I now turn to the social aspect of Islam. By the social aspect of Islam I mean such rules of conduct as have been laid down by Islam to serve as the foundations of society and to regulate the rights and duties of its members interse. These rules are merely practical illustrations of some of the moral qualities. In dealing with morals the primary object is the welfare and purity of the individual, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the individual is a member of society. On the other hand, in dealing with social rules the object in view is the collective welfare of society of which individuals are members. At bottom both kinds of rules are moral rules. When we look at the matter from the purely moral point of view our object is to discover rules of conduct which should enable a man to live a righteous life cleansed of all evil. From the social point of view our object is to discover such rules of conduct as would enable men to live together amicably and to march forward on the road to national progress. In the first case, we devote our attention to a consideration of moral truths and principles in the abstract, in the last case, we are more concerned with their application to the relations of different men with one another. The Holy Quran has stated the rules of social conduct at different places, but the last chapter is devoted wholly to this purpose. The place assigned to this chapter in the Holy Quran indicates that the beneficent adjustment of social relations is regarded as the most important of the physical needs of man.
In this chapter the social relations of man are classified under three heads each of which has special reference to one of the Divine attributes. The first division has special reference to the Divine attribute of Providence, and comprises family, tribal or national relations, including relationship by blood or marriage and the bond of brotherhood established by residence in the same country or province. The second division comprises the relationship of sovereign and subject, and master and servant, and has reference to the Divine attribute of Mastership. The third division comprises international and inter-communal relations, and has reference to the attribute of Godhead. The attribute of Providence illustrates the relations which ought to exist between members of the same family, tribe or nation. The attribute of Mastership illustrates the relations between sovereign and subject, master and servant; and the attribute of Godhead illustrates the relations between people of different nationalities and different religions.
I shall deal with each of these classes or divisions in the order just mentioned. So far as the relations between different members of the family are concerned, the most important relationship is that subsisting between husband and wife, for on this depends the welfare of the whole family and in the long run the welfare of the whole nation. The first rule laid down by Islam in this connection is that this relationship ought to be based primarily on moral considerations and not on considerations of beauty, wealth, or rank. The Holy Quran warns those who are about to marry to consider what effect the contemplated union would have on the purity of their lives, and what sort of legacy in the form of issue it is likely to leave behind. The Holy Prophet (sas) says,
‘Some people marry for beauty, others for rank, and others for wealth, but you should marry a good and pious woman.’1
This alone should be the true basis of marriage, and if it is not kept in view in the choice of a mate, the relationship between husband and wife is not likely to run a smooth course and the issue of the union is likely to suffer. The moral and intellectual qualities of the parents leave their mark upon the children. This has been amply illustrated by the study of eugenics. Though the inferences drawn by the students of eugenics are not always free from exaggeration, there can be no doubt that the moral and intellectual qualities of the parents are to a greater or lesser degree reflected in their children. The choice of a husband or a wife, therefore, becomes a matter of vital importance. The first rule laid down by Islam, therefore, is that in the choice of a mate greater weight ought to be attached to the qualities of the head and the heart than to the external circumstances of looks, wealth or rank. Islam does not despise the latter, but they ought not to constitute the primary basis of marriage. If a man and a woman are drawn towards each other on account of their piety, morals, and intelligence and, at the same time, they are not wanting in looks, wealth, and rank, their union will be doubly blessed; but beauty, wealth, and rank, in themselves, are not guarantees of permanent happiness. If all marriages were based upon this principle there would at once be a moral revolution in the world, and the issue of such marriages would be far more amenable to moral and spiritual discipline and development.
A further precaution enjoined by Islam is, that not only should the parties to a contemplated marriage satisfy each other as to their respective merits, but the relatives of the bride should also satisfy themselves that the proposed bridegroom would be a suitable husband for the bride and a desirable father of her children. It is one of the conditions of an Islamic marriage that the consent of the parties as well as the consent of the bride’s guardian should be obtained. If she has not father or brother or other near male relative living, who can act as her guardian for the marriage, the consent of the magistrate must be obtained, and the latter must satisfy himself that no fraud or deception is being practised upon her. A woman is afforded this special protection, because she is by nature and temperament more modest and emotional than man and cannot herself make enquiries concerning her prospective husband with the same facility with which the latter can find out everything concerning her. Besides, woman being more impressionable than man, she becomes more readily a victim of deception. The law, therefore, requires the consent of her guardian, or the magistrate, to her marriage. If such consent were insisted upon in every case, we would not hear so much of respectable and unsuspecting women being made the victims of deception by unscrupulous adventurers. Though Islam does not permit indiscriminate mixing of the sexes, it allows an affianced couple to see each other, so that they may satisfy themselves as to each other’s appearance. If they approve each other, the marriage can take place. Islam requires a marriage settlement to be made upon the wife at the time of marriage. This is one of the essentials of Islamic marriage. The settlement is called Mehr, i.e., dower. The object of Mehr is that the wife should have an independent proprietary position, and should be free to spend in charity or make gifts to her relations, etc., out of her separate property. The institution of Mehr is a practical acknowledgment by the husband of the independent proprietary position of the wife and her right to maintain and acquire separate property over which the husband has no control.
In case of disagreement between the husband and wife, the husband has no right to chastise or punish the wife except for manifest immorality. In such a case four respectable residents of the neighbourhood must testify that she has been actually guilty of immoral conduct. He must, however, begin by admonishing her. If she persists in her conduct he should separate from her for a period which must not exceed four months. This means discontinuance of conjugal relations but the husband will still be bound to maintain the wife. If the period of separation exceeds four months, the husband will be compelled by law to resume conjugal relations with the wife. If the discontinuance of conjugal relations also has no reforming effect on her conduct and the testimony of four righteous men of the neighbourhood is forthcoming, she may be chastised by the husband but her bones must not be injured and no bruise or mark should be left on her body. All this, however, is prescribed only in cases of manifestly immoral conduct. A husband has no right to punish his wife for other faults or neglect of duty.
A husband is bound to maintain his wife, even when the wife is rich and the husband is poor. He is commanded to deal kindly and affectionately with her. The Holy Quran says that even in cases of disagreement the husband’s treatment of the wife must be kind and affectionate. The Holy Prophet (sas) has said, ‘Remember that I enjoin upon you to deal kindly with women.’ Again, he says, ‘A husband should not dislike his wife. If he dislikes one thing in her, there must be many good things in her which he likes.’ Again he says, ‘A husband must clothe his wife as he clothes himself and feed her as he feeds himself, and should not abuse her nor remain away from her.’ Again he says, ‘It is not permissible to a man to spend the whole of his time in worship or other pursuits and thus to neglect his wife.’ He must set apart a portion of his time for his wife. Again he says, ‘The best of you are those who treat their wives best.’ On the other hand, a wife is told to obey her husband, to guard his property and his honour, and to look after and bring up his children.
In case of disagreement between husband and wife they are both enjoined to try to remove the causes of friction and revert to amicable relations. If the disagreement is serious, the matter must be referred to two mediators, one chosen by the husband from among his relatives or friends, and the other chosen by the wife from among her relatives or well-wishers. The mediators should then look into the matter and try to discover the causes of discord, and should try to bring about a reconciliation between the couple. If this is not possible or their efforts towards reconciliation prove futile, the husband will be permitted to divorce the wife, that is to say, to announce the dissolution of the marriage. This is again subject to several conditions. For instance, the announcement must be public and not secret, and it must be repeated three times, with an interval of one month between two announcements. Before the final announcement it is open to the parties to effect a reconciliation and resume conjugal relations.
If the wife has a grievance against the husband and she desires a divorce, she can ask for it through the magistrate just as the marriage itself was subject to the consent of her guardian or of the magistrate. If the magistrate is of opinion that her grievance is just, he will pronounce a divorce and in such a case the husband will not be entitled to recover from the wife any property which he might have settled on her. If the divorce is directed by the mediators or by the magistrate but the wife is found to be in default, she may be directed to return any portion of the property that her husband may have settled on her and which she still has in her possession. Throughout the course of the proceedings and till the divorce is completed the husband is bound to maintain the wife.
Another safeguard provided by the law of Islam for the wife is, that her guardian for marriage is prohibited from receiving any money or property as consideration for the marriage. This is designed to prevent the guardian from making improper use of his authority to consent to the marriage of his ward.
In some cases a man may be under the necessity of marrying more wives than one for moral, spiritual or even political considerations, or for getting children, or for reasons of health. Islam has, therefore, permitted a plurality of wives subject to a maximum of four on condition that they must be accorded perfectly equal treatment, both in matters relating to maintenance and the personal relations of the husband. The husband is enjoined to live with each wife for an equal period of time. If he fails to maintain equality of treatment between the wives he renders himself liable to the punishment described by the Holy Prophet (sas) as the resurrection of only one half of his body on the day of judgment.
Divorce and polygamy are often condemned by Western writers and speakers, but it is curious, that after heaping abuse for centuries, on the chosen one of God for permitting divorce, the West is being slowly convinced of the desirability of some form of divorce in order to preserve the fabric of society from crumbling to pieces. Would that it had paused and considered before traducing and vilifying the elect of God, so that it might have been saved the shame and disgrace of having to confess its fault. The West still hesitates to adopt the law of Islam relating to divorce which, on the one hand, is a safeguard against an indiscriminate recourse to divorce and, on the other, permits divorce as a remedy in the last resort. Some Western governments and legislatures have recently framed laws to make divorce easier but these laws are likely to lead to an undesirable increase in the number of divorces, and thus to undermine the foundations of family life by destroying the sanctity of marriage which is the soul of all domestic ties. The only appropriate remedy is provided by Islam and the only solution of the problems with which the West is faced in this connection is the adoption of that remedy.
