Page 8
Translate to
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.
SEVEN BILLION ISSUES!
DIFFERENCES are a part of nature. By birth itself, every man and
woman is unique and different from everyone else. If people
think and act in different ways, it is but natural that it ends
up creating problems for their immediate neighbours — and even
for their distant neighbours, given that in the modern electronic age,
every person is another's e-neighbour. This means that every person
is a potential problem. This state of affairs creates constant conflict in
society. Because of this, one can say that if the world has seven billion
people, it has seven billion issues that are a potential challenge to
peace. It is this fact of each of us being different and unique in our ways
of thinking and behaving that creates almost all sorts of problems,
whether in the family or in the wider society, and even at the national
and international levels.
But this difference is not really an evil in itself. It is, in fact, a challenge
— a peaceful challenge. Effectively facing this challenge using positive
thinking is a way to develop your personality.
In ancient times, when people travelled on foot or rode on horses or
camels, there were no traffic rules. But when the age of automobiles
set in and mechanical modes of transportation were invented, the
management of vehicles on the roads became a major challenge. This
challenge necessitated the formulation of traffic rules. All developments in human civilisation have arisen, whether directly or indirectly, as
a result of similar challenges. Differences create challenges.
Challenges lead to new thinking. And new thinking results in progress
and development.
It is an obvious fact that every human being thinks in a different
way. So, if there are seven billion individuals in our world, there are
seven billion different thinkers. If you meet someone who thinks and
behaves differently from you, do not become negative. Do not take
this encounter as a problem. Rather, consider it as a challenge and try
to meet it through positive thinking. Think anew and try to find new
solutions. This kind of thinking is bound to activate your mind. And
when your mind is activated, your creativity will be enhanced, leading
to further development and progress.
If our world has seven billion issues to handle, then in terms of results
these issues can potentially be seven billion intellectual supporters.
This is the greatest blessing of nature. Without this, the world would
have been reduced to a dull place. Instead of intellectual awakening,
intellectual stagnation would have set in and the process of development
would have come to a halt. Do not try to eliminate differences. Rather,
take them as an opportunity for your development and avail, with a
positive mind, of the opportunities that they provide. The only thing
that is required in this context is to maintain peace at any cost. Peace
means normalcy, and where there is normalcy, there are opportunities
for everyone to avail of.
In his book, A History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874),
John William Draper refers to the conflicts and differences between
the Church and the scientific community. This is a negative aspect of
that phenomenon. But there is also a positive aspect of this difference.
It was these differences that triggered the minds of scientists, setting
off a new intellectual process, which, consequently, ushered in the age
of science.
Differences are a part of nature, and anything that is a part of nature
is unalterable. We have to accept it without trying to change it. Do
not try to eliminate differences. Rather, learn the art of ‘difference
management’. Try to manage differences in the right way, and very
soon you will discover that they are not an evil but, rather, a blessing
in disguise.
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
THE JUNGLE OF FORBIDDEN TREES
On Earth as in Heaven
GOD created the first man, Adam, and initially inhabited him
in the garden of Paradise. He was told that he could live in
Paradise with full freedom but with only one condition. In
Paradise he was forbidden from approaching a particular tree or
eating of its fruit. (THE QURAN 2: 35)
This was the original forbidden tree of Adam's motherland. However,
according to the Quran, Adam was unable to remain patient, and he
ate from the fruit of the forbidden tree (THE QURAN 20: 121). He failed the
‘test’ that God had given him in Paradise. As a result of this action, he
was banished from the garden of Paradise and sent to live on earth.
In Paradise there was only one forbidden tree;
in this world there is a jungle of ‘forbidden trees’.
Nevertheless, as far as the test for man is concerned, it remains the
same here on earth also. The difference between the two is that in
Paradise there was only one forbidden tree, and in this world there
is a jungle of ‘forbidden trees’. The return to Paradise for man will
only be on the condition that he does not partake of the fruit of the
forbidden trees. Now, for man to fulfill this condition, he has to be
extremely cautious, because while originally he had to avoid only
one tree, here it is necessary for him to refrain from a jungle of
forbidden trees.
An account of things which are forbidden can be found in the Quran
and Hadith. In the present age, the list of such things which lead man
astray from the straight path has become very extensive. Such a
comprehensive list of forbidden things cannot be compiled. Man has
to now live very cautiously in this world. Whenever he comes across
something that is a distraction from the straight path, he should
immediately recognize it and shun it completely.
In this world, all such things take the place of a ‘forbidden tree’ that
make man forget God and neglect the accountability of the Hereafter.
Only the one who examines his life and continuously introspects will be
able to save himself from these ‘forbidden trees’.
THIS NUMBER DOES NOT EXIST
THIS NUMBER DOES NOT EXIST
IF by mistake you dial a wrong number on your telephone, your call
will not reach the desired person. Instead of hearing the voice of
that person saying ‘Hello’, you will hear a recorded message from
the telephone exchange, announcing ‘This number does not exist’.
In this material example lies a great spiritual lesson. And that is, if
someone wants to establish contact with God, but due to his wrong
thinking he comes to hold someone as god who is not God and starts
calling out to him, he will meet the same fate. Instead of receiving any
answer from God, he will hear a voice saying to him, “This god does
not exist”.
The urge for finding God is inter-woven in human nature. Everyone
wants to find God. But, it has always happened in human history that
people have made the mistake of giving someone other than God the
status of God. Establishing contact with the real God is the greatest
blessing for a person. Anyone who manages to do this will receive the
light of guidance and will progress spiritually and intellectually. But, as
opposed to this, if he gives the status of God to a non-god, he will be
groping in darkness forever.
Establishing contact with the real God is the greatest
blessing for a person. Any man or woman, who
manages to do so, will be the recipient of
the light of guidance in life.
These days, many people take the name of God, according the status
of divinity to something or the other. But just because people assign
divinity, it does not necessarily mean it exists in the real sense. They
have adopted a non-god as God. They are making telephone calls to
some such non-god or the other. And the answer they receive from all
of them, albeit in silent language, is that the number dialed does not
exist; that the object of their call is fictitious. The god whom they are
calling has no existence in reality, and that is why their call will never
be answered.
The first and foremost responsibility of a person is to discover the real God and then find out the way to establish contact with Him. Without
this discovery, human life is not only incomplete, but it is also certainly
going to meet with destruction.
It is the discovery of higher truth; and the establishing
of contact with God, that makes human life meaningful.
Without this discovery, life has no meaning.
This is man’s greatest objective — the greatest target of human struggle.It is what makes human life meaningful. One whose life is bereft of this
discovery is indeed the poorest of all, even if he may have gathered all
kinds of worldly, material things around him.
To discover God means to discover the highest Truth. It is this discovery
of the highest Truth and the establishing of contact with It that makes
human life meaningful. Without this discovery, life has no meaning.
Success Through Nature
The Creator has placed necessary safeguards within nature itself.
The only thing we should do is to learn of these things
provided by nature and apply them in our lives.
The way of nature is silent communication.
Those who can understand this language of silence
will be able to listen to the voice of nature,
and, benefiting from it, will lead
successful lives.
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN MADRASAS
Role and Importance
IN the early period of Islam, wherever Muslims spread, they
established large centres of learning in the form of madrasas'. This
opened up a new chapter in the history of humankind, inspired
by Islamic teachings, for the Quran stresses education for all. If the
Quran is studied with an open mind, it is evident that it places great
emphasis on knowledge and education. It can be claimed, without any
exaggeration, that the Quran was the first book to remove restrictions
on the acquisition of knowledge beyond a narrow class of priests and
to make it available to all. It was thus the first to present the concept
of mass education.
The Quran was the first book to remove restrictions on
the acquisition of knowledge beyond a narrow class
of priests and to make it available to all.
The first revelation to the Prophet, in the year 610 C.E., was the
instruction to ‘read’ (iqra). It is said that the Angel Gabriel asked him
to ‘read’, but he replied that he did not know how to do so. The Angel
Gabriel asked him to read a second time, and again he gave the same
reply. When the Angel Gabriel instructed him the third time, he recited
the Quranic verse that the Angel Gabriel had delivered as the first
divine revelation to him.
