political position and ownership
of land. Generally, both rested in the hands of the monarch. In this
way, almost the whole sphere of human life was practically under the
monarch’s control. People were even compelled to follow the same
religion of their rulers.
Communities which have discovered the power of modern
institutions have been able to achieve impressive
success despite not possessing political power.
This sort of coercion was opposed to the scheme of Nature devised
by God. Under this coercive system, people could not do anything at
all without the monarch’s consent. Ordinary people simply had no
freedom whatsoever. The situation was akin to Communist rule under
the Soviet Union.
God wanted this unnatural system of political coercion to end and for
the whole of human life to run according to the natural conditions that
He has devised. He wanted people to be free of political coercion. In
the early Islamic period, the overthrow of monarchical despotism and
its replacement by the Caliphate was the beginning of this process.
This Caliphal system was first established in Arabia. At that time, there
were two big empires in the region — the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanian Empire. The establishment of the Caliphate and the ending
of monarchical despotism in Arabia was a major challenge to these two
powers. Hence, they wanted to destroy it. As a result, the companions
of the Prophet had to face stiff opposition from these quarters. With
God’s assistance, they were victorious, and the coercive system of
absolute imperialism was ended.
Ending a system of coercion that was several thousand years old and
replacing it with a system based on freedom was a very revolutionary
development. This development unfolded over a period of time. With
God’s help, Islam, in the seventh century A.D., broke this ancient system
of coercive rule. Thereafter, this transformation assumed the form of a
process that began to unfold through human history. Belgian historian,
Henri Pirenne has acknowledged this historical fact with these words,
“Islam changed the face of the globe. The traditional order of history
was overthrown.”
Islam then went through various ups and downs and reached its
climax in the 20th century, when political power became very limited,
remaining essentially in the form of administration. And so, today the
influence of political institutions on human religious life is minimal. In
almost all spheres of life, people are now free of political interference
and can manage these spheres as they like. This enormous change in
the system of human life is in favour of Islam. As with other people, it
is now possible for the followers of Islam to mould and lead their lives,
free of coercion or interference.
The shift of the focus of influence from politics to
institutions has rendered political power into
nothing but a political headache.
Today, we live in an age where institutions now enjoy the influence
that political power and monarchs once did. Like other people, the
followers of Islam too, can establish all sorts of institutions to progress
in all spheres of life. In this way, they can progress even in the political
sphere. Through institutions, they can establish their influence in a
manner that was earlier possible only through the possession of political
power. By setting up educational institutions, they can educate and
train the next generation. Through media houses, they can help shape
the intellectual climate of society. Through books and scholarship,
they can spread their views. Through research institutions, they can promote new thinking. By setting up industries, they can improve their
economic conditions. Using modern means of communications, they
can link up with others. Through NGOs they can organize their religious
and cultural affairs in a more effective way. And so on.
In the modern age, the communities that have discovered this reality
— of the power of modern institutions — have been able to achieve
impressive success despite not possessing political power. Some of them
have set up their own educational empires. Others have established
industrial empires or publishing empires or media empires. The latest
example of such a non-political empire is the information technology
empire, which has enabled those who run it to exercise an enormous
control over peoples’ lives at the global level.
In almost all spheres of life, people are now free of
political interference and can manage them as they like.
The shift of the focus of influence from politics to institutions has
rendered political power into nothing but a political headache. And so,
it is not necessary now, nor even desirable, for the followers of Islam
to wage war for the sake of capturing political power. Irrespective of
who wields political power, the followers of Islam can now, under all
conditions, establish non-political institutions and thereby access all
the desirable benefits.
This does not mean that the followers of Islam must totally ignore
politics. It simply means that while accessing the benefits that accrue
from institutions and organizations, they can take to the path of
peaceful political work in a limited arena. They must abstain
completely from political agitation, however, and, instead, pursue
their political journey calmly, within the possible limits. It may be then,
that God will give them the opportunity of entering into institutions
of political significance.