The West has not so far paid any serious attention to the doctrine of polygamy, but the day is not distant when it will have to consider it in all earnestness, for the claims of nature cannot be long defied with impunity. It is urged that polygamy is only a device for sensual indulgence. But even a casual consideration of the restrictions imposed by Islam on those who seek to take advantage of this concession would convince an unbiased mind that the institution of polygamy is by no means a device for indulgence. On the contrary, it is a heavy sacrifice which a man is called upon occasionally to make. Indulgence means the seeking of one’s desire. How can a man be accused of seeking his desire in marrying more wives than one and treating them with perfect equality in accordance with the laws of Islam? Islam enjoins that in such a case the treatment of one wife should in no respect be different from that which is accorded to the other. The husband may love one wife far more than he loves the other but he cannot give her a penny more than he gives to the other, nor can he spend with her one single hour more than he spends in the company of the other. If he spends one day in her company, he must spend one day in the company of the other, and his relations with both must be on a basis of equality. Except with regard to the love which he bears in his heart and which nobody can see, his treatment of the wife he loves a thousand times better than the other must be the same as his treatment of the latter. Is this indulgence, or is it one continuous sacrifice borne for the sake of one’s country, or nation or progeny, as the case may be?
How painful is it, then, for a Muslim to be told by those who are utterly ignorant of the laws of Islam that the Holy Prophet (sas) had married more wives than one towards the end of his life merely out of selfindulgence? Every one of his marriages was a heavy sacrifice made by him for his country and his people, and the just and equal treatment which he accorded to every one of his wives will ever elicit not only the admiration but also the compassion of those who study his life. History bears witness to the fact that even in his last illness, when he was in a state of high fever and was hardly able to walk he went every day supporting himself on the shoulders of two men, from the house of one wife to that of another whose turn it was to have him in her house. A few days before his death his wives requested him not to move from house to house every day, as it was inconvenient for him, and to remain in the house of ‘A’isha till his illness left him.
Some people describe polygamy as a cruel practice. But it is the absence of such permission which is cruel in many cases. For instance, if a man’s wife becomes mad or contracts an incurable disorder, or turns out to be barren, what is the remedy? If the husband does not marry a second wife, he may be forced into vice, which would be a cruelty to himself and to society. If he is compelled to live with a lunatic it would be cruelty towards future generations and towards society. If he goes on living with a leprous wife, for instance, it would be cruelty to himself. If his wife is barren and he does not marry a second time, it would be cruelty towards his country and people. If in any of these cases he divorces his first wife, it would be a shame and a disgrace for him, for he lived with her as long as she was whole and deserted her at a time when she most needed his protection. Hence situations may arise in which a second marriage would not only be justified or necessary, but would become a patriotic or religious duty.
The next relationship that requires consideration is that of parents and children. Marriage lays the foundation of this relationship. Islam enjoins upon parents the proper upbringing of children. It prohibits infanticide practised on account of poverty, as was the custom in some savage tribes; or the killing of daughters out of a false sense of pride as was prevalent among some warlike people. If the husband does not desire children, he must obtain the permission of the wife before having recourse to any means designed to prevent procreation. Again, Islam enjoins upon parents the moral training of their children from their infancy, so that they might grow up useful members of society. It enjoins equal treatment of children, so much so, that when they are grown up, if the parents make a present to one of them, they must make similar presents to the others.
If it becomes necessary to chastise a child, it must not be struck on the head or the face, as that part of the body is the seat of all the senses and a permanent injury might thus be caused to the child.
Special stress has been laid on the instruction and training of girls. The Holy Prophet (sas) has said that, ‘If a man has a daughter and he brings her up well he shall be saved from the fire,’ that is to say, if a man brings up his daughter well, God shall deal kindly with him. Again, he says, ‘If a man has sons and daughters, or younger brothers and sisters, and he instructs them and provides for their needs, he shall be admitted to paradise.’ Similarly he says, ‘If a man has a daughter and he does not kill her, nor humiliate her, nor prefer his sons to her, God will give him paradise,’ meaning that such a man would be fitted to receive a larger share of the grace of God, and not that he would be free to act in any manner he might please and yet would come to no harm.
Special stress has been laid upon care for the health of children. The Holy Prophet (sas) says: ‘Do not compass the death of your children by going in to your wives while they are giving suck, for such an act affects the development of the child.’ This indicates that special care ought to be taken of the health of the children, for if a man is required to control his passions for the sake of their health he is expected to make lesser sacrifices much more readily for the same object.
Another question relating to family relationship is the question of inheritance and succession. Islam has laid down such perfect rules for the regulation of inheritance, that all unbiased persons, to whatever religion they might belong, would acknowledge their fairness and wisdom. Islam has included females, parents, husbands and wives in the list of heirs. It forbids the exclusion of any heir or heirs from succession; nor can a man deprive his heirs of their share of inheritance by devising the whole of it away from them. A will can be made only with respect to one-third of the property of the testator, the rest must go to his heirs. Nor can a will be made in favour of an heir, each heir can get only his specified share of the inheritance and no more.
The share of a female heir is in most cases onehalf of that of a male heir. In certain exceptional cases a female succeeds to a share equal to that of a male heir, but there are special reasons justifying this departure from the ordinary rule. Some people think that the rule giving a male twice the share of a female is inequitable. They forget that under most systems of law even today the rights of females have not been recognized at all, and that Islam alone has given full rights to women. The reason for this rule is that a woman is not required to maintain herself or her children out of her own property. She must in every case be maintained by her husband, whereas a man is burdened with the duty of maintaining his wife and children. If a woman marries she is relieved of all anxiety with respect to her own and her children’s maintenance, and if she does not marry,—of which Islam does not approve,—she has only herself to maintain out of her property. If a man marries, and Islam bids him do so, he will become responsible for the maintenance of his wife and children. Keeping this in view Islam has fixed the share of a male as double that of a female, and this is perfectly equitable.
Children are required to honour and obey their parents, and to support and maintain them in their old age. They are particularly enjoined not to speak harshly to them or to injure their feelings in any way, and to pray to God constantly for their welfare.
Brothers are required to maintain such of their brothers as have no one else to maintain them, and in such a case they would also be entitled to succeed to them. Similarly, other relatives are required to support and maintain those relatives to whom they would have succeeded as heirs had they died possessed of property.
Next to the immediate members of one’s family come one’s neighbours and countrymen. Regarding these the Holy Quran says:
‘Be good to your parents and near of kin and orphans and the needy, and the next-door neighbour, and the distant neighbour, and your partners in business and co-workers, wayfarer and travellers and your slaves.’2
Islam has placed social relations on a firm basis by declaring the rights of these classes of persons, especially those of the poor, who are our backward brothers. Well-to-do members of society have been made responsible for the welfare of orphans. The former must bring up the latter like their own children. Those who are poor and out of work must also be helped and have work provided for them. Again, a man is told to do good to his near and distant neighbours, that is, to persons living in the same town with him, and to those who have come to live there from other towns. Co-partners and co-workers are then mentioned as deserving of special treatment. I am personally not an admirer of trade unions which are the outcome of the social life of the West. If the social laws of Islam were acted upon the rights of workmen could be protected without the institution of such unions but this verse does indicate a certain amount of cooperation and brotherliness between persons working in the same profession. Again, we are told to treat travellers—rich or poor— kindly, so that brotherly relations may be established far and near, and the foundations of universal peace may be laid.
Regarding the relations between old and young the Holy Prophet (sas) has said,
‘An elder or powerful person who does not treat a younger or weaker one with kindness and a younger or weaker person who does not treat an elder or powerful one with respect, is not of us.’
This lays down a fundamental principle applicable to masters and servants, teachers and pupils and all similar relationships.
Regarding the general relations of men and women, men are enjoined to look to the comfort of women. The Holy Prophet (sas) used always to wait in his seat after prayers, so that women should first pass out comfortably. When all of them had passed out, he would rise himself and the men also would rise with him. On a journey if men tried to drive the camels fast, he would say, ‘Mind the glass,’ meaning they should not go too fast as the women would be rendered uncomfortable.
Men are told not to enter their own houses without advance intimation on return from a long journey. They must arrive home during day-time and after previous notice of the time of arrival, so that the women may have time to arrange everything for their reception.
Another injunction regarding women is that they should not be separated from their children. This indicates a general principle that relatives should not be separated from relatives and should be allowed to meet and visit each other. All such things as are likely to cause discord are prohibited. For instance, it is laid down that the making of false charges should be severely punished. A man should not make a proposal of marriage, where another man has made a proposal before him, till the latter is finally rejected.
I now turn to the duties of a citizen as explained by Islam. Islam requires every man to earn his living and not to live an idle life. The Holy Prophet (sas) has said: ‘The best food is that which a man earns with the labour of his own hands,’ and, again, ‘The prophet David (as) used to earn his own living.’
Another duty of a Muslim citizen is to eschew begging. The Holy Prophet (sas) laid special stress on this and always taught people to refrain from begging, for it is a humiliation which a Muslim ought to avoid. He is reported to have said,
‘It is permissible only for three persons to beg, first, a man who is trying to avoid begging by seeking work but can find no work or is unable to do any work; secondly, a person upon whom some penalty has been imposed which is manifestly beyond his means, in such a case, a subscription might be raised for him; and thirdly, people upon whom a fine has been imposed as a class, for instance, where one man has committed an offence and the whole of his tribe has been penalized.’
Another duty of a Muslim citizen is that he should greet everybody he meets with the salutation, ‘Peace of God be upon you,’ thus laying the foundations of good fellowship. He should also shake hands with his friends and acquaintances whom he should meet.
Again, a Muslim is required to visit those of his friends and neighbours who may be ill, to console and cheer them.
Before entering a house a Muslim must obtain the permission of the inmates, and must greet them with the salutation of peace. If there is no answer, or if those he wants to see are not free to see him, he should come away and not entertain any feeling of annoyance.
If a Muslim should chance to hear somebody speak ill of another he should not carry the tale to the latter, for, as the Holy Prophet (sas) has said,
‘A man who slanders another in his absence is like a person who shoots an arrow at another but the arrow misses its mark, and the man who conveys the slander to the person about whom it was spoken is like a person who directs that arrow to its mark.’
