Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him): The Last Prophet
By Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao
-------------------------------------
Re-produced from MPACUK Website
Re-printed from "Islam and Modern age", Hydrabad, March 1978.
Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, is the Head of the Department of Philosophy, Government College for Women University of Mysore, India
-------------------------------------
In the desert of Arabia was Mohammad PBUH born, according to Muslim historians, on April 20, 571. The name means highly praised. He is to me the greatest mind among all the sons of Arabia. He means so much more than all the poets and kings that preceded him in that impenetrable desert of red sand.
When he appeared Arabia was a desert -- a nothing. Out of nothing a new world was fashioned by the mighty spirit of Muhammad PBUH -- a new life, a new culture, a new civilization, a new kingdom which extended from Morocco to the Indies and influenced the thought and life of three continents -- Asia, Africa and Europe.
When I thought of writing on Muhammad PBUH the prophet, I was a bit hesitant because it was to write about a religion I do not profess and it is a delicate matter to do so for there are many persons professing various religions and belonging to diverse schools of thought and denominations even in the same religion. Though it is sometimes, claimed that religion is entirely personal yet it can not be gain-said that it has a tendency to envelop the whole universe seen as well unseen. It somehow permeates something or other our hearts, our souls, our minds their conscious as well as subconscious and unconscious levels too. The problem assumes overwhelming importance when there is a deep conviction that our past, present and future all hang by the soft delicate, tender silked cord. If we further happen to be highly sensitive, the center of gravity is very likely to be always in a state of extreme tension. Looked at from this point of view, the less said about other religion the better. Let our religions be deeply hidden and embedded in the resistance of our innermost hearts fortified by unbroken seals on our lips.
But there is another aspect of this problem. Man lives in society. Our lives are bound with the lives of others willingly or unwillingly, directly or indirectly. We eat the food grown in the same soil, drink water, from the same the same spring and breathe the same air. Even while staunchly holding our own views, it would be helpful, if we try to adjust ourselves to our surroundings, if we also know to some extent, how the mind our neighbor moves and what the main springs of his actions are. From this angle of vision it is highly desirable that one should try to know all religions of the world, in the proper sprit, to promote mutual understanding and better appreciation of our neighborhood, immediate and remote.
Further, our thoughts are not scattered as appear to be on the surface. They have got themselves crystallized around a few nuclei in the form of great world religions and living faiths that guide and motivate the lives of millions that inhabit this earth of ours. It is our duty, in one sense if we have the ideal of ever becoming a citizen of the world before us, to make a little attempt to know the great religions and system of philosophy that have ruled mankind.
In spite of these preliminary remarks, the ground in these field of religion, where there is often a conflict between intellect and emotion is so slippery that one is constantly reminded of fools that rush in where angels fear to tread. It is also not so complex from another point of view. The subject of my writing is about the tenets of a religion which is historic and its prophet who is also a historic personality. Even a hostile critic like Sir William Muir speaking about the holy Quran says that. "There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve centuries with so pure text." I may also add Prophet Muhammad PBUH is also a historic personality, every event of whose life has been most carefully recorded and even the minutest details preserved intact for the posterity. His life and works are not wrapped in mystery.
My work today is further lightened because those days are fast disappearing when Islam was highly misrepresented by some of its critics for reasons political and otherwise. Prof. Bevan writes in Cambridge Medieval History, "Those account of Muhammad PBUH and Islam which were published in Europe before the beginning of 19th century are now to be regarded as literary curiosities." My problem is to write this monograph is easier because we are now generally not fed on this kind of history and much time need be spent on pointing out our misrepresentation of Islam.
The theory of Islam and Sword for instance is not heard now frequently in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that there is no compulsion in religion is well known. Gibbon, a historian of world repute says, "A pernicious tenet has been imputed to Mohammadans, the duty of extirpating all the religions by sword." This charge based on ignorance and bigotry, says the eminent historian, is refuted by Quran, by history of Musalman conquerors and by their public and legal toleration of Christian worship. The great success of Muhammad's PBUH life had been effected by sheer moral force, without a stroke of sword.
But in pure self-defense, after repeated efforts of conciliation had utterly failed, circumstances dragged him into the battlefield. But the prophet of Islam changed the whole strategy of the battlefield. The total number of casualties in all the wars that took place during his lifetime when the whole Arabian Peninsula came under his banner, does not exceed a few hundreds in all. But even on the battlefield he taught the Arab barbarians to pray, to pray not individually, but in congregation to God the Almighty. During the dust and storm of warfare whenever the time for prayer came, and it comes five times a every day, the congregation prayer had not to be postponed even on the battlefield. A party had to be engaged in bowing their heads before God while other was engaged with the enemy. After finishing the prayers, the two parties had to exchange their positions. To the Arabs, who would fight for forty years on the slight provocation that a camel belonging to the guest of one tribe had strayed into the grazing land belonging to other tribe and both sides had fought till they lost 70,000 lives in all; threatening the extinction of both the tribes to such furious Arabs, the Prophet of Islam taught self-control and discipline to the extent of praying even on the battlefield. In an aged of barbarism, the Battlefield itself was humanized and strict instructions were issued not to cheat, not to break trust, not to mutilate, not to kill a child or woman or an old man, not to hew down date palm nor burn it, not to cut a fruit tree, not to molest any person engaged in worship. His own treatment with his bitterest enemies is the noblest example for his followers. At the conquest of Mecca, he stood at the zenith of his power. The city which had refused to listen to his mission, which had tortured him and his followers, which had driven him and his people into exile and which had unrelentingly persecuted and boycotted him even when he had taken refuge in a place more than 200 miles away, that city now lay at his feet. By the laws of war he could have justly avenged all the cruelties inflicted on him and his people. But what treatment did he accord to them? Mohammad's heart flowed with affection and he declared, "This day, there is no REPROOF against you and you are all free." "This day" he proclaimed, "I trample under my feet all distinctions between man and man, all hatred between man and man."
This was one of the chief objects why he permitted war in self defense, that is to unite human beings. And when once this object was achieved, even his worst enemies were pardoned. Even those who killed his beloved uncle, Hamazah, mangled his body, ripped it open, even chewed a piece of his liver.
The principles of universal brotherhood and doctrine of the equality of mankind which he proclaimed represents one very great contribution of Muhammad PBUH to the social uplift of humanity. All great religions have preached the same doctrine but the prophet of Islam had put this theory into actual practice and its value will be fully recognized, perhaps centuries hence, when international consciousness being awakened, racial prejudices may disappear and greater brotherhood of humanity come into existence.
Miss. Sarojini Naidu speaking about this aspect of Islam says, "It was the first religion that preached and practiced democracy; for in the mosque, when the minaret is sounded and the worshipers are gathered together, the democracy of Islam is embodied five times a day when the peasant and the king kneel side by side and proclaim, God alone is great." The great poetess of India continues, "I have been struck over and over again by this indivisible unity of Islam that makes a man instinctively a brother. When you meet an Egyptian, an Algerian and Indian and a Turk in London, it matters not that Egypt is the motherland of one and India is the motherland of another."
Mahatma Gandhi, in his inimitable style, says "Some one has said that Europeans in South Africa dread the advent Islam -- Islam that civilized Spain, Islam that took the torch light to Morocco and preached to the world the Gospel of brotherhood. The Europeans of South Africa dread the Advent of Islam. They may claim equality with the white races. They may well dread it, if brotherhood is a sin. If it is equality of colored races then their dread is well founded."
Every year, during the Haj, the world witnesses the wonderful spectacle of this international Exhibition of Islam in leveling all distinctions of race, color and rank. Not only the Europeans, the African, the Arabian, the Persian, the Indians, the Chinese all meet together in Makkah as members of one divine family, but they are clad in one dress every person in two simple pieces of white seamless cloth, one piece round the loin the other piece over the shoulders, bare head without pomp or ceremony, repeating "Here am I O God; at thy command; thou art one and alone; Here am I." Thus there remains nothing to differentiate the high from the low and every pilgrim carries home the impression of the international significance of Islam.
In the opinion of Prof. Hurgronje "the league of nations founded by prophet of Islam put the principle of international unity of human brotherhood on such Universal foundations as to show candle to other nations." In the words of same Professor "the fact is that no nation of the world can show a parallel to what Islam has done the realization of the idea of the League of Nations."
The prophet of Islam brought the reign of democracy in its best form. The Caliph Caliph Ali and the son in-law of the prophet, the Caliph Mansur, Abbas, the son of Caliph Mamun and many other caliphs and kings had to appear before the judge as ordinary men in Islamic courts. Even today we all know how the black Negroes were treated by the civilized white races. Consider the state of BILAL, a Negro Slave, in the days of the prophet of Islam nearly 14 centuries ago. The office of calling Muslims to prayer was considered to be of status in the early days of Islam and it was offered to this Negro slave. After the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet ordered him to call for prayer and the Negro slave, with his black color and his thick lips, stood over the roof of the holy mosque at Mecca called the Ka'ba the most historic and the holiest mosque in the Islamic world, when some proud Arabs painfully cried loud, "Oh, this black Negro Slave, woe be to him. He stands on the roof of holy Ka'ba to call for prayer." At that moment, the prophet announced to the world, this verse of the holy QURAN for the first time.
"O mankind, surely we have created you, families and tribes, so you may know one another.
Surely, the most honorable of you with God is MOST RIGHTEOUS AMONG you.
Surely, God is Knowing, Aware."
And these words of the holy Quran created such a mighty transformation that the Caliph of Islam, the purest of Arabs by birth, offered their daughter in marriage to this Negro Slave, and whenever, the second Caliph of Islam, known to history as Umar the great, the commander of faithful, saw this Negro slave, he immediately stood in reverence and welcomed him by "Here come our master; Here come our lord." What a tremendous change was brought by Quran in the Arabs, the proudest people at that time on the earth. This is the reason why Goethe, the greatest of German poets, speaking about the Holy Quran declared that, "This book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence." This is also the reason why George Bernard Shaw says, "If any religion has a chance or ruling over England, say, Europe, within the next 100 years, it is Islam".
It is this same democratic spirit of Islam that emancipated women from the bondage of man. Sir Charles Edward Archibald Hamilton says "Islam teaches the inherent sinlessness of man. It teaches that man and woman and woman have come from the same essence, posses the same soul and have been equipped with equal capabilities for intellectual, spiritual and moral attainments."
The Arabs had a very strong tradition that one who can smite with the spear and can wield the sword would inherit. But Islam came as the defender of the weaker sex and entitled women to share the inheritance of their parents. It gave women, centuries ago right of owning property, yet it was only 12 centuries later , in 1881, that England, supposed to be the cradle of democracy adopted this institution of Islam and the act was called "the married woman act", but centuries earlier, the Prophet of Islam had proclaimed that "Woman are twin halves of men. The rights of women are sacred. See that women maintained rights granted to them."
