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
Your Questions Answered
Is political independence alone the remedy of all ills?
Before 1947, Indian leaders believed that the root of all the problems
was political slavery, that India was an ‘enslaved land’, and that political
freedom for the country, making India a ‘free land’, was the key to all
sorts of goodness and welfare. And so, guided by this mentality, they
focused all their energies on extricating India from political slavery and
working for its political independence.
After enormous efforts and sacrifices, in August 1947 this goal
was achieved. Accordingly, independent India should have fulfilled
Mahatma Gandhi’s dream of, in his words, ‘wiping the tears from
every eye’. But exactly the opposite actually happened! Tearful eyes
remained as filled with tears as before. In fact, the number of tearful
eyes, far from diminishing, increased by leaps and bounds! And the
most ironical thing about the entire affair was that while our leaders
had thundered against our enslavement to Western colonialists and
unleashed a freedom struggle against them, which entailed huge
sacrifices, following Independence, highly-educated Indians began
migrating in droves to the lands of the very same Western people! And
so, our ‘best’ brains have left ‘free India’ and have gone and settled in
the ‘imperialist’ USA and UK.
Once, someone complained to an Indian who had settled abroad
about this ‘brain drain’, about the fact that many of the ‘best’ brains
of the country have migrated to the West. The non-resident Indian
quipped in reply, ‘Brain-drain is better than brain in the drain!’ What
this non-resident Indian wanted to say was that it was better for ‘good’
Indian brains to settle in the West than to stagnate and vegetate in the
unfavourable environment of India.
This one incident illustrates that this division between ‘enslaved land’
and ‘free land’ is not proper. If this division were indeed proper, it would
never have happened that people would have turned their backs on a
life of freedom in their own country and then voluntarily chosen a life
of ‘slavery’ in some foreign country.
How is the situation of India and Pakistan similar with respect to its
people leaving their home countries and settling abroad?
The Indian Muslim leadership prior to 1947 had a similar mindset as
their Hindu counterparts of dreaming of political independence and freedom. It imagined that the source of all goodness for Muslims was
a separate ‘Muslim land’. They also thought that the source of all evil
was for Muslims to live in a ‘non-Muslim land’, where they would be in
a minority. Based on this ideology, they launched a fiery movement—
the Pakistan movement—demanding the Partition of India. After much
furore and agitation, which entailed enormous sacrifices, finally this
separate ‘Muslim land’ came into being, in August 1947, being carved
out of a portion of the Indian subcontinent.
This ‘Muslim homeland’ should have lived up to the hopes of the
Muslims and turned their dreams into reality. The ‘Muslim homeland’
should have provided Muslims an environment that, from the religious
point of view, should have been fully favourable for them. Their life and
property should have been fully safe there. In Pakistan, they should
have been able to enjoy all sorts of opportunities to progress. In that
country, Muslims could have, according to their thinking, revived their
past glory. That country could have truly become a ‘pure land’, a cradle
of peace, prosperity and happiness.
But the reality proved to be just the opposite. This ‘Muslim homeland’
became an undesirable country for Muslims themselves, so much that
many Muslims began fleeing from it and settling in ‘non-Muslim lands’
instead.
I have asked several Pakistanis who have settled in America why they
left their country and came to the West. Almost all of them had just
two answers to give: some said that in Pakistan they did not have many
opportunities to progress, while others said that in Pakistan they did
not feel secure.
The Muslims of the Indian subcontinent had demanded, through their
leaders, a separate country, in accordance, so they said, with their
religion. They insisted that they could not live in a non-Muslim country
in accordance with their religion. But when their Muslim homeland
that they demanded came into being, the very same thing happened
that took place in the ‘free land’ of Gandhi and Nehru! That is to say,
hundreds of thousands of people left this ‘Muslim land’ and headed
to the ‘non-Muslim lands’ of the USA and Europe! And now they have
become citizens of those countries, where they lead a happy life, so
much that their representatives very proudly declare in public, ‘I am
proud to be an American Muslim!’
This experience shows that this division that was made prior to 1947,
between ‘Muslim land’ and ‘non-Muslim land’ was not appropriate or proper. If this division had indeed been proper, the Partition of India
that it led to would not have had such terribly tragic consequences.
Is there any improvement in sight for India-Pakistan relations?
In both countries, the media kept up a steady propaganda against
the ‘enemy’ country. But when an Indian Hindu visited Pakistan, he
would be overwhelmed by the hospitality and warm welcome which
he received from Pakistani Muslims. And when he returned to India
he would remark, ‘Pakistanis treat us so nicely! So, why this enmity
between our countries?’ Likewise, when a Pakistani Muslim visited India
and met with Hindus here, he would be touched by their affection. And
he would go back to Pakistan and say, ‘The Indian Hindus gave me a
lot of love. Then why is it that enmity continues to prevail between our
nations?’
The answer to this question is that when individual Hindus and Muslims
from India and Pakistan respectively meet, they meet as one individual
meeting another. And whenever one individual meets another at the
individual level, it is a meeting of two manifestations of nature—and
as far as essential human nature is concerned, there is no difference
between a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani. But the
matter is different when two communities relate to each other. When
two individuals meet, their guide is their own nature. But when a
Pakistani Muslim wants to know about the Indian nation as a whole,
he gets its information from the Pakistani media. Likewise, when an
Indian Hindu wants to know about the Pakistani nation as a whole, he
accesses the Indian media. And, as we know, the media specializes in
sensationalist, negative news, news about violence, enmity and hate,
presenting the opponent as despicable and utterly evil.
This is why when two individuals from two different communities
meet, their reactions to each other are very different from when two
communities or nations seek to relate to each other at the collective
level. If at the collective or national level, Indians and Pakistanis could
relate to and view each other in the same way as an individual Indian
and an individual Pakistani do when they meet each other, shorn of the
influence of media conditioning, it would go a long way in improving
relations between the two countries.
What is the way forward for India and Pakistan in terms of developing
friendly relations?
India and Pakistan have tried to solve their problems through wars,
Track-II diplomacy and the so-called internationalization of the issue.
None has yielded the desired result. So, there is need for a fresh
outlook.
By a fresh outlook, I do not mean something entirely new. Rather, it is
the revival of a wise formula initially suggested by eminent Pakistani
economist Mahbub ul-Haq. When he had broached it, the people of
Pakistan did not find it acceptable. He was forced to leave the country
and settle in New York, where he died in 1998.
His formula was based on the delinking of political and economic issues,
and on the notion that trade should not be held hostage to the Kashmir
dispute. The delinking policy in this regard means putting controversial
issues on the negotiation table, and opening up all other relationships
such as trade, education, free intellectual activity, business, industry,
tourism, and so on.
Life is full of problems at the individual, social and international levels.
The best and wisest course is to not allow problems to become hurdles
in the path of development. It is good to try to solve all the problems,
but in practice, it may not be a good option. It is better to observe
the principle of differentiation, that is, leaving aside the controversial
issues and opening all doors to avail of other opportunities, without
any restriction.
Reason tells us that if the ideal is not possible, then we have to opt for
the pragmatic solution. Therefore, it is in the best interests of both the
countries to bring an end to this unwanted situation.
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 AD. It is a book that brings glad
tidings to humankind, 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 PEN
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Noon (a letter of the Arabic alphabet); By the pen, and all that they write! (
‘By the pen, and all that they write’ refers to historical record. In
historical records of human memoirs accumulated and preserved in
the shape of history, the Quran is an exceptional book and the bearer of
that book an exceptional personality. This quality of being exceptional
cannot be explained unless the Quran is accepted as the book of God
and Muhammad as His Prophet.
By the grace of your Lord, you are not a mad man. Most surely, you will
have a never ending reward. For you are truly of a sublime character.
(
Having a sublime character means rising above the standard of others’
behaviour. It should not be the believer’s way to deal badly with those
who are not good to him, while giving fair treatment to those who
are good to him. On the contrary, he should do good to everybody,
even though others may not do the same for him. The character of
the Prophet was of the latter type, which proves that he was a man of
principle. He was not a product of circumstances, but of his own high
principles. His sublime character was consistent with his claim to be a
prophet.
Soon you will see, as will they, which of you is a prey to madness. Your
Lord knows best who has fallen by the wayside, and who has remained
on the true path. Do not give in to the deniers of truth. They want you to make concessions to them and then they will reciprocate. Do not yield
to any contemptible swearer of oaths, or to any defamer or one who
spreads slander, or to one who places obstacles in the way of good being
done or to the wicked transgressor, who is ignoble and besides all that,
base-born; just because he has wealth and sons, when Our revelations
are recited to him, he says, ‘These are just ancient fables’. Soon We will
brand him on the nose. (
‘Do not give in to the deniers of truth’ means that the words of those
who deny the truth are not worthy of acceptance. On the one hand,
there is the upholder of Truth, who has taken his stand by virtue of
reasoning. There is no contradiction between his words and his
actions. On the other hand, there are his opponents who are of low
character and have nothing to their credit except for false utterances.