Again, Muslims are enjoined to help in performing the obsequies of a Muslim who dies in their town or village. They must also attend the funeral and arrange the burial, etc. But all of them are not required to go. If, however, none of them goes, all are equally guilty of neglect. Muslims have always regarded the performance of this duty as a special act of piety, and the companions of the Holy Prophet (sas) used to accompany the funerals even of non-Muslims.
Again, Muslims are told to avoid undignified conduct and such conduct as is likely to offend or annoy others. The Holy Quran says that the Muslims should walk in the streets and bazaars in a dignified manner.
The Holy Prophet (sas) once observed a man walking in the street with only one shoe on. He admonished him and told him to put on both shoes or to walk barefooted altogether. Muslims must not throw refuse into streets or public places. The Holy Prophet (sas) has said that God is displeased with a man who throws refuse on to streets or places of public resort. On the other hand, Muslims are required to help in keeping such places clean and free from obstruction or danger. The Holy Prophet (sas) says,
‘God is pleased with a man who removes from a road that which is likely to cause annoyance or obstruction.’
Again Muslims are prohibited from quarreling in public places, and thus disturbing the peace and comfort of others. They are also prohibited from doing anything which is likely to contaminate water used by the public. They must not utter abuse, or do any other act likely to offend or annoy; as going about naked or the like. A Muslim must not sell deleterious and injurious substances,—for instance food which is not fit for human consumption, or which is likely to produce disease or some disorder, or goods which have deteriorated and are no longer fit for the purpose for which they were meant. He cannot take shelter himself behind the maxim Caveat emptor but must himself take care not to sell or offer for sale any thing which is either injurious or harmful.
Another duty of a Muslim is to exhort people to virtue and to warn them against evil. But he must do so with kindness and affection, lest people out of contrariness, should recede further from virtue. He must also teach people that which he knows and should not keep his knowledge or skill a secret, but should admit the public to its benefits, for the Holy Prophet (sas) has said that a man who keeps the knowledge of a particular thing secret and refuses to disclose it when he is asked about it, shall be bridled with a fiery bridle on the Day of Judgment. This does not mean that a man should not profit by his inventions, and that he should make them public. The object is that sciences, arts and learning should not be allowed to disappear by being hidden and confined in the bosoms of particular individuals. It is, however, permissible to use one’s knowledge and skill for one’s own profit and for the benefit of the public, and the system of registration and patents ensures not only the profit of the inventor but also the permanent preservation of the invention.
A Muslim is required to be brave but not tyrannical. He must not oppress the weak, the poor, women or children, or even animals. It is related of Abdullah, son of Umarra the second caliph that he saw some boys who had made a target of a live animal. When they saw Abdullah they ran away, and Abdullah exclaimed, ‘God is displeased with those who have done this, for I have heard the Prophet (sas) say, “God is displeased with those who make a target of a live animal for sport,”’ that is to say those who tie down or secure an animal for the purpose of shooting at it. Islam does not, however, prohibit hunting or shooting. This Islamic injunction, which was laid down more than thirteen centuries ago, is in advance of the ideas of some of the so-called civilized nations of the twentieth century. Only recently the pastime of shooting tame pigeons, which was indulged in some of the Western countries, had to be prohibited by law.
Similarly, it is related that the Holy Prophet (sas) once saw a donkey which had been branded on the head. He was very displeased and forbade the branding of animals on the head, as that must be very painful and said that in future animals should be branded on the leg.
On another occasion he saw somebody who had caught the young ones of a dove. He told them to set them free and not to torture the mother. At another time he said, ‘God takes pity on a man who pities animals and feeds them and gives them drink.’
Another duty of a Muslim is not to endanger the lives and safety of others. For instance, the Holy Prophet (sas) has prohibited people of an infected area from going outside that area, and people from other areas from entering an infected area. This injunction anticipated by a matter of centuries quarantine regulations and other similar measures, which are supposed to be the result of the wisdom gained from modern science and research.
Another duty of a Muslim is to help his friends and neighbours in need by loans of money, etc., but he may not in such a case stipulate for any return for the use of that which is loaned. A Muslim should have wide sympathies and a generous disposition, and should regard it as a duty to render assistance to his less fortunate brethren. He should earn his living by work and labour, and should not seek to make a profit out of the misfortunes of others, or by encouraging in them extravagance or improvidence. He is, therefore, prohibited from lending money on interest.
A Muslim should be ever ready to make sacrifices for national and patriotic causes, and should be active in the discharge of his civic duties and responsibilities. The Holy Prophet (sas) has said, ‘A man who is killed in the defence of his property, will be accepted of God.’ The Holy Quran says, ‘Why do you hesitate to fight, when your brothers and sisters are being oppressed by tyrants?’
Another duty of a Muslim is to save the life of a person who is in danger; and if he fails to render assistance in such a case he draws upon himself the anger of God. The Holy Prophet (sas) has said, ‘A man who sees another being murdered and does not render him any assistance or make an effort to save him, is under the curse of God.’ It is, therefore, the duty of a Muslim to rescue the drowning, help in putting out fires, and to render assistance in times of calamity like earthquakes, mining disasters, railway collisions, volcanic eruptions, storms, etc. In short, whenever and wherever there is danger to life and security, a Muslim must render every assistance in his power towards the work of rescue; if he fails in this duty, he is answerable to God for his default, and would not deserve the grace and mercy of God.
Again, a Muslim is prohibited from pointing a weapon or an arm even playfully at another. A disregard of this direction is responsible for the loss of scores of lives every year.
Then, a Muslim must never lose courage or give way to despair. He should ever stand firm like a rock in the midst of trials and misfortunes. The winds of calamity may not shake him and the waves of disaster may beat against him in vain. He must battle with failures and defeat till he wins his way to success or dies in the effort. Islam makes a man brave, and a Muslim never seeks to escape from, or shirk, his responsibilities by such cowardly means as suicide or self-destruction.
Such is a Muslim! But by Muslim I do not mean the so-called Muslim of today who has entirely forsaken Islam and looks to the West for moral and spiritual sustenance of every description. By a Muslim I mean the Muslim of thirteen hundred years ago, whose type has been revived in the present age by the Promised Messiah (as).
An important aspect of social relations which is being sadly neglected today is the care and upbringing of orphans. A people that neglect its orphans can never hope to win in the race for progress. Islam has, therefore, laid down suitable rules for the care of orphans. It requires that a guardian should be appointed for the person and property of an orphan, the nearest blood relation being entitled to be appointed the guardian of a minor. The guardian should manage the property of the minor on his behalf, and look after the upbringing and welfare of his ward. If he is poor, an honorarium may be paid to him for his trouble and for the time which he has to spend in looking after the minor and his affairs. If he is in easy circumstances no payment is to be made to him. The guardian should bring up the minor to some trade or calling suitable to his capacities and circumstances. Special attention is directed to be paid to the manners and morals of the minor. He should not be left entirely free to pursue his own devices, nor should he be dealt with so strictly as to repress his spirits and to stamp out his initiative. He should be treated with kindness and affection, for he has already been deprived of that most priceless blessing, the love of his parents. When he attains to years of discretion it becomes the duty of the State to asses his capacities and judgment. If he is then found capable of looking after his own affairs he should be released from the care of his guardian and his property should be handed over to him. If his judgment is found to be so defective as to render him incapable of looking after his own affairs he should continue under the care of his guardian and his property should also continue to be administered by the latter, a suitable allowance being made for the maintenance of the ward.
Another important aspect of social relations is that of creditor and debtor. There are occasions when a man is forced to seek a temporary loan to tide him over his difficulties. To meet such contingencies Islam has permitted loans and mortgages. Those who are in easy circumstances are under obligation to help those who are in need of financial assistance by loans with or without security. Islam makes it obligatory that all contracts of loan or mortgage should be reduced to writing, so as to avoid subsequent disputes in regard to their terms, which are a frequent cause of disturbance of social peace. It is laid down that the bond should be written or dictated by the debtor and should be attested by at least two witnesses. A term should be fixed for the repayment of the loan; for, unpleasantness very often arises from the fact that the creditor expects to be repaid soon while the debtor contemplates the loan to be for a long period. The debtor must repay the loan before the expiry of the term fixed for repayment, but if he is unable to do so owing to circumstances which are beyond his control, the creditor should extend the term and wait till the debtor is in easier circumstances. If the creditor himself is hard pressed for money and is unable to wait further, and, the debtor is, owing to no fault of his, unable to pay, other people should subscribe the amount between themselves and pay off the debt. If a debtor dies without paying his debts, they may be recovered from his property. If he has left no property, then those who would have been his heirs had he left property must pay off his debts, and if there are no heirs, the State is responsible for the payment of his debts. It is regarded as meritorious that a debtor should, when repaying a loan, pay something over and above the amount of the loan. This additional payment, however, is not obligatory, and if the debtor intends to make such payment he should not make mention of his intention in advance, for, in that case, the payment would assume the character of interest, the giving and taking of which is prohibited by Islam.
Commerce, again, has a large share in the maintenance and progress of society, and this paper will be incomplete if I fail to touch on some of the injunctions laid down by Islam relating to commerce. Islam forbids the use of false weights and measures and enjoins the giving of full measure. Traders are prohibited from selling defective articles or goods which are rotten and useless. A trader must not try to conceal the defects of an article which he offers for sale. For instance, he must not cover up wet grain with dry grain and attempt to sell it off as dry grain, or roll up that portion of a piece of cloth which may be defective and offer the whole piece for sale as if it were sound. If there is any such defect in an article the buyer should be informed of it. If such an article is sold without the buyer being informed of its true condition, he has a right to return it when he discovers the fault. In other cases, a transaction of sale cannot be cancelled after the goods have been delivered and the price has been paid.
Again, a trader is prohibited from charging different rates from different people. He is at liberty to fix any reasonable rate he pleases, but the rate must be the same in the case of all buyers, except when some personal relationship between the seller and the buyer justifies a reduction; for instance, when the buyer is a relative, teacher, friend, neighbour or fellow trader, etc., of the seller.
In the case of sales of goods also Islam requires that the transaction should either be evidenced by writing or by witnesses, so that no dispute as to the fact of the sale, or the quality, ownership, or price of the goods should subsequently arise between the parties.