In this respect, Islamic culture can be termed as an ‘iqra culture’ or
what can be called an ‘educational culture’. This makes education and
learning an integral and central part of Islamic culture.
The Madrasa Movement in Nineteenth Century Colonial India
After the British captured India, for a while Muslim leaders believed
that the British must first be ousted from the country, and that only
after that would Muslims have the chance of engaging in any religious
work. The Revolt of 1857 was a product of this thinking, but it failed in
its objectives. This led the ulema or Islamic scholars to realize that it was
pointless to seek to counter the British through military means. The
only practical way out, they came to realise, was to avoid conflict and
confrontation, and to engage, using peaceful means, in constructive
activity, focussing particularly on the education of the community.
Consequently, numerous madrasas' were established across India in
the second half of the 19th century. This soon assumed the form of
a mass movement for Muslim educational awakening.
One could say that the madrasas' shifted the struggle of the community
from violent conflict to peaceful educational activism. This represented
the choice of a peaceful option over a violent one. The ulema reviewed
their position, and, without terming it as such, issued what can, in
some sense, be called a fatwa: declaring, as it were, that India should
be considered as Dar ut-Ta‘leem or ‘abode of knowledge/learning’ and
that now all Muslims must get involved in the field of education. This
was an extremely important decision.
One could say that the madrasas' shifted the struggle
of the community from violent conflict to
peaceful educational activism.
After considering India as what can be called Dar ut-Ta‘leem, a vast
number of madrasas' and other educational institutions were set up
across the country, the result of the efforts of literally thousands of
dedicated ulema. They sacrificed themselves so as to keep the community
alive and to maintain the tradition of religious knowledge, surviving
on meagre incomes and leading simple lives without expecting worldly
rewards. The madrasas' they established provided free education,
which helped the poor particularly. The ulema decided that they would
depend on community donations, and not on government funding,
so that they could retain their autonomy. They thus faced numerous
hurdles, including financial, but yet they carried on with their work with
a sense of mission and dedication.
Peaceful Methods of Educational Activism
This world runs on the basis of certain fixed laws. One of these is that
non-violence is more powerful than violence. This is illustrated in a
tradition attributed to the Prophet according to which he is said to
have declared that God blesses gentleness with that which he does
not give to harshness. This relates, in fact, to all actions, including
the sphere of social or collective action. Problems always come along
with opportunities. The correct approach is for us to ignore or not be
intimidated by the hurdles in one’s path, and, through peaceful means,
to make use of the available opportunities.
This wise strategy was also adopted by the madrasa movement.
The 19th century ulema who led this movement could have thought
of first removing the major hurdle that they faced — British rule — by
seeking to militarily destroy it and also by uprooting the British system
of education, in the belief that only after this could they establish a
system of education of their choice. Had our ulema thought in this way,
the movement that they launched would have died out shortly after
it was spawned, and it would have produced no positive results for
the community — as was the case of numerous violent movements
before this.
However, God provided the ulema with the vision to adopt the right
course. They avoided the useless path of destruction and focused all
their energies on constructive activities, using entirely peaceful means,
mainly by setting up madrasas' and other related institutions. These
institutions were able to sustain themselves in the long-run and to
expand vastly in number. They had a very positive impact on society,
which could not have been produced by short-lived violent movements.
The Missionary Role of the Madrasas'
Ideally, Islamic madrasas' should prepare scholars who, once they
graduate, should engage in dawah, communicating the message of
God to others, besides providing religious guidance to Muslims. This is
what madrasas' used to do in the past. However, over time, this dawah
orientation of the madrasas' was overtaken by a polemical approach.
Because of this, madrasas' have become ineffective in doing any
practical work as far as dawah is concerned.
Every year, our madrasas' produce thousands of graduates, but they are
not in a position to fulfil the requirements of dawah. Madrasa students
are trained to engage in some sort of missionary work, but this training
is entirely on polemical lines, not on the lines of dawah or invitation to
the faith, as correctly understood. Consequently, madrasa graduates
can become good polemicists, but not good missionaries.
The past was an age of polemics, a product of the ‘age of the sword’.
He who was victorious on the battlefield was regarded as successful,
while the one who was defeated was regarded as having failed. It
was in that particular milieu that religious polemics emerged. Fiery
polemics were a common phenomenon in the past. But this is the
age of scientific exploration and investigation, not polemics. Hence, the place of polemics has been taken by serious dialogue. This shift
demands that madrasas' suitably modify their approach and system.
They must prepare their students for scientific discussions, instead of
heated polemics.
The crucial difference between polemics and dialogue is that in the
former case, the other party is regarded as an enemy. There is no
concern for the welfare of the other party in the polemicist’s heart. He
seeks more to defeat him than to improve or reform him. And this is
why polemics generally become a sort of battle, characterised by hardhitting
arguments bereft of gentleness. Indeed, often the polemicist is
not concerned with what is right and what is wrong: his only concern,
like that of a skilled lawyer, is to defeat his opponent.
It was due to the setting up and expansion of madrasas'
that today Muslims in India can be said to have a
vast and strong non-political religious and
communitarian foundation.
This, however, is not in accordance with the practice of the prophets.
In contrast to the polemicist, the aim of the ideal missionary of Islam
is to appeal to the heart of man. Hence, it is very necessary to institute
necessary changes in the madrasas' in this regard so that their approach
comes to be based on the Quranic principle of conveying the divine
message, instead of engaging in polemics.
Madrasas' and the Transmission of Islamic Learning
Through the medium of madrasas', the tradition of Islamic learning is
carried on and transmitted to future generations. This is one of the
major contributions of the madrasa system, and it is indispensable for
the community to stay alive.
The case of Muslims in medieval Spain is instructive in this regard. It is
often thought that in 1492, when the 800-year-old Muslim political rule
in Spain came to an end, the Muslims of the country were also wiped
out — that they were all killed or forced to flee. But in actual fact, even
after Muslim rule ended, several thousand Muslims remained in the
country. What happened was not that Muslims suddenly disappeared
from Spain, but, rather, that the tradition of Islamic learning and its
transmission to the future generations was destroyed. It is a matter of common knowledge that education was actively promoted in Muslim
Spain, but this was done under the patronage of the Muslim rulers.
Hence, when Muslim rule came to an end, so too, did the educational
system that the Muslim rulers had supported. Because of this, future
generations of Muslims were cut off from the tradition of Islamic
education. Over the years, they gradually lost their identity, so much
so that they even forgot that their ancestors had once been Muslim.
Ideally, Islamic madrasas' should prepare scholars who,
once they graduate, should engage in dawah, besides
providing religious guidance to Muslims.
In the 19th century, when Muslim political power in India collapsed,
the Indian Muslims were faced with the same danger. Here, too, the
educational system had been under the direction and patronage of the
rulers. Fortunately, at this delicate juncture, the ulema stood up and
decided to establish a system of religious education for Muslims that
would not depend on government assistance, but which, instead, would
be funded by the community. With the grace of God, this project was
successful, so much so that in a few years a large number of madrasas'
were set up across the country. It was because of this that India was
saved from meeting the same fate as Spain. It was due to the setting
up and expansion of madrasas' that today Muslims in India can be said
to have a vast and strong non-political religious and communitarian
foundation, which is more important, useful and meaningful than
political power was once in the past.
All this happened through the use of peaceful and constructive
means that focused on institution-building. Modernity made this
possible, because modern developments have relegated political
power to a secondary status. Today, the real concentration of power
is in institutions, and through them much more can be done than
was possible in the past through political power. Political empires
are formed on the basis of military power, while non-political empires
are based on institutions and organizations. While political empires
serve the interests of individuals or small groups, such non-political
empires can serve the entire community. Political empires are based
on subjugation of others, while non-political empires can, through
community-based institutions, work for the welfare of the whole
of humankind.
MIRACLES OR SIGNS OF GOD
Phenomena in Nature
THE signs that the prophets of God demonstrated to their people
are commonly known as miracles. But this is not a true Islamic
understanding. The Quran and Hadith refer to these prophetic
examples not as miracles, but as signs. Calling such instances as
miracles presents them as prophetic phenomena, whereas referring to
them as signs shows them to be natural phenomenon.
