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
editor@thespiritofislam.org
Follow Maulana at speakingtree.in

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 (33: 59) and khimar (24: 31). But again these words are not used in 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” (3: 195). This means men and women, although created 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
hub@thespiritofislam.org

An Objective Study

IN its issue no. 134 (1992), the journal, Faith and Reason, published 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. 408).

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 info@cps.org.in.

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.’ (2: 256). In another verse the Quran declares: ‘You have your religion and I have mine.’ (109: 6) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”. (7: 143)

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. (6: 103)

and

It is not granted to any human being that God should speak to him other than by revelation or from behind a veil. (42: 51)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! (68: 1)

‘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. (68: 2-4)

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. (68: 5-16)

‘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.

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.