A buyer must not resell goods purchased by him without seeing or weighing them, for this opens the door to disputes and disagreements. If there is a shortage or defect in the quality of the goods each seller will, in such a case, try to shift the responsibility on to the one from whom he had himself purchased the goods.
Again, Islam forbids false competition, or swelling prices at an auction by false bids, or deceiving a prospective buyer as to prices by procuring fictitious offers.
Traders and purchasers are forbidden to go out of the market and make bargains with intending sellers coming into a town with articles and goods for sale. The goods must be permitted to come into the market so that the owners may ascertain the state of the market with regard to their wares to avoid their becoming the victims of any sharp practices.
Islam forbids trading in unascertained goods; the goods must be ascertained and specified either by the buyer himself or his agent. Sales in the form of lotteries are prohibited and so is speculation in connection with the fluctuations of prices, for these are merely different forms of gambling and do not fall within the category of legitimate trade or commerce.
Another aspect of social relations is that relating to conferences, meetings and social functions. These are intimately connected with the social life of man and have deep and far reaching consequences. I shall, therefore, state the teachings of Islam concerning these matters also.
With regard to invitations to meals, at homes, etc., Islam teaches that persons who are invited to such functions should accept the invitation; for, participation in such functions promotes mutual goodwill and affection, and a refusal without any valid excuse may adversely affect the maintenance and promotion of friendly relations. But nobody must go to any such function uninvited. If a person who is invited should happen to be accompanied by one who is not invited, the former must obtain the permission of the host before asking his companion in. Guests should not arrive before time. In cases of invitations to meals particular regard must be had to cleanliness, and everybody should wash their hands before sitting down to eat. Before commencing to eat the grace and blessings of God should be asked. Food must not be devoured in a greedy manner, and everybody must eat of that which is placed nearest to him. The quality of the food must not be criticized, nor must it be praised in a manner which savours of flattery or adulation. All must wash their hands and clean their mouths and pray after the conclusion of the meal, asking the blessings and grace of God for the host and his people, who have been put to trouble and expense in providing the meal. Unless the host requests them to stay on, the guests must not tarry long after the meal but should leave soon after it.
With respect to meetings and conferences, Islam teaches that only three kinds of associations or meetings can be productive of good. First, those that are founded or held with the object of promoting the welfare of the poor and the needy. Secondly, those the object of which is to promote the spread and propagation of, or investigations and research into, sciences, learning, arts, etc. Thirdly, those established for the purpose of settling disputes and removing causes of friction whether in domestic, national, political or international spheres. This includes associations for the purpose of studying and directing the political affairs of a nation or a country, for, their object also is to promote peace among mankind.
Islam teaches that on all occasions when men come together in large numbers, particular attention must be paid to cleanliness and hygiene and the feelings and susceptibilities of others in the matter of personal tastes and inclinations. For instance, nobody should go to a meeting or a gathering after eating or, using articles the uses of which are likely to offend the tastes or feelings of others, such as onions, raw garlic, tobacco, etc. Everybody should bathe and put on clean clothes and, if possible, use some pleasant perfume before proceeding to the place of concourse or meeting, so that the air may be purified and a pleasant and cheerful atmosphere may be promoted.
People should not sit very close together lest their breathing should offend each other. People suffering from infectious diseases must keep away from such occasions and places, lest infection should spread. Special stress is laid on this injunction. It is related that the caliph Umar (ra) prohibited a man suffering from leprosy from proceeding to the Ka‘ba to perform the prescribed circuits and told him to spend the greater part of his time inside his house and not to repair to places of public resort.
When a person addresses an assembly, all present should turn towards him and should listen carefully to what he has to say. No interruption or disturbance is permitted, however disagreeable the speech. The speaker is required to speak slowly and with dignity, so that all present may be able to follow him.
Each speaker must await his turn to speak, and more persons than one must not speak at the same time. Each speaker should address the president.
Room should be made for late arrivals, and nobody should leave without the permission of the president. When a person leaves his seat temporarily, intending to return to it, no one should occupy it. Where two persons are sitting next to each other in a manner which indicates that they wish to be next to each other, another person should not go and sit between them even when there is room between them. Where there are only three persons present, two of them should not speak to each other in a manner which should lead the third to suspect that they are talking about him.
This is a brief abstract of those social rules of conduct, which the Promised Messiah (as) has taught us or which we have extracted under his instructions from the principles of Islam. It presents an accurate picture of the social side of Islam and Ahmadiyyat.
I now turn to the teachings of Islam regulating the relations between the ruler and the ruled, the master and the servant and the rich and the poor. By the word ‘poor’ in this context I do not mean those indigent people who subsist on the charity of others, but people who are not in a position to exercise any authority over or to employ any class of persons as servants. For this purpose I have used the terms rich and poor advisedly, for what I desire to say in this connection can be more clearly conveyed by the use of these terms.
In dealing with this portion of the subject the first question with which we are faced is, how does Islam define the sovereign, or the State? In Islamic terminology the sovereign or Khalifah is that representative individual whom the people of a country elect for the protection and supervision of their individual and collective rights. Islam does not acknowledge any form of government other than a representative government. The Holy Quran has used the word, Amanat (trust), in describing the Islamic conception of government, that is to say, the Khalifah exercises power that is entrusted to him by the people, and not power which is assumed by him of his own will or which is inherited by him as a birthright. This word alone is sufficient to illustrate the nature and powers of the Islamic form of government. The Holy Quran does not speak of the authority to rule as something proceeding from the sovereign to the subject, but as something proceeding from the subject to the sovereign. For a full appreciation, however, of the Islamic conception of the State, it is necessary to quote the verse, which in brief but comprehensive terms describes the nature and duties of the rulers and the ruled. The Holy Quran says:
‘God commands you to entrust the responsibility of government to those worthy of it, and those of you who become rulers, should rule justly; God admonishes you with that which is excellent, verily He is the Hearing, the Seeing.’3
In the first part of this verse the people are told that it lies with them to choose their rulers, and that no one else can appoint a ruler over them, that is to say, sovereignty is not hereditary and nobody is entitled to become a sovereign merely because he happens to be the son or heir of a previous sovereign. Rulership is then defined as a valuable trust and the people are admonished not to entrust it to a person who is not worthy of the trust, but to place the responsibility on the shoulders of him who is capable of discharging it adequately, honestly and faithfully. Then, we are told that government is not an independent thing in itself, but is a mere delegation of powers for the purpose of enforcing and protecting certain rights which the people cannot individually enforce and protect. It is, therefore, a trust, and not property. The right to rule vests primarily in the community and not in the sovereign. The latter, however, is told that the authority vested in him is in the nature of a trust and that he must not abuse or misuse it, and must hand it over to the beneficiaries, at the time of his death, without deterioration or diminution, that is to say, he must be vigilant in the protection of national and individual interests and rights, and that he has no power to surrender or damage any part of them. Rulers and officials are next told to discharge the respective duties of their offices justly, and faithfully. The verse then goes on to indicate that the Muslims would abandon this mode of government and would, in imitation of other people, revert to the monarchial and hereditary form of government, but that the admonition of God—that is, that the Muslims should stick to the representative form of government, choose their best brains to rule over them and avoid the hereditary system of government— is the best counsel. The concluding words of the verse indicate that God has prescribed this mode of government because He is aware of the evils of other forms of government adopted by man and because He has heard the prayers of those who suffered under them, and that, therefore, the Muslims should adhere to it and thus show their gratitude for the favour that God has done them.
From this it is clear that the Islamic form of government must be based on an elective and representative system, and that the sovereign is to be regarded as the representative of the people in their collective and not their individual capacity. I shall now draw a brief sketch of the Islamic form of government, so as to illustrate its different functions and aspects.
Islam requires Muslims to elect as their ruler a man whom they regard as best fitted to discharge the responsibilities of that office. Such a man, when elected, holds office, not for a period of years like the presidents of the Western Republics but for life, and God alone can remove him from office, i.e., by death. All the power and authority of government vests in him, and it is his duty to devote the whole of his life to the promotion of the welfare of his people and not to seek his own aggrandisement. His control over the treasury is limited; he may spend national funds only on national needs and requirements, and cannot fix his own allowances. This must be done by his Advisory Council. It is the duty of the sovereign to ascertain the views of the people through this Council. On special occasions and with reference to special matters the opinion of the people may be ascertained by him through a general referendum, so that any differences between the views of the people and those of their representatives may come to his knowledge. He is expected to respect the opinion of a majority of the representatives, but as he is above all political partisanship and has no personal interests to serve, his own opinion is believed to be entirely impartial and influenced only by considerations relating to the welfare of his country and his people. Besides being the true representative of his people, Islam promises special Divine grace and help to the Khalifah. He is, therefore, authorized in special circumstances and in matters of special importance, to overrule the opinion of the majority of his advisers.
This, however, applies only to a sovereign who combines in his person the exercise of spiritual as well as secular authority and does not apply to a ruler or the head of a State who occupies a purely secular position. In the case of the latter the matter is left to be regulated by the provisions in that behalf of the constitution that may be framed for the regulation of these affairs. It would be for the constitution to determine the relationship between the ruler who, by virtue of his election, is the chief representative of the people, and their other representatives.
He is absolute in the sense, that he can, in certain cases, override the opinion of the representatives of the people; on the other hand, his authority is limited in the sense that he cannot override or set aside any portion of the Islamic constitution by which he is bound. He is bound to seek the advice of the people and to preserve the elective character of his own office. He is an elected ruler in the sense that, under the will and guidance of God, he is appointed to his office through the agency of the people, and he is a representative of the people in the sense that he is expected to follow the advice of their representatives except when compelled to depart from it by urgent or extraordinary necessity. He cannot, by his own authority, spend a penny out of the public funds on his own person or for his personal needs. He rules by virtue of a divine right in the sense that he cannot be removed from his office, and is promised Divine aid in the discharge of his duties and in the carrying out of his undertaking.
The details as to the method of the election or appointment of the members of the Advisory Council and the appointment of the governors and other officials, etc., have been purposely omitted by Islam so that they may be settled according to the exigencies of the time and so that human reason may have adequate scope for exercise and expansion, a principle which is essential for the intellectual development of man. The Holy Quran prohibited the Muslims from questioning the Holy Prophet (sas) in regard to details, for, many matters are purposely left to the reason and judgment of man. If the smallest detail had been laid down by the Holy Quran or the Holy Prophet (sas) there would have been no scope left for the intellectual development and progress of man and thus serious injury would have been done to mankind.
There are several forms of government at present in existence, but whosoever studies the constitution laid down by Islam will be compelled to acknowledge that it is not possible to devise a better form of government. On the one hand, it comprises the best form of representative government, and on the other, it is entirely free from party spirit, for the sovereign is not dependent upon the aid or cooperation of any particular party or section. He confines and devotes himself to the study of the welfare of his country and people, and as his office is held on a life tenure, the country is not deprived of the services of its best brain after a period of time.
In the case of a purely secular ruler or head of a State, however, the matter of the tenure of his appointment would be regulated by the constitution. His appointment and his removal would thus both be in the hands of the people.
We believe that this is the only perfect form of government, and we are confident that as the circle of the Ahmadiyya Movement widens and its membership increases, people will, of their own free will, acknowledge the excellence of this form of government, and even sovereigns will renounce their hereditary rights in the interests of the welfare of their people and will confine their privileges to those which they enjoy, and to which they are entitled as individuals.
As the Promised Messiah (as) was only a spiritual Khalifah his successors will also remain, so far as possible, outside and above politics, even when sovereigns and States join the Movement. They will perform the functions of a real League of Nations, and will endeavour, with the help and advice of the representatives of different countries, to regulate international relations. Their principal function will, however, be to look after the spiritual, moral, social and intellectual welfare of the people, so as to avoid their attention being monopolized by political matters, and vital spiritual and moral affairs being neglected as has been the case in the past. I have said that they will, so far as possible, remain outside and above politics. I have made this reservation to meet exceptional cases where the people of a particular country, in a time of difficulty or crisis, may request the aid of the spiritual Khilafat, and it may become necessary to make temporary arrangements for the government of that country. But such arrangements would be limited to the shortest possible period of time in each case.
I shall now discuss the powers conferred and duties imposed by Islam on a State. The first duty imposed by Islam on a State is that it is bound to guard and promote the moral and material welfare and interests of its people and is responsible for the security of their lives and homes and for the provision of the necessaries of life. The Holy Prophet (sas) says,
‘Every one of you is like a shepherd and is responsible for the persons and things that are placed under his charge. The sovereign is responsible and answerable for his subjects, and every man is responsible and answerable for the members of his family, and every woman is responsible and answerable for her home and children, and every servant is responsible and answerable for the property of his master that is in his charge.’4
This shows that Islam regards the sovereign as a shepherd who is put in charge of a flock; and as a shepherd is bound to look after and protect the flock, and provide for all its needs—as for instance, keeping the sheep from straying, guarding them from the prowling wolf, feeding and housing them, and protecting them from pestilence and disease, it is the duty of an Islamic State to secure its subjects against internal differences, disorders, disturbances and oppressions, and to guard them against attacks from outside, and to provide for all their intellectual and material needs—as for instance those relating to training, instruction, health, food, and shelter, etc.
These are the general duties of a State. In particular it is the duty of an Islamic State to provide for all its subjects the necessaries of life, viz., food, clothing and shelter, for without these the very persons whom it is the duty of the State to protect cannot be preserved. In the absence of adequate food and shelter physical existence becomes impossible, and a moral or social existence is not possible without proper clothes.
One or two illustrations will suffice to show how these general principles were interpreted and applied in practice by the early Muslims. I have stated that it is the duty of an Islamic State to provide the necessaries of life for people who are unable to provide them for themselves. This is well illustrated by an incident which occurred in the reign of Hazrat Umar (ra), the second caliph. The caliph was one day going about incognito to find out whether the people had any grievance against anybody. At Sarar, a village about three miles from the capital, he heard someone crying. He followed the sound and presently came upon an old woman who was tending a pot on the fire and three children near her who were weeping. The caliph enquired of the old woman what their trouble was. She replied that they had had nothing to eat for two days, and as she could procure no food, she had put an empty pot on the fire to make them think that food would soon be ready; and thus to cajole them into sleep. The caliph thereupon returned to Medina. He procured flour, butter, meat and dates, and put them in a bag. He then called a slave and asked him to lift the bundle on to his (the caliph’s) back. The slave protested that he would carry the bundle himself. ‘No doubt,’ replied Umar (ra), ‘You can carry this bundle for me now, but who will carry my burden on the Day of Judgment?,’ meaning that as he had neglected his duty to provide for the woman and her children, the only atonement he could make was to carry the bundle of provisions himself to her.
As, however, it is impossible for the sovereign personally to look after the needs of every individual, a census used to be taken in Islamic countries, and the system of registration of births and deaths was instituted. The object of these measures was not, as in the case of modern governments, to help fill the public coffers, but to help empty them. The data thus obtained furnished information as to the true condition of the people, and the State was thus enabled to provide for people who deserved State aid.
But while Islam enjoins helping the poor, it disapproves of idleness and sloth. The object of State allowances was not, therefore, the encouragement of idleness. They were made only in really deserving cases. People were encouraged to work for their living and were restrained from begging. Hazrat Umar (ra) once noticed a person asking for alms who had a bagful of flour with him. The caliph took away the bag of flour from him, emptied it out before some camels, and turning to him said, ‘Now you may beg.’ It is on record that beggars were compelled by the State to earn their livelihood by labour.
The second duty of the State is to provide for the due administration of justice. Islam has made detailed provisions in this behalf. Judges are enjoined to administer justice without fear or favour. They are prohibited from accepting bribes or acting upon recommendations, and people are prohibited from offering bribes or making recommendations to judges. It is laid down that every case must be decided on the pleas and on the evidence in the case. The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff or the complainant, but the defendant or accused may, in the absence of conclusive proof clear himself of a prima facie charge affirming his innocence on oath. Judges are directed to weigh the evidence of each witness with reference to his character and antecedents.
It is laid down that judges must be qualified and capable of discharging the duties of their office. A judicial decision must be accepted as final, for although judges, like all human beings, are liable to err, disputes must be decided by human beings and there must be a finality to litigation. A person who refuses to accept a judicial decision cannot be regarded as a Muslim citizen for he upsets the whole machinery of government.
The institution of Muftis or jurists was established to advise the poor and ignorant as to their rights. But a jurist could be appointed only by the State, and no man, however learned, could, of his own pleasure, undertake to advise people as to their legal rights.
The State is charged with the execution of sentences imposed by the judges, and no favour or discrimination may be shown in carrying them out. The Holy Prophet (sas) has said that if his own daughter were guilty, for instance, of theft, he would not hesitate to impose upon her the penalty provided by the law. Hazrat Umar (ra) himself flogged his son as a punishment for an offence.
Another duty of the State is to safeguard the honour and security of the country. The Muslims are enjoined in the Holy Quran to guard their frontiers and to post strong bodies of men to watch them, both in peace and in war.
Another duty of the State is to promote national health. The Holy Quran directs the Holy Prophet (sas) to eschew all spiritual and physical impurities. It is the duty of an Islamic State, therefore, to keep roads, thoroughfares and other public places clean. The Holy Prophet (sas) used to direct his companions to kill stray dogs, lest they should develop rabies and injure people.
Another duty of the State is to provide means of national education. In describing the duties and functions of the Holy Prophet (sas) the Holy Quran says, ‘This Prophet (sas) teaches them the Book and the underlying philosophy.’ The book here does not mean only the Holy Quran, it includes all sciences, and learning, mentioned in the Holy Quran; for instance, astronomy, mathematics, botany, zoology, medicine, history, ethics, etc. The Holy Prophet (sas) says: ‘The acquisition of knowledge is a duty laid upon every Muslim.’ He paid particular attention to the systematic instruction of the people. In the battle of Badr, the Muslims took some prisoners who knew how to read and write. The Holy Prophet (sas) offered to release them in consideration of their instructing Muslim children in the elements of reading and writing.
Another duty of the State is to assist people who are skilled in some art or craft, but have not the wherewithal to carry it on. The Holy Quran directs that such people should be given assistance from public funds.
It is the duty of an Islamic State to establish and maintain peace and order within its dominions. This duty is laid on it by the Holy Quran which strongly reproves those promoting disorder or disturbance, and says that the rulers whose neglect leads to disorder and oppression, are answerable for their conduct to God. The Holy Prophet (sas) has described an ideal Islamic State as a government within whose territories a woman may travel far and wide alone and unattended, without encountering any danger.
Another duty of the State is to arrange for the procurement of supplies that may be needed by the people. During the early caliphate the Khalifas took pains to see that this duty was not neglected. During periods of scarcity ration tickets were issued which enabled the people to purchase provisions from government stores.
Another duty laid on the State is the maintenance of roads and thoroughfares to facilitate communication and intercourse. In the early days of Islam when no vehicles were in use, and people either walked or rode, the minimum width of a street was fixed at twenty feet, the object being that streets and roads should be wide and open. In the present age when wheeled traffic is on the increase streets should be proportionately wider.
It is also the duty of the State to supervise the morals of the people and to seek to improve the moral tone of the people by education and instruction.
Lastly, it is the duty of the State to uplift the people, that is to say, to adopt every possible and available means for their progress. This includes the propagation of new sciences, the encouragement of the spirit of investigation and research, the solution of new social problems, etc.
Corresponding duties have also been laid on the people. For instance, they must obey the government, even when its demands do not meet with their approval, and should lend their full support and co-operation to it. Though Islam invests the sovereign with authority in public matters, so as to empower him to issue orders for the welfare of the people after consultation with their representatives, he can exercise no authority over them in private matters. If a dispute, regarding any right, or property, arises between the Khalifah, and a private individual, it must be settled by the ordinary courts of the country in the same manner as a dispute between other private individuals interse. The sovereign can claim no special privilege or prerogative in the matter. Hazrat Umar (ra) was once summoned to court at the instance of Uba’i ibni Ka‘ab. On his arrival the judge vacated his seat out of respect for the Khalifah. The latter went over and sat with the plaintiff, telling the judge that he had been guilty of an injustice. He should have made no distinction between him and his opponent. This, however, relates only to such matters in which the Khalifah is concerned in his private capacity. In respect of his public acts he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts.
