Role of Islam in the Development of Thought and Culture

Role of Islam in the Development of

Thought and Culture

M. G. Rasul

Before the advent of Islam wrong conceptions and perverted ideas had taken possession of the minds of the people the world over and the world civilization prevailing at the time stood on the verge of collapse. In such a world Islam appeared as a mighty revolutionary force. It made a clean sweep of the existing [order and brought quite new conceptions and new values of life. This, indeed, brought a revolution, the like of which the world has never witnessed.

In pre-Islamic times various nations of the world, however advanced, had no ideal to pursue and even if there was any, it was surely not worth striving for. Striving for an ideal was a thing quite foreign to the nature of almost all nations of the world. And those who had any ideal at all, it was at best a parochial one. The mighty nations reduced the weaker ones to subjection for mere political aggrandizement or for economic exploitation or for the satisfaction of their peculiar whims and ambitions. But none of them had any ideal to set up or any ideology to offer to the subjugated people. The consequence was mutual hatred and rancour, and the ill-feeling that was engendered between the conquerors and the conquered continued for an indefinite time, more often than not culminating in violent internecine conflicts.

But Islam has never justified the subjugation of human beings for the acquisition of pelf and power or for any other selfish motive. The Prophet (ﷺ) of Islam invited people to the fold of Islam not to be his slaves nor to accept the Arab domination, but to submit to the Ideal which could unite diverse creeds and races of all religions. Islam is the only religion which has placed before mankind a definite goal of life and the one supreme Ideal, which Dr. K.A. Hakim explains as the unity of all Reality called God. And further, Islam has called upon mankind to worship the one Ideal called God and to practice social justice, disregarding the difference of creeds and races. To live and die for this Ideal is the supreme duty of a Muslim. And he can wage war only when he is obstructed in the attainment of this Ideal or when injustice, intolerance and tyranny by self-seeking individuals cause social disorder, disturbing the universal harmony and order.

Besides being a mighty revolutionary and dynamic force, standing for one supreme Ideal, Islam came to solve the problems of humanity at large. The Prophet (ﷺ) did not think in terms of his co-religionists only, but he pondered over the ills of all mankind and aimed at establishing a universal brotherhood and in fact set up a polity based on perfect justice and equality for all. Unlike Plato, who dreamt only of a Greek city-state, three–fourth of whose population consisted of slaves with practically no civil rights, and for whom the rest of the world was a barbarian world, the Prophet (ﷺ) was not satisfied with the successful foundation of a city-state in Mecca or Medina, nor was he satisfied when the whole of Arabia came within the pale of Islam. He was so solicitous of the well-being of humanity that he keenly desired to spread the message of Islam not only to the Arabs but to the people outside Arabia. It is a historical fact that he sent envoys to Persia, Rome, Yemen? and some other lands with the message of Islam. And it is only because of his love for humanity that he suffered persecution at the hands of the non-believers, yet with unabated zeal and unflagging spirits he carried on his mission of emancipating mankind from unbelief and ignorance. His clemency and kindness to his enemies at the height of his glory and power stands unique in the annals of human history as a striking proof of his profound love for humanity.

Strangely enough, Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, held the opinion that slavery was a natural system and as such was justifiable. On the contrary, Islam reckons the liberation of a slave as a virtuous act. The early Muslims, who happened to be wealthy, were in the habit of liberating slaves from their masters by payment of money. Not only that, slaves were accorded high status and position in the Islamic society. There are instances of slaves being raised to the position of generals under whom persons of ancient noble lineage used to serve. In fact slaves like Zaid Osama, Anas and Belal enjoyed an enviable position in the Islamic society and body-politic.

But the condition of slaves in the non-Muslim countries of the world presented a striking contrast. The slaves, what to speak of Greece, Rome, Christian Spain, but all the world over, were not allowed any opportunity and scope in the management of the affairs of the society and the state. Rather, the slaves were ruthlessly treated by their masters, so much so that life became an intolerable burden to them.