Moses was a prophet of God. He was born in ancient Egypt in the 16th
century B.C. The Egyptian ruler of the times, Pharaoh II, challenged
him in a contest where, on the demand of the ruler, the Prophet Moses
demonstrated a sign. When he threw his wooden staff to the ground,
it instantly became a moving serpent. This event was witnessed by
many people, some of whom were so affected by this event that they
immediately accepted the divine message of Prophet Moses.
This incident was not just a lesson for the contemporaries of the
Prophet Moses. In reality, it was an eye-opening sign for the whole of
mankind. There is a great lesson in it for people of all times. In fact,
Prophet Moses had demonstrated to people a universal and common
law of God. This is the law of conversion. With the help of God, Prophet
Moses had shown that a piece of wood could be changed into the
shape of a serpent in the same way that everything in nature is being
converted from one form into another. The event that Prophet Moses
demonstrated to the people was in reality this law of conversion — the
act of changing something from one form to another.
In the order of nature this act of conversion is universal
and all pervading. It is a proof of the existence of
God and of His power.
There are several references to this natural law of conversion in the
Quran. The Quran says that in this world nothing is being converted
into something (THE QURAN 52: 35). In the same way, it is mentioned that
a non-existence is converted into an existence (THE QURAN 76: 1).
Prophet Moses was born in the 16th century B.C. and died in the
With the advent of modern science, it has become possible that such
natural phenomena can be explained through human intelligence.
This scientific revolution that was to come had been predicted in the
Quran (THE QURAN 41: 53).
Conversion proves intervention, and when intervention
is proved the intervener is also proved. God is only
the other name of this intervener.
There are countless and diverse things in the universe. Study shows
that all these things are a result of conversion, that is, a change from
one form to another. In Prophet Moses' time, what happened was a
thing that was not a serpent was changed into a serpent; matter was
changed into a different form of matter. This is the same phenomenon
that transpires with everything else in this universe. Here, solid is being
converted into liquid; liquid to solid, gases into liquids and vice versa,
and gases into other gases. Energy is being converted into matter;
matter is being converted into energy. In the same way, a tree grows
out of a seed, a fruit comes forth from a flower, a chick emerges from
an egg, and a butterfly is metamorphosed from a chrysalis. Change or
conversion is everywhere.
In the order of nature, this act of conversion is universal and allpervading.
It is a proof of the existence of God and of His power.
What is meant by conversion in the universe is actually intervention.
Things that come into existence by conversion prove an intervention.
And, when the act of intervention is proved, then the existence of the
intervener is also proved.
Conversion proves intervention, and when intervention is proved,
the intervener is also proved. God is only the other name of
this Intervener.
Learn from others
Learning from others’ mistakes is the easiest way of
not repeating that kind of mistake yourself.
PEACE IN PLURAL SOCIETIES
Reflections
AFTER a long struggle, in August 1947 the Indian subcontinent
won independence from the British. This independence came
along with the Partition, which was on the basis of the so-called
‘two nation theory’. It led to the partition, not just of territory, but of
entire communities as well. Far from solving the problem of communal
conflict between Hindus and Muslims, it only further exacerbated it.
Prior to the Partition, the conflict was between two communities that
lacked political power. With the Partition, it now became a conflict
between two sovereign countries.
No matter what name it is called by, the result of the
effort to manufacture and impose a single culture
on people remains the same — useless.
Mahatma Gandhi had, from the very first day, perceived how sensitive
this situation was. And so, he stressed that Hindus and Muslims should
learn to live together in peace and harmony. He said that he would
give up his life in order that this should happen. However, shortly after
India became independent, he was shot dead. This was undoubtedly a
very big tragedy. Because of this, India lost its tallest leader who was
committed to peace and unity.
The Partition was accompanied by horrific communal violence on both
sides of the newly-created border. This violence continued unabated
for many years thereafter. In order to address the issue, the first Indian
Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, called a national-level conference
in New Delhi in October 1961. At this conference, it was unanimously
decided to set up the National Integration Council to deal with matters
related to communal harmony.
The second conference of this Council was held in June 1962. Speakers
delivered their speeches on the occasion, suggesting various measures
to promote communal harmony. Yet, no action was taken on their
suggestions. Moreover, no more meetings of the Council were held
during the rest of Jawaharlal Nehru’s life.
The third meeting of the Council was called by Indira Gandhi in Srinagar in 1968. It called for making it a cognizable offence on the
grounds of promoting hatred between communities. Some other steps
were also mooted. A few laws and rules were also passed. But still,
nothing practical came out of this. And so, even today, the situation in
the country is about the same as it was in 1947 as far as the issue of
communalism is concerned.
The fact is that religion in itself is not a problem. Religion
is an important part of human life. It is the political
exploitation of religion by some opportunist
people that is the problem.
What was the reason for this failure? The basic reason is that this
issue of communal conflict has been treated simply as a law and order
problem. However, the nature of the issue is actually quite different.
It is not essentially a law and order problem. Rather, it has essentially
to do with the lack of intellectual development and social awareness.
To solve the problem, what is basically required is to properly educate
people and promote proper thinking and discernment. People should
know what to do and what to abstain from. They should learn to
think before acting. Only this sort of an 'aware' society is one where
communal harmony can flourish.
Religious Differences
Some basic issues that relate to the vital question of properly educating
people about the issue of communalism need to be clarified. One of
these relates to the issue of religious differences. There are, in fact,
obvious and clear differences between the different religions. For
instance, some religions believe in Monism, and others in Monotheism.
Some religions preach the discovery of truth by oneself, while others
believe that such truth is revealed by God through messengers.
Some people think that these religious differences are themselves the
root cause for communal conflict. They believe that communal harmony
can exist only when these differences are somehow destroyed. ‘Bulldoze
them all!’ they demand, but of course this is so completely impractical
that it is not even worth talking about.
Faced with the reality of religious differences, some people seek to
somehow or the other try to ‘prove’ that all religions are, actually, one and the same. One such person was the late Dr. Bhagwan Das (1869–
1958). After a detailed study of all the major religions, he wrote a book,
running into almost 1000 pages, titled Essential Unity of All Religions.
He claimed that all religions teach the same things and so are one and
the same.
But to seek to prove that all religions are one by extracting portions
from different scriptures is like culling out portions from the
Constitutions of different countries and publishing them together in
a single book and then claiming that all the Constitutions of the world
are the same and have the same rules and clauses and provisions! This
sort of imaginary universal Constitution may greatly please the author
of such a compendium, but it will not be acceptable to even a single
country. The same holds true in the case of those who have compiled
books like Dr. Bhagwan Das’ about religion. Books of this sort may give
their compilers great pleasure, but they cannot be acceptable to the
followers of different religions.
The fact is that just as there is diversity in everything
else in the world, so also are there differences
between one religion and another.
A detailed study of this issue will show that the claim that all religions
are one does not correspond to reality. In actual fact, the different
religions differ so greatly from each other that it is impossible to
practically prove them to be one. For instance, one religion says that
God is one. Another religion talks of two gods. A third religion says
there are three gods. Yet another religion claims that there are 33
or 330 million gods. Some religions insist that the number of gods is
simply beyond counting.
In such circumstances, to consider the teachings of all the religions as
one and the same is simply wishful thinking that has no basis in logic
and reality. And then, even if, by some means or the other, it could
be argued that the scriptures of the different religions are indeed the
same, the problem of differences will still remain unresolved because
there are multiple and conflicting interpretations of each of these
scriptures, as a result of which each religion is further divided into
numerous sects.
The fact is that such difference or diversity is not just a religious phenomenon. The entire world is based on the principle of difference
and diversity. These differences are so pervasive that no two things or
people are wholly identical, without some difference or the other. As
someone has very rightly said, ‘Nature abhors uniformity’.
When differences are themselves a law of Nature, how can religion be
an exception to this rule? The fact is that just as there is diversity in
everything else in the world, so also are there differences between one
religion and another. We have not thought it necessary to do away with
differences in other matters, but, instead, have agreed to disagree.
We should adopt this very same practical approach and principle in
matters of religion as well.
Here, too, we should accept diversity and differences and seek to
promote unity despite them, instead of searching for an imaginary
unity by trying to do away with them. There is only one way to solve the
issue of religious differences, and that is: ‘Follow one, and respect all’.