THE GREATER JIHAD
ISLAM is, in essence, a peaceful religion. In Islam, peace is the general
rule or norm. On the other hand, war is only a rare exception in
Islam, as a compulsion in response to an armed attack by others. It
is not something that Muslims should initiate.
The basic aim of Islam is to bring about an intellectual revolution in their
minds based on tawheed, or the oneness of God. Our actions depend
on our thoughts. That is why Islam gives great stress to reforming our
thought process and on our intellectual awakening. Hence, war is not
part of Islam’s basic plan of life. In fact, war is something that goes
diametrically against this plan. No matter what one’s religion, the fact
is that through war or any other form of violence, no positive gains or
achievements are possible. This is why if all possible efforts to prevent
war are made, but yet, these fail; and one is compelled to take to
war, the followers of Islam must seek to put an end to war as soon as
possible; so that in a climate of peace the true constructive work of
Islam can carry on unimpaired.
The basic aim of Islam is to bring about an intellectual
revolution in their minds based on the oneness of God.
In this context, it is pertinent to discuss the notion of jihad in Islam.
Jihad is, in fact, another name for peaceful struggle. In today’s parlance,
it could be called ‘peaceful activism’, or, in other words, using peaceful
means to try to attain certain lofty objectives.
The literal meaning of jihad is ‘effort’ or ‘struggle’ i.e. to make the
greatest possible effort. The Quran says: ‘Perform jihad with this most
strenuously’ (this, here refers to the Quran) (THE QURAN 25: 52). The
Quran is not a sword or a gun. It is a book of ideology. In such a case,
performing jihad with the Quran would mean an ideological struggle to
convey the peaceful message of Islam to people.
In the light of this verse of the Quran, jihad in actual fact is another
name for peaceful activism or non-violent activism. Where qital is
violent activism, jihad is non-violent activism.
According to a Hadith report, a mujahid, one who engages in jihad, is
he who for the sake of obedience to God combats his own base self
or nafs. According to another tradition, when the Prophet returned
from the Tabuk campaign (in which no war took place), he said, ‘We
have returned from lesser jihad to greater jihad.’ The ‘lesser jihad’ is a
military struggle, while the ‘greater jihad’ is the struggle against one’s
own evil desires.
Jihad, if understood correctly, is an entirely peaceful action. At the
individual level, to engage in jihad is to refuse to deviate from the
path of God despite the desires of one’s baser self and the difficult
environment one confronts. It is to face the challenges that stand in
one’s path and remain steadfast on the path of Truth. At the collective
level, jihad can be called a peaceful struggle. At the very basis of this
struggle is an intellectual awakening among people, leading them to
positive and constructive action and refining their character. Jihad,
understood in this sense, inspires people to seek to become beneficial
to others, and to be concerned about their welfare. The weapon
deployed in true jihad is love, not hatred and violence.
No matter what one’s religion, the fact is that through
war or any other form of violence, no positive gains
or achievements are possible.
Some people misunderstand jihad as the equivalent of war, or what
is called qital in Arabic. Equating the two is to completely undermine
the significance of jihad. The fact of the matter is that qital is a very
limited action, and it is of a temporary nature. On the other hand, jihad
is a continuous and comprehensive action. Jihad is an exalted action
in Islam, which should carry on continuously, every day and at every
moment in our lives. Under no conditions should it stop.
When a person is overwhelmed by the quest for Truth, he is immersed
in an intellectual jihad. When he realizes the Truth, his jihad takes
on added dimensions. He engages in jihad or struggle to the utmost
against his own self and his base, Satanic, desires, and in this way
he strengthens and deepens his faith and trust in God. He engages
in continuous constructive intellectual development, and so his
realization of the Truth continuously develops till at last he reaches the
highest possible stage.