Nietzsche, the German philosopher, believed only in the ‘Aristocracy of the Superman’ and he cherished profound hatred for the common man. The history of Islam stands as a clear refutation of the ideas of Nietzsche. I cannot help quoting here the marvelous observation of Iqbal on this point: “The democracy of Islam did not grow out of the extension of economic opportunity; it is a spiritual principle based on the assumption that every human being is a centre of latent power, the possibilities of which can be developed by cultivating a certain type of character. Out of the plebeian material Islam has formed men of the noblest type of life and power. Is not then the democracy of early Islam an experimental refutation of the ideas of Nietzsche ?”

The later history of Islam too demonstrates the truth that slaves have always been honoured in the Islamic world. The Slave Dynasty of Delhi, the Mamluk Dynasty of Egypt, the Ghaznavid Dynasty and the Abyssinian Dynasty of Bengal, are an eloquent testimony to the fact that slaves were deemed competent by their masters and the Muslims of that time for the highest positions in society.

Another remarkable advance made by Islam was in the conception of life and universe. The Greeks, the Christians, the Buddhists and protagonists of some other creeds used to maintain that things temporal were all abominations and as such they were all to be discarded. Plato, the Greek philosopher, believed that all worldly things were illusory and unreal and things beyond sense-perception were the only Reality; in the light of this view-point life and this material world become meaningless. Buddha identified life with evil and himself renouncing the world kept himself aloof from all contacts with society. The Christians too held similar views with regard to this world. The Pope and the bishops were concerned only with religious rites and ceremonies and the kings only concerned themselves with worldly affairs. So life was divided into watertight compartments.

But Islam has approached this problem from a new angle. Islam has repudiated any conception of the bifurcation of life into secular and spiritual. From the Islamic standpoint even worldly things are spiritual, if judged in their true perspective. Since the world is not an isolated creation and the life hereafter will be determined by the life lived here, this world is no less important or significant than the other world. Life is an indivisible whole and activities of the entire life of a Muslim are a series of religious performances. To a Muslim religion is not offering of prayers and meditations alone in a convent or a mosque, but it is actual social life lived in accordance with the Ideal. Islam, therefore, has denounced asceticism and mystical quietism. Even no man is fully spiritual who seeks his own personal salvation in isolation from society. Iqbal so beautifully says: “The spirit of all true prayer is social. Even the hermit abandons the society of men in the hope of finding in a solitary abode the fellowship of God.” It stands to the credit of Islam that, unlike Christianity or any other religion, it does not aim at developing only the spiritual self in man, but, in the words of Iqbal, “recognizing the contact of the ideal with the real, says ‘yes’ to the world of matter and points the way to master it with a view to discover a basis for a realistic regulation of life.”

Now an important point emerges out of this discussion with regard to man’s relation to his society. When man is an integral part of society, for his material and spiritual development he must keep himself in close touch with society and concern himself seriously with social problems. The Prophet said: “It is the duty of every man to remove evil actively when he sees it, and if he cannot do it, to protest against it in words, and if he cannot do even that, to detest it in his heart which is the least manifestation of Faith.” “If God’s good men,” rightly observes Dr. K.A. Hakim, “leave the social and political life of man alone, to go its own way, then by the perversion of the economic and social structure even the goodness of the good individuals will be jeopardized.” The Prophet (ﷺ) has, therefore, observed that “if in a society some people do evil and others do nothing to prevent it, then all of them will be engulfed in ruin, the good as well as the bad, because the good have been only passively good and done nothing actively to prevent evil.”

Now if a religious man cannot keep himself aloof from society, how can he cut himself adrift from polities, which too forms a vital part of his life‘? Now-a-days, religion and politics are considered incompatible and the influence of the former on the latter is deemed to be baneful, and, therefore, religion now has been at best a private or personal affair, and it is not allowed to have any say in the affairs of day-to-day life. But it goes without saying that this is altogether a misconception.