Cultural Differences
The issue of cultural difference is also a vexed one. Social groups
are characterised by cultural differences. Some people regard these
differences as the root of conflict. They argue that to end conflict, these
differences should be wiped off and a single, common culture should be
imposed on everyone, so that ‘cultural unity’ can thereby be promoted.
This proposal, too, is impractical. Culture cannot be made or destroyed
by individuals at will in this way. It cannot be prepared by someone
sitting in an office. Rather, it is a product of a long, historical process.
In the wake of the Second World War, numerous ideologues in
different parts of the world began calling for the establishment of a
mono-cultural society in order to promote national unity. This monocultural
approach was promoted, for instance, in Canada, but it proved
impractical and was soon abandoned. Now, Canada has abandoned
mono-culturalism and has officially adopted multiculturalism as
its policy.
The same happened in the USA as well. After the Second World War,
a movement to promote what was called ‘Americanisation’ emerged,
which sought to impose a single culture on all Americans. But this failed,
because people realized it was impractical. And so, it was abandoned,
and now in America, too, multiculturalism is the recognised policy.
The fact is that cultural differences are not a matter of differences only
between two communities. Such differences are to be found among,
and between, different sub-groups in each and every community, too.
It is impractical, indeed impossible, to do away with these differences.
That is why it is not necessary to change religious teachings in order to
promote unity and harmony between different religions. For this, the
only necessary thing is to promote among the followers of different
religions the understanding of ‘Live and Let Live’.
Some people still advocate an experiment that has already proven to be
a failure: what they call ‘Social Engineering’. Through this, they seek to
respond to the fact of cultural diversity among different communities
by calling for the restructuring of the communities’ cultures so that the
wider society is free from cultural differences and all citizens of the
state have one and the same culture.
There is only one way to solve the issue of religious
differences, and that is: ‘Follow one, and respect all’.
No matter what name it is called by, the result of the effort to
manufacture and impose a single culture on people remains the
same — utterly useless. It is tantamount to nothing less than what
could be called ‘cultural bulldozing’. No matter what it is termed —
‘social engineering’ or ‘cultural nationalism’ or whatever — it remains
thoroughly impractical and unrealistic. And to pursue anything
impractical from the point of view of natural laws is simply a waste
of time.
In this regard, my difference with the ‘cultural nationalists’ or ‘social
engineers’ is not on an ideological, but, rather, practical basis. I do not
say that their aim is wrong, but, rather, that what they want to bring
about is simply impractical and impossible to achieve. Supposing it
becomes possible for everyone in the country to start speaking one
language, to follow one culture and to have the same traditions and
way of life, I would say, ‘Yes, it should certainly be so.’ But the fact
remains that in line with the laws of nature and history, this sort of
uniformity is simply impossible. It has never been possible in the past,
and nor will it be possible in the future. Cultures develop according
to their own logic. It is simply not possible to sit in a cabin and invent
a culture of your liking and then go about imposing it on every community
in the country.
So, in this regard, we should do exactly what we generally do with
regard to all other divisive issues — that is, to solve the problem
on the basis of the principle of tolerance. One should deal with the
matter with methods that accord with reality, rather than through
confrontation. Using confrontation and violence in this matter will only
further exacerbate the problem, rather than solve it.
In this context, there is an important issue that needs to be clarified.
Some people claim that India belongs to the Hindus, and that their
loyalty is to this country. They claim that this is different with the
Muslims of the country, whose centres of devotion — for instance,
Makkah and Madinah — are located outside India. That is why, they
allege, Muslims cannot be loyal to India.
I see this issue differently, however. Suppose a Hindu is devoted to the
temple of Somnath, this does not mean that he cannot be devoted to
a temple located elsewhere, too. If a person loves his mother, it surely
does not mean that he has no love for his father. Similarly, if an Indian
Muslim has an emotional bonding with Makkah and Madinah, it does
not mean that he has no such bonding with India. To think otherwise is
to underestimate his innate humanity.
Any person, be he or she Hindu or Muslim, is an expression of nature,
and nature has made every human being with enough inner
spaciousness to contain within him or her multiple loves and loyalties.
This is such a basic fact of life that every person can testify to it
personally. Every man and woman knows this from his or her own
experience. As a Western thinker very aptly put it, ‘I am large enough
to contain all these contradictions’.
Religion and Politics
Religion is very often invoked in communal conflicts. Repeatedly,
political and communal controversies are turned into so-called religious
controversies. And then, people’s passions are roused, leading to
confrontation and violence between communities. Because of this,
many people have turned against religion itself. They say that human
beings have no need for religion at all, and that, hence, religion must
be destroyed. Only then, they contend, is societal unity possible.
This, however, is an extremist response to an extremist stance, a
secular extremist reaction to religious extremism. It is neither possible
nor useful. The fact is that religion in itself is not a problem. Religion is an important part of human life. It is the political exploitation of
religion by some opportunist people that is the problem. Hence, it is
the exploitation of religion, rather than religion itself, that needs to
be eliminated.
Religion has two dimensions: personal and collective. The personal
dimension of religion denotes beliefs, worship, morality and spirituality.
The collective dimension of religion includes its political and social
rules. The right approach would, in general conditions, be to focus
on the personal dimension of religion and on promoting the spirit
of religion.
As far as the political and social rules of religion are concerned, they
should not be taken up until such time as the entire society is prepared
for them. These rules can be established only through the voluntary
and collective consent of the entire society. That is why no practical
steps should be taken as far as these rules are concerned as long as
the collective consent of the society is not in favour of this.
This can be termed a practical division between religion and politics.
That is to say, while considering, at the ideological level, politics to be
part of religion, in the face of reality, the practical enforcement of the
political rules of religion can be delayed or postponed. This is a wise
approach. In this way, the demands both of religion and of politics can
be met: those of religion, in the present, and of politics, in the future.
On the other hand, if this pragmatic policy is not adopted and both
aspects of religion are stressed, the result will be that the demands of
both religion and politics will be left unfulfilled.
With regard to communal harmony, there are some issues that
need to be looked at. Ordinarily, if a Muslim does something wrong,
Hindus speak and write against him. In the same way, if a Hindu does
something wrong, Muslims speak and write against him. This method
is, from the point of view of reform, completely useless. It only pleases
one particular community, but it has no positive impact whatsoever on
the other community.
Contrary to this, the beneficial approach is that if a Muslim does
something wrong, Muslim scholars and intellectuals should speak and
write against it. Likewise, if a Hindu does something wrong, Hindus
should speak and write against it. It is just as when a child does
something wrong, his parents are the first to scold him, if necessary.
His parents do not wait for their neighbours to come to their house
and scold their child. In any case, even if these people do come
and scold their child, it will not reform him, though a parent’s
admonishment might.
It is a psychological reality that one generally takes the critique or
admonishment of people whom one considers one’s own in a positive
way, and, accordingly, reforms oneself. On the other hand, one
generally takes the criticism of people one does not know or whom one
considers as the ‘other’ as an insult to one’s honour, and so it does not
have a positive impact. With regard to the issue of communal harmony,
it is very necessary to keep this bit of practical wisdom in mind.
No need to speak aloud
for God to hear
People asked the Prophet:
“Is our Lord close? Can we address Him softly?
Or is He distant? Should we address Him loudly?”
Then this verse of the Quran was revealed:
“When My servants question you about Me,
tell them that I am near.
I answer the prayer of the suppliant
when he calls to Me.”
Abu Musa says that when some people
raised their voices in prayer during a journey,
the Prophet said, “Control yourselves, for you are
not praying to one who is deaf or absent: you are
praying to one who hears and is close.
He is nearer to you than the
neck of your mount.”
FROM THE SPIRITUAL TREE
There is a tree beside my house. I call
it the 'Spiritual Tree'. I derive spiritual
inspiration from it. A tree is an evergrowing
being that was initially a seed
possessing the potential of becoming
a full-grown tree. A seed takes food
from the universe around it and then
grows into a tree. The same is true
with spirituality, the desire for which is
intrinsic to, and an integral part of, the
very nature of, every human being. To
realize this spirituality, Man must derive
spiritual food from the universe around
him. A tree converts carbon-dioxide into oxygen; a spiritual person is one who
can take positive lessons from negative situations. From this perspective, a tree
is an embodiment of a spiritual personality. — Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
HEAVENLY PERSONALITY
Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet of God said:
'Such people will go to heaven whose hearts
are like those of little birds.'