In pre-Islamic days the relationship between master and servant was very similar to that between the sovereign and the subject and, in spite of the passage of so many centuries and a tremendous advance in social matters, practically the same relationship subsists today. Islam, however, teaches differently, and lays down the principle that the relationship between master and servant should be based on and defined by contract, the essence of the contract being that the master agrees to pay money to the servant in return for his services. The master, therefore, has no right to treat the servant as a tyrant would treat his subjects. Islam, having taken away the traditional and customary rights even of the sovereign, could not tolerate the prevailing relationship between master and servant. For instance, Islam prohibits the master from abusing or beating the servant, and a similar protection extends to a slave. A companion of the Holy Prophet (sas) relates that they were seven brothers and owned a slave. Their youngest brother gave a blow to the slave. When the matter reached the ears of the Holy Prophet (sas), he directed that the slave should be set free. Another companion relates, ‘I was once about to beat a slave when I heard a voice behind me, which I could not recognize. Then I saw the Holy Prophet (sas) coming towards me, and exclaiming,
‘O Abu Masud, God has far more power over thee than thou hast over this slave.’ Thereupon the whip fell from my hand out of fear, and I said, ‘O, Prophet (sas) of God, I set this slave free in the name of God.’ The Holy Prophet (sas) replied, ‘It is well, for if thou hadst not set him free, the fire would have scorched thy face.’
The Holy Prophet (sas) has said that a man should not require his servant to do that which is beyond his power to do, and that if he is set to do a heavy task, his master should help him in it.
Again, he says,
‘When a servant cooks food and places it before his master, the latter should invite the servant to partake of it, but if the master does not condescend so far, he should at least spare some of it for the servant, for it is he who sat before the fire to cook it.’
Concerning the wages of a servant or a labourer, he says that they must be paid before the sweat is dry on the body of the labourer. Again, he says,
‘If a man fails to pay full wages to a labourer, I shall sue him on behalf of the latter on the Day of Judgment.’
It is thus the duty of the State to see that a labourer is paid his full wages.
There exists considerable misunderstanding about the teachings of Islam concerning slavery. Islam does not permit slavery in the sense in which other religions permit it. According to Islam it is permitted to take slaves from a people, only when, first, the latter make war for the purpose of forcibly converting people to their own faith, secondly, those persons who are made slaves actually participate in such a cruel and inhuman war, and thirdly, the persons who are made slaves fail to pay their share of the war indemnity to the people against whom they had fought to force them to renounce their faith. In the absence of these three conditions Islam emphatically prohibit the making of slaves, which it treats as a great sin. It can easily be appreciated that if a man joins others in drawing his sword to force people to renounce their faith, knowing that the latter not only put their faith above all worldly things and considerations but also look upon it as the sole means of limitless progress in this as well as in the next world, and if, when such a man is captured, he or his people fail to pay their share of the war indemnity, he certainly deserves to be deprived of his freedom. As a matter of fact Islam regards all those persons, who wish to propagate their religion at the point of the sword and, relying on their power, interfere with the faith of others, as outside the pale of humanity; and regards them as a danger for mankind. That is why it lays down that until such a person shows signs of real repentance and shows sincere readiness to live peacefully with his neighbours he should be deprived of his freedom and forced to live as a slave. As to how a slave should be treated I have already briefly set forth the teachings of Islam in this connection. It would appear that, short of freedom, in many cases a slave under Islam lived more comfortably than he had done before.
The question how a first balance can be maintained between the rights of different classes of people is one of the most complicated social problems of the day, and I shall deal briefly with it to indicate the solution which Islam offers.
Islam teaches that the whole universe, including the earth, the sun, the moon and the stars, has been created for the service and benefit of man. All these things, therefore, are, according to Islam the common property of mankind. On the other hand, Islam proclaims another principle viz., that God has granted full scope to man for the exercise of his faculties and talents, and that every man is by nature endowed with the spirit of competition and the desire to outstrip others in the race for progress. Islam encourages such competition. The Holy Quran says, ‘Compete with and try to outrun each other in good deeds.’5
In a competition some would deserve greater rewards than others, and some would deserve no reward at all. Islam takes note of this disparity. Indeed, it claims that this disparity is a part of the Divine scheme of things, and should not give rise to envy or jealousy. The Holy Quran says:
‘Do not covet that in which God has made some of you excel others.’6
That is to say, this apparent inequality which God permits is not without its use and is indispensable for the proper working of the universe. If those who work harder than others or bring a superior intellect or higher business capacity to bear on the conduct of their affairs are to be deprived of their just reward all competition and striving after higher achievement would cease and the purpose of the creation of the universe would be frustrated.
Islam, therefore, acknowledges the claim of those who have earned greater rewards than others through superior intellect or greater diligence, but it also reminds them of their duty to help their less fortunate brethren to come forward and participate in the blessings which God has bestowed on them. They are told that in the wealth which they have earned the poor also have a share, and that the latter should not be deprived of it. It should be enough compensation and happiness for the rich to provide for their poorer brethren who, in a sense, are equally entitled with them to the good things of life, and thus to manifest the Divine attribute of Providence. The Holy Quran says, ‘Give to the poor out of the wealth which God has bestowed upon you,’7 that is to say, your wealth is a trust to the benefit of which the poor are entitled.
This would show that Islam encourages a spirit of competition and in order to foster this spirit, it permits people to retain that which they have fairly and honestly earned. But as all things in the universe are the common property of all mankind, the poor have also a right in the wealth of the rich and the latter should, therefore, set apart a portion of their wealth as if in payment of a royalty for the use and benefit of the poor.
This raises another important question. If it is necessary to encourage a spirit of competition among man, the competition must be open to all classes of men and institutions; and devices which would limit such competition to a few individuals reducing the rest to the position of mere outside spectators should be abolished or rectified. Islam acknowledges the justice of this and makes provision for it. It has laid down instructions and directions by following which, (a) the spirit of competition is fostered and encouraged, (b) private ownership is safeguarded and those who put forth greater diligence or contribute a higher degree of intelligence are secured proportionately higher rewards, (c) those who have in any way contributed towards the production of wealth are secured a just and fair share of it, (d) the door of progress is kept open for all mankind and admission is not restricted to the members of a particular family or class; all classes are afforded equal opportunities of attaining to the highest positions and dignities, and wealth and power do not become the hereditary monopolies of any particular class, and (e) the needs of all classes continue to be satisfied. These directions are as follows:
(1) Islam teaches that all things in the universe being the common property of all mankind, there can be no absolute ownership of anything. A is the owner of his property, not in the sense that nobody else has any right in it, but in the sense that A’s share in it is larger than that of anybody else, for he has acquired it with his labour. Islam describes the share of the poor in the wealth of the rich as a right. For instance, the Holy Quran says, ‘In the wealth of the rich, those who can express their wants and those who cannot (e.g., animals) have a right.’8 Again, ‘ Render to your relatives, the needy and the wayfarer their rights.’9 Islam enjoins the distribution and circulation of wealth and prohibits hoarding, for, this deprives people of their rights. Money must be spent or invested; in either case it would be circulated to the benefit of the community, especially of the poorer classes. Concerning those who hoard money, the Holy Quran says:
‘God is not pleased with the proud and the vain who hoard wealth and compel others to do the same and hide that with which God has blessed them out of His grace. If they do not desist and continue to act in contravention of God’s commands, an humiliating punishment will overtake them.’10
That is to say, if they go on hoarding wealth and abstain from spending it, they and their people would be humiliated.
(2) In order, however, to prevent people from spending the whole of their wealth on personal gratifications, Islam has stopped all kinds of excess and indulgence. Islam prohibits extravagance in food, dress, building and furnishing of houses, in short, in every aspect of life. A Muslim, therefore, who follows the injunctions of Islam, cannot spend so much on his own person or personal gratifications as injuriously to affect the rights of others in his property or wealth.
(3) As it might be apprehended that in spite of the direction to spend or invest money, some people would go on hoarding it, and thus deprive other people of their rights in it, Islam imposes a levy of 2.5% on all money, precious metals and merchandise, etc., which a man has been in possession of for a period of one year or over. The proceeds of this levy must be applied towards the promotion of the welfare of the poor and the needy. The Holy Prophet (sas) in explaining the object of this levy clearly indicated that it was to be imposed on the rich, as the poor are entitled to a share in their wealth. He says, ‘God has made Zakat obligatory; it must be levied on the rich and restored to the poor.’11 The use of the word ‘restored’ indicates that the poor have a right to it and that they are entitled to a share in the wealth of the rich. As their contribution towards the production of this wealth cannot be ascertained with precision, a definite rate has been fixed at which this levy is to be recovered from all those who come within its purview. It should be noted that Zakat is not a mere tax on income, but is a levy on capital and in many instances may amount to as much as fifty per cent of the net profits.
The Holy Quran indicates that the object of Zakat is also to purify the wealth of the rich, that is to say, to separate from it the contribution made towards its production by the poor, and to leave that to which the assessee is exclusively entitled. As God says in the Holy Quran:
‘Levy the Zakat on their goods and purify them (by separating from them that portion to which others are entitled), and use the proceeds of Zakat to promote the welfare of the people.’12
By the institution of Zakat Islam provides for the satisfaction of all those rights that the poor have in the wealth of the rich, and thus brings about a reconciliation between labour and capital and the rich and the poor, for, in addition to the wages that a labourer gets for his work, Islam imposes a levy of 2.5% on the total wealth of the capitalists for the benefit of the poor.