It is religion alone that can keep the evil propensities in check and can restrain a man’s egoism or selfishness and direct him to sacrifice his petty interest for the larger interest of the nation and humanity. As religion embraces the whole of a man‘s life, politics, which is part and parcel of man’s life, cannot fall outside the scope of religion. And, as a matter of fact, religion, as Islam has demonstrated, exercised very healthy influence on the political aspect of man’s life. The time of the Prophet and the early four Caliphs, though short, is none the less an eloquent testimony to what man can achieve in this world when religion is allowed to play its role in the political life of a nation.

The wave of intolerance against religion that swept over Europe after the Dark Ages and over Russia after Czarist rule was due to certain factors, which it is interesting to analyze. The Church of Europe was responsible for smothering individual freedom and hindering the pursuit of knowledge, thereby obstructing the free development of humanity. The organized Church had always sided with autocracy and social injustice and upheld the domination of class by class. In the French Revolution there was a violent outburst of indignation against the Church and people wanted to be ruled by reason only and by the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. In the Russian Revolution we see an active anti-God campaign, God being conceived as the ‘areh-enemy of man.’ Thus Europe shook off the influence of religion highly detrimental to the healthy growth and development of its national life. It, therefore, developed its science and regulated its life freely as the separation of Church and State was accomplished. These reactions have, however, their justifications. But it should not be forgotten that religion by itself is not an evil. Religion, when misapplied by interested people, produces surely bad effects. But it would be sheer folly to hold religion responsible for that. Like religion science, which is so useful for mankind, produces disastrous results for them, when it is misused.

In modern times we are witnessing the demoralization rampant in our society, as a result of the separation of religion from politics. In the words of Iqbal:

جدا ہو دین سیاست سے تو رہ جاتی ہے چنگیزی

(When religion is separated from administration what remains thereafter is barbarism).

“The theory of the divorce between the spheres of politics and morality,” writes E.H. Carr, “is superficially attractive, only because it evades the insoluble problem of finding a moral justification for the use of force. “And “force in politics,” elsewhere he says, “is always the instrument of some kind of group interest.”

Now we come to the theory of Force as the basis of the State. But Austin’s theory of force in the light of the above viewpoint does not appear to be convincing. Force is undoubtedly one of the essential factors but force alone can hardly maintain and sustain a state, unless it is backed or supplemented by the good–will of the people. If the citizens of a state do not render willing obedience to it and to its laws, no amount of force can compel them to do that; even if they are coerced into submission, the effect will neither be abiding nor wholesome for the state; the germs of discontent and disaffection will eat into its vitals and will ultimately sap its foundation. History is replete with such instances. Therefore, a state, in order to be strong and stable, must have a large popular sanction behind it.

It goes without saying that Islam has discredited the theory of Force as the basis of the state. In the days of the Prophet and of the Rightful Caliphs the Islamic state was based on the people’s consent and at the time of the Prophet not even police force was in existence.

Prof. Laski says: “Our civilization is held together by fear rather than by goodwill.” Elsewhere he also says that goodwill too plays some part in the act of preserving our civilization.

From the Islamic standpoint fear of God more than anything else plays a considerable part in maintaining our civilization and culture and the other checks can never be so effective as this. It was fear of God pre-eminently which restrained Muslims from all anti-social and irreligious activities in the days of the Prophet and Khulafa-i-Rashedin, when the Muslims stood on the most exalted standard of character ever reached by any people at any time in this world. And history bears witness to the fact that when the fear of God disappeared from the hearts of the Muslims in later times, they deviated from the path of rectitude and committed excesses. But when the fear of God is fully embedded in the hearts of the people, it prevents them from committing wrongs in a more effective way than the fear of the police or coercion of the state.

Another notable achievement of Islami is the abolition of theocracy as it prevailed in Christendom. The Pope in Europe was regarded as the keeper of the people’s conscience and he wielded almost unlimited power and authority over the people and sometimes even challenged the supremacy of the King. He was supposed to be infallible and whatever he ordained or deemed fit for the people was considered right.

