Читать книгу Islamic Civilization - Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdudi - Страница 13
ОглавлениеAfter determining the worldview of a civilization, the second question that occupies a central place in the analysis of its positive and negative aspects is, ‘What ideal of life does that civilization present?’ The importance of this question lies in the fact that the natural direction of a person’s intentions and practical efforts is necessarily towards the one end and goal that he has declared to be his ideal of life. The formation of a mindset, right or wrong, good or bad, and the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a lifestyle is fully dependent upon the correctness or lack thereof of this goal. Contingent upon this ideal being right or wrong are the highs and the lows of thoughts and concepts, the superiority or the inferiority of ethics, and the loftiness or the diminutiveness of economic and social pursuits.
Contingent upon this goal being clear and well directed or blurred and misdirected is the basis of life’s totality – and that includes the organization or distortion of a person’s thoughts, constancy and inconsistency of the pattern of everyday life and the utilization of energies and capabilities in a focused or dispersed manner. Taken as a whole, the ideal is that criterion on the basis of which a person is able to choose his path from the many available paths of thought and action and then spending all of his mental and bodily energies as well as material and spiritual resources in that direction. Accordingly, when we wish to measure any civilization on the scale of excellence, an investigation into its ‘Ideal of Life’ is indispensable.
The Essential Characteristics of a True Collective Ideal 1
However, prior to taking the first steps in the direction of research and discussion, we should clearly determine as to what we mean by this ‘True Collective Ideal’ or ‘Ultimate Civilizational Ideal’ (which as we go along will, for convenience sake, be simply rendered as ‘ideal’). It is quite clear that when we use the word ‘civilization’ we do not mean the ‘personal views of civilization’ of the component people but the collective view and definition of that civilization. Accordingly, individual personal ideals cannot be the ideal of the civilization as a whole. On the contrary, it is fundamental that whatever is the ideal of a civilization also be the ideal of every one of its members, whether or not they are consciously aware of the same or not. Thus, the ideal of a civilization is that ideal which, consciously or unconsciously, has become the common collective aim of a large group of people and which has so overcome the ‘individual ideals’ of those people that by now individuals – in their personal capacities – also espouse the ideal that is held by the group.
There is one essential condition for this kind of collective ideal to be valid: that it should be in total consonance and agreement with the (separately held) individual ideals so that it is able to simultaneously be both the ideal of the individual singularly as well as that of the group collectively. The reason for this is that if the collective ideal were not in accord with the ideals of the individual members, then, it would be difficult for it to become the collective ideal because a concept that is not individually acceptable to the members of a group is not likely to become collectively acceptable. And if, by virtue of some strong external pressure, it does become the group’s ideal, a subtle conflict between the group and individual ideals would then ensue until such a time that the individuals reverted to their personal objectives whenever the collective philosophy was weakened. Thereupon the centripetal or communicative forces that maintained the collective structure dissipate in a process that not only nullifies the group’s ideal, but also ensure that no sign of the civilization itself remains.
Therefore, the true civilizational ideal can only be one that is wholly and indisputably the natural aim of the whole group of people. A civilization’s true merit lies in its ability to present a collective ideal that is or can also become the individual ideal of its members in an unaltered form.
From this viewpoint, two questions arise. Without answering them, we cannot move ahead with our analysis. These are, first, ‘What is the natural (normative) personal ideal of human beings?’ And, secondly, ‘What are the ideals that the various civilizations of the world have put forward, and how far are these in agreement with that natural ideal?’
Man’s Natural Ideal and Ultimate Aim
The question about man’s natural ideal is actually a question about the purpose for which human beings naturally strive in this temporal world – the primary object of the desire of their inner selves. Researching this, if one were to individually ask a large number of people as to what they each wished to achieve in this world, many different answers would be forthcoming. It is possible that one does not find two people whose objectives and desires are exactly the same. However, upon deeper probing, one would learn that the outcomes which people have termed to be their objectives are not the end in themselves but only the means to reach such an end. By and large, that one end is prosperity and peace of mind. Every human being, irrespective of the intellectual status and social class to which he may belong, and in whichever walk of life he may be active, only has one ideal: the achievement of peace and tranquillity, happiness and deep-felt harmony. It would not be wrong to call this the natural ideal of every human being.
A Critical View of Two Popular Collective Ideals
If one were to view the collective sets of ideals presented by various civilizations in their minute entireties, there would be many differences between them, the coverage of which is neither aimed at here nor is possible. However, in terms of broad principles, we can divide civilizations into two types:
(i) Civilizations that are not based upon any religious or spiritual concepts. These present an ideal of superiority to their followers. This ideal is a compound of several ingredients, the important among which are the following:
• A craving for political domination and hegemony
• A desire to exceed everyone in wealth and material well-being, irrespective of whether this comes through geographic conquest or control over commerce and industry.