(Musnad Ahmad)
SMALL birds possess a unique feature which is absent from all other
animals. That is, the birds are free of feelings such as hatred and
vengeance. All other animals have an instinct of attacking when
threatened, but birds are completely free of such instinct. Looking at a
little bird, you will immediately recognize that it is an embodiment of
sweetness, tenderness and innocence. That is why the dove has been
universally declared a symbol of peace.
According to the above quoted Hadith, this is the heavenly quality that
every individual who is desirous of Paradise must have. A heavenly
personality is one that is completely free of all negativity. A bird has this
positive quality by virtue of its instincts, whereas a heavenly personality
has this quality as a conscious choice.
A heavenly person is one who has moulded himself in such a way that his heart is completely devoid of feelings such as hatred and
vengeance; who is able to control anger; who does not react negatively
to situations; who can respond with love despite hatred from others;
who can do good to people selflessly; who is able to live amongst
people while considering all of them as his brothers and sisters; who
averts all evil, seeking out the company of angels; who patiently bears
all complaints; who carries out his duties and asks his rights from
God — these are those superior qualities which will make a person
deserving of entering Paradise.
Second chance better
than the first
Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727), the well-known British scientist, was born
in a farmer’s family. Initially, his mother wanted him to pursue the family
vocation of farming.
She started him on the job to learn the techniques of farming but he failed.
Later, Newton was sent to school where he started his education, excelled
and soon emerged as one of the greatest champions of modern science.
This story has a great lesson. And that is, if you are not successful at first, it
should not dishearten you; because there may be a second chance waiting
for you that may prove to be better than the first.
No Need for Disappointment
Recognition always comes after rejection.
It is a law of nature.
If you find that one door is closed for you, don’t stop your journey,
try to know the other door. And, you will happily find that
there was one who was ready to receive you.
SENSE OF INCOMPLETENESS
Find the Divine Scheme
AN Italian writer, Luzia A Costa, penned an article titled: The Feeling
of Incompleteness and Inability to be Happy. In this article, he
refers to the fact that man always lives with lack of satisfaction.
He says that human beings by their very nature suffer from a feeling
of incompleteness.
The Italian writer rightly alluded to this nature of man. But he failed
to give a rational explanation of this phenomenon. The right answer is
given in the Quran in these words: “Those who believe and whose hearts
find comfort in the remembrance of God — surely in the remembrance
of God, hearts can find comfort.” (THE QURAN 13: 28)
Being unaware of the creation plan of God makes one
dissatisfied, and awareness of the plan
instantly makes one satisfied.
It means that those who have discovered God have also discovered
the creation plan of God. This discovery gives them the right
explanation of nature. And when they realize this right explanation,
automatically they become satisfied. Being unaware of the explanation
makes one dissatisfied, and awareness of the explanation instantly
makes one satisfied.
It is a fact that everything in the universe except for man lives in
satisfaction. The material world and the plant and animal kingdoms all
live in a state of satisfaction. It is strictly a human phenomenon that
man lives with the sense of dissatisfaction or incompleteness.
The reason is that man is born as an idealist or perfectionist. This is
the nature of every man and woman, but the world in which we live is
imperfect or less than ideal. It fails to fulfil the requirements of human
nature. Every human being lives with this sense of incompleteness, and
in a very short while, dies without experiencing the fulfilment which
had been his cherished goal.
This sense of incompleteness was not created by man himself. Rather
it is a creation of God. When we observe that, except man, all creatures of the universe are living with a sense of completeness, we realize that
this phenomenon is not any sort of defect in creation. It gives us a
clue to the fact that, the divine scheme of things regarding man, is
different from that for other components of the universe. That is, all
other creatures of the universe are born with their complements for
fulfilment. However, man lacks this complement in this world and
hence is unable to find fulfilment.
Every man and woman is born as an idealist or
perfectionist, but the world in which we live
is imperfect and less than ideal.
The Quran tells us that man’s complement was also created by God
just as He created it for other things, but in the case of man, this gift
requires eternity. That, is, man’s complement for fulfillment exists in
the eternal world of the Hereafter and not in this limited world.
The Quran says that when man shall enter into Paradise, the angels
will announce: “Rejoice in the [good news of the] Garden that you have
been promised.” (THE QURAN 41: 30)
Here, the word “promise” includes the natural urge of human beings.
The natural urge in this regard is a silent promise made by God: ‘Wait
for some time and you will be provided with all those things that you
want. God has created a world, that is, Paradise, where you will find
total fulfilment.’
This fact has been mentioned in the Quran in these words: “Therein
you shall have all that your souls desire, and therein you shall have all
that you ask for.” (THE QURAN 41: 31)
The sense of incompleteness in human nature is in itself a good tiding.
It tells us that a day will come when man will surely enjoy the experience
of completeness, that is, in eternal Paradise.
MORE THAN LEGAL RIGHTS
Not by Demand
SATYENDRA Nath Bose (1894–1974) was an Indian physicist
who specialized in mathematical physics. He is best known for his
work on quantum mechanics. He was known to be a very
hardworking student.
One of his stories from student life has a great lesson for us. While
doing M.Sc. at Calcutta’s Presidency College, he once performed so well
in a mathematics exam that he was unusually awarded 110 marks out
of 100! He was given extra marks because he solved some complex
problems by more than one method!
All those who are engaged in what they call ‘rights
activism’ have a better choice to adopt; that is,
'opportunity activism'.
This incident illustrates a great lesson — and that is, if a person proves
himself competent enough, he will be awarded more than his legal
rights. In our world, there is no place for complaints or protests. All
those who are engaged in what they call ‘rights activism’ have a better
choice to adopt — that is, ‘opportunity activism’. They must tell people:
'Don’t press for your rights, but, rather, do better, and you will certainly
receive more than your legal or constitutional rights.'
Every man and woman is born with a divine gift in the form of an
unlimited potential. Discover this divine gift and avail of it by converting
your potential into reality and you will emerge as a super-achiever. You
can shape your future on your own. Make yourself a 'giver-member'
of the society rather than a 'taker-member'. Asking for your rights is
a kind of begging. When you have such great potential, why do you
prefer to beg? There are many so-called ‘empowerment’ movements
— movements in the name of Muslim empowerment, women
empowerment, economic empowerment, and so on. But the greatest
empowerment is self-empowerment.
Choose self-empowerment, and you will certainly achieve more than
what you had expected from others. Every man can emerge as a
super-man, every woman, a super-woman, provided they discover this
potential and apply it to their own lives.
BLAMING OTHERS
Unacceptable to God
MIKHAIL Kalashnikov, inventor of the well-known firearm AK-47
or Kalashnikov, died on December 23, 2013 at the age of 94 in
Udmurtia, Russia. The AK-47 — Avtomat Kalashnikov — is the
world’s most popular firearm, favoured by guerrillas, terrorists and
insurgents. An estimated 100 million AK-47 guns are spread worldwide.
The ruggedness and simplicity of the gun are exemplary: it performs
in sandy or wet conditions that jam more sophisticated weapons. The
Kalashnikov suitability for jungle and desert conditions has made it
ideal for killing from a distance.
There are only two proper options for a person: either
he commits no wrongdoing, or when he commits a
wrongdoing, he should repent and ask
for forgiveness from God.
The AK-47 assault rifle has killed more people than any other firearm.
Even though it has wreaked such terrible havoc, its inventor often said
he felt personally untroubled by his contribution to bloodshed:
“I sleep well. It is the politicians who are to blame for failing to
come to an agreement and resorting to violence.”
(AP, December 23, 2013)
This is a very striking example of what can be called the 'blame
others' culture. People constantly blame others even for their own
wrongdoings. The other formula is 'blame thyself', but rarely can one
find a person who is ready to adhere to this principle. 'Blame thyself' is
the most unpopular principle. Even many so-called religious people are
not ready to admit their mistakes.
In the Quran, there is a story of Satan. At the time of the creation
of Adam, a dialogue happened between God and Satan. During this
dialogue, Satan said: “My Lord, since you have misguided me, I shall
make the path of error seem alluring to them on the earth and shall
mislead them all.” (THE QURAN 15: 39)
God is absolutely right and good, and one of His attributes is Al-Hadi,
which means one who guides. Therefore, it is not possible for anyone to blame God. Thus, what Satan said was based on totally false grounds.