The missionary of Truth relies on Truth, whereas his opponents rely on
their material status. The missionary of Truth is a follower of principles,
unlike his opponents who are unprincipled, and whose views are highly
inconsistent. For one who has a sound mind, this difference is enough
to show who is on the right path and who is not.
DEATH A STAGE IN LIFE
Consider Seriously
THE moment of death is harsher than any moment we can
imagine. All the hardships which cause us distress in this life are
nothing compared to the hardship which will one day confront
us in the form of death.
Death is a journey towards the most difficult stage of life. It signifies
one’s entrance—in a state of total powerlessness, destitution and
helplessness—to the next world. There is a limit to every hardship
we bear on earth; but death will make us enter a world of unlimited
hardships and difficulties.
In reality, this is the state we are in on earth.
Inherently, we are so weak that we cannot
endure even minor discomfort. Even the prick
of a needle, a day without food and drink, or
a few sleepless nights, are enough to make
our whole body tremble. But we are provided
with what we need in this world. That is why
we have forgotten how helpless we are, and
remain ignorant of our real situation.
Death is a journey
towards the most
difficult stage of
life. It signifies
one’s entrance—in
a state of total
powerlessness,
destitution and
helplessness—to the
next world.
In this world there is water and sustenance
for man; there is air and light in abundance;
the forces of nature can be subdued, bringing
opportunities for human civilization. If this
world were to be taken away from us, then nowhere in space could we
make another world like it. There would be nothing for us to do but
wander around in darkness.
Man bewails the calamities that strike him on earth. But if he were
to realize the intensity of the coming day, he would see that all this
is nothing compared to what will come to pass. Comfort and selfrespect
in this world make man complacent and proud. But if he were
to know what was lying in store for him, he would be humble before
the Lord. “Lord,” he would cry out, “worldly honour and comfort are of
no consequence if they do not last through to the next, more abiding
stage of life.”
Death is not the end of our lives; it is the beginning of a new stage in
life. For some that stage will be a pit of torment to outrival all torments;
for others it will be joy that exceeds any other.
THE STRAIGHT PATH
Towards Success
A TRAIN which runs on its tracks will have no trouble in reaching
its destination. But should its wheels slip off the rails—no matter
to what side—its journey will come to a sudden and disastrous
end. Man’s journey through life is in some ways on a parallel. If he goes
off the rails, it will spell catastrophe. But if he continues to travel along
the straight and narrow path which leads directly to God, he will safely
reach his destination.
Many examples of human aberration—’a going-off-the-rails’—can be
cited: the satisfying of one’s own selfish desires to the exclusion of
all else; total absorption in the greatness of some human individual,
living or dead; aiming, by preference, at unworthy objectives; obeying
impulses of jealousy, hate and vindictiveness, dedicating oneself to any
nation or party on the assumption that it is supreme. All of these paths
are crooked and diverge from the true way. No one who chooses such
a path can ever hope to reach his true goal in life.
It is a sad fact that one tends to stray from the straight path whenever
one is obsessed with something, person or idea, other than God.
Whenever one’s efforts are directed elsewhere, one is embarking on a
detour which can never bring one back to God. Such deviation from the
true path can cause man to go totally astray.
The only sure way to spiritual success is to focus one’s attentions
and efforts on God alone. This is the straight path and involves total
attachment to God and a life lived out in complete accordance with His
will.
Any path which is not directed towards God is a wrong turning, and will
never lead Man to his true destination.
THE MATERIAL AND THE IMMATERIAL
Unnatural Preference
DEANA UPPAL, former Miss India-UK, who appeared on the British
reality show, Celebrity Big Brother, introduced herself by saying
that she was single and lived in a house with three servants. She
added: “The greatest love of my life is money, because I don’t believe
in love. Every man is, or will be, a cheater,” as was reported in The
Delhi Times. On analysing these words of a celebrity the first point is
that there is no comparison between man and money. What is money?
Money can pay your shopping bills. But one needs more than that.
A Biblical quote sums it up very well: “Man cannot live by bread alone.”
This applies very much to money, for “Man cannot live by money alone.”
Money can fulfil your physical requirements, but you are more than a
physical entity; you have a mind, you have emotions, you have spiritual
desires, and this part of your personality
requires a person like you, one who can smile
with you, have intellectual exchanges with you
and share your emotions. If money satisfies
less than 1% of your personality, another
human being satisfies more than 99% of your
personality.
Everything exacts
its price, and this is
true of happiness,
which requires you
to accept another. If
you accept another
person, he will accept
you. It is a law of
nature. Nature
is based on the
principle of mutual
acceptance.
Everyone is quite aware of this. Then why
are people attracted to money rather than to
cementing relationships? The reason is very
simple. With money, you can make contact on
unilateral basis, but with human beings, you
have to make contact on a bilateral basis, that
is, on a give and take basis. This is perhaps
the reason why people show a preference for
money over man.
But this choice is an unnatural one. Those who opt for money develop
a duality in their personality. They develop double standards. You may
opt for single living, but you cannot afford to be single in the greater
life of the outside world. In your job, in your profession, business,
everywhere—you have to deal with others. In these areas, you have to
adopt that bilateral formula which you refuse to adopt on the home
front.
For example, when you are not ready to pay for married life the same
price that you are paying for money, this approach to life causes you
to have a dual personality. This contradictory behaviour is not a simple
matter. It leads to constant uneasiness, and then stress. You lose
integrity. Your mind requires you to live as an integrated personality,
but in your life’s pattern you adopt a style that deprives you of integrity.
No one can afford this contradictory behaviour. When your mind
persistently refuses this position, you have to fight your own nature.
Those who lead this kind of life may seem happy in public life, but on
closer observation it is generally found that it is artificial happiness.
Apparently they smile, but in their hearts they are sad.
For some days you can live in this manner, but a breakdown comes in
the end, for then, reality is bound to prevail and you fall into a state of
undeclared depression.
Everything exacts its price, and this is true of happiness, which requires
you to accept another. If you accept another person, he will accept
you. It is a law of nature. Nature is based on the principle of mutual
acceptance. By mutual acceptance you gain a very precious thing, that
is, a living partner than which there is nothing greater in this world.
A BELIEVERS ATTITUDE TOWARDS HIS NEIGHBOUR
An Essential Teaching
LOVE is the greatest human virtue. Where there is love, everything
is in harmony, and where there is hate, all that is good remains
in jeopardy. The Prophet of Islam observed: “None of you can
be a believer unless you desire for your fellowmen what you desire
for yourself.” (Sahih al-Bukhari). There are many sayings of the Prophet
in which he has made it incumbent upon believers to treat their
neighbours with utmost responsibility and concern. For a true Muslim
it is part of his faith to behave well with his neighbours.
The Prophet thus said: “He who believes in God and the Last Day
must not put his neighbour to inconvenience.” (Bukhari and Muslim)
Similarly, on another occasion he remarked: “That one will not enter
Paradise whose neighbour is not secure against his mischief” (Muslim).
Ignoring the plight of one’s neighbour is looked down upon in Islam.
The Prophet noted: “He is not a believer who eats to his fill while his
neighbour goes without food.” (Ibn Abbas, Al-Bayhaqi). This shows that
a Muslim is one who is concerned with others’ hunger and thirst as he
is with his own—who is concerned not only with his own person but
with the whole of humanity.
Neighbours are our nearest companions. After
family members, it is neighbours one comes
in contact with. Developing good relations
with neighbours is therefore an important
aspect of a God-oriented life. A neighbour, be
he a co-religionist or an adherent of another
religion, be he of one’s own community or
of another, must always be taken good care
of. He must be given his dues at all events,
according to the demands of Islam and of
humanity.
The humanity of
a person and the
first criterion of
his religiosity and
spirituality are
tested by the way he
behaves towards his
neighbours.
“Do you know what the rights of neighbours are?” asked the Prophet.
And then he listed out: “Help him if he asks for your help. Give him relief
if he seeks relief from you. Give him a loan if he needs one. Show him
concern if he is distressed. Nurse him when he is ill. Attend his funeral
if he dies. Congratulate him if he meets with any good. Sympathize with
him if any calamity befalls him.” (Al-Tabarani)
This teaching shows that we are not only supposed to have good
will towards our neighbours but we should also offer practical help
whenever they are in need. Such great emphasis laid by the Prophet on
our good treatment of our neighbours shows that the aim of Islam is to
awaken the springs of goodness in the human heart. If we can become
good to our immediate neighbours, then that will be a guarantee of
our being good to other people. For constant good conduct will surely
develop a good moral character in us and that will surely reflect in
our dealings with whoever we come in contact with. If we observe the
injunction of the Prophet in this matter, then without doubt we shall
contribute to strengthening society with the bonds of love, affection
and brotherhood.
These sayings tell us the kind of awareness the Prophet aimed to bring
about in people. It was part of his mission to inform people of the reality
that all humankind although inhabiting different regions of the world,
and seemingly different from one another
as regards their colour, language, dress,
culture, etc., are each other’s blood brothers
and sisters. Hence a proper relationship will
be established between all human beings
only if they regard one another as sisters
and brothers. Only then will proper feelings
of love and respect prevail throughout the
world.