• A yearning to surpass all and sundry in the manifestations of sociological progress, be it in the arts and sciences or architectural grandeur and civilizational excellence.
This group ideal is apparently not in contradiction with the individual ideal mentioned above. This is because, even after some reflection, it can be easily stated that if the collective ideal is established on these bases, then the respective individual ideals shall also be so established on similar orientations – and, indeed, with even greater vigour. The very fact that millions upon millions of individuals willingly allow their personal ideals to be amalgamated with the group ideal is sufficient proof of its false facade. However, with a deeper view, and also from practical experience, it can be shown that this collective ideal is extremely incompatible with the ‘natural ideal’ of individuals.
It should be evident that at any given point in time, several nations have this collective ideal of national superiority and domination and all of them strive to achieve it. The net result of this competition is strong conflict – political, economic and social – that ensues amongst them and severe disorder caused by the ongoing competitiveness and resistance. So much so, that in this milieu of anxiety and disarray it becomes virtually impossible for individuals to attain peace and tranquillity, prosperity and peace of mind.
It is this situation with which we see the Western world confronted today. However, if we were to assume that there could be a period in history in which only one nation strove for this [domineering] ideal, and that there was no other nation offering resistance, even then there is no possibility that such individual ideals will be successfully manifested in the wake of collective success. The reason for this is that it is a natural attribute of such a collective ideal that it not only generates rivalry between nations, but that it also brings about a competitive mentality amongst the vast numbers of individuals who comprise such nations. As a consequence, domination over fellow national compatriots – enabling them to exceed others in terms of wealth and power, status and luxury, and access to public office – become every individual’s aim of life. They desire to capture others’ means of sustenance and become sole masters of as many sources of wealth, benefit and profit as possible, leaving others only with loss and frustration, so that they become the people of authority and others become their followers and subordinates.
Firstly, there is no end at which the greed for material acquisitiveness of such people is satiated and, therefore, they always remain dissatisfied and troubled. Secondly, when competitiveness of this kind is internalized within the members of a nation, then every home and every workplace becomes a battlefield. Naturally, peace and harmony, happiness and prosperity vanish, notwithstanding the preponderance of wealth, power and material means.
Furthermore, it is but natural that progress defined purely by way of material attributes – one in which spirituality has no part – shall never satisfy human beings. This is because the exclusive attainment of corporeal pleasures is entirely an animal aim. If it be true that human beings are something more than their essential animal existence, then it must also be true that the mere achievement of those pleasures which only gratify their animal nature will not be sufficient for fully satisfying such a supra-animal creature.
(ii) Civilizations whose foundations have been established upon religious and spiritual principles.
Generally such civilizations have declared their collective ideal to be ultimate salvation. Undoubtedly, this ideal carries within it the spiritual element that provides people with tranquillity and peace of mind. It is also true that the achievement of salvation that can become a national ideal can just as well become the individual ideal of its members. However, upon undertaking a deeper critique, it appears that this ideal cannot become a true ideal. There are several reasons for this:
First, there is a certain selfishness that lies concealed within this ‘salvation ideal’, the essential nature of which empowers individualism at the cost of collective enfeeblement. The reason for this is simply the fact that if every individual could attain salvation by doing certain specified acts, totally on his own, there would remain nothing in the ideal that could give it a collective status, instead of an individual one, and which could encourage individuals to cooperate with the group for its establishment. This spirit of individualism is diametrically opposed to the ideal that a civilization holds dear by virtue of being a collective entity.
Secondly, the issue of salvation is very deeply linked with the process specified for attaining such deliverance. Thus, the fact of the salvation ideal being considered right or wrong is profoundly correlated with the suggested procedure for attaining salvation being considered right or wrong. For instance, salvation can neither become the individual ideal nor the collective ideal in religions that consider monasticism and renunciation of the temporal world to be the way to salvation. In order to separate the temporal from the spiritual while still maintaining a pathway for the salvation of ‘worldly’ individuals, the followers of such faiths have been forced to invent ‘middle paths’ like service to the servants of the faith and atonement. The result of this has been twofold: first, this ideal has ceased to remain, in its cohesive entirety, the common ideal of both the individuals as well as the group. Secondly, apart from a small number of faithful followers the ideal no longer holds the loftiness, significance, and magnetism for the remainder of the group that once could have kept them devoted to it. As a consequence, most temporally-oriented people have decided to follow the materialistic ideal outlined above.
On the other hand, religions that have declared salvation to be dependent upon the pleasure of certain idols and deities have failed to maintain the shared values of the ideal. Different groups turn to different deities2 due to which the ideal loses its true unity, the maintenance of which and uniting of all followers within whose fold is the real work of civilization. Thus, whenever the followers of such religions wish to embark upon the path of temporal success – naturally by severing their links with the group – they feel the need for another ideal.