Islam is not directly concerned with political and economic systems, but indirectly and in so far as political and economic affairs influence man's conduct, it does lay down some very important principles to govern economic life. According to Prof. Massignon, it maintains the balance between exaggerated opposites and has always in view the building of character which is the basis of civilization. This is secured by its law of inheritance, by an organized system of charity known as Zakat, and by regarding as illegal all anti-social practices in the economic field like monopoly, usury, securing of predetermined unearned income and increments, cornering markets, creating monopolies, creating an artificial scarcity of any commodity in order to force the prices to rise. Gambling is illegal. Contribution to schools, to places of worship, hospitals, digging of wells, opening of orphanages are highest acts of virtue. Orphanages have sprung for the first time, it is said, under the teaching of the prophet of Islam. The world owes its orphanages to this prophet born an orphan. "Good all this" says Carlyle about Muhammad PBUH. "The natural voice of humanity, of pity and equity, dwelling in the heart of this wild son of nature, speaks."
A historian once said a great man should be judged by three tests: Was he found to be of true metel by his contemporaries ? Was he great enough to raise above the standards of his age ? Did he leave anything as permanent legacy to the world at large ? This list may be further extended but all these three tests of greatness are eminently satisfied to the highest degree in case of prophet Mohammad. Some illustrations of the last two have already been mentioned.
The first is: Was the Prophet of Islam found to be of true metel by his contemporaries?
Historical records show that all the contemporaries of Muhammad PBUH both friends foes, acknowledged the sterling qualities, the spotless honesty, the noble virtues, the absolute sincerity and every trustworthiness of the apostle of Islam in all walks of life and in every sphere of human activity. Even the Jews and those who did not believe in his message, adopted him as the arbiter in their personal disputes by virtue of his perfect impartiality. Even those who did not believe in his message were forced to say "O Mohammad, we do not call you a liar, but we deny him who has given you a book and inspired you with a message." They thought he was one possessed. They tried violence to cure him. But the best of them saw that a new light had dawned on him and they hastened him to seek the enlightenment. It is a notable feature in the history of prophet of Islam that his nearest relation, his beloved cousin and his bosom friends, who know him most intimately, were not thoroughly imbued with the truth of his mission and were convinced of the genuineness of his divine inspiration. If these men and women, noble, intelligent, educated and intimately acquainted with his private life had perceived the slightest signs of deception, fraud, earthliness, or lack of faith in him, Muhammad's PBUH moral hope of regeneration, spiritual awakening, and social reform would all have been foredoomed to a failure and whole edifice would have crumbled to pieces in a moment. On the contrary, we find that devotion of his followers was such that he was voluntarily acknowledged as dictator of their lives. They braved for him persecutions and danger; they trusted, obeyed and honored him even in the most excruciating torture and severest mental agony caused by excommunication even unto death. Would this have been so, had they noticed the slightest backsliding in their master?
Read the history of the early converts to Islam, and every heart would melt at the sight of the brutal treatment of innocent Muslim men and women.
Sumayya, an innocent women, is cruelly torn into pieces with spears. An example is made of "Yassir whose legs are tied to two camels and the beast were are driven in opposite directions", Khabbab bin Arth is made lie down on the bed of burning coal with the brutal legs of their merciless tyrant on his breast so that he may not move and this makes even the fat beneath his skin melt. "Khabban bin Adi is put to death in a cruel manner by mutilation and cutting off his flesh piece-meal." In the midst of his tortures, being asked weather he did not wish Muhammad PBUH his place while he was in his house with his family, the sufferer cried out that he was gladly prepared to sacrifice himself his family and children and why was it that these sons and daughters of Islam not only surrendered to their prophet their allegiance but also made a gift of their hearts and souls to their master? Is not the intense faith and conviction on part of immediate followers of Muhammad PBUH, the noblest testimony to his sincerity and to his utter self-absorption in his appointed task?
And these men were not of low station or inferior mental caliber. Around him in quite early days, gathered what was best and noblest in Mecca, its flower and cream, men of position, rank, wealth and culture, and from his own kith and kin, those who knew all about his life. All the first four Caliphs, with their towering personalities, were converts of this period.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica says that "Muhammad PBUH is the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities".
But the success was not the result of mere accident. It was not a hit of fortune. It was a recognition of fact that he was found to be true metal by his contemporaries. It was the result of his admirable and all compelling personality.
The personality of Muhammad PBUH! It is most difficult to get into the truth of it. Only a glimpse of it I can catch. What a dramatic succession of picturesque scenes. There is Muhammad PBUH the Prophet, there is Muhammad PBUH the General; Muhammad PBUH the King; Muhammad PBUH the Warrior; Muhammad PBUH the Businessman; Muhammad PBUH the Preacher; Muhammad PBUH the Philosopher; Muhammad PBUH the Statesman; Muhammad PBUH the Orator; Muhammad PBUH the reformer; Muhammad PBUH the Refuge of orphans; Muhammad PBUH the Protector of slaves; Muhammad PBUH the Emancipator of women; Muhammad PBUH the Law-giver; Muhammad PBUH the Judge; Muhammad PBUH the Saint.
And in all these magnificent roles, in all these departments of human activities, he is like, a hero..
Orphanhood is extreme of helplessness and his life upon this earth began with it; Kingship is the height of the material power and it ended with it. From an orphan boy to a persecuted refugee and then to an overlord, spiritual as well as temporal, of a whole nation and Arbiter of its destinies, with all its trials and temptations, with all its vicissitudes and changes, its lights and shades, its up and downs, its terror and splendor, he has stood the fire of the world and came out unscathed to serve as a model in every face of life. His achievements are not limited to one aspect of life, but cover the whole field of human conditions.