This Quranic reference tells us that the 'blame others' culture is a
Satanic culture. Anyone who follows this culture is a brother of Satan.
One who commits a wrongdoing and then blames others
is choosing a path which is not acceptable to God.
The 'blame thyself' culture is the culture of angels, while the 'blame
others' culture is the culture of Satan. There are only two proper
options for a person: either he commits no wrongdoing, or when he
commits a wrongdoing, he should repent and ask for forgiveness from
God. But one who commits a wrongdoing and then blames others is
choosing a third option, which is not acceptable to God.
Do not be
slave to your desires
It is a fact that the
human mind is full of desires.
But, at the same time, it is also true that
man's mind has the capacity for logical thought.
When you find that your mind is overwhelmed by desire,
examine that desire in the light of reality.
Assess it in terms of its potential results, and find out
objectively whether it is feasible or not to fulfil it.
Then, after examining it completely,
if you are satisfied that its results will be
beneficial, fulfil your desire.
KAFIR AND KUFR
Who are Kafirs?
MANY people who do not have much knowledge of Islam have
at least heard of the words kafir and kufr. The generally-held
view is that those who are not Muslims are kafirs. This notion
is a continuing barrier to national unity and global peace.
The literal meaning of kufr is ‘denial’, and so a kafir is a ‘denier’ or ‘one
who denies’. The word kafir has never been used in the Quran to mean
either an unbeliever or an infidel. It is important to note that the word
kafir denotes an individual, rather than a certain race or community. It
is in no way an appellation for a group.
The word kafir has never been used in the Quran
to mean either an unbeliever or an infidel.
According to Islam, the fact is that those who are not Muslims are simply
non-Muslims. We must look at them as such, rather than classify them
as kafirs. The right way, according to Islam, is to call each community or
group by the name it has adopted for itself. For instance, people from
America should be called 'Americans', rather than Kafirs, and America
should be called ‘America’, and not the ‘land of Kufr’ or Dar-ul Kufr.
There are a number of examples in the Quran of references to
communities or groups in which the names they themselves had
adopted were used. Not once was the word kafir used for them. In
the Makkan period, certain verses of the Quran were revealed which
mention non-Muslims living outside Arabia. For instance, at the
beginning of Chapter 30, the Quran mentions the Byzantines, who had
then been conquered by the Persians. The Byzantines were at that time
Christians, but the verses do not say 'the Byzantine kafirs who have
been defeated'. Similarly, Chapter 105 of the Quran mentions the nonMuslim
ruler of Yemen, Abraha, and his army, who came mounted on
elephants to attack the Kabah in Makkah. It does not refer to them as
'kafirs', but, rather, as the 'People of the elephants'.
The Prophet Muhammad received prophethood in 610 C.E. In the early
stages of his prophet-hood, all people other than him and a few others
were non-Muslims. Whenever he addressed these non-Muslims to
convey his message he never said, 'O kafirs', but, rather, ‘O man,’ or ‘O people’. He continued to use this form of address throughout his life.
He addressed groups or communities with words such as ‘O people of
Quraysh’, ‘O Children of Abdul Muttalib', etc.
The Prophet of Islam spent the first 13 years of his prophet-hood in
Makkah. After this, he migrated to Madinah and remained there till the
end. The first period is known as the Makkan period, and the second
period as the Madani period. Chapter 109 of the Quran begins with
these words. “Say, O you Kafirs (deniers of truth)”. After this address,
the chapter goes on to say that ‘You will never worship the one who
I worship’.
The act of kufr is related to the question of intention,
and only God knows what a person’s intention truly is.
This chapter was revealed during the Makkan period of the Prophet's
life. The above address was specifically directed at the people of
Makkah of those times. History shows that about eight years after
this, Makkah came into the fold of Islam and all the people of Makkah
accepted Islam. This is the event that is mentioned in the Quran in
these words "When God's help and victory come, and you see people
entering God's religion in multitudes." (THE QURAN 110: 1-2)
The question arises that when all the people of Makkah were going
to become believers and Muslims, why were they addressed as Kafirs
in the Quran and why was it said that ‘You will never worship the
one God’, although God the All-Knowing was fully aware of what was
to happen?
The reason for this difference was that in this chapter of the Quran,
the usage of the words is not in legal terms but, rather, in the language
of admonition. This style of expression cannot be taken in a legal or
definitive sense. Here, the stress is on the severity and seriousness of
the issue. In reality, the words were a warning that if they — the people
of Makkah — did not follow the Prophet, they would be deniers of truth
in the eyes of God, and the result of such denial will be hell.
It was a call to faith in a very intense language, rather than a declaration
of them being kafirs. If it was a declaration of their kufr, then after
Makkah came under Islam these people could not have entered the
fold of Islam in multitudes.
Another issue to consider is: Is it permissible to call an individual a kafir?
From the Islamic view point, there is always a great risk involved in calling
anyone a kafir, a sinner or a hypocrite, for hardly anyone but God can
claim to know a person well enough to make such a pronouncement.
That is why the Hadith gives us stern warning regarding such acts.
The Prophet of Islam said: 'Whenever one person accuses another of
being a kafir or fasiq (sinner), then surely, this accusation applies to the
accuser if the second person was not so.’ (Musnad Ahmad)
This is a law that God has established in nature. It can be compared to
the boomerang — the harder and faster you throw it, the faster and
more violently it comes back at you. If somebody speaks ill of another
or accuses him of being a fasiq or kafir, he is doing it based on his
personal feelings. The accuser considers it as a one-sided matter under
the assumption that the whole issue is only about the accused and that
it has nothing to do with himself. This is a dangerous misconception
because if the other person is not as the former has perceived him to
be, his accusation falls back on himself. He will be guilty of what he had
been accusing the other person of.
The usage of the word kafir in the Quran is not in legal
terms, rather it is in the language of admonition.
Fisq and kufr are matters related to a person's heart, and only God
knows what is in a person's heart. The act of kufr is related to the
question of intention, and only God knows what a person’s intention
truly is. Making a claim about someone being a kafir is trying to enter the
domain of God. Every person who fears God will be extremely fearful in
using such words for others. If he sees some wrong in another person,
he will counsel him with the utmost well wishing manner, but he will
definitely not use words of contempt such as fisq and kufr to address
him. He will leave this matter to God, realizing that his responsibility is
only to the extent of advising others with beauty and wisdom.
According to the teachings of the Quran, the right thing for people
to do is to follow God's commands, and as far as other people are
concerned, they should never issue edicts against them. Rather, as
their well-wishers, they should consider it their responsibility to convey
God's message to them peacefully, till their last breath. All else relates
to God, not man.
POLITICAL REALISM
Egypt: A Case in Point
IN reports contained in the books of Hadith, the Prophet instructed
the ummah — his followers — not to engage in conflict with the
political authorities under any circumstances. He advised the
ummah that if they noticed any political degeneration or corruption,
they should avoid it, and, instead, should carry on with work in the nonpolitical
sphere. These reports can be seen in the chapters titled Kitab
al-Fitan in the books of Hadith.
This guidance of the Prophet is based on great wisdom — and that is, in
accordance with the law of nature, no perfect or ideal political system
can come into being in this world. Every political system in this world
will necessarily and definitely be less than ideal. This being the case,
practical wisdom demands that people should agree to settle with a
less than ideal political system. If they refuse to do so, it will lead to
ceaseless political conflict. And then it will be impossible for peace,
harmony and balance to be established in society — factors which are
absolutely essential for any constructive work.
The Prophet instructed his followers not to engage
in conflict with the political authorities
under any circumstances.
An example of this in recent times is provided by Egypt. During the
first half of the twentieth century, in the name of fighting ‘political
degeneration’, self-styled ‘champions of Islam’ launched a movement
against the country’s ruler, King Farouk (1920–1965). In 1952, with the
help of the Army, they succeeded in overthrowing him in a coup forcing
him to flee the country. General Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel
Nasser were the leaders of this coup. After this, General Muhammad
Naguib was made the country’s President.