Neighbours are
our nearest
companions. After
family members, it
is neighbours one
comes in contact
with. Developing
good relations
with neighbours
is therefore an
important aspect of a
God-oriented life
A teaching of the Prophet has been worded
thus: “By God, he is not a believer, by God, he
is not a believer, by God, he is not a believer,
with whom his neighbours are not secure.” It
means one of the characteristics of a believer
is that he should have love and care for all
human beings. One of the lessons the Prophet
taught was that we should live among others like flowers, and not like
thorns, without giving trouble to anybody. Another of the saying of the
Prophet is noteworthy: “If a believer is not able to benefit others, he
must at least do them no harm.” According to Islam, the person who
becomes useful to others leads his life on a higher plane. But if he fails
to do so, he should at least create no trouble for his fellow men. For a
man to be a really faithful servant of God, he must live either as a giver
or as a no-problem person. There is no third option.
The humanity of a person and the first criterion of his religiosity and
spirituality are tested by the way he behaves towards his neighbours.
The relationship with a neighbour serves as a test of whether a person
has human feelings or not, and whether he is sensitive to Islamic
teachings or not. If a person’s neighbours are happy with him that is a
proof of his being a good man, but if his neighbours are unhappy with
him that is a proof that his behaviour leaves much to be desired.
Today we are living in an electronic age. With the click of a button,
we can get in touch with people across the world, see them and hold
discussions with them. In this light, we can say that the concept of
neighbourhood has been revolutionized in the modern age—people
around the globe are now our e-neighbours. Hence the rights that are
due to our immediate neighbours, now extend over to our e-neighbours
as well. The same concern and desire to aid others living in different
parts of the world should well up inside of us when we observe that
people are in need of support and sympathy.
REALIZATION OF GOD
Innate in Nature
MOSES was an Israelite prophet who is acknowledged in all
the Abrahamic religions. He had the unique experience of
conversing with God on Mount Sinai. According to the Quran,
at that time Moses said: “My Lord, show Yourself to me so that I may
look at You”. (
Experience and analysis of human history and psychology show
that every human being is born consciously or unconsciously with a
desire to behold one’s Creator. Even the prophets are no exception
to this desire. However, human eyes can only
perceive another being or creation similar to
oneself; to visually comprehend God directly
is beyond human capabilities. For the direct
observation of God in the present world, man
will have to become another God and this
is not possible for anyone, even if one is a
prophet.
Experience and
analysis of human
history and
psychology show that
every human being is
born consciously or
unconsciously with
a desire to behold
one’s Creator.
In this matter, according to a tradition of the
Prophet, someone asked Aisha (Prophet’s
wife) if the Prophet Muhammad had ever
seen God. Aisha replied, ‘I am bewildered by
what you ask. Why do you persist with asking
about this? Then she said whoever has said that the Prophet has seen
his Lord has lied. Then she recited these verses of the Quran…
No vision can grasp Him, but He takes in over all vision; He is the
Subtle and Aware One. (
and
It is not granted to any human being that God should speak to him
other than by revelation or from behind a veil. (
The fact is that man cannot directly see his Creator. But it is also a
fact that man can get the same kind of conviction of the existence of
God through other models. This is through a model that may be called
‘conviction without observation’. This is the very same model with
which one has conviction about one’s mother. Everyone has complete
conviction in one’s mother despite not having witnessed or observed one’s birth from her womb. Although every child is born with eyes,
during birth these eyes do not have the capacity to see anything.
The belief in one’s mother is a known model for every human. No one
can deny this fact. In this model, every human being knows that a certain
unique woman is his mother. This conviction arises from a model that
is superior to any form of observational model. This is the model of
‘conviction without observation’ that gives such great conviction that
every human being who is guided by nature will acknowledge it.
The truth is that this model is so entrenched in reality that a true believer
who hears of it will be speechless with awe. Despite the presence of
this model, any person who declares or demands that ‘if there is a God
then show me that God’, is making a baseless and illogical demand. A
true believer who hears this demand will be so shell shocked that he
will have nothing more to say.
POLITICOSPIRITUAL RENDEZVOUS
Complimentarity
RUDYARD KIPLING once said, “East is East and West is West, and
never the twain shall meet.” This maxim has been proved untrue
as far as the West and the East equation is concerned, but of
spirituality and politics, this undoubtedly holds true.
Spirituality and politics are both full-fledged disciplines, both need total
involvement. So, each can become involved in the other’s discipline
only at the cost of the erosion of his own. The spiritual person will lose
his dedication in the realm of politics, while the politician will lose his
political interest if he involves himself in spiritual matters.
However, both disciplines are needed to build
a better society. If spirituality is inner science,
politics is external discipline. We need both.
How to combine them? The answer lies in a
single word: complementarity. Each must
complement the other, while maintaining its
own identity.
The spiritual person
must serve as
counsellor to the
politician, and the
politician must serve
as booster to the
spiritual person. This
sharing will benefit
both.
Spirituality is inner beauty without having
external shakti (power), while politics is
external shakti having little inner beauty.
They need each other. So why not adopt the
sharing formula? The spiritual person must
serve as counsellor to the politician, and the politician must serve as
booster to the spiritual person. This sharing will benefit both.
The spiritual person is self-centred according to his nature; the
spirituality can help him by taking him out of his individual cell, so that
he may acquire more experience of human life. The same is true of the
politician. Politicians are by nature over-ambitious and this sometimes
leads to disaster. It is at this juncture that a spiritual person can give
them practical advice which will enable them to curb the over-ambitious
side of their nature, making them more realistic.
In our ancient tradition, dharma gurus were advisers to the kings
and kings were their supporters. In our present society, in terms of
numbers, we have enough spiritual persons and we have politicians
in abundance as well. But, we are not able to benefit from the two
because of a lack of sharing process between them.
We need to develop a dual system of education—formal and informal.
Formal education can produce educated politicians, and that is
good for our society, but we also need all members of society to be
spiritualised. This goal cannot be achieved through formal education.
We shall have to evolve an informal type of education whose teachers
are spiritual gurus, and also ruhani murshid. These gurus and murshids
can teach our present-day generation through interaction, discourses
and dissemination of literature.
Informal and formal education are both independent disciplines: any
attempt at amalgamation cannot yield positive result. Each discipline
can try to be helpful to the other, without interfering with the other’s
systems.
In a partial sense, we need spiritualised politicians and politicised
spiritual persons. Both are important: each can support the other, but
only on the condition that they strictly refrain from interference.
Spiritual persons have much to share with others, and the same can
be said of politicians. But presently, few of them carry out this task.
The reason is that people generally adopt a complaining attitude
towards others and if they try to share with others, they don’t know
the difference between sharing and interference. If any of them want
to share with the others, they must avoid complaining and must refrain
from interference. Without following this course, no one can prove to
be a useful member of society.
THE PERIOD OF OLD AGE
Point of No Return
MAN endures various different challenges and issues during the
course of life, for example, sickness or illness, accident, loss of
wealth or property etc. But, one completely different type of
challenge that he must face is old age. Old age is just another name for
the beginning of the end of life on this earth. Old age always happens
at the point of no return and in every respect poses a serious challenge
to every human being.
However, old age has a positive aspect to it—a gain that only results
with agedness—and that is the discovery of one’s helplessness. Although
this discovery can result in a partial manner through other means,
in the complete sense it is only the direct result of advancing years.
This is because old age is always associated with deterioration and
debilitation of the body. By nature, the human body is a wonderful
machine that carries out a variety of functions without rest from birth.
Some eighty different organs efficiently manage and perform various
functions of the body systems that keep the machine running. The main
organs of the human body are the heart, lungs, brain, liver and kidney.
With advancing age, these organs partially or
completely cease function. The skin becomes
wrinkled and less elastic. The joints become
inflexible, muscles become loose, and bones
become weak. At the climax of life, the failure
of one or more of the critical organs results
in death.
Humility is without
doubt a result
of the discovery
of the ultimate
reality. Without this
discovery of the
ultimate reality, the
human personality is
incomplete.
Humility is without doubt a result of the
discovery of the ultimate reality. Without this
discovery of the ultimate reality, the human
personality is incomplete. And the human
personality reaches its completion only when
man reaches the evening of his life. Old age
is the age of the greatest of discoveries, that is why it is known as the
golden age in a person’s life. Unfortunately, what actually happens
is that the elderly know and hold on to only one thing that they are
being ignored or neglected and thus live continuously with a feeling of
complaint.
Further analysis of old age reveals that although from the material
aspect the human body is degenerating, the mind continues its function effectively. In addition, with age the mind gets better with the
enhancement resulting from experience. Man develops the capability
of a deeper analysis and can make better assessments of issues
and situations. Before, he was just an informed person, with age he
becomes a mature and wise person. He can make judgements and give
opinions with greater maturity and wisdom. He is now in a position to
give suitable advice to others in a rational manner. An old person is a
mature human being and due to his experience he has the power to
provide positive and effective guidance to others.
