Questioner: What is the difference between the cycles of persecution and progress that the divinely founded organizations are subjected to, and the cycles of similar or apparently similar persecution and progress which the worldly organizations are subjected to, such like communism for example?
Huzoor: Yes, I understand that point. Please sit down. This question I have already attended to in one of my earlier sessions, I think quite at some length, but for your benefit I would repeat it, if not in that detail, but in essence.
The most important difference is the atmosphere in which a movement takes root. If it is a worldly movement which is not supported by a divine power, then if the factors available at the time of the movement are weak as compared to the opposing forces, that movement must be destroyed. There is no other answer to this. Put the facts to the computer, whichever side would be heavier must win. Now I’ll further explain and then you will follow. Whenever a movement is started on a worldly basis, any pro-faith movement, any non-religious movement, it has to be successful only when there is enough ground for it already present, enough support for it either in ideology or in the circumstances, and such movements always take root in hatred and revenge, and there has to be enough revenge present in the society against certain usurpers, certain dictators, certain powers, which makes the majority of the population on the side of that ideology.
Then, there is not only a possibility but there is a great probability that such a movement would win, but it may not win either, that is also a possibility, but the factors available are obvious. For instance, for a communist movement there are certain important factors which have to be present, otherwise that movement cannot be launched to success. There has to be a stage of industrial development, there has to be a certain gap between the haves and the have-nots, there has to be a history of maltreatment on the part of those who were in the government against the poor, and an oppression and insensibility to the requirements and sufferings of the people.
Plus, there has to be an outside support where leadership could be provided and strings could be pulled. All these factors go together to make a communist revolution, And look back in history of communist revolutions, in each successful revolution these factors would be present. In each failure, some other important factors would be missing. Popular support for a certain cause is a fundamental must for the success of such worldly movements. Look at the religious movements, they are diametrically opposed in conditions to this. There is a fundamental hatred to that new idea which is prevalent in the society.
The whole society, by tooth and nail, opposes that idea so the religious clergy, opposed at the time to the phenomena of prophethood, takes its support from the same masses from which communists take for support. It is in fact the masses which are supporting the enemies of religion, and they have no power either, state is not on their side either. So all the material factors are found joining hands together against the religious movement, and they are left with no factors at all. When they win, later on in history, then people look back and in the backlight of history they decide that this was a winning idea. Of course it was a winning idea, but a very different sort of winning idea.
To begin with, when it was taking root, the masses and the very great majority of the masses were opposed to this idea. This is one important difference which is found everywhere in the entire movement of religion and in the entire movement of worldly revolutions. The second important factor is that the worldly movements are always based on hatred. Whenever you make a movement, there has to be a source of energy, without that no machine can run. Some energy has to be tapped, and in religious forces, invariably it is the energy of love which is tapped.
Love for the poor, not hatred of the rich. Love for the oppressed, not revengeance against the oppressor. Only one factor is present, and the other factor is missing. In the non-religious forces it is always the other factor which is present, and the first factor is missing. To make this understood clearly, the Holy Quran begins with this idea. The first ever tale which was told in the Holy Quran is about this. When there is a debate between, apparent debate between Satan and God, Satan says that you have created man from wet earth, and you have created me from fire, so I am superior to it. Why should I bow down to wet earth, wet soil? Now if you further analyze the two situations, you reach at the same conclusion where I have reached.
The fact is that the qualities of wet clay or wet earth are number one, cohesion. Number two, reproduction. And a progress like the progress of life on earth, the progress of vegetative growth, and the fire disintegrates and burns out. And it is the enemy of life and love, enemy of slow progressive movements. It destroys, it annihilates, and then something will be built on the ashes of the destruction, but the first message is that of destruction and annihilation.
So this is how the Holy Quran tells us that the two movements will never be separated and made distinct from one another. The religious movements will always rely entirely upon its motive force in love, in values of progress and reproduction, and cohesion, not disintegration, while the non-religious forces could also flourish, but they would flourish like fire, they would flourish on hatred, on vengeance, on creation of such forces as annihilate things and demolish things. So this is why the Holy Quran has stuck from the beginning to the end to this style of philosophy.