According to a Hadith report, one’s faith increases and decreases. To
save one’s faith from erosion requires a continuous jihad. Living along
with other people, one is repeatedly attacked by negative feelings or
emotions, such as anger, jealousy, revenge, pride, ingratitude, greed
and so on. These negative emotions constantly threaten to weaken
or decrease one’s faith. In this regard, one has to awaken one’s
consciousness and struggle against these negative tendencies and
quash them. This is a jihad, and without this jihad no one can save his
or her faith from decrease or erosion.
An Idle Mind:
A Devil’s Workshop
A person with no sense of commitment
is only living on the fringes of existence.
He is out of touch with reality and will
soon lapse into utter degeneracy.
No really superior being
has ever been found among
the ranks of the idle.
As the old saying goes,
the Devil finds work for idle hands.
Combating Violence
Instead of combating violence with violence,
we should adopt the policy of avoidance;
remaining united in spite of differences.
THE MESSAGE FROM THE QURAN
With regard to the creation plan of God, the Quran says:
WHEN your Lord said to the angels: ‘I am placing a
caliph on earth,’ they replied: ‘Will You put there
one that will do evil and shed blood, when we have
for so long sung Your praises and sanctified Your name?’ He
said: ‘I know what you do not know.’ He taught Adam all the
names and then set them before the angels, saying: ‘Tell me the
names of these, if what you say be true.’ ‘Glory be unto You,’
they replied, ‘we have no knowledge except that which You have
given us. You alone are wise and all-knowing.’ Then said He to
Adam: ‘Tell them their names.’ And when Adam had named
them, He said: ‘Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of
heaven and earth, and all that you hide and all that you reveal?'
THE QURAN 2: 30-33
The literal meaning of the word ‘caliph’ is one who takes another’s place
— a successor. In the age of hereditary rule it was generally used for
a monarch who took the place of another monarch. Accordingly, then,
the word came to refer to one invested with power.
Man’s greatest crime, next to denial of his Lord, is to
spread corruption and cause bloodshed on earth.
When God created man, He determined that man should wield power
on earth. The angels were apprehensive of man being corrupted by his
power and free-will and causing bloodshed on earth. The angels were
not mistaken in their apprehension: God too was fully aware of this
possibility. But He was looking at the matter from another aspect. For
if many human beings were corrupted by their power, a substantial
proportion of mankind would acknowledge the fact that, in spite of
their power and freedom on earth, they were really powerless before
Almighty God. Such people would, of their own accord, adopt the path
of submission and obedience to God. True, they would be comparatively
few in number, but they would be as precious as the grains of a crop.
Grain is far outweighed by hay and straw, but so great is its value that
vast quantities of hay and straw are allowed to grow and flourish in the
land just so that grain can come into being.
God, in His omnipotence, brought all the progeny of Adam before their
first father. Then He said to the angels: ‘Look, this is the progeny of
Adam. Can you give the name of each one of them, and tell what sort
of people they will be?’ The angels, having no knowledge about them,
could not tell. God told Adam their names and their characteristics,
and then commanded him to pass the knowledge on to the angels.
When Adam had explained to the angels the nature of the human race,
they realized that, besides wicked and corrupt people, there would also
be great, righteous, pious souls among them.
No individual or nation has God’s permission to act
in a manner that disrupts the order of nature
established by God.
Man’s greatest crime, next to denial of his Lord, is to spread corruption
and cause bloodshed on earth. No individual or nation has God’s
permission to act in a manner that disrupts the order of Nature
established by God. Man should not take the life of his fellow man.
All actions of this sort disqualify people from receiving God’s mercy.
Everything in Nature functions according to a norm set for it by God.
To follow this norm is to 'make peace', and to deviate from it is to
spread corruption.
“And when We said to the angels:
‘Prostrate yourselves before Adam.’ they all prostrated
themselves except Satan, who, in his pride, refused, and became
an unbeliever. To Adam We said: ‘Dwell with your wife in Paradise
and eat of its fruits to your heart’s content wherever you will. But
never approach this tree or you shall become transgressors.’