But he, too, had to face stiff opposition and was soon stripped off his
powers and placed under house arrest in 1954. Following this, Gamal
Abdul Nasser became Egypt’s President, but self-styled ‘Islamic’ leaders
continued to oppose him. He died in 1970, at the age of 52 while
in office.
He was succeeded by Anwar al-Sadat, who was assassinated in 1981.
After Sadat, Hosni Mubarak became the President. He, too, faced stiff
opposition from ‘Islamist’ forces, with vast numbers of people being
killed in the violence that rocked Egypt in the confrontation between
Mubarak and his allies, on the one hand, and self-styled Islamists, on
the other. Finally, he was forced to step down. He was succeeded by
Muhammad Morsi, another self-styled ‘Islamist’ leader. But soon, in
July 2013, a year after he came to power, he had to step down.
Some 60 years of so-called Islamic politics have given Egypt nothing
but destruction.
SURAH ALASR
History Bears Witness
Surah Al-Asr is a small chapter in the Quran. It has just three verses. The
chapter reads:
I swear by the passage of time, that man is surely in a state of
loss, except for those who believe and do good deeds
and exhort one another to hold fast to the
Truth, and who exhort one another
to steadfastness.
(THE QURAN 103: 1-3)
THIS chapter can be said to be a summary of the entire Quran.
Imam Shafi remarks in this connection that had God revealed
just this chapter alone, it was sufficient in order to guide people
(Safwat al-Tafaseer by Al-Sabuni). This point is undoubtedly true. But the
benefits of this chapter of the Quran cannot be fathomed unless one
ponders on it. All the deeper meanings of the Quran open up only to
those who intensely reflect on it.
Man should determine the purpose of his life
in the light of God’s creation plan.
The word Asr in the title Surah Al-Asr denotes Time. But here it is used
in the sense of History. This chapter of the Quran tells us that history
bears witness to the fact that mankind is in a state of loss, the only
exception being those who provide evidence of faith and good works
and who exhort others to hold fast to the Truth and remain steadfast.
What is expressed in this chapter in terms of faith, good deeds, truth
and steadfastness is the need for man to understand God’s creation
plan. Man must discover this plan in such a way that it becomes an
integral part of his consciousness. He must build his personality on the
basis of this plan, adopting it in his own life and exhorting others to
do so.
If you reflect on it more deeply, you will realize that this chapter of the
Quran tells us that God has created mankind as potentially successful
beings. But history bears witness to the fact that man has not made proper use of this potential. On the contrary, mankind has taken to the
path of loss. This happened not because God fated it to, but because
man has not understood God’s creation plan. Instead of following
this plan, he developed his own road-map of his life by himself. And
because of this self-created problem, he fell into loss and ruin.
God has created mankind as potentially successful beings.
Man should determine the purpose of his life in the light of God’s
creation plan. He should make God, who is his Creator and Lord, his
sole concern. He should reserve feelings of love and fear only for God.
He should worship God alone. He should abide by the ethical principles
laid down by God. He should model his personal and collective life
on the basis of the plan set by God. He should understand the world
to be a testing ground. He should make success in the Hereafter his
target. He should desire for Heaven and greatly fear Hell. This is what
is desired of man.
But history tells us that most people have failed to become the desirable
beings that God wanted them to. Instead of leading their lives in a way
which would have made them acceptable to God, they failed miserably
and fell into great loss.
This chapter of the Quran is a warning. It warns man to save
himself from the blunder of not becoming the sort of person who is
desirable in God’s eyes. It tells man that he should become among
those fortunate people for whom the doors of Heaven will be opened
in the Hereafter.
Disunity
Disunity stems from everyone putting themselves first
and wishing that their utterances be given supremacy,
no matter what the circumstances.
If no one considered themselves superior, what
would there be to quarrel about?
DIVORCE IN ISLAMIC LAW
Disliked, but Permitted
ISLAM allows for only one sort of physical relationship between men
and women, and that is in the form of marriage which is announced
and publicly known. It is but inevitable that differences will arise
between the spouses. According to Islam, the way out is not by seeking
to wipe out these differences but, rather, to accept them, or to seek to
reconcile them or for the spouses to continue to live together despite
their differences.
Yet, it sometimes happens that the spouses are unable to properly
manage their differences and so decide to go in for a divorce. Divorce
has been accepted in Islam as something that can be resorted to in
extreme circumstances. At the same time, Islam frowns upon divorce.
According to a Hadith, although divorce is permissible, God does not
like it.
Islam allows for only one sort of physical relationship
between men and women, and that is in the form of
marriage which is announced and publicly known.
Very often, divorce is resorted to in anger, and this is why Islam has
devised a method to control it. The Quran says that a man can give
two revocable utterances of divorce, after which he can retain his wife
and stay together on equitable terms or else leave her in kindness
(THE QURAN 2: 229). This is the prescribed method of divorce as laid down
in the Quran. Accordingly, a man who intends to divorce his wife should
issue the first utterance of divorce in the first month, and the second
utterance in the next month. After this, he can revoke his divorce
pronouncement if he wants. But in the third month, if he issues the
third utterance of divorce, it is irrevocable and the two can no longer
be considered husband and wife.
This method of divorce over a period of three months was devised so
that if the husband, in a fit of anger, wants to divorce his wife but later,
when his temper cools down, changes his mind and wants to carry on
with the marriage, he can do so. If his utterance of divorce is not out of
anger, but is a planned step where all possible means of reconciliation
have proved futile, and with all sincereity thinks that divorce is the only
option left, then he has to wait till the third month in order for it to take effect. This pragmatic method of divorce was followed in the early
period of Islam. But towards the end of the period of the first Caliph,
Abu Bakr, some men, out of anger, began issuing three utterances of
divorce in one sitting. At this time, this practice was an exception, but
by the time of the latter half of the period of the Caliphate of Umar, the
second Caliph, it had become increasingly common.
Divorce has been accepted in Islam as something that can
be resorted to in extreme circumstances. At the same
time, Islam frowns upon divorce.
In the face of this, and in his capacity as Caliph, Umar decided to take
action against this misuse of the law. And so, in the case of some men,
he accepted their issuing three utterances of divorce in one sitting
as constituting an irrevocable divorce. But, along with this, he also
arranged for these men to be punished.
However, this method of divorce remains fairly widespread today,
especially in the Indian subcontinent. Men arbitrarily utter the word
talaq three times in one breath, often in anger. This is a misuse
of Shariah laws, and is a grave sin on the part of the husband. This
practice has become very common today, and it urgently demands that
the position of the Shariah on the matter be clarified.
One way out of this dilemma is to consider that the utterance of the
word talaq three times by the husband in a fit of excess emotion
or anger to be equal to just one utterance. If the husband was not
serious about the divorce, then he can revoke it soon after. And, if he
actually wishes to divorce his wife, then he should do it according to
the method prescribed by the Quran, over a period of three months,
as explained above.
Finest gift of nature
Conscience is a moral watchdog. It is the finest gift of nature. One who
goes against one’s conscience is making a self-destructive choice.
THE WORD OF GOD
From The Scriptures
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
Say, ‘Shall I tell you of those who will lose the most through their
actions? They are those whose efforts have been wasted in the life of
the world while they thought they were doing good. They are those who
deny their Lord’s signs and the meeting with Him.’ So their works are
in vain, and We shall give them no weight on the Day of Resurrection.
Hell will be their reward, because they denied the truth, and made a
jest of My signs and My messengers. (
Man strives in this world and observes that, as a result, he gains wealth
and honour. He does not see his work marred in any manner, therefore,
he considers himself a successful man. But, this is highly irrational. In
the plan of God, the criterion of a successful life is in terms of the life
of the Hereafter.
Therefore, to consider success in this worldly life as real success
amounts to taking a view of life which omits the life hereafter
altogether. This is tantamount to substituting our own plan in place
of God’s plan and obviously those who do so can never be successful
in the life hereafter.
God reveals His signs. But these signs of the life hereafter have no
effect on those whose minds are preoccupied with the thoughts of
this world. God discloses His arguments, but the arguments of the
life hereafter do not appeal to those who are lost in the affairs of this
world. Such people fail to accept guidance, even though they may be
standing next to a guide. If they do not give any weight to God’s word,
how can they expect God to take their candidature into account for any
divine consideration?