There is another category of religions whose message is not directed towards human beings in their generic nature as human beings, but is instead intended for a particular nation of a certain ethnicity or one living within certain geographic boundaries.3 On this account, in the view of such religions, salvation is limited to that special ethnic group or nation. Such an ideal can undoubtedly serve as a successful collective ideal in the early stages of a civilization, but since it does not meet the standards of true intellect – the fundamental premise of restricting salvation to a certain race is something that any sane person will reject – the followers of such faiths themselves rebel against their ideal after moving only a few steps on the road to progress. While exorcizing such an ideal from their minds, they adopt some other ideal.
Thirdly, howsoever pure the salvation ideal may be from a religious or spiritual viewpoint, it does not have any substance within it that could, from a temporal point of view, elevate a group as a nation, and energize it with a force that is essential for mobilizing it to achieve national progress. It is because of this that no progressive nation has ever made salvation its collective ideal. Even amongst those nations whose religions have presented salvation as an ideal, its status has been relegated to that of an individual ideal.
These are the reasons because of which both material and spiritual ideals do not equate with the true measure of success. Let us now see as to what the Islamic civilization has declared to be its ideal and what those qualities are that make it a correct ideal.
The Ideal of Islamic Civilization and its Characteristics
At the very start of this discussion, it should be evident that the whole issue of an ideal is deeply linked with the subject of a worldview or Weltanschauung. Whatever view we maintain about the temporal world – and whatever view we have about our role in that temporal world and the place of the corporeal world in our lives – naturally generates an ideal for life. Accordingly, we begin to spend all our energies towards the establishment of that ideal. If we consider the world to be a pasture, and our view of life defines it as a time period granted us for eating, drinking and being merry, then this animalistic concept will necessarily inculcate within our beings a primeval and corporeal ideal. We will then spend all our lives in efforts to obtain the materials that impart sensual pleasure.
On the contrary, if we consider ourselves to be natural wrongdoers and instinctive sinners, and our view about this world is that of a place of torment in which we have been thrown for suffering the punishment of our inborn delinquency, then, naturally this concept produces in us a desire for release from this affliction, and upon this basis we consider salvation to be our ideal.
However, if our concept about the temporal world is beyond that of either a pasture or a torture chamber, and, as human beings, we consider ourselves to be above and superior to both animals and criminals, we will certainly look for an ideal that is loftier than the mere pursuit of physical pleasures or the attainment of salvation. Our insightfulness, then, does not stop at any inferior and lowly standpoint.
Keeping this principle before us, when we see that Islam has declared man to be God’s viceroy and His representative on earth, then the intellect necessarily reaches the one ideal that can and should naturally arise from this worldview. By virtue of being a viceroy what else can the ideal of the subordinate representative be other than attaining the approval and pleasure of the power that he represents and that he be considered a good, loyal, and conscientious employee. If a person is a truly straightforward and well-intentioned individual, can he make his ideal anything else except service to the superior and attainment of his pleasure? Would such a person fulfil his duty only because of a longing for an increase in his payment, an incentive for promotion or reward, or a desire for enhancement in rank or status? It would be altogether a different matter that upon being pleased, this superior grants him all these, or holds out the promise of granting all these in return for superior performance. Moreover, there would be no harm in bearing the self-knowledge that if the person were to carry out his duties in the best manner possible and please the superior then the said rewards would be his. On the other hand, if he were to make the rewards his goal, and perform his duties only because of the expectation of gain, would any wise person call such a servant dutiful?
Based upon this illustration, we may reflect on the subject of God and His viceroy. If man is considered to be God’s viceroy on earth, can the ideal of his life be anything but the seeking of His approval and pleasure? This is the ideal that the intellect and innate disposition create out of the said worldview. Without any omission, this is precisely the ideal that Islam has presented to humankind. By following the statements of the Qur’ān given below we can see that the whole endeavour is directed towards placing this one ideal in the hearts and minds of people and towards internalizing it by employing different forms of address. Simultaneously, there is also a forceful negation of all other viewpoints. The Qur’ān states:
Say: ‘Surely my Prayer, all my acts of worship, and my living and my dying are only for Allah, the Lord of the whole Universe. He has no associate. Thus have I been bidden, and I am the foremost of those who submit themselves (to Allah).’
[al-Anʿām 6: 162-163]
Surely Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their belongings and in return has promised that they shall have Paradise. They fight in the Way of Allah, and slay and are slain. … Rejoice, then, in the bargain you have made with Him. That indeed is the mighty triumph.
[al-Tawbah 9: 111]
In Sūrah al-Baqarah, while distinguishing the obedient person from the disobedient, the former is described as:
Among men there is a kind who dedicates his life seeking to please Allah; Allah is Immensely Kind to such devoted servants.
[al-Baqarah 2: 207]
In Sūrah al-Fatḥ Muslims have been described as a people whose friendship and enmity, whose devotions and prostrations, are all for Allah:
