KHAN YASIR relates some of the encounters with his classmates to prove that the path laid down by the Blessed Messenger is walk-able, his goal reachable, and the ideal practical for making a just world order a reality.
Say: “Had angels been walking about in peace on the earth, We would surely have sent to them an angel from the heavens as Messenger.” (Bani Israil: 95)
After so many years I can clearly recall that the counsellor was pretty disappointed with my target. “If you aim for 85%…” “85 to 90%,” I corrected him. “Ok, as you say, 85 to 90%… you will end up scoring 75% or at most around 80. To really score 85% you should aim for 95.” I couldn’t consume the logic. He continued nonetheless, “Aim higher… aim for stars and you would reach Qutb Minar; if you would aim only for Qutb Minar, you will end up on the terrace of this three-floor minaret,” he tried to explain the thing as simplest as he could.
His job was to counsel students of XII Standard who were appearing for the board examinations. The job was twofold: to de-stress the general students, and to stress the ‘intelligent’ ones for better performance. My name was unfortunately among the later and hence this grilling. “You know, Japanese students aim for 120%, and they get around 95, 99 and even 100%; that’s the key to their success, their development.” I didn’t know if that’s true but I asked innocently, “Why don’t they aim for 140% and score around… 120%?” The Counsellor stared me right in the eyes. I continued, “…because it is impractical, no one can get above 100% in examinations, so why not aim for 85 or even 90, aim sincerely, and get it?” “I am writing 97% as your target… final,” he said fed up with the argumentation. “Write 120%…” I grinned, “…if it is not meant to be achieved then why write less?”
This is not only a misconception of the counsellor concerned, many people across the globe also buy this logic of aiming for the fifth floor in order to reach the third one. The talks around the ideal of a Just-World-Order are not immune from this faulty and ridiculous logic. People talk about Just World Order as if it is some kind of mirage or utopia, which must be dreamt of, but never to be achieved. It is thought that an ideal could never be realised, however hard you may try. Some argue that an ideal should not be realisable because this will ‘limit’ the progress at certain point and will ‘halt’ the elevation at a certain height. I beg to differ with this notion on three counts. First, like every good objective, the goal of a Just World Order is achievable. Secondly, like every good objective, the goal of a Just World Order has been achieved 14 centuries ago. Thirdly, that mankind today, despite all its imprecise goals, has not prospered, progressed or elevated beyond that age.
MY ENCOUNTER
WITH CLASSMATES
Pursuing MPhil in Political Science, I decided to do a research on The Role of Ideologies in the Making and Unmaking of Social Revolutions. Before final submission of the proposal, it is always better to have informal discussions and receive comments on the proposal from classmates. So, around ten of us assembled in Sunil’s room to discuss our proposals. When I presented my proposal, almost all of them took exception to my first example of the prominent role of ideology in the making of social revolution. The example was the transformation of Arabia under Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be to him). Inclusion of a ‘religious’ leader for research in Political Science was pretty indigestible for my friends. I had to describe in detail the environment of Arab jahilliya and the complete transformation of Arabia (i.e. revolution in every sense of the term) that followed after the Blessed Messenger. For details I promised them to email my article, Prophet Muhammad: The Architect of a Peaceful Revolution, in which a brief comparison between the prophetic revolution and other revolutions was made. I wanted to carry forward the discussion as we get very few opportunities at campus to indulge in sincere talk. So I said rather provocatively, “We falsely think that all the good things practically and conceptually are modern phenomena and could be traced back to at most Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution. I can however challenge you to name anything that you find nice in polity today and I will show you how it was already conceptualised and practised by the Prophet 14 centuries ago.”
A CHALLENGE, INDEED
“Is this a challenge, in literal sense of the term?” Sunil asked almost certain of my defeat. “Indeed it is…” though I preferred to clarify, “however there could arise two problems: first, the notion of ‘good’ can be different for Islam from what we commonly conceive as good. For example, gay and lesbian rights are ‘good’ for some but it is against nature in Islam and a horrendous crime. So instead of getting into these controversial issues I would prefer if we discuss things about whose being ‘good’ we agree. The second problem could arise from my limited knowledge and if such an occasion arises, I assure that I’ll find the answer to your questions within twenty-four hours and would email to you all – is that ok?” I heard a ‘yes’ in chorus… and the game began.