But Islam sharply differed from this view. In the words of Iqbal, “the essence of ‘Tauhid’ as a working idea is equality, solidarity, and freedom. The state, from the Islamic standpoint, is an endeavour to transform these ideal principles into space-time forces, an aspiration to realize them in a definite human organization. It is in this sense alone that the state in Islam is a theocracy, not in the sense that it is headed by a representative of God on earth who can always screen his despotic will behind his supposed infallibility.”

But the history of Islam presents a different picture. Islam has shattered not only the belief in the infallibility of the Pope but also the Divine Right theory of kingship which held sway over the minds of the people of Europe for a considerable period of time. Islam has rejected outright the Western theory ‘the king can do no wrong,’ and has regarded the caliphs or the rulers of the Islamic state as answerable to God for their actions and has subjected them to public criticism in view of the fact that they have been the repositories of the Divine Trust in the shape of the state.

This brings us to the concept of sovereignty in which, too, Islam broke new ground. As against monarchy, oligarchy and popular sovereignty, Islam introduced Divine sovereignty, according to which sovereignty of the whole universe lies with God, Who is the ultimate disposer of all affairs. God, in the capacity of the Lord or the Sovereign of the Universe, is alone entitled to frame rules of conduct for man and laws for the society and state. Unlike laws formulated by human beings the Divine laws are infallible, since they emanate from one Who is the most wise and All-knowing. In the application and enforcement of these laws in the Islamic state the rulers are to be guided by the advice of the people or their representatives. Thus, from the Islamic stand–point, laws are not the ‘expressions of the general will of the community.’ as Rousseau observed, but are expressions of the will of God, expressions not of an arbitrary will, but of a benign will which wants man to attain the highest stature of his personality and realize the Ideal through obedience to the laws ordained by Him.

In another respect Islam gave the lead to all the so-called advanced countries and nations of the world—it was in respect of liberty of conscience. The Jews, the Christians and other civilized nations before the emergence of Islam were the most intolerant people and used to shed innocent blood, being swayed by religious fanaticism. Bitter animosity and hatred prevailed amongst the different races culminating in bloody conflicts. When this was the state of affairs all the world over, Islam preached the gospel of toleration and adopted liberty of conscience as its cardinal principle. Wherever the Muslims established their sway, they followed this principle in their relations with the subject races. There have been deviations no doubt, in the cases of Tamerlane, Nadir Shah and a few other rulers, but they are exceptions from the general rule and are not to be treated as ideals. However, the Muslims, by their tolerance, established the Reign of Law instead of the Reign of Terror and thereby won the goodwill and esteem of the subject people. The observation made by historian Finlay in this connection is worth consideration: ‘The liberty of conscience was an idea almost unknown to any but the Muhammedans.”

All this advancement in thought and culture, and the world hegemony that the Muslims achieved, was due pre-eminently to their conception of character. Besides understanding character in its most comprehensive meaning, nothing was held so dear and precious as character; they preferred character to noble birth, immense riches, high pedigree and all other worldly things. Character to them was the supreme test judging the worth of a man or a nation. The Qur’an says:

ان اکرمکم عند اللہ اتقٰکم

(The most honoured amongst you in the eye of Allah is the one who is the most virtuous.)

The sublime teaching embodied in the above verse of the Qur‘an inflamed the zeal and stirred the souls of the Muslims. As acquisition of virtue was declared as the noblest object of a man’s life and the surest means of winning the pleasure of God, the Muslims vied with others in the attainment of that supreme object.

It stands to the credit of Islam that instead of riches, nobility of birth, position and pedigree it adopted character as the determining factor of judging the intrinsic merit of an individual or nation. Aristocracy, which has been so long dependent on noble descent, enormous riches, high social status, etc., which were not within the reach of any and every human being, was now made attainable by character. Thus in place of aristocracy of birth, wealth, rank and position, which was confined to the limited few, Islam brought aristocracy of character, which, we know, is definitely a realizable ideal.