But Satan made them forget this injunction and caused them
to be driven out of the state of felicity in which they had been.
‘Go down from here,’ We said, ‘as enemies to each other; and
on earth you shall have your abode and your livelihood for a
while!’ Then Adam received commandments from his Lord,
and his Lord relented towards him. He is the Forgiving One,
the Merciful. Go down hence, all,’ We said. ‘When Our guidance
comes unto you those that accept it shall have nothing to fear
or to regret; but those that deny and reject Our revelations
shall be the heirs of Hell, and there they shall abide forever.”
THE QURAN 2: 34-39
God stood Adam up among the angels, as well as Satan, and tested
them by commanding them to prostrate themselves before Adam. In
this way He gave the first man on earth a practical demonstration of the
two paths that would be open to his progeny. Either they would follow
the example of the angels and bow to God’s commandments, even if
this meant bowing before an inferior creature; or else they would be
proud like Satan and refuse to bow before others which is a refusal to
bow to God’s commandments.
This is the test that man faces in his entire life. Here on earth man is
constantly faced with two alternative courses of action. He can follow
the angelic course and carry out God’s commandments by bowing
before truth and justice in all that he does. He can also act as Satan
did, letting himself be controlled by arrogance and contempt, refusing
to concede the rights of others.
When he turns to the Lord in repentance, God relents
towards him, and cleanses him of his sins
as if he had never committed them.
This was the lesson of the forbidden tree. It is when man lets himself
be deceived by Satan and exceeds the bounds that God has laid down
for him that he goes astray. As soon as he eats of the 'forbidden fruit'
he is deprived of God’s grace or, in other words, Paradise. But this
loss is not an irretrievable one. Man still has the opportunity to turn
in repentance to his Lord, rectify his actions and seek forgiveness for
his sins. When he turns to the Lord in repentance, God relents towards
him and cleanses him of his sins as if he had never committed them.
The raising of the call to truth among men is a test of this nature. The
preacher of truth is an ‘Adam’; it is for people to bow before him. If,
carried away by pride and prejudice, they refuse to acknowledge his
position, then they are following in Satan’s footsteps. God does not
become plainly visible in this world; He tests people by revealing
Himself through His signs. Those who can interpret His signs have
discovered God Himself, and those who fail to interpret His signs have
failed to find God.
WISDOM IN RETREAT
AFTER the demise of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 A.D., for
a period of 20 years, Muslims made huge conquests. Every
month, news poured in of some large territory being conquered
by Muslim armies. But with the murder of the third Caliph in 646 A.D.,
internecine fighting broke out among Muslims, which put a break to
this series of conquests for around a decade.
The person who reopened this closed door was Imam Hasan. In 661
A.D., he withdrew his claim to the Caliphate, expressing, as it were, his
decision to retire from worldly action. But this stepping back actually
opened up new doors for positive developments in Islamic history.
Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib was born in the year 624 A.D. and passed
away in the year 670 A.D. When his father, Ali ibn Abi Talib, was martyred
in 660 A.D., Hasan was 37 years old. At that time, only Iraq and Iran
remained under Ali’s Caliphate. In territories such as Yemen, the Hijaz
(present day western Saudi Arabia), Palestine, Egypt etc., Muawiyah
ibn Abi Sufiyan had established his rule. Many people were secretly
opposed to him. After Ali’s martyrdom, a large number of people
pledged the oath of allegiance to Hasan, Ali’s eldest son, accepting him
as the Caliph.
Only that person can act successfully who knows
the secret of successful retreat.
Cognizant of the delicate situation then prevailing, Hasan accepted
the responsibilities of administering the Caliphate. But he very soon
realized that, in the given conditions, his insistence on the Caliphate
would only exacerbate dissensions among the Muslims. Reflecting his
pragmatism, he once told his younger brother, Husain, ‘I know that
Prophethood and the Caliphate cannot remain together in our family.’ 1
Because of this delicate situation, while accepting people’s oath of
allegiance to him as Caliph, Hasan also took from them their assent to
fight against those whom he engaged in war with, and to make peace
with those whom he made peace with.