If for instance, greatness consist in the purification of a nation, steeped in barbarism and immersed in absolute moral darkness, that dynamic personality who has transformed, refined and uplifted an entire nation, sunk low as the Arabs were, and made them the torch-bearer of civilization and learning, has every claim to greatness. If greatness lies in unifying the discordant elements of society by ties of brotherhood and charity, the prophet of the desert has got every title to this distinction. If greatness consists in reforming those warped in degrading and blind superstition and pernicious practices of every kind, the prophet of Islam has wiped out superstitions and irrational fear from the hearts of millions. If it lies in displaying high morals, Muhammad PBUH has been admitted by friend and foe as Al Amin, or the faithful. If a conqueror is a great man, here is a person who rose from helpless orphan and an humble creature to be the ruler of Arabia, the equal to Chosroes and Caesars, one who founded great empire that has survived all these 14 centuries. If the devotion that a leader commands is the criterion of greatness, the prophet's name even today exerts a magic charm over millions of souls, spread all over the world.
He had not studied philosophy in the school of Athens of Rome, Persia, India, or China. Yet, He could proclaim the highest truths of eternal value to mankind. Unlettered himself, he could yet speak with an eloquence and fervor which moved men to tears, to tears of ecstasy. Born an orphan blessed with no worldly goods, he was loved by all. He had studied at no military academy; yet he could organize his forces against tremendous odds and gained victories through the moral forces which he marshaled. Gifted men with genius for preaching are rare. Descartes included the perfect preacher among the rarest kind in the world. Hitler in his Mein Kamp has expressed a similar view. He says "A great theorist is seldom a great leader. An Agitator is more likely to posses these qualities. He will always be a great leader. For leadership means ability to move masses of men. The talents to produce ideas has nothing in common with capacity for leadership." "But", he says, "The Union of theorists, organizer and leader in one man, is the rarest phenomenon on this earth; Therein consists greatness."
In the person of the Prophet of Islam the world has seen this rarest phenomenon walking on the earth, walking in flesh and blood.
And more wonderful still is what the reverend Bosworth Smith remarks, "Head of the state as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but, he was pope without the pope's claims, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue. If ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by a right divine It was Muhammad PBUH, for he had all the power without instruments and without its support. He cared not for dressing of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life."
After the fall of Mecca, more than one million square miles of land lay at his feet, Lord of Arabia, he mended his own shoes and coarse woolen garments, milked the goats, swept the hearth, kindled the fire and attended the other menial offices of the family. The entire town of Medina where he lived grew wealthy in the later days of his life. Everywhere there was gold and silver in plenty and yet in those days of prosperity many weeks would elapse without a fire being kindled in the hearth of the king of Arabia, His food being dates and water. His family would go hungry many nights successively because they could not get anything to eat in the evening. He slept on no soften bed but on a palm mat, after a long busy day to spend most of his night in prayer, often bursting with tears before his creator to grant him strength to discharge his duties. As the reports go, his voice would get choked with weeping and it would appear as if a cooking pot was on fire and boiling had commenced. On the very day of his death his only assets were few coins a part of which went to satisfy a debt and rest was given to a needy person who came to his house for charity. The clothes in which he breathed his last had many patches. The house from where light had spread to the world was in darkness because there was no oil in the lamp.
Circumstances changed, but the prophet of God did not. In victory or in defeat, in power or in adversity, in affluence or in indigence, he is the same man, disclosed the same character. Like all the ways and laws of God, Prophets of God are unchangeable.
An honest man, as the saying goes, is the noblest work of God, Muhammad PBUH was more than honest. He was human to the marrow of his bones. Human sympathy, human love was the music of his soul. To serve man, to elevate man, to purify man, to educate man, in a word to humanize man-this was the object of his mission, the be-all and end all of his life. In thought, in word, in action he had the good of humanity as his sole inspiration, his sole guiding principle.
He was most unostentatious and selfless to the core. What were the titles he assumed? Only true servant of God and His Messenger. Servant first, and then a messenger. A Messenger and prophet like many other prophets in every part of the world, some known to you, many not known you. If one does not believe in any of these truths one ceases to be a Muslim. It is an article of faith.
"Looking at the circumstances of the time and unbounded reverence of his followers" says a western writer "the most miraculous thing about Muhammad PBUH is, that he never claimed the power of working miracles." Miracles were performed but not to propagate his faith and were attributed entirely to God and his inscrutable ways. He would plainly say that he was a man like others. He had no treasures of earth or heaven. Nor did he claim to know the secrets of that lie in womb of future. All this was in an age when miracles were supposed to be ordinary occurrences, at the back and call of the commonest saint, when the whole atmosphere was surcharged with supernaturalism in Arabia and outside Arabia.
He turned the attention of his followers towards the study of nature and its laws, to understand them and appreciate the Glory of God. The Quran says,
"God did not create the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in play. He did not create them all but with the truth. But most men do not know."