The greatest discovery for man is for him to discover his Creator. This
discovery can occur at any and every moment, but in reality in his
younger days man lives in heedlessness. He is only able to overcome
this heedlessness when he reaches old age and when his organs start
failing. This is the time of discovering one’s helplessness and this is
the time for man to consciously discover his All-Powerful Creator.
However, in reality due to his unawareness, man in his younger days
lives in heedlessness and in his old age lives in complaint. In this way,
man loses the period of strength and also loses the second period of
his golden age.
Old age is an age of maturity and wisdom, of knowledge and experience.
It gives man the capability of superior reasoning and analysis. It
increases his intelligence. The elder person is in a position to give
others sound guidance and advise with wisdom. The elderly can be
‘giver’ members of society. If the elders were only to do one thing—
write a book in which they relate their experiences in life—then every
such person would leave this world being a ‘great giver’ to society.
REMEMBER EVERYTHING IS TEMPORARY
Patiently Persevere
ERNEST SHACKLETON is best known for his expeditions to
Antarctica. On his third expedition, he faced a very serious
situation when his ship sank. He and his group of twenty-seven
men were literally stranded on ice, for they were drifting aimlessly in
the wild southern seas. Apparently, they had no hope of survival. They
remained on the floating ice for six months and spent the next four
months on Elephant Island before they were rescued. In the end they
returned safely to their homes.
Now the question is: how did this miraculous escape come about?
Alfred Lansing in his book Endurance: Shackleton’s Incredible Voyage
explained it in these words: Underlying the optimism of the party was
the confidence that their situation was only temporary.
This miraculous formula is applicable not only to Shackleton’s crew,
but to every person. Everyone has the experience of facing serious
situations in life. But if you believe that every situation is only temporary,
and that it will last for only a limited number of days, then you are able
to repeat the story of Shackleton’s party.
Every dark night is a temporary phase in this world, and the same
is true of human difficulties. Every human difficulty is temporary in
nature. Every difficulty is bound to disappear after some time. It is a
law of nature that no difficulty goes on and on forever. So, you have
to feed this simple formula into your thinking: ‘It is all but temporary’.
Ghalib, the Urdu poet, says in his verse: ‘Raat din gardish mein hain saat
asmaan, ho rahega kuch na kuch ghabrayein kya.’ – ‘The seven heavens
are active every day and night, something new will emerge, then why
this anxiety?’ History only verifies this formula. Difficulties come and
go, just like day and night. This is the universal law that applies equally
to every human being.
Optimism means knowing that one will eventually be rescued: that the
waiting period will only be temporary in nature. The only thing that can
create a serious problem for you is to lose your patience or to lose your
hope or to forget that the situation is temporary and not permanent.
When you save yourself from being upset, you are in a better position
to keep your energy intact, to keep yourself from being a victim of
frustration, for frustration is certainly a killer-frame-of-mind to be in.
At every point in life there could be serious difficulties, on the home
front, the social front, the national front and the international front.
The simple formula for facing these difficulties successfully is to think
that like the human being himself, one’s problem is also temporary,
that is, lasting for only a limited period of time, not permanent. Death
is the ultimate fate of man, and the same
goes for his difficulties. Difficulties are also
doomed to pass away, sooner or later.
Every dark night
is a temporary
phase in this world,
and the same is
true of human
difficulties. Every
human difficulty is
temporary in nature.
Every difficulty is
bound to disappear
after some time.
In fact, difficulty is a state of mind. It is the
mind where difficulties are created, and
where they can be killed, too. When one
faces a difficulty, one generally forgets a very
important fact: that man himself possesses a
difficulty-solving machine, that is, his mind.
The mind is greater than everything, including
difficulty, however severe it may be. So, in such
situations, try to focus on your mind rather
than on the difficulty. And very soon you will
find that the difficulty has disappeared, first
psychologically and then physically.
Moreover, difficulty has a plus point. Difficulty unfolds your hidden
qualities: it is a boon rather than an evil. Difficulty makes an ordinary
Shackleton into a hero Shackleton.
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
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
OTHERS—BASIS OF LOVE
IN Islam, acknowledging others for the good they have done to
you is considered very important. The Prophet went to the extent
of noting: “One who does not acknowledge people, cannot even
acknowledge God.” (Ahmad) If you add a pinch of dye to a glass of water,
all of the water becomes coloured. Likewise, is the case of love. When
a believer has love in his heart for his Creator, at the same time he
cannot resist showing his love to his neighbours. And in this electronic
age, the whole world is one’s neighbour. Thus one who acknowledges
God in prayer regularly, but is not grateful to the people who have
benefitted him in life, cannot be regarded as paying sincere thanks to
God. This acknowledgment of and gratitude towards others is at the
root of developing love for them. Not only does this make us positive
for those who are immediately around us and from whom we receive
help and support directly, but this also fills our heart with love for
humanity at large.
What is the rationale behind the ‘love-all’ formula? It is that every other
person is your benefactor. It is lack of awareness of this fact that makes
one unable to adopt this love-all culture. We are living in a civilization.
Whatever we make use of is a gift of this civilization. What is civilization?
It is an advanced stage of refinement in ethical and material matters
resulting from continuous effort on the part of all humankind.
For example, when man started his life on the planet earth, human
existence was in a primitive state. It then took thousands of years of
the joint efforts of humanity to bring civilization into existence. For
example, in the beginning, man used to walk on his own two legs. Then
he started traveling on horseback. After long experience, the wheel was
developed, thanks to which travel by car was made possible. The uses
of steam power were later discovered and travel by steamship and rail
began. Man then produced airplanes which made air travel possible
and further facilitated the means of contact and communication. All
this was not the work of any single human being: all of humanity was
involved in this process.
When we utilize any of the modern-day amenities that we enjoy,
we must ponder over the numerous people who must have put in
enormous work and toil that must have gone into making it possible
for us to benefit from various facilities. Such
realization would lead to an outpouring of
feelings of love and thankfulness for the
whole of humanity which worked to make life
simple and easy for us today.
When a believer has
love in his heart
for his Creator,
at the same time
he cannot resist
showing his love to
his neighbours. And
in this electronic age,
the whole world is
one’s neighbour.
Most of us own cars. Often we only think to
the extent that we have bought the car due
to the money that we had acquired. But if we
think deeply, in truth, the car is a great divine
gift. God created human beings, then He
provided them with natural vehicles such as
horses, camels, mules and others for travel.
This was the first phase of vehicles. God
knew that this would not be sufficient for man. So, He kept another
thing in potential terms in the natural world. This potential was that of
mechanical vehicles. God gave man a mind. By utilizing his mind, man
made many discoveries about nature. In this way, he discovered the
wheel. Then, after long research he developed wheeled vehicles such
as the bicycle and cars.
Modern vehicles are God-given, in terms of potential. And since many
countries and their citizens were involved in turning this natural
potential into actual, these vehicles are also a gift from humanity. If a
person ponders over this entire history, he will first of all acknowledge
the Creator. This is known in Islam as shukr, or gratitude, in religious terms. Keeping this entire history into mind, one will realize that a car or
a vehicle is God’s great bounty, and in making it reach the commercial
level, the entire humanity played an important role. When one thinks
this way, one will acknowledge God the most and then acknowledge
humanity. One will realize that the money through which one has
purchased the car is of indeed very negligible value.
The discovery of this reality about history gives rise to the culture of
‘love all’, while unawareness of this leads to the ‘hate all’ culture.
FAITH IN GOD
Essence of Islam
THE Prophet Muhammad has said, “Islam has been built on
five pillars: testifying that there is no god but God, and that
Muhammad is the Messenger of God; saying prayers; paying
the prescribed charity (zakat); making the pilgrimage to the House of
God in Makkah and fasting in the month of Ramadan.”
Although a building is composed of many parts, what really holds up
the entire structure is its pillars. If they are strong, the whole structure
will be sound. But should they be weak, the entire edifice will crumble.
Those which support the edifice of Islam are of immense strength, but
they must first of all be raised up by its adherents if they are to support
its structure.
Man’s life is like a piece of land on which he must build a house to
God’s liking. His first step must be to set up these five sturdy pillars,
without which Islam cannot raise itself up either at the individual or at
the community level. These five pillars—faith, prayers, fasting, charity
and pilgrimage—are meant to engender in
man a lifelong piety and devotion to God.
Faith, humility,
fortitude, recognition
of the rights of others
and unity are the
pillars on which rests
the entire edifice of
Islam.
Faith (iman) means belief in divine truths.
Prayer, in essence, means bowing before the
glories of God, so that any sense of superiority
a man may have will be dispelled. Fasting
(sawm), with its emphasis on abstinence,
builds up patience and fortitude. Charity
(zakat) entails the recognition of other’s needs,
so that what has been given to humankind by
God may be equitably shared. Pilgrimage (Hajj)
is a great rallying of God’s servants around Him. These are not mere
empty rituals, but the exercise of positive virtues, the quintessence,
in fact, of those qualities which our Lord wishes to be inculcated in
us. If we can cultivate them, we shall be deemed to possess the divine
characteristics so cherished by Islam. Thus it is true to say that faith,
humility, fortitude, recognition of the rights of others and unity are the
pillars on which rests the entire edifice of Islam.