1. Ali ibn Abi Talib was Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law; and Ali’s sons, Hasan and Husain
were the Prophet's grandchildren.
After Ali’s martyrdom, the denizens of Kufa (capital city of Ali in Iraq)
made Hasan the Caliph. On the other hand, for Muawiyah, Ali’s passing
away from this world had cleared the road, as it were. As soon as he
heard of Ali’s martyrdom, he adopted the title of Amir-ul-Mumineen or
‘Commander of the Faithful’ for himself, and made a plan to bring the
remaining Muslim territories (Iraq and Iran) under his dominion. After
renewing people’s oath of allegiance, Muawiyah headed, along with a
force of 60,000 men, from Damascus towards Kufa. Before entering
Kufa, he sent a message to Imam Hasan, telling him that instead of
entering into war, it would be better if he reconciled with him and
accepted him as the Caliph.
At that time, Imam Hasan, too, had an army of 60,000 men, who were
brave fighters. But he thought it necessary to save Muslims from
shedding each other’s blood. And so, he withdrew his claim to the
Caliphate, and, remaining as Caliph for just six months, gave the oath
of allegiance at Muawiyah’s hand in a mosque in Kufa.
To avoid protesting is not to ignore a problem,
but, rather, a way to focus one’s resources
on positive and constructive work instead.
For some of Imam Hasan’s ardent followers, this ‘insult’ was intolerable.
They raised a hue and cry over his decision. They labelled him as a
disgrace for the Muslims, and said he had become a kafir. They tore his
clothes, and even attacked him with swords. Yet, Imam Hasan refused
to engage in oppositional politics under any conditions whatsoever
and said, ‘If the Caliphate was the right of Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufiyan,
then it has reached him. And if it was my right, I have given it to him.’
With Imam Hasan’s stepping back, internecine fighting among Muslims
was replaced by internal solidarity. In this way, Muslims were able to
use their strength and resources in the propagation of Islam, which
would otherwise have gone to waste in civil war.
As this example shows, sometimes stepping back is the way to
move forward, although few people are cognizant of this fact of life.
This action of Imam Hasan’s did not represent any sort of defeat or
escapism. Rather, it was a very wise political decision, and entirely in
keeping with the model established by Prophet Muhammad in his life.
Collective existence is a very delicate affair. If you think only in terms of
offensive action, opposition and confrontation with others, you can be
sure that you will never succeed in bringing about any social reform.
This is because collective life is another name for multiple voices and
views and for all sorts of conditions and circumstances. That is why
for collective living, you cannot lay down one single rigid criterion. You
need to properly understand the multiple forces that face each other in
society. You also need to properly gauge your own and other people’s
conditions and then chalk out your plan of action. This requires great
insight, as well as a mind free from psychological burdens.
To step back is not always cowardice.
It can also be wise pragmatism.
Sometimes, when it comes to facing opposition from others, you need
to remain confined solely to working for the spread of the ideology you
champion. This was reflected, for instance, in the first 12 years of the
Muhammad’s life as a prophet in Makkah. At other times, conditions
may demand that you have to accept your opponent’s challenge
on the battlefield — as was the case of the Battle of Badr between
the Prophet with his followers, on the one hand, and the polytheist
Quraysh of Makkah on the other. At other times, in order to obtain
long-lasting results, you need to save yourself from directly clashing
with one’s opponent, even if this means unilaterally accepting the
opponent’s demands — as was the case of the Treaty of Hudaibiya.
Patiently bearing a difficult situation also becomes politically wise and
necessary. That is also something that Islam teaches us. This is also
what we learn from Imam Hasan’s example.
Only that person can act successfully who knows the secret of successful
retreat. To step back is not always cowardice. Rather, as Imam Hasan’s
example exemplifies, it can be wise pragmatism. Avoiding a clash with
the ruling authorities is not synonymous with tolerating oppression.