The world is not illusion, nor without purpose. It has been created with the truth. The number of verses inviting close observation of nature are several times more than those that relate to prayer, fasting, pilgrimage etc. all put together. The Muslim under its influence began to observe nature closely and this give birth to the scientific spirit of the observation and experiment which was unknown to the Greeks. While the Muslim Botanist Ibn Baitar wrote on Botany after collecting plants from all parts of the world, described by Myer in his Gesch. der Botanikaa-s, a monument of industry, while Al Byruni traveled for forty years to collect mineralogical specimens, and Muslim Astronomers made some observations extending even over twelve years. Aristotle wrote on Physics without performing a single experiment, wrote on natural history, carelessly stating without taking the trouble to ascertain the most verifiable fact that men have more teeth than animal. Galen, the greatest authority on classical anatomy informed that the lower jaw consists of two bones, a statement which is accepted unchallenged for centuries till Abdul Lateef takes the trouble to examine a human skeleton. After enumerating several such instances, Robert Priffault concludes in his well known book The making of humanity, "The debt of our science to the Arabs does not consist in starting discovers or revolutionary theories. Science owes a great more to Arabs culture; it owes is existence." The same writer says "The Greeks systematized, generalized and theorized but patient ways of investigation, the accumulation of positive knowledge, the minute methods of science, detailed and prolonged observation, experimental inquiry, were altogether alien to Greek temperament. What we call science arose in Europe as result of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of Mathematics in form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and these methods, concludes the same author, were introduced into the European world by Arabs."
It is the same practical character of the teaching of Prophet Muhammad PBUHthat gave birth to the scientific spirit, that has also sanctified the daily labors and the so called mundane affairs. The Quran says that God has created man to worship him but the word worship has a connotation of its own. Gods worship is not confined to prayer alone, but every act that is done with the purpose of winning approval of God and is for the benefit of the humanity comes under its purview. Islam sanctifies life and all its pursuits provided they are performed with honesty, justice and pure intents. It obliterates the age-long distinction between the sacred and profane. The Quran says if you eat clean things and thank God for it, it is an act of worship. It is saying of the prophet of Islam that Morsel of food that one places in the mouth of his wife is an act of virtue to be rewarded by God. Another tradition of the Prophet says "He who is satisfying the desire of his heart will be rewarded by God provided the methods adopted are permissible." A person was listening to him exclaimed 'O Prophet of God, he is answering the calls of passions, is only satisfying the craving of his heart. Forthwith came the reply, "Had he adopted an awful method for the satisfaction of his urge, he would have been punished; then why should he not be rewarded for following the right course."
This new conception of religion that it should also devote itself to the betterment of this life rather than concern itself exclusively with super mundane affairs, has led to a new orientation of moral values. Its abiding influence on the common relations of mankind in the affairs of every day life, its deep power over the masses, its regulation of their conception of rights and duty, its suitability and adaptability to the ignorant savage and the wise philosopher are characteristic features of the teaching of the Prophet of Islam.
But it should be most carefully born in mind this stress on good actions is not the sacrifice correctness of faith. While there are various school of thought, one praising faith at the expense of deeds, another exhausting various acts to the detriment of correct belief, Islam is based on correct faith and righteous actions. Means are important as the end and ends are as important as the means. It is an organic Unity. Together they live and thrive. Separate them and both decay and die. In Islam faith can not be divorced from the action. Right knowledge should be transferred into right action to produce the right results. How often the words came in Quran -- Those who believe and do good thing, they alone shall enter paradise. Again and again, not less than fifty times these words are repeated as if too much stress can not be laid on them. Contemplation is encouraged but mere contemplation is not the goal. Those who believe and do nothing can not exist in Islam. These who believe and do wrong are inconceivable. Divine law is the law of effort and not of ideals. It chalks out for the men the path of eternal progress from knowledge to action and from action to satisfaction.
But what is the correct faith from which right action spontaneously proceeds resulting in complete satisfaction. Here the central doctrine of Islam is the Unity of God. There is no God but God is the pivot from which hangs the whole teaching and practice of Islam. He is unique not only as regards his divine being but also as regards his divine attributes.
As regards the attributes of God, Islam adopts here as in other things too, the law of golden mean. It avoids on the one hand, the view of God which divests the divine being of every attribute and rejects, on the other, the view which likens him to things material. The Quran says, On the one hand, there is nothing which is like him, on the other , it affirms that he is Seeing, Hearing, Knowing. He is the King who is without a stain of fault or deficiency, the mighty ship of His power floats upon the ocean of justice and equity. He is the Beneficent, the Merciful. He is the Guardian over all. Islam does not stop with this positive statement. It adds further which is its most special characteristic, the negative aspects of problem. There is also no one else who is guardian over everything. He is the meander of every breakage, and no one else is the meander of any breakage. He is the restorer of every loss and no one else is the restorer of any loss what-so-over. There is no God but one God, above any need, the maker of bodies, creator of souls, the Lord of the day of judgment, and in short, in the words of Quran, to him belong all excellent qualities.
Regarding the position of man in relation to the Universe, the Quran says:
"God has made subservient to you whatever is on the earth or in universe. You are destined to rule over the Universe."
But in relation to God, the Quran says:
"O man God has bestowed on you excellent faculties and has created life and death to put you to test in order to see whose actions are good and who has deviated from the right path."