Acceptance of God as one’s Lord is like making a covenant to place
Him at the central point in one’s life, so that He may become the pivot
of one’s thoughts and emotions. It means entrusting oneself to Him entirely, and focussing upon Him all one’s hopes and aspirations, fears
and entreaties. Then, instead of living for worldly things, one will live
for one’s Sustainer. He will thus become all in all in one’s life.
Man all too often lives for worldly things which come to dominate his
thoughts and emotions. Some live for their household and family;
some for business and the money it brings; some for political activity
and party leadership, and some for honour and authority. Every man,
big or small, lives for something or the other which is material in this
everyday world of ours. But this is to live in ignorance—trying to build
one’s nest on branches that do not exist. A truly worthy life is that which
is lived for one’s Lord, with no support other than Him. Man should live
in remembrance of God. His name should be on his lips as he wakens
and as he sleeps. As he halts or proceeds on his way, he should live in
trust of God, and when he speaks or remains silent, it should be for the
pleasure of his Lord.
Acceptance of God
as one’s Lord is like
making a covenant
to place Him at the
central point in one’s
life, so that He may
become the pivot of
one’s thoughts and
emotions.
The Essence of Faith
Faith in God is like the electric current which
illuminates the whole environment and sets
all machines in motion. When a man finds
the link of faith to connect him to God, he
experiences just such an illumination from
within sudden and all-embracing. His latent
spirit is then awakened and his heart is
warmed by his new-found faith. A new kind
of fire is kindled within him. Man, born of the
womb of his mother, has his second birth
from the womb of faith. He now experiences what is meant by union
with God. A lover, emotionally, is one with his beloved, even when he
is physically separated from the object of his love. In this state, he
sees in everything the image of the loved one. One who is inspired
by his faith in God is just like this earthly lover. He sees the glories of
God in heaven’s blue vaults, and His might and grandeur in the fury
of tempests. The birds, with their twittering, seem to warble hymns to
God. The rising sun is the radiant hand of God extending towards him.
Every leaf of every plant and tree is a verdant page on which he reads
the story of divine creation. Zephyrs fanning his cheeks are harbingers
of his unity with God. A true believer in God is like a diver in the divine
ocean. Every plunge that he makes serves to unite him in his experience
more and more inextricably with his Maker, so that he belongs to God
as God belongs to him.
Faith in God
Faith in God means faith in a Being who is at once Creator, Master
and Sustainer of all creation. Everything has been made by Him and
Him alone, and receives eternal sustenance from Him. There is nothing
which can exist without Him. Consciousness of this and faith in God go
hand in hand. As a consequence, a man of faith begins to look upon
himself as a servant of God. In each and every thing he witnesses the
glory of God, and every blessing he receives strikes him as a gift from
God; hymns to the deity and remembrance of God spring from his heart
like fountains. He lives, not—in forgetfulness, but in a state of acute
awareness, all events being reminders to him of God. When he awakens
from a deep and refreshing sleep, he begins involuntarily to thank his
Lord for having blessed man with sleep, without which he would be in
such a perpetual state of exhaustion that life,
brief as it is, would become hellish for him
and drive him to madness.
Faith in God means
faith in a Being who
is at once Creator,
Master and Sustainer
of all creation.
When the sun rises high in the sky and sends
its light to the world, dispelling the darkness
of the night, his heart cries out in ecstasy,
‘Glory be to God who created light! Had there
been no light, the whole world would be a
fearful ocean of darkness.’ When, driven by
hunger and thirst, he eats and drinks, his
entire being is filled with heartfelt gratitude
and, bewildered and amazed, he asks himself: ‘What would become of
men if there were no God to send us food and drink?’ When in need, or
if he is hurt, he looks towards God, calling upon Him for succour. When
he encounters adversity, he accepts it as part of God’s design, and if he
is fortunate enough to earn profits or, in some other way, finds himself
at an advantage, he is reminded of God’s blessings and his heart is
filled with gratitude. His achievements do not, however, fill him with
conceit, nor do his failures crush him or even make him impatient. In
all such matters, whether of loss or gain, his adoration of God is never
impaired, nor does anyone or anything other than God ever become its
object. No expediency ever makes him forget his Lord.
The discovery of the power of gravity on earth and on other bodies, or
of radiation in the universe with the help of sophisticated instruments,
is an achievement of an academic nature with no overtones of
religious compulsion. But the discovery of God is an entirely different
phenomenon. It is the direct apprehension of a Being who is all-seeing
and all-hearing, and who is the repository of all wisdom and might. That a magnificent universe should stand mute, without its true significance
ever being understood and appreciated, is inconceivable when its
Creator and Sustainer is an all-knowing God.
TOWARDS GLOBAL PEACE
We often talk of peace in the context of war. But this is
a very narrow and restricted notion of peace. Peace is
deeply linked with the entirety of human life. Peace is
a complete ideology in itself. Peace is the only religion
for both—man and the universe. It is the master-key
that opens the doors to every success. Peace creates a
favourable atmosphere for success in every endeavour.
Without peace, no positive action—small or big—is possible.
ISLAM IN A PLURALISTIC SOCIETY
FOR the greater part of his life, the Prophet of Islam lived in a
society where adherents of other religions existed side by side
with believers in Islam. The Prophet’s behaviour towards the
former was invariably that of respect and tolerance. At a time when the
majority of the denizens of Makkah were still polytheists, his conduct
consistently conveyed his high moral character. On the one hand, he
communicated to them the message of God with love and kindness
and, on the other, fulfilled all of their human rights. That is why the
non-Muslims of Makkah had such great confidence in him, to the point
of entrusting their belongings to his care. This they continued to do
right up to the last days of his stay in Makkah.
After the attainment of his prophethood, he lived in Makkah for a
period of 13 years, later migrating to Madinah, where he lived for
ten years until his death. For about half of this period in Madinah, he
was living among people belonging to different religions—Muslims,
Jews, Christians and Polytheists. The Prophet devised a constitution
for these people, known in history as Sahifa-e-Madinah (The Madinah
Charter). This charter expressly mentioned that issues concerning these
groups domiciled in Madinah would be decided on the basis of their
own religious traditions—those of Muslims according to their Islamic
traditions, and those of the polytheists, Christians and Jews according
to their respective traditions. This principle of Islam was intended to
apply at all places where Muslims lived along with adherents of other
religions. This sunnat, or practice of the Prophet, for a plural society carries the same moral authority as other of his practices. Islam
recognizes no difference between Muslims and non-Muslims from the
ethical standpoint. The rights granted to a Muslim are exactly the same
as those granted to a non-Muslim.
Islam advocates acceptance of ideological differences. This is on a
parallel with the principle expressed in the saying: ‘Let us agree to
disagree’. In this connection, one of the commands of the Quran is that
‘there shall be no compulsion in religion.’ (
Quran declares: ‘You have your religion and I have mine.’ (
It was as a result of this commandment that, when the Prophet
Muhammad migrated to Madinah, he issued a declaration reaffirming
his acceptance of the religion of Muslims for the Muslims and the
religion of Jews for the Jews.
This principle formulated by Islam is best described, not as
‘religious harmony’, but, rather, as ‘harmony among religious people’.
This is a principle whose utility is a matter of historical record. It is
evident that in the past, as well as in the
present, wherever religious harmony has
existed, it has been based on unity despite
differences, rather than on unity without
differences. It is not based on agreeing to
agree, but, rather, on agreeing to disagree.
Islam advocates
acceptance
of ideological
differences. This is
on a parallel with the
principle expressed
in the saying: ‘Let us
agree to disagree'.
One extremely revolutionary example of
this principle is to be found in the life of
the Prophet Muhammad. It concerns the
conference of three religions which was
held in the Prophet’s mosque in Madinah. A
60-member Christian delegation from Najd
had come to Madinah to determine the situation there. They stayed at
the Prophet’s mosque. Following them, the Jewish scholars of Madinah
also came to the mosque. In this manner, the followers of three faiths
(Islam, Christianity and Judaism) gathered in one place. They carried
out dialogues and discussions on various religious topics for many
days.
Reports say that during this period, when it was time for the Christians
to pray, they stood up in the mosque itself and prayed according to
their custom. The Prophet saw this, and let them continue what they
were doing. So they performed their prayer in the mosque. This
conference is described by Muhammad Husain Haykal in his book, The
Life of Muhammad.
The three scriptural religions thus confronted one another in Madinah.
The delegation entered with the Prophet into public debate, and these
were soon joined by the Jews, thus resulting in a tripartite dialogue
between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This was a truly great congress
which the city of Yathrib [the earlier name for Madinah] had witnessed.
There is a very relevant incident from the life of the Prophet of Islam.