Those who believe and do good works shall have the gardens of
Paradise for their abode. They shall forever dwell in the Gardens of
Paradise, desiring no change. (
To lead a life of faith and piety in this world is to give proof of
tremendous sacrifice. It amounts to renouncing an apparent and
visible heaven for the sake of a hidden, invisible heaven. This also
means succeeding in the most difficult of tests, i.e. when man
recognises the Truth on the strength of abstract arguments and then
he turns his life in that direction, though there is no pressure on
him to do so.
Those who exhibit such awareness (of truth) and perform such actions
truly deserve to be admitted to gardens of eternal comfort and pleasure.
Tell them, ‘If the ocean became ink for writing the words of my
Lord, surely the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my
Lord came to an end — even if We were to add another ocean to it.’
(
Those who do not accept God’s message are in fact denying the most
established of all established facts. It is so established that pens made
from all the trees would not be sufficient to write God’s words and the
ocean turned into ink would become exhausted. But, what a pity that,
in spite of all this, man fails to recognise the truth and does not mould
his life in accordance with it.
Say, ‘I am only a human being like yourselves. It is revealed to me that
your God is One God. So let him who hopes to meet his Lord do good
deeds and let him associate no one else in the worship of his Lord.’
(
The prophet is neither God nor angel. He is a human being just like any
other human being. His only distinguishing feature is that he receives
God’s revelation through invisible means. In other words, a prophet is
an individual who, outwardly, is a human being but who inwardly is a
representative of God.
Because of this only those can recognize a prophet who can recognize
his merit. Arriving at the Truth is possible only for one who can recognise
reality in its essence, i.e. who is capable of recognising a ‘prophet’ at
the level of a ‘human being.’
ASK MAULANA
Your Questions, Answered
On Madrasa Education and the Ulema
How do you look at the madrasa system? There
is much talk about the need for reforms in
the system?
Unlike some others, I am not critical of or opposed
to the madrasas' as such. Muslims need both
types of education — religious as well as secular.
Muslim children should have knowledge of both
their religion as well as secular subjects. There
is, of course, no need for all Muslim children
to go to full-time madrasas' to train to become
ulema. However, some children must do so in order that the tradition
of religious learning can be carried on. We need madrasa-trained
ulema who have knowledge of the Quran, Hadith, Islamic jurisprudence
and Arabic.
As far as the question of madrasa ‘reforms’ is concerned, I really don’t
believe in this talk of ‘modernisation’. You certainly cannot ‘modernise’
the Quran and the Hadith. So, I think the word ‘modernisation’ in this
context is uncalled for.
While on this subject of ‘reforms’, I must say that the ‘modern’ schools
and universities are also in urgent need of reform, a point often
neglected by vociferous advocates of madrasa ‘reform’.
Some people argue that madrasas' teach some outdated centuriesold
texts on Greek philosophy and logic and hold that against them.
But we must also note that departments of English in universities also
teach English classics, written centuries ago, which have no value in the
outside world. For me, these texts are a minor issue. The basic issue is
the need for good, committed teachers.
So, are you arguing that madrasa students must not be made familiar
with basic ‘modern’ subjects?
No, I am not saying this at all. What I am suggesting is that separate
institutions can be established where some madrasa graduates can
later enrol to learn ‘modern’ subjects, particularly different languages such as English. I myself received a traditional madrasa education and
learnt English and ‘modern’ subjects on my own, after I graduated. I
feel that if madrasa students are forced to study ‘modern’ subjects in
addition to the subjects in the existing madrasa curriculum, it would
be too much of a load for them to bear. It might destroy the very fabric
of the madrasas'.
In recent years, a small number of these specialized institutions for
madrasa graduates that you refer to have been established in India.
How do you look at this phenomenon?
I think this is a very welcome development. However, it needs to be
done in a more organized way. What many of these institutions lack
are good teachers motivated by a missionary zeal. It won’t do to have
just professional tutors. I strongly feel that more important than
the curriculum are the teachers. In my days in the Madrasa tul-Islah
in Azamgarh, we had teachers who worked with missionary passion.
They instilled in us the spirit of enquiry, which is the mother of all
knowledge and without which you cannot progress. This tradition
must be revived. Presently, we have no institutes for training madrasa
teachers. They need to be trained in pedagogical techniques,
child development and so on. I think this is one issue that Muslim
organizations must focus on.
How do you think the rigid dualism between the madrasa trained
ulema and the ‘secular’ university-trained Muslim intelligentsia can
be bridged?
In my childhood, this dualism was not so apparent. At that time, the
secular educational system did not lack ethical or moral values, but
today the situation is very different. I suppose this is a result of wider
social changes. You cannot create an institution like an island. Neither
madrasas' nor secular schools are islands, cut off from the outside
world. They are both influenced by the wider society.
A feasible way to overcome this educational dualism is by promoting
greater interaction between students and teachers of madrasas' and
those of schools and colleges, including both Muslims and others.
In the past, there was this sort of interaction. Many Hindus used to
study in madrasas', but not so now. Presently, there is very little such
interaction between the ulema and products of secular educational
institutions, and that is one reason why there is such a glaring lack of
understanding between them.
Some ulema might argue that the sort of interaction that you advocate
may have a negative impact on the faith of madrasa students. What
would you say?
I don’t agree. Interaction, based on a spirit of scientific enquiry and
learning, is a major source of change and progress. Through interaction
with others, based on the quest for knowledge, you can refine your
morals and learn to recognize and respect others as fellow human
beings. This is precisely what Islam teaches us.
To enable madrasas' and their students to interact with others and
for them to come out of the four walls of their seminaries the best
way is to inculcate in them the dawah spirit. For this, madrasas' can
arrange seminars and conferences, to which they can invite people
of other faiths as well as Muslims and others from colleges and
universities. This sort of interaction will be a great means of
promoting knowledge on both sides and will go a long way in dispelling
mutual misunderstandings.
Take my own example. Every day, I interact with people, of various
social and religious backgrounds. I consider this a blessing. It provides
me knowledge, sensitivity to the humanity of others, rich experiences
and moral values.
Would you recommend that madrasas' also teach their students
about other faiths?
Yes, madrasas' could also consider teaching their students the basics
of other religions. This will enable them, as would-be ulema, to relate
more comfortably with people of other faiths. It will also assist them in
their dawah work.
The teaching of other religions should aim at providing students
an objective understanding of these faiths. The earlier approach,
of denouncing other religions, must be given up. You must learn to
objectively and truly understand your neighbour, even if you do not
agree with him. I think bitter polemics are against the ethos of Islam.
So, for instance, in my case, when I visit Hindu, Sikh, Christian shrines
and other places of worship, I try to empty my mind of prejudices. I
have learnt a lot from this. My intention in visiting such places and
meeting people there is to learn, not to debate or to denounce others
as inferior.
As I see it, dawah is an expression of empathy for others, not hostility.
It has nothing to do with pride based on a misplaced sense of superiority.
The Quran asks us to be sympathetic well-wishers of others.
Why is it that most madrasa students tend to come from poorer
families? This was not the case in the pre-colonial period.
One reason is that middle class parents would prefer to send their
children to ‘modern’ schools because the jobs that madrasa graduates
get are not well-paid. The salaries of madrasa teachers must be
increased. In that way, one may hope that more bright children might
prefer to enrol in madrasas' and become ulema. In the past, madrasas'
produced brilliant scholars and leaders, but this is not the case today.
How do you look at the sensationalist and distorted reporting about
madrasas' in large sections of the mass media?
The media is impelled by profit-making motives and thrives on ‘hot’
news in order to feed the market that it caters to. It is not interested
in ‘soft’ news, because it is not profitable. So, it thrives on sensational
news and selective reportage.
One day, I was listening to the Hindi service of a radio station, and
a listener called up from Mauritius and asked why the radio station
did not give much coverage to Mauritius, which also has a large Hindispeaking
population. The programme presenter replied, half-jokingly,
that the media is based on ‘hot’ news, and that no such ‘hot’ news
ever seems to emanate from Mauritius! ‘Create some hot news there’,
he told the caller, ‘and we’ll report about your country!’
So, the point is that if you want to change the way the media reports
about something, you have to work at changing people’s mindsets.
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.
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 )