In spite of free will which he enjoys, to some extent, every man is born under certain circumstances and continues to live under certain circumstances beyond his control. With regard to this God says, according to Islam, it is my will to create any man under condition that seem best to me. cosmic plans finite mortals can not fully comprehend. But I will certainly test you in prosperity as well in adversity, in health as well as in sickness, in heights as well as in depths. My ways of testing differ from man to man, from hour to hour. In adversity do not despair and do resort to unlawful means. It is but a passing phase. In prosperity do not forget God. God-gifts are given only as trusts. You are always on trial, every moment on test. In this sphere of life there is not to reason why, there is but to do and die. If you live in accordance with God; and if you die, die in the path of God. You may call it fatalism. but this type of fatalism is a condition of vigorous increasing effort, keeping you ever on the alert. Do not consider this temporal life on earth as the end of human existence. There is a life after death and it is eternal. Life after death is only a connection link, a door that opens up hidden reality of life. Every action in life however insignificant, produces a lasting effect. It is correctly recorded somehow. Some of the ways of God are known to you, but many of his ways are hidden from you. What is hidden in you and from you in this world will be unrolled and laid open before you in the next. the virtuous will enjoy the blessing of God which the eye has not seen, nor has the ear heard, nor has it entered into the hearts of men to conceive of they will march onward reaching higher and higher stages of evolution. Those who have wasted opportunity in this life shall under the inevitable law, which makes every man taste of what he has done, be subjugated to a course of treatment of the spiritual diseases which they have brought about with their own hands. Beware, it is terrible ordeal. Bodily pain is torture, you can bear somehow. Spiritual pain is hell, you will find it almost unbearable. Fight in this life itself the tendencies of the spirit prone to evil, tempting to lead you into iniquities ways. Reach the next stage when the self-accusing sprit in your conscience is awakened and the soul is anxious to attain moral excellence and revolt against disobedience. This will lead you to the final stage of the soul at rest, contented with God, finding its happiness and delight in him alone. The soul no more stumbles. The stage of struggle passes away. Truth is victorious and falsehood lays down its arms. All complexes will then be resolved. Your house will not be divided against itself. Your personality will get integrated round the central core of submission to the will of God and complete surrender to his divine purpose. All hidden energies will then be released. The soul then will have peace. God will then address you:
"O thou soul that art at rest, and restest fully contented with thy Lord return to thy Lord. He pleased with thee and thou pleased with him; So enter among my servants and enter into my paradise."
This is the final goal for man; to become, on the, one hand, the master of the universe and on the other, to see that his soul finds rest in his Lord, that not only his Lord will be pleased with him but that he is also pleased with his Lord. Contentment, complete contentment, satisfaction, complete satisfaction, peace, complete peace. The love of God is his food at this stage and he drinks deep at the fountain of life. Sorrow and defeat do not overwhelm him and success does not find him in vain and exulting.
The western nations are only trying to become the master of the Universe. But their souls have not found peace and rest.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Is 'freedom of speech' an absolute right? .. If yes then does that mean that we can throw insult and abuse at individual, nation, religion, culture and civilisation wily nily? If yes, then how does that relate to respect, dignity, sanctity and honour?
How about my right to be respected? for my faith and for who I am. Should that be an absolute one? If not then whats the difference between the 'right to freedom of speech' and the 'right to be respected'? What makes one more superior and more important than the other?
If both are equally important then isn't that suggest that such rights are not absolute? That connotation of rights also imply the notion of duties at the same time? If that is the case then my right to speak and to express myself also carries with it the duty to respect other people right to his or her faith or believe. Isn't that what you call dignity and honourable ...
Or probably the proponents of 'absolute freedom of speech' are too arrogant to accept that there are such notions as dignity, honour and sacred. Did I say arrogance? is that a virtue? If I say that I can speak whatever I want despite of other people feelings .. is that being arrogant? Or is that being truthful? How about if what you say is a sweeping generalisation .. can that be true? If not then can that arrogance be accepted and celebrated? Can that arrogance be considered truthful?
How about my right to be respected? for my faith and for who I am. Should that be an absolute one? If not then whats the difference between the 'right to freedom of speech' and the 'right to be respected'? What makes one more superior and more important than the other?
If both are equally important then isn't that suggest that such rights are not absolute? That connotation of rights also imply the notion of duties at the same time? If that is the case then my right to speak and to express myself also carries with it the duty to respect other people right to his or her faith or believe. Isn't that what you call dignity and honourable ...
Or probably the proponents of 'absolute freedom of speech' are too arrogant to accept that there are such notions as dignity, honour and sacred. Did I say arrogance? is that a virtue? If I say that I can speak whatever I want despite of other people feelings .. is that being arrogant? Or is that being truthful? How about if what you say is a sweeping generalisation .. can that be true? If not then can that arrogance be accepted and celebrated? Can that arrogance be considered truthful?
A very good article by Jonathan Freedland today in The Guardian ....
What Hamas could learn from the early Zionists about state-building
==============================================
Paralysed by the shock result of the Palestinian election, all sides are now looking to the past to find a way forward. In this new landscape, everyone is in the dark. After Hamas won an enormous victory that shocked even them, all the players in the Middle East conflict are stumbling around, unsure how to negotiate the new terrain. No one knows quite what to do.
Proof of that came from Monday's statement of the Quartet of world powers who preside over what is still laughably referred to as the Middle East peace process. Translated, the diplomatese boiled down to a plea for time. Everyone wants a pause for breath, to see what happens in the Israeli elections on March 28, to see what Hamas does with its parliamentary majority. Hamas are not exactly in a hurry to start governing either: they anticipated (maybe even wanted) to form a large opposition bloc rather than be given the hospital pass of actually administering the Palestinian Authority. To have responsibility for daily Palestinian life yet, because under Israeli occupation, little power to do the job is a thankless, if not impossible, task. Hamas are talking of a "period of transition"; they moot a coalition with Fatah, the party they defeated. They too crave delay.
This stunned paralysis on all sides is down to more than just the shock of the new. It's also a function of the fact that there seem to be no good options, for anybody. Imagine a chess game in which every possible path is blocked: the players stare at their pieces, bite their nails and see only stalemate.