Rather, it is a wise means to develop the strength necessary to uproot
oppression. To abandon politics is not political suicide. Rather, it can
be a means to promote other factors and resources in society. To avoid
protesting is not to ignore a problem, but, rather, a way to focus one’s
resources on positive and constructive work instead.
THE FEAR OF GOD
PLATO (428-348 B.C) is regarded as one of the three great
philosophers of ancient Greece, the other two being Socrates and
Aristotle. The book, for which Plato is best remembered, titled The
Republic and written in the form of a dialogue, is on the subject of the
Ideal State. In Plato’s view,
Unless philosophers bear kingly rule... or those
who are now called kings and princes become
genuine and adequate philosophers,
there will be no respite from evil.
Throughout the ages, many individuals who came to be known as
philosopher-kings (or queens) have assumed power; for example,
the Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, the Russian Queen, Catherine
II, King Frederick II of Prussia, the Macedonian King Demetrius and
the contemporary ruler of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew. But none has
measured up to the standard of the good ruler as presented by Plato.
Only the fear of God will right the wrongs of this world.
There were certain pupils of the Greek philosophers who attained
kingship. For example, Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle,
and Demetrius was trained in Aristotle’s school of thought. Yet, these
philosopher-rulers were no better than others. As Peter Green puts it:
What happened was, nothing happened...
Power, it appeared, could corrupt
even philosophers.
Time Magazine, May 13, 1991
According to Karl Marx’s theory, the root of all evil is the economic system
based on ownership; in which, those who were owners exploited those
who were not, in very much the same way a despot would oppress his
subjects. It was thought that if the system of individual ownership were
to be replaced by that of collective ownership, all kinds of oppression
and exploitation could be uprooted. There would then be neither the
owner nor the owned, and no group or individual would be able to
exploit any other group or individual.
These ideas led to the Marxist revolution in Russia in 1917, whereupon
the system of state-ownership was introduced by force. However,
as events unfolded, it became apparent that in the guise of the noownership
system, this had become the most tyrannical regime in
modern history, with the rulers proving to be the most oppressive and
dictatorial ever witnessed. Instead of collective ownership improving
the lot of the underprivileged, it only encouraged further oppression
and coerciveness on the part of the rulers.
Similarly, in the second half of the twentieth century, colonialism
was branded as an evil, and movements for independence were
launched against it on a massive scale. The moving spirits behind these
movements held that foreign rule was the cause of all evils, not the
least being oppression, and that if it could be replaced by home rule,
oppression would die a natural death. These movements for national
freedom eventually proved a resounding success and in all the newly
freed former colonies, Government posts were promptly secured by
the sons of the soil. But oppression and evil did not disappear. Hence
rulers continued to be tyrants. Power had only changed hands.
Only the fear of God can hold a man in power to the
observance of proper standards of truth and justice.
Islam, tells us that all such claims made for improved temporal systems
are without foundation; the only factor that can affect true reform is the
fear of God. Nothing else can hold a man in power to the observance of
proper standards of truth and justice.
The best historical illustration of this theory is the conduct of the
Prophet and his companions. They wielded power, but they remained
untarnished by the corruption rampant among the rulers who came
before and after them. Their probity was unparalleled; as such it was
living proof of the Islamic claim that only the fear of God will right the
wrongs of this world.
FROM MAULANAS DESK
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, born in 1925, in
Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, is an Islamic spiritual
scholar who is well-versed in both classical Islamic
learning and modern disciplines. The mission of his life
has been the establishment of worldwide peace. He has
received the Padma Bhushan, the Demiurgus Peace
International Award and Sayyidina Imam Al Hassan
Peace award for promoting peace in Muslim societies.
He has been called ’Islam’s spiritual ambassador to the
world’ and is recognized as one of its most influential
Muslims
. His books have been translated into sixteen
languages and are part of university curricula in six
countries. He is the founder of the Centre for Peace
and Spirituality based in New Delhi.