A philosophy has been unfolded here in the very first revelation about how two forces come to oppose each other and a fight begins in the world. And then the Holy Quran sticks to this in minus minutest detail. And you will be surprised to find that whenever Hasana and Sayyia are mentioned in juxtaposition, it is never Sayyia that is mentioned first and Hasana that is mentioned after. It is never said in a single place that remove Sayyia. All that is said and everywhere it is said, again, that replace with Hasana, Sayyia. That is no nihilism in Islam.
Even if a thing is bad to your eyes, you have no right to remove it unless you have a better thing to replace it with. So the idea of Islam is creative. Nihilism is not permitted, while the ideology of the non-religious forces is nihilism first and then we’ll see whatever emerges, it’s all right. That is the second most important difference. Thirdly, the type of people which are created belong to two different worlds. Their conduct, their behaviour, their sacrifices, their attitude to life, to property, to wealth, to other human beings, they’re so dissimilar in these two movements that one is easily recognisable from the other through characteristics.
There is no concept of sacrifice for your brother or living of your right in a non-religious movement. But in a religious movement, it is not grabbing a right or in the name of right grabbing something from other. The main stress is on leaving your right for the sake of your brother. The fact is that the sum total of the social wealth remains the same in both cases. But there is a very important difference in how you distribute things. In one case it is grabbing from the other and hurting other, in the other case it is parting with one’s own accord and pleasure and adding pleasure to what the other receives.
What you snatch provides you with a sense of attainment but no satiation, because the moment you begin to snatch from others, your desire rises and you can never meet the desire because it will always go on desiring beyond. But in a religious society which is based the other way round on providing others with their needs and sacrificing your needs for the sake of others, this can never happen. It’s the other way round what happens in the society. So the feature of love is also found here in detail and the feature of hatred is found in the worldly movements in every detail.
After a revolution has set in, still the satiation for more and suppression of those who demand continues unabated. So there has to be a complete regimentation. If the society is satiated truly and honestly, then the coercion is not required anymore. It must go overboard. The presence of coercion and force positively declares that the society is not satiated, it is not in a state of equilibrium and it desires what it has not got. If that were not the state of affairs, there would not be any coercion.
And this is exactly what was understood by Marx himself and which is conveniently being forgotten by the present day leadership. Marx, whatever he was, was a very highly intelligent being. That you must give him. So when he conceived of a communist society based on equality, he claimed that everybody would be satisfied because he would get his rights and when everybody is satisfied then an equilibrium in society is reached, like a level desert where unless wind blows from outside no change can happen in surface levels.
So a calm sea, a calm ocean of sand would be created and no coercion is needed. So it will be a stateless society in the end. That was the utopia of Marx and it’s quite logical. If satisfaction is reached, then it has to be a stateless society. But what happens? More state interference is required in a communist state because that satiation is never reached. It always evades people, runs ahead of them and because of a fear from the people who are always demanding because they are made, turned into a demanding people, they are fed on hatred, so the hatred begets hatred again.
So the whole society is based on fear. As long as the fear remains, the society will survive and the counter-oppression is also present. That’s what I mean. The equation between fear and oppression has to be a constant equation. If it is disturbed in the favor of fear, then the government should be toppled at a very high cost of bloodshed. If it remains inclined in favor of the governments, then fear will make them more cautious, more wary and always well-armed against the possible dangers from the masses. So that is exactly what is happening in the communist world. This is why they cannot tolerate the ideas of liberty in Poland or other places.
They know what may happen to them. But in Islamic society or any religious society, it is love which plays the same part and as long as love is there, the society will survive. If the love part is lacking, just the artificial machinery of Sharia or law will not suffice. It will break down. Or a coercion will have to be added in that regard. If love is removed, that is the semantic force, that is the wet clay which is holding the religious society together, if that is missing, to that extent it will have to be replaced by coercion and from then on it will no longer be a religious society.
So what is happening in Middle East and some other societies of the world today in the name of Islam and also in the name of Christianity in some countries, all that is fake religionism. Against the very first lesson of the Holy Quran, which tells us that religion does not require any coercion because it is based on love. Coercion will always be required and eternally will be required by opposing forces to religion because they are based on hatred. In a nutshell, laa-ik-raha-fi-deen also comes into picture here.