Take President Bush. If he recognises Hamas, he flatly contradicts his global war on terror - since both the US and EU have long branded Hamas a terrorist organisation. But if he doesn't recognise Hamas, he flatly contradicts his global campaign for democracy - since Hamas just won a clear majority in precisely the kind of free election Bush demands for the whole Arab world. He either, by his own logic, legitimates terror or he admits that he is offering only a Henry Ford kind of democracy: you can have whatever colour car you like - so long as it's black.
Europe is in a spot that is not much better. It can't keep up its financial aid, because that would be giving money to a terrorist organisation. But if it turns off the EU tap, Palestinian life will deteriorate even further. Perhaps pro-western Arab states, such as Egypt and Jordan, might fill the financial vacuum - but what if Syria and Iran get there first?
In this atmosphere of frozen confusion, people are clutching at past experience to see what lessons that might teach. In a round of conversations this week with those involved - including a senior figure in Hamas - everyone has come up with their own historical parallel.
First up has been the direct comparison of Hamas today with the PLO of three decades ago. They too were diplomatically shunned as a terror organisation that refused to recognise Israel. In reality, the PLO was on a journey that would culminate in the 1988 acceptance of Israel alongside a Palestinian state, eventual negotiations and the Oslo accords five years later. "Give them time," one veteran Palestinian negotiator told me yesterday. "It took us 40 years to reach that position."
You can see this parallel as either cheery or gloomy. Optimists will be heartened by Hamas's clear declarations that they are ready to accept a state on the post-1967 territories, if not as a final settlement then as a long-term interim solution. If they are willing to negotiate on that basis, there would be a great advantage: unlike the Fatah suits, they would command the backing of the Palestinian street for any peace deal they might sign.
Or the pessimist might marvel that, after 30 years of tears and bloodshed, we are right back where we were. We will have to go through the same old dance all over again: coded statements from the Palestinian side, tentative back channels from the Israelis, nudging from Washington, years of diplomacy - and just to get to the point that could and should have been reached in 1993.
Israelis in particular should be ruing their country's failure to seize the opportunity the first time around. They had, in Fatah and the PLO, a Palestinian leadership who had already made this long journey; but instead of stretching every sinew to make the 1993 accommodation work, Israel undermined it at every turn. It carried on building the settlements; it kept up the checkpoints, curfews and land confiscations. In the past year it has made the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the rest of the Fatah leadership look as if they had been duped. The message Israel sent to the Palestinian electorate was stark: peacemaking and moderation do not work. The Palestinians heard it loud and clear - and voted for Hamas. Pessimists will say it could take another decade or more for Hamas to go through the Fatah process. If and when they do, will Israel miss the opportunity again?
The second favoured parallel of the hour is with Northern Ireland, with Hamas in the role of Sinn Féin and the IRA. This comparison could be useful, if only for those Middle England audiences of Question Time and Any Questions who last week seemed outraged that Israel was not rushing into a warm embrace with Hamas. They might recall how unwilling the British public were to deal with republicans when the IRA were still fully engaged in armed struggle. Gerry Adams could rack up as many votes as he liked in West Belfast, it made no difference: Brits weren't allowed to hear his voice, let alone speak with him. We should bear that in mind next time we instruct foreigners to talk to people they regard as terrorists.
The trouble with the Northern Ireland comparison is that today's republicans have renounced violence and are nearly a decade into a ceasefire - and still unionism's biggest party won't talk to them. On that scale, an Israeli accord with Hamas is years away. I was also told yesterday that Hamas will never, ever disarm: "The legitimacy of their resistance is embedded too deep in Palestinian society." If decommissioning held back peace in Ulster for 10 years, what hope for Israel-Palestine?
No, the more likely future is one of what the Palestinian analyst and sometime negotiator Ahmad Khalidi calls "parallel unilateralism": each side will make their own moves, independent of the other. That will suit Israel, which has long insisted that "there is no partner" on the Palestinian side: if they could say that of the compliant Mahmoud Abbas, they won't soften for Hamas. Assuming Ehud Olmert wins in March, and is strong enough, he will continue Ariel Sharon's work - and stage further unilateral pullouts from the West Bank.
That will leave Hamas to make solo moves of its own. They might simply implement their key election promises: to clean out corruption, to extend their health and education services, to improve Palestinian daily life. Or, to put it more grandly, they might engage in state-building. Which brings us to perhaps the unlikeliest historic parallel of all. Hamas's best bet might be to learn not from Fatah or the IRA, but from the early Zionist movement. Living under colonial military rule from the 1920s to the 1940s, it focused its energies on building the institutions of statehood: schools, bureaucracy, even an embryonic national health service. When independence came in 1948 they were ready. Israeli rule is not the British mandate, I know. But there is a lesson there all the same - and Hamas would make a revolution by seizing on it.
Jonathan Freedland ..
What Hamas could learn from the early Zionists about state-building
==============================================
Paralysed by the shock result of the Palestinian election, all sides are now looking to the past to find a way forward. In this new landscape, everyone is in the dark. After Hamas won an enormous victory that shocked even them, all the players in the Middle East conflict are stumbling around, unsure how to negotiate the new terrain. No one knows quite what to do.