NAIROBI AND PESHAWAR ATTACKS
COMPLETELY ANTI-ISLAMIC
LAST month, there were two deadly attacks orchestrated by selfstyled
Muslims, killing huge numbers of people — I am referring
here to the suicide bomb attack at the All Saints Church in
Peshawar, Pakistan and the attack at the Westgate shopping mall in
Nairobi, Kenya. Attacks on, and persecution of, non-Muslim minorities
have escalated in recent years in many Muslim-majority countries.
These attacks are nothing but an expression of frustration. The fact is
that in the first of half the twentieth century, some Muslims started a
struggle against their so-called enemies. But they completely failed.
They then tried to destabilize these supposed enemies. What happened
on 9/11 was an act of this kind.
However, they failed in achieving anything here as well. Now, they
have chosen soft targets, like churches and malls. Such acts only show
the extent of their frustration. The only cause for these attacks can be
found in these Muslims’ deep frustration due to their total failure.
The time has now come for Muslims to take a U-turn. Taking a U-turn
means accepting one’s own mistakes, but many Muslim leaders have
no courage to openly accept their mistakes.
According to Islam, these attacks are clearly haram or forbidden.
Suicide-bombing has no justification in Islam. With regard to the
bombing of the church in Peshawar, the attackers said that they were
taking revenge for US drone strikes. But, taking revenge itself is an
un-Islamic act. The argument that these attacks are a legitimate answer
to the oppression of others is completely baseless.
Islam does not allow taking of such revenge by attacking innocent
people. The concept of revenge is in itself an un-Islamic one; but, for the
sake of argument, supposing that Islam does allow taking of revenge,
then that revenge must be directed against those who are responsible
for the killings for which revenge is sought. In these attacks, those who
were present in the church in Peshawar and in the mall in Nairobi were
innocent. They were not involved in any kind of attack nor did they
carry out any killing, and so they cannot be subjected to revenge.
Attacks of this kind do not in any way solve the problems they claim
to be a response to. Rather, they only exacerbate them. The claims of
people involved in such attacks of representing and championing Islam
are completely false. Islam does not give permission for such attacks at
all. However, the real blame goes less to the attackers themselves than
to their intellectual mentors. The real culprits are those leaders who
have given a political interpretation to Islam.
I think political Islam is the greatest evil in the present age. Such an
interpretation has made the violence that Peshawar and Nairobi have
just witnessed seem justified to those who carried it out.
Some Muslims quote, among others, the following Quranic verse to
justify their hatred of non-Muslims:
O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians for
friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst
you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them;
surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
(
On the basis of their erroneous interpretation of this verse, they seek
to stir hatred against people of other faiths. Once that happens, then
it becomes easy for them to seek legitimacy for violence against them.
However, the fact of the matter is that their argument is completely
wrong. The Quranic verse quoted above is neither about all the Jews or Christians, nor is it a permanent teaching. It is a temporary instruction
and was applicable only to those who were contemporaries of the
Prophet and were at war with him.
It is a well-known fact that non-Muslims in every country have formed
an opinion of Islam being a religion of violence. This kind of negative
image regarding Islam is absolutely wrong. The real blame, however,
goes to Muslim leaders and not to non-Muslims. Attacks such as what
Peshawar and Nairobi have recently witnessed are bound to show
Islam in an even more negative light. The image of Islam is already
under fire, and such acts will only degrade its image in the eyes of
the world.
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Strong Character
Strong is the one who has few needs; whose desires are limited;
who does not seek fame and luxury; who finds pleasure in
being humble, rather than in pretending to be big.
Such a person is free of mental complexes,
so nothing prevents him
from taking the right decision.
He is never obstructed by self-interest.
He is ready to undergo any sacrifice
in order to achieve his goal.
What God most earnestly desires from human beings is worship. The Quran says: “I have not created jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” ( 51:56 )