(4) Zakat offers a solution of the economic aspect of the problem but it leaves untouched the monopoly, enjoyed by certain classes, of all means of progress and development. Islam encourages people in the race for progress, and secures to them a first share of fruits of their diligence and industry, but it does not approve that one class should bar the progress of other classes. Every one who runs in a race has the sympathy of the spectators, and people may admire him who runs the fastest, but nobody can approve the conduct of a runner who, having obtained a start in the race, seeks to obstruct the course of other runners to prevent them from out running him. Such conduct would put an end to all healthy competition and emulation, and the few who obtain a start in the race for progress would monopolize all channels of progress and would exclude therefrom their less fortunate brethren.
Islam does not permit this and by making it impossible, it has thrown open the gates of advancement and progress to all classes of mankind. The principal factors that promote and foster this state of affairs are: (a) The rule of primogeniture and other similar rules of inheritance which involve impartibility of estates, and the unrestricted power of bequest by which property may be bequeathed according to the whimsical pleasure of the testator; (b) the lending of money on interest which enables one man, or several, to accumulate huge sums of money in his or their hands, without labour of any kind, and by the mere exploitation of the needs and misfortunes of others; and (c) excessive profits.
These three factors have in many countries deprived the common people of all means of progress. Property has accumulated in the hands of a few and the poorer class of people can acquire no portion of it. The institution of usury or interest enables those who have once established their control over the sources of credit to accumulate as much money in their hands as they may have desire for, and people with small assets have no chance against them. Through the excessive commercial profits wealth is pouring like a cataract into the vast coffers of a handful of capitalists. Islam has devised three remedies for these three causes which lead to a monopoly of property and wealth.
(a) It enjoins the distribution of inheritance. No man has power to devise or bequeath the whole of his property to one man and thus promote its accumulation in a few hands. Under the Islamic law of inheritance and succession a man’s property must be distributed among his parents, children, widow, brothers, sisters, etc., and nobody can interfere with, or divert, this mode of distribution. In a country, therefore, which follows the Islamic law of inheritance and succession, the children of a wealthy father can not afford to keep idle depending their support on the accumulated wealth of their father, for, the whole of his property, movable and immovable, must be distributed among several classes of heirs, and each of them starts afresh in life, with his share of the inheritance. Again, as immovable property continues to be divided and sub-divided in each generation, in the course of three or four generations even large estates are parcelled out into small holdings and even a labourer can purchase a small piece of land and thus have an interest in the soil. Thus no permanent division is created among the people by a monopoly of the ownership of the soil.
(b) Islam prohibits the giving or taking of interest. The possibility of raising loans on interest enables people with established credit to go on borrowing to any extent they please. If such borrowing were not possible they would be compelled either to admit other people as partners with them, or to restrict the scope of their business, so as to leave room for other people to start similar undertakings. The huge trusts and syndicates which at present monopolize the sources of national wealth, would not be possible without interest, and wealth would be more evenly distributed among the people. The accumulation of wealth which we witness today is fatal to moral advancement, and spells ruin for the middle and lower classes.
(c) Excessive commercial profits are kept in check first by the Islamic institution of Zakat, which is levied on the rich for the benefit of the poor. This levy on capital does not leave enough to the capitalist to enable him to attempt to monopolize the wealth of the nation. Secondly, Islam lays down that the proceeds of this levy should, among other objects, be applied towards furnishing those people with capital who possess the necessary business capacity but are unable to start in business owing to want of funds. Thus fresh intelligence is constantly added to the capitalist class and all classes of people are provided with equal opportunities of advancement. Thirdly, Islam has prohibited all profiteering devices. For instance, Islam has declared it sinful for a man to hold back a commodity from the market with the intention of making a larger profit when prices should rise. All devices, for example, the formation of trusts, etc., by which profit is unreasonably enhanced have been prohibited by Islam.
It may be objected that no commerce would be possible without interest. This is not correct. There is no natural relation between commerce and interest, but the latter is unconsciously associated with the former as Western countries have for long based their commercial system on this form of credit. If this had not been so commerce would not have been dependent upon interest and these countries would not have been faced with the unrest which has become a constant nightmare to their peace. Only a few hundred years ago, the Muslims were responsible for a large share of the world’s commerce and yet they carried it on without interest. They borrowed money even from the poorer classes by way of partnership loans, and the commerce carried on by them thus contributed directly to the welfare of those classes. Interest is not essential for commerce, but as commerce is at present being carried on, on the basis of interest, it appears as if without interest it would come to a standstill. No doubt, a change in the system would in the beginning be inconvenient, nevertheless the system of commerce depending upon interest can be gradually discarded, as it was gradually adopted. Interest is a leech that is sucking away the blood of humanity, especially of the middle and lower classes. Even the richer classes are not entirely secure against its poison, but they derive a false enjoyment from it and are reluctant to relinquish it, like the leopard who is said to have eaten away his own tongue by its persistent licking of a piece of rough stone, foolishly thinking it to be the blood and flesh of another animal. Those who may be ready to forego it are too weak to withstand the pressure and momentum of the current system.
The system of credit prevailing in Western countries is destructive of the peace of the world in two ways. On the one hand, it helps the accumulation of wealth in a few hands, and on the other, it facilitates war. I cannot imagine any government entering upon a war of the magnitude of the one which the world witnessed only a few years ago unless it relied upon its ability to raise money by means of loans carrying interest. No country would have been prepared to bear the heavy financial burden laid by the war upon each belligerent nation, if the burden of the enormous expenditure incurred had fallen directly upon the people of each country. This long and devastating war was made possible only by the institution of interest. If huge loans on interest had not been possible many countries would have withdrawn from the conflict long before the war actually terminated, for their treasuries would have become empty and their people would have rebelled in protest against the criminal waste of men and money. But the system of loans made it possible for governments to carry on a ruinous struggle as they were able to obtain the sinews of war without having to resort to direct taxation. The people of these countries did not feel the burden which was being laid on their backs at the moment, but now their backs are bent double under the staggering weight of national debts, and future generations will be kept occupied in reducing the weight. If loans had not been possible, the result of the war would still have been the same, but the devastation of France, the ruin of Germany, the destruction of Austria and the heavy indebtedness of England would have been avoided. Nay, the war itself might have been avoided, and even if it had broken out the belligerents would soon have been exhausted, peace would have been signed within a year, and mankind could have again resumed its forward march of progress.
Efforts are being made to secure a reduction of armaments. But this is only a half measure which would afford no security against the repetition of war. If a government determines upon war, it will not find it difficult to provide itself with arms. The only sure means of preventing war is the abolition of interest. The Holy Quran says that interest leads to war, and this has been confirmed by terrible experience. Wars, whether internal or external, can be put an end to, and peace can be established only when interest is banished from the social and economic systems of all countries. Then may we indeed hope to see rivers running with milk. The rich would then cease to have the power to oppress the poor, and governments would be afraid to make war except in defence of their national honour, when they are convinced that the people would be prepared to make every sacrifice for the national cause. It would not be possible for a sovereign or a government to plunge a country into war for the gratification of a personal whim or the promotion of a partisan policy.
Another cause which contributes towards the accumulation of wealth in a few hands is the exploitation of mineral wealth. Islam has devised a remedy for this by providing that the State must be the owner of a fifth share in all mines. This, coupled with the institution of Zakat, secures the rights of the poorer classes in the national wealth. If a person discovers a mine on his property which he is unable to work owing to lack of funds, the government will acquire the mine on payment of adequate compensation to the owner, or will permit him to sell his share to a third person.
It may be pointed out at the outset that the ideal aimed at by Islam is the establishment of world government, so as to remove all causes of international friction and wars. Each country would be free to pursue its national aims and aspirations, and would have complete autonomy in local affairs, and yet would only be a unit in a larger whole. Islam does not, however, permit any compulsion or coercion for the achievement of this ideal and leaves it entirely to the will of the people of different countries. We must, therefore, make the best of the present system till the world is filled with the spirit of unity in affairs concerning the whole of mankind, leaving local matters to be settled by local authorities, and till the people of different countries are prepared to forget their national jealousies, and to sacrifice their national prejudices for the achievement of the common good. I shall, therefore, confine myself to what Islam teaches concerning the present aspect of international relations.
One of the causes of international disputes and squabbles is in the covetousness with which advantages enjoyed by one nation are viewed by others, and the attempt of one nation to take undue advantage of the weakness of other nations. Islam lays down a principle which removes all such causes of disputes and dissensions. The Holy Quran says:
‘Do not lift thy eyes covetously to those material benefits which we have bestowed upon other nations in order to try them in their actions. That which thy Lord has bestowed on thee is best for thee and most enduring.’13
This means that things plundered from others are neither lasting nor can they be of any real benefit. That which is bestowed by God can alone last even unto the next world.
Another cause of international disputes are international dislikes and jealousies. For instance, one nation wrongs another and a truce is patched up at the time, but the aggrieved nation nurses a grudge against the aggressor, and looks for opportunities to injure it or take undue advantage of it. Islam forbids this and enjoins truth and straightforwardness in all matters. The Holy Quran says:
‘O believers, act uprightly in all matters for the sake of God, and deal equitably with people; let not hatred of a people incite you to injustice. Do justice, for that is in accord with righteousness. Make God your shield, He is well aware of what you do.’14
If these two injunctions are kept in view no Islamic government could be guilty of disturbing international relations, for Muslims are told not to covet the possessions of or the advantages enjoyed by other people; they are enjoined to watch not only over their individual but also over their national morality.
In regard to treaties, Islam requires that treaties should be kept not only with those who are parties to them, but also with those who have entered into treaties with any of them. So, an Islamic state is prohibited from making war upon the allies of its friends even when such allies form part of an enemy empire, provided they do not openly join or actively help such enemies. If treachery is apprehended from a people with whom a treaty has been concluded, it should not be attacked unawares nor should any undue advantage be taken of it. It should first be warned that as it has been guilty of a breach of faith, the treaty is at an end, and if it still persists in its treachery war may be declared against it.
To be ever prepared to repel aggression, on the other hand, is also a means of promoting peace, lest a perfidious enemy may be tempted to take advantage of one’s unpreparedness. Islam, therefore, enjoins that a Muslim state should be ever ready to defend itself, as there is always apprehension of war so long as there are national governments in different countries. No temptation should be offered to other states to make war by a state neglecting its defences.