Once the Prophet was seated at some place in Madinah, along with
his Companions. During this time a funeral
(procession) passed by. On seeing this, the
Prophet stood up. Seeing the Prophet stand,
up, one of his Companions exclaimed: “O
Prophet, that was the funeral of a Jew, and
not a Muslim!” The Prophet replied, “Was he
not a human being?” Here we can see that the
Prophet was able to discover a commonality
between himself and that Jew. Every person
was worthy of respect at all events, because
of the common humanity we share with one
another. This incident also illustrates how an
atmosphere of mutual love and compassion can be brought about in the
world only when we consciously rise above all insidious demarcations
of caste, colour and creed.
There is only one way
to solve the issue of
religious differences,
and that is: ‘Follow
one, and respect all’.
Although Islam believes in the oneness of reality, it lays equal
stress on the practice of respect in everyday dealings with others, even
if it means going to the extent of permitting people of other faiths to
come to an Islamic place of worship for religious discussion, and if it is
time for their prayers, letting them feel free to perform their worship
according to their own ways in the mosque itself.
Accepting others has been the rule throughout the history of Islam. It
has, in fact, been one of the main underlying causes for its successful
dissemination. Here I quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: “Islam
achieved astonishing success in its first phase. Within a century after
the Prophet’s death in AD 632 [the early generations of Muslims]… had
brought a large part of the globe—from Spain across central Asia to
India—under a new Arab Muslim empire… despite these astonishing
achievements, other religious groups enjoyed full religious autonomy.”
Encyclopedia Britannica 9/912
And this is the part which I wish particularly to stress: Despite these
astonishing achievements, other religious groups enjoyed full religious
autonomy.
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 is there diversity in religious
beliefs. 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’.
One of the stark realities of life is that divergence of views does exist
between people, and that it impinges at all levels. Be it at the level of
a family or a society, a community or a country, differences are bound
to exist everywhere. Now the question is how
best unity can be forged or harmony brought
about in the face of human differences. There
is nothing wrong in diversity of opinions. In
fact, this is a positive quality which has many
advantages. The beauty of the garden lies in
the presence of different type of flowers and
trees.
The intellectual
development of the
members of this
society will be frozen,
because personal
upliftment takes
place only where
the interaction of
divergent thinking
provides the requisite
mental stimuli.
A society whose members hold identical views
and never have any discussions, will soon
find itself in the doldrums. The intellectual
development of the members of this society
will be frozen, because personal upliftment
takes place only where the interaction of
divergent thinking provides the requisite mental stimuli. It is only
after undergoing the intellectual challenge presented by others that
a developed personality emerges. If, in a human society, this process
ceases to operate, the development of character will come to a
standstill.
Islam gives serious consideration to religious freedom and takes pains
to avoid infractions. There is an event from Islamic history that illustrates
this point. Umar Faruq, the second Caliph, travelled to Palestine at the
request of the Christians to finalise the agreements between them and
the Muslims. T.W. Arnold in his book, The Preaching of Islam, relates
how ‘In company with the Patriarch, Umar visited the holy places, and
it is said while they were in the Church of the Resurrection, as it was the appointed hour of prayers, the Patriarch bade the Caliph offer his
prayers there, but Caliph Umar thoughtfully refused, saying that if he
were to do so, his followers might afterwards claim it as a place of
Muslim worship.’
He obviously foresaw later generations of Muslims being inspired to
build a mosque on that very spot, thus setting up restrictions upon
religious freedom. Umar’s discretion is all the more remarkable for
being the ruler of Palestine he could have done anything he wished.
A man with less insight and forethought would have regarded praying
inside the Church as harmless and that could in no way be interpreted
as depriving anyone of his rights. Umar, in fact, moved a stone’s throw
away, and said his prayers at a discreet distance from the Church.
Muslims did indeed come to this city later on, and as he had foreseen,
built their mosque at the exact point where he had said his prayers.
The mosque exists to this day, but presents no obstacle to Christian
worship. It is true that in later times certain excessively zealous Muslims
converted a number of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques.
Such actions are to be deplored as deviations. ‘But such oppression
was contrary to the spirit of Islam.’ says T.W. Arnold.
Islam is the name given to the teachings of the Quran and the Hadith,
the finest example of living up to this standard was set by the Prophet
and his Companions. The deeds of later generations, judged by
these criteria, will be sadly deficient in true Islamic spirit. Those who
make no attempt to live up to the Prophet’s example are in no way
representatives of Islam.
Religious acceptance and celebrating it requires that everyone be
allowed to present his thoughts, and be given a quiet hearing. The
message is not to be forced upon one, but something to be gently
presented.
From the above it is clear that Islam stands for accepting and celebrating
the differences. It inculcates the mindset that the way to prosper is to
ignore the matters that divide one from others and concentrate on
cultivating areas of mutual concern. Further Islam insists on human
friendly behaviour and does not instill any fear into its adherents
that they will lose their identity by co-operating and interacting with
people who hold divergent views. In fact, Islam encourages intellectual
exchange for greater learning and wisdom.
FAITH AND REASON
An Objective Study
IN its issue no.
from Manchester College, Oxford (England), brought out an article
titled, ‘The Relationship between Faith and Reason’, by Dr Paul Badham.
Paul Badham is professor emeritus of Theology and Religious Studies
at St. David’s College, Lampeter, in the University of Wales. His paper
in this issue had been presented at a Conference of the Institute of
Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow in November
1991.
Professor Badham’s paper can indeed be called thought provoking,
and as such, is worth reading, but he has made certain points with
which I do not agree. He states that philosophical certainty should
not be confused with religious certitude. He writes: ‘As a philosopher
of religion I feel compelled to acknowledge that faith could never be
placed on the same level of certainty as scientific knowledge’.
On the contrary, I feel that faith and belief can be placed on the same
level of certainty as scientific theory. At least, in the twentieth century
there is no real difference between the two. The following articles will
be of help to understand this.
Religion and Science—at same level of certainty
As Bertrand Russell puts it, knowledge is of two kinds - knowledge of
things and knowledge of truths. This dichotomy exists in religion as
well as in science. For instance, to the scientist who regards biological
evolution as a scientific fact, there are two aspects to be considered.
One is related to the organic part of species and the other relates to
the law of evolution which is inherently and covertly operative in the
continuing process of change among the species.
When an evolutionist studies the outward physical appearance of
species, he may be said to be studying ‘things’. Whereas when he
studies the law of evolution, he deals with that aspect of the subject,
which is termed as the study, or knowledge of ‘truths.’
Every evolutionist knows that there does exist a basic difference
between the two aspects. As far as the study of things or the phenomena
of evolution is concerned, direct evidence is available. For instance,
because the study of fossils found in various layers of the earth’s crust
is possible at the level of observation, working hypothesis may be
based thereon.
On the contrary, as far as facts about the law of evolution are concerned,
due to the impossibility of objective observation, direct argument is not
possible. For instance, the concept of sudden mutations in the organs
is entirely based on assumptions rather than on direct observation. In
the case of mutations, external changes are observable, but the cause,
that is, the law of nature, is totally unobservable. That is why all the
evolutionists make use of indirect argument, which in logic is known as
inferential argument.
The concept of mutation forms the basis of the theory of evolution.
However there are two aspects to the matter. One comes under
observation, but the second part is totally unobservable. It is only
by making use of the principle of inference that this second part of
evolution may be included in the theory of evolution.
It is a commonplace that all the offspring of men or animals are not
uniform. Differences of one kind or another are to be found. In modern
times this biological phenomenon has been scientifically studied.
These studies have revealed that spontaneous changes are suddenly
produced in the foetus in the mother’s womb. It is these changes that
are responsible for the differences between children of the same
parents/
These differences between offspring are
observable. But the philosophy of evolution
subsequently formed on the basis of this
observation is totally unobservable and is
based only on inferential argument. That
is to say that the ‘things’ of evolution are
observable, while the ‘truths’ inferred from
observation are unobservable
The creation plan
of God as revealed
to His Prophet is
that this world is
a testing ground,
where man's virtue is
placed on trial. It is in
accordance with the
records of this trial
period that man's
eternal fate will be
decreed.
Now, what the evolutionist does is put a goat
at one end and a giraffe at the other. Then
taking some middle specimens of the fossils
he forms a theory that the neck of one of
the offspring of the earlier generation of the
goat was somewhat taller. Then when this
particular offspring with the taller neck gave birth, this tallness for
generations over millions of years ultimately converted the initial goat
with a taller neck into a species like the giraffe in its advanced stage.
Charles Darwin writes of this change in his book The Origin of Species: “It
seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadrupled might
be converted into a giraffe”.
In this case, the existence of differences between the various offspring
of a goat is itself a known fact. But the accumulation of this difference,
generation after generation, over millions of years resulting in a new
species known as ‘giraffe’ is wholly unobservable and unrepeatable.
This conclusion has been inferred from observation only; the whole
process of mutation developing into a new species has never come
under our direct observation.