Proof of that came from Monday's statement of the Quartet of world powers who preside over what is still laughably referred to as the Middle East peace process. Translated, the diplomatese boiled down to a plea for time. Everyone wants a pause for breath, to see what happens in the Israeli elections on March 28, to see what Hamas does with its parliamentary majority. Hamas are not exactly in a hurry to start governing either: they anticipated (maybe even wanted) to form a large opposition bloc rather than be given the hospital pass of actually administering the Palestinian Authority. To have responsibility for daily Palestinian life yet, because under Israeli occupation, little power to do the job is a thankless, if not impossible, task. Hamas are talking of a "period of transition"; they moot a coalition with Fatah, the party they defeated. They too crave delay.
This stunned paralysis on all sides is down to more than just the shock of the new. It's also a function of the fact that there seem to be no good options, for anybody. Imagine a chess game in which every possible path is blocked: the players stare at their pieces, bite their nails and see only stalemate.
Take President Bush. If he recognises Hamas, he flatly contradicts his global war on terror - since both the US and EU have long branded Hamas a terrorist organisation. But if he doesn't recognise Hamas, he flatly contradicts his global campaign for democracy - since Hamas just won a clear majority in precisely the kind of free election Bush demands for the whole Arab world. He either, by his own logic, legitimates terror or he admits that he is offering only a Henry Ford kind of democracy: you can have whatever colour car you like - so long as it's black.
Europe is in a spot that is not much better. It can't keep up its financial aid, because that would be giving money to a terrorist organisation. But if it turns off the EU tap, Palestinian life will deteriorate even further. Perhaps pro-western Arab states, such as Egypt and Jordan, might fill the financial vacuum - but what if Syria and Iran get there first?
In this atmosphere of frozen confusion, people are clutching at past experience to see what lessons that might teach. In a round of conversations this week with those involved - including a senior figure in Hamas - everyone has come up with their own historical parallel.
First up has been the direct comparison of Hamas today with the PLO of three decades ago. They too were diplomatically shunned as a terror organisation that refused to recognise Israel. In reality, the PLO was on a journey that would culminate in the 1988 acceptance of Israel alongside a Palestinian state, eventual negotiations and the Oslo accords five years later. "Give them time," one veteran Palestinian negotiator told me yesterday. "It took us 40 years to reach that position."
You can see this parallel as either cheery or gloomy. Optimists will be heartened by Hamas's clear declarations that they are ready to accept a state on the post-1967 territories, if not as a final settlement then as a long-term interim solution. If they are willing to negotiate on that basis, there would be a great advantage: unlike the Fatah suits, they would command the backing of the Palestinian street for any peace deal they might sign.
Or the pessimist might marvel that, after 30 years of tears and bloodshed, we are right back where we were. We will have to go through the same old dance all over again: coded statements from the Palestinian side, tentative back channels from the Israelis, nudging from Washington, years of diplomacy - and just to get to the point that could and should have been reached in 1993.
Israelis in particular should be ruing their country's failure to seize the opportunity the first time around. They had, in Fatah and the PLO, a Palestinian leadership who had already made this long journey; but instead of stretching every sinew to make the 1993 accommodation work, Israel undermined it at every turn. It carried on building the settlements; it kept up the checkpoints, curfews and land confiscations. In the past year it has made the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the rest of the Fatah leadership look as if they had been duped. The message Israel sent to the Palestinian electorate was stark: peacemaking and moderation do not work. The Palestinians heard it loud and clear - and voted for Hamas. Pessimists will say it could take another decade or more for Hamas to go through the Fatah process. If and when they do, will Israel miss the opportunity again?
The second favoured parallel of the hour is with Northern Ireland, with Hamas in the role of Sinn Féin and the IRA. This comparison could be useful, if only for those Middle England audiences of Question Time and Any Questions who last week seemed outraged that Israel was not rushing into a warm embrace with Hamas. They might recall how unwilling the British public were to deal with republicans when the IRA were still fully engaged in armed struggle. Gerry Adams could rack up as many votes as he liked in West Belfast, it made no difference: Brits weren't allowed to hear his voice, let alone speak with him. We should bear that in mind next time we instruct foreigners to talk to people they regard as terrorists.
The trouble with the Northern Ireland comparison is that today's republicans have renounced violence and are nearly a decade into a ceasefire - and still unionism's biggest party won't talk to them. On that scale, an Israeli accord with Hamas is years away. I was also told yesterday that Hamas will never, ever disarm: "The legitimacy of their resistance is embedded too deep in Palestinian society." If decommissioning held back peace in Ulster for 10 years, what hope for Israel-Palestine?
No, the more likely future is one of what the Palestinian analyst and sometime negotiator Ahmad Khalidi calls "parallel unilateralism": each side will make their own moves, independent of the other. That will suit Israel, which has long insisted that "there is no partner" on the Palestinian side: if they could say that of the compliant Mahmoud Abbas, they won't soften for Hamas. Assuming Ehud Olmert wins in March, and is strong enough, he will continue Ariel Sharon's work - and stage further unilateral pullouts from the West Bank.
That will leave Hamas to make solo moves of its own. They might simply implement their key election promises: to clean out corruption, to extend their health and education services, to improve Palestinian daily life. Or, to put it more grandly, they might engage in state-building. Which brings us to perhaps the unlikeliest historic parallel of all. Hamas's best bet might be to learn not from Fatah or the IRA, but from the early Zionist movement. Living under colonial military rule from the 1920s to the 1940s, it focused its energies on building the institutions of statehood: schools, bureaucracy, even an embryonic national health service. When independence came in 1948 they were ready. Israeli rule is not the British mandate, I know. But there is a lesson there all the same - and Hamas would make a revolution by seizing on it.
Jonathan Freedland ..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)