If war is forced upon an Islamic state, care must be taken to avoid injury to women, children, nurses, old men and those whose lives are wholly devoted to the service of religion. It is permissible to kill in battle only those who are combatants and are actually taking part in the fighting. Quarter must in all cases be given, and unnecessary damage should not be caused. Crops, trees and buildings must be spared, unless their destruction is absolutely necessary for purposes of defence or in order to put the enemy out of action. Damage must not be caused merely to weaken a nation after the war. Proposals for truce or peace should not be rejected merely on the supposition that the other side is acting dishonestly and only desires to gain time. So long as the dishonesty does not become apparent such proposals ought to be welcomed.
For the settlement of international disputes Islam lays down rules which contemplate a body like the newly created League of Nations, although the latter does not yet embrace functions which Islam assigns to such a body.
The Holy Quran says:
‘If two Muslim nations should fall out, make peace between them (i.e., other Muslim nations should try to prevent a war between them, and should try to remove the causes of friction and should award to each its just rights). But if one of them still persists in attacking the other (and does not accept the award of the League of Nations) then all must fight the former, till it submits to the command of Allah (i.e., till it is willing to abide by an equitable settlement) and when it so submits, make peace between them, and act with justice and equity, for God loves the just.’15
This verse lays down the following principles for the maintenance of international peace:
As soon as there are indications of disagreement between two nations, the other nations, instead of taking sides with one or the other, should at once serve notice upon them, calling upon them to submit their differences to the League of Nations for settlement. If they agree, the dispute will be amicably settled. But if one of them refuses to submit to the League, or having submitted refuses to accept the award of the League, and prepares to make war, the other nations should all fight it. It is apparent that one nation, however strong, cannot withstand the united forces of all other nations and is bound to make a speedy submission. In that event, terms of peace should be settled between the two original parties to the dispute. The other nations should act merely as mediators and not as parties to the dispute, and should not put forward claims arising out of the conflict with the refractory nation, for that would lay the foundation of fresh disputes and dissensions. In settling the terms of peace between the parties to the dispute care should be taken that the terms are just and equitable with reference to the merits of the dispute. The mediators should not be influenced by the fact that one of the parties had defied their authority.
If a League of Nations were established on these lines, international peace would be secured at once. All mischief arises out of the fact that when a dispute arises between two nations, the other nations either play the part of amused spectators, or take sides in the dispute. Such conduct, instead of removing the cause of friction, accentuates them. The other nations should, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the dispute, call upon the parties to submit their differences to the League of Nations, and should reserve the expression of their opinions till they have heard all the parties and completed their enquiry. They should then make their award. If either of the parties refuses to accept the award, the nations composing the League should make war upon it, till it makes submission, and when it does so, they should settle the original dispute between the parties and should not put forward new demands arising out of the conduct of the refractory nation. For, if the nations composing the League were to take advantage of the position of the vanquished nation and impose terms on it calculated to secure advantages to the mediators themselves, they would be laying the foundations of fresh dissensions and jealousies, and the League would cease to enjoy the respect and confidence of the peoples of different nations. Their final award should, therefore, be confined to the original dispute between the parties and should not travel beyond it.
As to the cost of such an international war, it must be borne by the members of the League by whom it is incurred. In the first place, the necessity of such a war would rarely arise. Every nation would realize that it would be futile to contend against the united will of the other nations. Secondly as the whole scheme would be based on honesty and would be free from all trace of selfishness on the part of any nation, all nations would be glad to join the League, and thus the expenses which will fall to the share of each nation would be comparatively small. Thirdly, as each nation would derive a benefit from the working of this system, each would be prepared to make some sacrifice for it, and wars as fought at present would become less frequent the resulting security and saving in men and money would be a tremendous gain compared with the price which each nation may be called upon to pay in the form of its share of the expenses of an international war. Even if, however, a real sacrifice should be involved, nations should be prepared to make it, for as it is the duty of individuals to make sacrifices for the purpose of establishing peace, it is also the duty of nations to make sacrifices to that end, they being as much bound by moral principles as individuals.
The failure of the schemes hitherto adopted for promoting international peace and amity is due, in my opinion, to the differences between the principles on which those schemes were based and the principles laid down in the Holy Quran for that purpose. These differences relate to five matters.
(1) Each nation insists upon the observance of the terms of previous agreements entered into by it with other nations individually, and is not willing to relinquish them in favour of a common agreement and understanding between all nations.
(2) When a dispute arises between two or more nations it is allowed to take its course, and no attempt is made by other nations to compel the nations concerned to arrive at a settlement before the matter assumes serious proportions.
(3) Different nations take sides in such disputes and thus promote dissension.
(4) After a refractory nation has made its submission the other nations do not confine themselves to the settlement of the original dispute; each of them seeks to derive some advantage from the situation of the vanquished nation.
(5) Nations are not willing to make sacrifices in the interests of international peace.
If these defects are removed a League of Nations could be established on the lines indicated by the Holy Quran. It is only such a League that can be safely entrusted with the maintenance of international peace, and not a League whose very existence is dependent upon the goodwill of others.
The real cause underlying all international disputes is, that whereas individual conduct is judged by the rules of morality, these rules are altogether ignored when national conduct is in question. Till such conduct is made conformable to the rules of morality, international relations cannot be placed on a satisfactory basis. Those interested in such matters should first endeavour to ascertain the causes of international disputes and then take measures to remove them. An international court of arbitration should be established on Islamic principles to settle such disputes when they arise.
The causes which give rise to such disputes are:
(1) Relations between governments and their subjects are not satisfactory. If the teachings of Islam in this respect were followed and acted upon—that is, that persons living in a country must either lend their wholehearted support and cooperation to the government of that country or withdraw from that country, so as not to disturb the peace of the country—no nation would dare attack another nation without first reckoning the cost; for the knowledge that the people attacked would sacrifice their all in defence of their country would sober and deter an invading nation.
(2) National prejudices are so strong that the people of every country are ready to lend their support to the aggressive policies of their government, merely because it is their government, without reference to the merits of the policies. This encourages a government to enter lightly upon war, confident that whether action is right or wrong it would have the support of its own people. If the principle laid down by Islam were followed, viz., that the best help a man can render his brother is to prevent him from committing an act of oppression, a large number of wars and acts of aggression would be avoided. It is not true patriotism to support one’s government even in unjustifiable aggression; it consists rather in saving it from a course which is unjust.
In short, treachery on the one hand, and national prejudices on the other, are the chief causes of war and these must be remedied before peace can be hoped for.
The world must realize that patriotism and love of humanity are not compatible with each other. The Holy Prophet (sas) has expressed this principle in a short sentence when he said, ‘You must help your brother whether he is the oppressor or is oppressed—the oppressor, by preventing him from committing acts of oppression, and the oppressed, by rescuing him from oppression.’ When a man tries to prevent his own people or government from acting unjustly, his conduct cannot be described as unpatriotic. On the contrary, he is actuated by true patriotism, inasmuch as he tries to save the good name of his country from the stain of oppression. At the same time he is actuated by the true love of humanity, for he is only trying to enforce the observance of the principle, ‘Live and let live.’
(3) The third cause of international misunderstanding is the idea of national superiority. The Holy Quran says:
‘Let not a people despise another, haply the latter may turn out to be better than the former.’16
Again, it says, ‘We cause the periods of adversity and prosperity to revolve among the different peoples.’17 A nation that is advancing towards prosperity should not, therefore, despise another nation, and thus sow the seeds of hostility; it may be that the nation that is despised today may lead the others tomorrow.
International disputes cannot be put an end to till it is realized that mankind are as one people, and that prosperity and adversity are neither the hereditary, nor the permanent, attributes of a people. No people has had a uniform record of prosperity or adversity, nor can any people be secure, in the future, against an adverse change in its circumstances. The volcanic forces that raise a people to the highest pinnacle of glory or pull it down to the lowest depths of ignominy have not ceased to work, and nature pursues its designs as actively today as it has done through centuries past.
Concerning the relations between the followers of different religions, I desire to say here is that Islam teaches a far wider toleration than any other religion. For instance:
(1) It forbids the use of disrespectful language towards the founders, holy men, or leaders of any religion.
(2) It teaches that Prophets have appeared in all nations and no religion can, therefore, be described as wholly false.
(3) It prohibits compulsion in matters of faith and forbids religious wars; for truth has been made manifest from falsehood, and he whom truth gives life shall live and he whom truth kills shall die.
An erroneous impression exists in some quarters that Islam permits propagation of the faith by the sword. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam permits fighting against only an aggressor who attacks the Muslims and only so long as he keeps up the fight. Can such a religion be charged with encouraging propagation by the sword? The truth is that those who attempted to destroy Islam by the sword, were themselves destroyed by the sword; and nobody has ever condemned defensive wars.
If Islam was propagated by the sword, how were those who wielded the sword won over to Islam? The religion which could win over such adherents,—men who sacrificed their all for the faith and established it firmly in the land in the teeth of the united opposition of all nations, not convince others of its truth?
Such a charge is a cruel libel against a religion which was the first to teach perfect toleration. God has, therefore, sent the Promised Messiah (as), without a sword, to demonstrate that Islam can conquer men by its beauty and charm, and the day is not distant when the world will acknowledge the truth of this claim.
1 Bukhari, Kitab-al-Nikah.
2 Al-Nisa’, 4 :37.
3 Al-Nisa’, 4:59.
4 Bukhari and Muslim.
5 Al-Baqarah, 2:149.
6 Al-Nisa’, 4:33.
7 Al-Nur, 24:34.
8 Al-Dhariyat, 51: 20.
9 Al-Rum, 30:38.
10 Al-Nisa’, 4:37,38.
11 Bukhari and Muslim.
12 Al-Taubah, 9:103.
13 Ta Ha, 20:132.
14 Al-Ma’idah, 5:9
15 Al-Hujurat, 49:10.
16 Al-Hujurat, 49:12.
17 Al-‘Imran, 3:141.