Exactly the same is true of the subject of religion. One aspect of
the study of religion is the study of its history, its personalities, its
injunctions, its rites and its rituals. The above division (knowledge of
things and knowledge of truths) amounts to a study of the ‘things’
of religion. In respect of religion, objective
information is likewise available. As such, the
study of religion too can be done on the basis
of direct observations exactly as is done in
the study of biological evolution.
The present
world appears
meaningless when
seen independently,
that is, without
joining the Hereafter
with it. But when
we take this world
and the Hereafter
together, the entire
matter takes a new
turn. Now this world
becomes extremely
meaningful and
extremely valuable.
The second aspect of the study of religion is
what is termed, in general, beliefs pertaining
to the unseen world. These are the beliefs
that are beyond our known sensory world.
That is, the existence of God and the angels,
revelation, hell and heaven, etc. In this other
aspect of religion direct observations do not
exist. The study of religion must, therefore,
be done in the light of that logical principle
called inference on the basis of observation,
that is, the same logical principle which the
evolutionists employ in the second aspect of
their theory.
Looked at in the light of this principle, both religion and science are at
a par. Both have two equally different parts. One part is based on such
scientific certainty as permits direct argument. The other part is based
on scientific inference, to prove which only the principle of indirect
argument may be used. Keeping this logical division before us, we can
find no actual difference between the two.
The unnecessary apologia for religious uncertainty made by Professor
Badham is occasioned by his inability to consider this difference, and
his confusing one area of study with another. Making the error of false
analogy, he is comparing the first part of science to the second part of
religion and looking at the second part of religion in the light of the first part of science. This meaningless comparison is responsible for the illconsidered
conclusions he has arrived at in his article.
Had the Professor compared the first part of science to the first part of
religion and the second part of science to the second part of religion,
his inferiority complex (as a man of religion) would have ceased
to exist. He would have felt that, purely as a matter of principle the
wrong parallels had been drawn. The argument used in the first part
of science is equally applicable to the first part of religion. Similarly the
argument applied to the second part of science is equally applicable to
the second part of religion.
This is a truth which has been acknowledged even by a staunch and
leading atheist like Bertrand Russell. At the beginning of his book,
Why I am not a Christian he has set forth what he considers a valid
argument. He points out that in his view all the great religions of the
world Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism—were
all untrue and harmful, and that it is not possible to prove their validity
from the logical point of view. Those who have opted for one religion
or the other have done so, according to Russell, under the influence
of their traditions and environment, rather than on the strength of
argument.
However, Bertrand Russell has admitted this fact when he says, “there
is one of these arguments which is not purely illogical. I mean the
argument from design. This argument, however, was destroyed by
Darwin.”
He intends here to say that the existence of God is proved by the
argument that in this world where there is design there should be a
designer. He admits that this method of argument in its nature is the
same as that used to prove scientific concepts. However, even after
this admission, he rejects this argument by saying that it has been
destroyed by Darwinism.
This is, however, a wholly baseless point, as Darwin’s theory is related
to the Creator’s process of creation rather than to the existence of the
Creator. To put it briefly, Darwinism states that the various species
found in the world were not separate creations but had changed from
one species into separate species over a prolonged period of evolution
by a process of natural selection.
It is obvious that this theory is not related to the existence or nonexistence
of God. It deals with the process of Creation instead of the
Creator. That is to say, if it was hitherto believed that God created each species separately, now after accepting the theory of evolution
it has to be believed that God originally created an initial species
which was invested with the capability of multiplying into numerous
species. And then He set in motion a natural process in the universe
favourable to such multiplication. In this way, over a long period
of time this primary species fulfilled its potential by changing into
innumerable species. To put it another way, the theory of evolution
is not a study of the existence of God, but simply of how God has
displayed in the universe his power of creation. That is why Darwin
himself has concluded his famous book The Origin of Species with
these words:
There is grandeur in this view of life, that
having been originally breathed by the Creator
into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst
this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and
most wonderful have been, and are being
evolved (p.
Faith and belief
can be placed on
the same level of
certainty as scientific
theory. At least, in
the twentieth century
there is no real
difference between
the two.
It is true that the new facts regarding the
universe discovered in the twentieth century
have revolutionised the world of logic. Now
the difference between religious argument
and scientific argument which had been erroneously conceived prior
to the twentieth century, has been eliminated. Now in respect of
argument, the case of science too has reached exactly the same point
as religion.
Both Direct and Inferential Argument are Valid
Newton (1642-1727) made a special study of the solar system,
discovering laws governing the revolution of planets around the sun.
His study was, however, confined to astronomical bodies, which can be
called the macro-world. It is possible in the macro world to weigh and
measure things. As a result ofthe immediate impact ofthese discoveries,
many began to think along the lines that reality was observable, and
that proper and valid argument was one based on observation. It
was under the influence of this concept that the philosophy generally
known as positivism came into being.
However the discoveries made in the first quarter of the century shook
the very foundation of the preliminary theories. These later discoveries
revealed that beyond this world of appearance, a whole world was hidden, which does not come under observation. It is only indirectly
possible to understand this hidden world and present arguments in its
favour. That is, by observing the effects of something, we arrive at an
understanding of its existence.
This discovery altered the whole picture. When the access of human
knowledge was limited to the macro-cosmic world, man was a prey
to this misapprehension. But when human knowledge penetrated the
micro-world, the academic situation changed on its own.
Now it was revealed that the field of direct argument was extremely
limited. New facts which came to the knowledge of man were so
abstruse that indirect or inferential argument alone was applicable.
For instance, the German scientist Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen found in
1895 during an experiment that on a glass before him some effects
were observable, despite the fact that there was no known link between
his experiment and the glass. He concluded that there was an invisible
radiation which was travelling at the speed of 186,000 miles per second.
Due to the unknown nature of this radiation, Reontgen named it X-rays
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 19/1058).
The twentieth century has seen the discoveries of a number of things
like X-rays, which do not come under direct human observation.
However, due to their effects having come to the knowledge of man, it
was not possible to deny their existence. As a result of modern research,
not only were different departments of science revolutionized but the
science of logic too saw basic changes.
Now inferential reasoning was also accepted as a valid method of
reasoning, for, without this discoveries like X-rays, the scientific
structure of the atom, the existence of dark matter, etc., could not have
been explained.
After the extension of this method of reasoning in modern times,
argument on religious faith has become as valid as reasoning on
scientific concepts. Exactly the same inferential logic, which was
employed to prove the newly discovered concepts of science, was
applicable to religious faiths to prove their veracity. Now differences in
the criterion of logic have vanished.
Answer to a Question
At the end of his article Professor Badham writes:
And I have to acknowledge that the existence of so much evil and
suffering in the world counts against any vision of an all-powerful
and loving God.
Here I have to say that evil is a relative word. An evil is an evil so long
as it cannot be explained. A doctor performs surgery on the patient’s
body, a judge sentences a criminal to be hanged. All this appears to be
injustice and cruelty. But we do not call it so, simply because we have a
proper explanation to give for the acts of the judge and the doctor. The
same is true of the evil pointed out by the article writer.
The first point is that the evil existing in human society is not spread
over the entire universe. Leaving aside the limited human world, the
vast universe is perfect, par excellence. It is entirely free of any defect
or evil.
Now the question arises as to why there is evil in the human world.
To arrive at an understanding of this we shall have to understand the
creation plan of the Creator. The creation plan of God provides the only
criterion by which to judge the nature of the matter.
The creation plan of God as revealed to His Prophet is that this
world is a testing ground, where man’s virtue is placed on trial. It is
in accordance with the records of this trial period that man’s eternal
fate will be decreed. It is for the purpose of this test that he has been
granted freedom. In the absence of freedom, the question of life being
a test would not arise.
The present evil is, in fact, a concomitant of this freedom. God desires
to select those individuals who, in spite of being granted freedom, lead
a disciplined and principled life. For individuals to prove their worth
an atmosphere of freedom must be provided. Undoubtedly, due to
such an atmosphere, some people will surely misuse this freedom and
perpetrate injustice. But this is the inevitable price to be paid for such a
creation plan to be brought to completion. No better creation plan can
be envisaged for this world.
The present world appears meaningless when seen independently, that
is, without joining the Hereafter with it. But when we take this world
and the Hereafter together, the entire matter takes a new turn. Now
this world becomes extremely meaningful and extremely valuable.
To know about more about Faith and Reason, log onto www.cpsglobal.
org and www.cps.org.in or write to us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
FROM THE EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
Dr. Farida Khanam has been a professor at the Department of Islamic Studies
at Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi. A Study of World's Major Religions, A Simple
Guide to Sufism are two of the books amongst others, of which she is the author. She
has also translated many books on Islam authored by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan.
Currently, the chairperson of Centre for Peace and Spirituality (CPS International),
an organization founded by her father Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, she is a regular
contributor of articles to journals, newspapers and magazines. Dr. Khanam has
edited Maulana’s English translation of the Quran and has also translated his
Urdu commentary of the Quran into English. Under Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
Peace Foundation, along with the CPS team, she has designed a series of courses on
peace-building, countering extremism and conflict resolution.