DEMOCRACY
“First thing first… what about democracy?” asked Pramjeet. “Yes, for sure,” I began, “Democracy as distinct from dictatorship and mobocracy is very much present in Islam and the Prophet’s policies.” I then explained the doctrine of Shura in Islam and how the Prophet consulted with his companions frequently and even acted at times against his own personal opinions; for example, the decision to fight the Battle of Uhud outside the city and the decision not to conclude an alliance with Banu Ghatfan in the Battle of Trench, etc. We can also trace the narrow concept of democracy-as-elections in the Prophetic age when during the second Pledge of Aqaba the Prophet asked the Madinite Muslims to elect 12 leaders from among themselves. Also in the various treaties that the Prophet concluded with different tribes over a period spanning over 10 years, there was a regular provision, “your governor will be from among yourselves…”
FEDERALISM
No sooner had I completed my submission than Aman interrupted, “…is there anything about federalism?” Aman intends to do a research on comparison between American and Indian federalisms. “Of course,” I said, “but there is a federalism that is distinct from extreme centralisation of power and complete anarchy. The whole Arabia was brought under one rule and it was a reasonably federal structure with substantial provincial autonomy. Tribes were independent in their internal affairs. Zakat collected was first allocated within the province and only the spare amount was sent to the centre. There were governors (executives) and Qazi (magistrates) but the final court of appeal was the Prophet. Thus a clear distribution of central and provincial functions! If we tend to look at it more systematically then the Prophet immediately after migrating to Madina concluded a treaty with different adjacent tribes and Jews of the city known as Meethaaq e Madina. Through this treaty a central government was proclaimed in Madina and days of tribal anarchy were over. But different tribes were granted autonomy and provisions for their respective personal laws. Defence was a common concern. The Prophet was also declared as the final court of appeal…” I breathed, “…that document is still present and Dr. Hamidullah calls it the first written constitution of the world and the first instance of the social contract.”
HUMAN RIGHTS
Sunil asked about human rights and that was the easiest thing to answer. I explained, “Hundreds of years earlier than Magna Carta the Prophet had delivered a sermon on his final pilgrimage to Makkah, which can better be described as a charter of human rights, in which he emphasised the right to life, right to property, right to dignity, right to equality, right against discrimination, rights of women, etc. Besides there are various other guidelines on the subject, I can take anything from the fundamental rights in India and explain at length about its existence in Islam and much more; but that will make this talk very lengthy, so name any fundamental right of your choice and…”
Sunil chipped in with right to equality before law. I narrated, “Once a lady from a prestigious tribe Banu Makhzoom committed theft. Her people wanted an exemption from the punishment, but feared the wrath of the Prophet if they dared to persuade him for this discrimination. At last they managed to convince one of the teenagers whom the Prophet loved very much to talk to the Prophet. The Prophet, on listening to him, said in an angry tone: previous nations were annihilated because when the poor among them would commit crime they got punished severely but when the rich did so, they were exempted on one excuse or another; by God even if my daughter would commit theft, her hand would be chopped off…”
I paused and said, “…even in the realm of international relations, diplomacy and wars; the Prophet’s guidelines not only precede Geneva Conventions but also are much better both in terms of theory and practice. The Prophet purified the motives of war. War cannot be waged for expansion, for booty, for pride or for personal revenge. During wars the Prophet issued strict guidelines from time to time about the code of conduct that were strictly followed. The Prophet proscribed, in the strongest terms, killing or maiming women, children, the aged, sick, wounded, handicapped, mad, tourists, priests, ascetics and non-combatants. He also proscribed burning the combatants, killing them after tying, desecrating their corpses, etc. He issued extensive guidelines about the humane treatment of the prisoners of wars. They could not be killed or tortured or starved. So in case of the Prophet there was no question of invading a country under the false pretext of its having weapons of mass destruction, nor the deliberate bombing of the citizens would have been justified as the collateral damage, nor the prisoners of war would have been treated, as they are, in Abu Gharaib or Guantanamo Bay.”
When the talk began the mood was playful but as discussion progressed and reached this point, everybody lost the anxiety to prove me wrong; now they were anxious to know what else the Prophet had said or done that they can think is prerogative of the modern times.