HERE’S THE TRUTH BEHIND THE VEIL
BURQA OR PURDAH is generally looked upon as an integral part of
Islam, but this is not so. In reality, the burqa is a part of Muslim
culture and not a part of Islamic teaching. There is a great
difference between the actions of Muslims and teachings of Islam. The
wearing of burqa or purdah is not a part of Quranic teaching. The source
of Islam is the Quran and not the Muslim culture. Muslim culture is a
social phenomenon, while the Quran is the Book of God as revealed to
the Prophet of Islam.
According to linguistic history, the word ‘burqa’ was in use in Arabia
before the advent of Islam in the first quarter of the seventh century.
At that time the word ‘burqa’ meant a piece of clothing that was used
as a protection, especially in winter. The well-known Arabic dictionary
Lisan al-Arab gives us two examples of its use during the pre-Islamic
period: the first, as a cover for animals during the winter season and
the second, as a covering chaadar, like a shawl for village women.
Although the word ‘burqa’ existed in the Arabic vocabulary at that time,
the Quran did not use the word ‘burqa’ for women’s purdah.
History shows that the present veil or burqa first came into vogue in
Persia. When Islam entered Persia, an advanced civilisation was already
in existence there. Many things were introduced into Islamic culture
from the Persian culture. For instance, the word Khuda instead of Allah, the word namaz instead of salat. Similarly under the influence of Iranian
culture burqa was adopted by Muslims. Gradually it was Islamised and
became a part of Muslim culture.
At present Muslims use the term ‘hijab’ as equivalent to ‘burqa’ but
the word ‘hijab’ is likewise not used in the Quran in this sense. ‘Hijab’
literally means curtain. ‘Hijab’ is used in the Quran seven times, but not
in the sense that is prevalent among the Muslims today, that is, it is
used in its literal sense of ‘curtain’.
Regarding women’s purdah, two words have been used in the Quran:
jilbab (
their present connotation. It is a fact that both words have a similar
meaning, that is, chaadar or dupatta, which covers the body of a woman
and not her face. So it is very clear that the present ‘burqa’ or ‘hijab’ are
not Quranic terms; both are part of Muslim culture and not part of
Quranic commandments.
According to the Hanafi and Maaliki School
of fiqh, three parts of a woman are exempted
from satr (body covering). These three are
wajh, kaffain, and qadmain. That is, face, hands
and feet. According to the Shariah, women
are required to cover their body with clothing
which is not tight fitting and not meant to
attract others. (Tafsir Usmani)
According to Islam,
Muslims must purify
themselves in terms
of ethics. Muslim
women must develop
themselves in terms
of spirituality;
they must develop
their own feminine
personality rather
than imitate men
and must play a
constructive role in
society rather than
become objects of
entertainment.
It is noteworthy that the well-known Arab
scholar, Sheikh Muhammad Naasiruddin alAlbani,
clearly endorses the above-mentioned
position of the Shariah in his book on this
subject, Hijab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah fil Kitab
was-Sunnah (The Veil of a Muslim Woman). He
goes on to say that it is clear from the Quran,
the Hadith and the practice of the Companions
and the tabiun (companions of the Prophet’s
Companions) that, whenever a woman steps
out of her home, it is incumbent upon her to
cover herself completely so as not to show any part of her body except
the face and the hands.
The religion of Islam focuses on spirit rather than on form. It lays
emphasis on pious thinking and value-based character. According
to Islam, Muslims must purify themselves in terms of ethics. Muslim
women must develop themselves in terms of spirituality; they must develop their own feminine personality rather than imitate men and
must play a constructive role in society rather than become objects of
entertainment.
During the Prophet’s time, Muslim women were active in different
fields, such as agriculture, horticulture and social work. But at the same
time, they constantly preserved their feminine character. In the early
history of Islam there are many such incidents
which show that a woman has equal freedom
as that of man. In this respect there is no
difference between the two. A woman enjoys
the same freedom as a man in Islam. Islamic
literature mentions some pious women who
have played a highly creative role in their
society, like Hajira, the wife of the Prophet
Abraham; Mariam, the mother of Jesus Christ;
Khadija, the wife of the Prophet of Islam;
Aisha, the wife of the Prophet of Islam. These
women, accepted as models in the society of
believers, are good examples for the women of today.
It is noteworthy to add two relevant references: One from the Quran
and the second from the Hadith (the sayings of the Prophet). The
Quran refers to men and women in these words: “You are members
one of another” (
different in gender, are complementary to each other. Let us take
the other reference. The Prophet of Islam said: “Men and women are
two equal halves of a single unit.” (Musnad Ahmad). This is the best
expression of gender equality.
To understand the prevalence of Hijab in Muslim society in the present
times it is necessary to keep in mind that there is a difference between
Islam and Muslims. Islam is a name of an ideology while Muslims are a
community which has its own culture, which keeps changing owing to
various circumstances.
In such a situation Muslim tradition will be judged in the light of the
original teachings of Islam instead of regarding this culture as Islam
itself.
Dr. Farida Khanam
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
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.
THE PRICE OF BEING A TAKER
IN the course of my visits to the US, I have met Indians of both
Muslim and Hindu communities. I found that senior members of
both communities have a common concern: they fear that the
future generation is rapidly losing the identity of its traditional culture.
Indeed, I have seen that although families of both the communities
have achieved substantial material progress, they are unhappy. They
strongly feel that their children will suffer a fate commonly known as
cultural assimilation.
I told senior members of both communities that their fear might be
genuine but their present efforts were not going to yield positive
results.
The real problem is that both the communities are living in the US
as takers and not as givers. Both strive to earn American dollars but
they don’t try to figure as giver-members of American society. In the
course of a conversation, one senior Indian remarked that the present
development of America was due mostly to the labour of immigrants.
I said, “No, although apparently immigrants seem to be working in the developmental activities of the US, in reality the credit goes not to
Mr. Immigrant but to Mr. Incentive.”
It is a fact that these immigrants have failed to perform well in their own
countries, whereas in the US they are seen to be involved in almost all
the activities of development and progress. The reason is that in the US
every success is based on merit, so these immigrants become heroes
in achieving that success. By taking account of this fact, one can say
that the credit goes to Mr. Incentive and not to Mr. Immigrant.
After Independence, India’s economy came under state control—a
system whereby everything depended upon state policy. There was
no free competition, everything being decided by the state, with the
individual entirely subjected to state policy. It must be conceded that a
state controlled economy renders people incentive-less and incentiveless
people work only as is laid down in rules and regulations and not
according to their full and natural capacity.
Visiting the US in 1893, Swami Vivekananda walked along a street in
Chicago, clad in two lengths of untailored cloth. At that time in the
US, this kind of attire was quite unfamiliar. On seeing this, a woman
whispered to her husband, “I don’t think that man is a gentleman.”
Overhearing this remark, Swami Vivekananda said to her politely:
“Excuse me, Madam, in your country it is the tailor who makes a man a
gentleman, but in the country from which I come, it is character which
makes a man a gentleman.”
I narrated this story to an American professor. He smiled and said, “In
the past maybe this was Indian culture but now character is an export
item for Indians. It is not meant for domestic consumption.”
If the Indian community wants to save its next generation, they should
try to make themselves a giver-group of American society. If their next
generation continues to be taker-members of American society, no
effort will ever save them from being assimilated in American culture.
If some say that they are treated as second-class citizens in the US, it is
not due to discriminatory legislation. Even if the law guaranteed equal
status for all, Indians would still become second-class citizens because
the status of first-class citizen cannot be achieved through legislation.
It can be achieved only by assuming the role of giver in society. It is in
giving that we receive.
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Follow Maulana at speakingtree.in
ABOUT THE MAGAZINE
Spirit of Islam is a monthly magazine which is now in its sixth year
of publication. The aim of this journal is to present Islam in the
contemporary idiom, while at the same time the contents are
of universal appeal and of interest to a wider circle of spiritual
seekers. It is our desire to help Muslims rediscover Islam, focusing
on its message of peace and spirituality as derived from the Quran
and the teachings of the Prophet, and in general we strive towards
religious understanding for bringing about greater harmony.
Another purpose of this magazine is to assist its readers to deal
with life’s challenges, deriving positivity even from negative
occurrences, gaining in spirituality and developing themselves
intellectually so that they may contribute constructively to society.
The magazine’s regular readers will appreciate that the entire
thrust of its articles is directed to the individual—a collection of
intellectually prepared individuals being the sole foundation on
which a peaceful and harmonious society can be built.
As the subtitle indicates, Spirit of Islam is working towards
enlightening people on the subject of global peace and regularly
addresses relevant contemporary issues. The articles on peace
based on the teachings of the Prophet of Islam offer us an
ideology of peace—principles which lay down how peace may be
established between conflicting groups, controversies resolved
and conflicts defused. We believe that violence begins in the
mind and so an effective ideology of peace needs to be presented
to counter its influence.
We hope and pray that God helps us in this noble endeavour
and grants us His special blessings!
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 )