RESERVATIONS
James tended to research on Mandal Commission; so he asked about reservations. I argued that reservation is a measure of protective discrimination. Protective discrimination itself is a temporary measure to address the inequalities prevailing in the society. We can find an example of protective discrimination in the Prophetic age, after the war with Banu Nadhir when some properties outside the ambit of booty were received and had to be distributed. The Prophet distributed all of it among the migrants of Makkah because they had migrated empty-handedly and had left their homes and properties behind. Only two of the Ansar (Madinite Muslims) got a share due to their parsimonious conditions.
ENVIRONMENT
Ravi’s proposal was on environmental movements of China. He asked if there was something about the environment as well; and my reply was in the affirmative. This jolted everyone. Yes, everybody! “Environmentalism as distinct from wanton destruction of nature for selfish motives and conservation at the cost of genuine human needs is very much a part of the teachings of the Prophet.” I began explaining Prophetic guidelines about not to fell trees (even during wars unless an emergency) and that felling trees was said to be an act of spreading mischief (fasad) on earth. I referred to the Prophet’s guidelines for frugal use of water while bathing, washing or performing ablutions even on the river bank; the Prophet’s insistence that every person would be accountable on the Day of Judgement for all the resources he got and how he utilised it; the Prophet’s encouragement of growing trees by saying that the person who plants a tree may not reap its fruit but as other humans and animals would benefit from it, he certainly would receive its virtue on the Day of Judgement.
CORRUPTION
Prakash’s research was on Lokpal Bill. His question, predictably, was on corruption. My reply began with the argument that Islam’s economic system is a complete answer to corruption because corruption too has some ‘legitimate’ causes that we cannot deny. Islam addresses those root causes. Talking about corruption in government and administration we should know that it has very humble beginnings. Islam strikes at those beginnings and thus successfully exterminates it, root and branch. Once a tax collector returned to the Prophet, tendered the amount received but said that a certain thing was given to him as gift. The Prophet didn’t accept this logic, and asked him to deposit the said thing too in the public exchequer and said: this gift was given to you, because you were the tax collector (public servant), if you would have been at home at that time, you would not have got the gift and so it does not belong to you. This may appear crude but this annihilates bribery from its roots as every ‘gift’, every bakhshish on public post is a bribe according to this principle.
I timely recalled and narrated another incident, “Once the prophet was strolling in the market. He went to a vendor who was selling cereals. The Prophet touched the hoard of the cereal and found it soaked from inside. He said to the trader, “Covering wet cereal with the dry one is an act of deception and those who bluff are not from among us. A buyer should be told about the defects of the goods by the seller or the sale would be an adversity for the seller on the Day of Judgement.”
PENSIVE SILENCE
A pensive silence shrouded the room. Everybody was deep in thoughts. It was more than two hours since the discussion started. After the pin-drop silence for a minute or two, I said, “Is there anything else?” Receiving no reply, I said, “Let me surprise you a little more. May be, with all this talk, you get an impression that, ok… fine… despite all things said and done, today we are much more progressed and so in no need of guidance from these sources. I claim that Islamic system of governance is the system most suitable for a just world order where peace, not violence; knowledge, not ignorance; and confidence, not confusion; reign supreme.” Nobody said anything in agreement but nothing was uttered in disagreement, too.
JUST A GLIMPSE
I got up and said finally, “This was just a glimpse of the enormous wisdom of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be to him). There are many issues ranging from animal rights, foreign relations, crime control, rights of women, female foeticide, and prevention of AIDS, etc. that humanity today, and even thousands of years from now, would find solace in his teachings.”
“If what you said is true, and I am confused a little, then the man you described was indeed a god who took the human form and came to guide the…” “No, not at all,” I didn’t bother to wait for Prakash to complete his sentence, “Prophet Muhammad was in his own words a human being. But for a ‘simple’ human being such farsightedness is impossible, irrespective of his wisdom and genius, because every human being is influenced and limited by his context. And so the Prophet was definitely a human being, but a divinely inspired human being, a messenger of Allah… the final Prophet… with full and final guidance for humanity.”
WALKABLE, REACHABLE
And this is precisely where the greatness of our Prophet lies. He didn’t indulge in conceiving some utopia-like ideal or mystifying philosophy. He gave a path that is walk-able, a goal that is reachable, and an ideal that is practical (as he has shown). The only thing required then is reasonable amount of intellect to be convinced of its wisdom and enormous amount of will power to stand up and deliver.