Huzoor: The question started with a sort of comparison between the moral state as found in the European countries, Western countries, two or three or four decades ago, and the moral state in comparison which was witnessed in the so-called Islamic countries, or the Oriental countries in general. And the inference drawn from this comparison was that some people observed that if you want to see Islam in practice, you better come to the West, to the Christian world, rather than go to the Muslim world. That is in a nutshell the essence of the question. That part of the question which was asked yesterday.
And the second part which is revealed today deals with this aspect, that suppose if that Western civilization as was found a few decades ago, had preserved in all purity till today, then were we to learn Islam from that civilization? And as the questioner himself said, it was just hypothetical. So it’s only an academic interest in it, not a real interest, because he agrees that that Islam, if it is called Islam properly, is no longer in existence in West either.
And the third is that we, as Ahmadis, are we guarding the values for which we were created? To guard and to impart them to the rest of the world? So as far as the first comparison is concerned, I think Madras Sahib has not done his homework properly and extensively, because without defining Islam, you can’t enter into comparing the values of Islam or declaring the values of Islam to be found in a certain civilization. Islam is a white/wide religion, of a very white/wide concept.
It has relations to human interest, both in this world and in the world to come. It has, it deals with all aspects of human nature in which man can have interest. It deals with the political aspects of human life, moral aspects of human life, individual relation to individual, child relation to the mother and to the father and the vice-versa, concept of friendship, relationship between master and slave, relationship between those who govern and those who are governed, those who are economically well off and those who are economically poor off, those who decide to go to wars, and those against whom the sword has been raised. Everything, every aspect of human life is covered by Islam and has been extensively demonstrated by Islam.
So first of all, the question should have dealt with the concept of Islam, and then it should have defined which part of Islam was in evidence. Then if it had been said that were we to learn that part of Islam from there, it would have been a valid question. But to call a part a whole first, and then to derive a conclusion based on this erroneous conclusion to begin with is, to say the least, a very incomplete and incorrect way of approaching a problem. Number two, when you begin to compare things like this, unless you analyze further other aspects which come into this comparison, which emerge as factors in this comparison, you won’t be able to clearly visualize the true picture.
Let’s further investigate the whole situation as presented to us. Number one, Islam is neither found in practice here nor there, as such. Whatever we find here is something else that may have some similarities to certain Islamic values. And Islam is not practiced in the East either, because whatever you see there is not Islam at all. So where does Islam come into picture? Just a minute, just a minute, let me finish. When you were asking the question, I didn’t interfere with your question. Please hear me out with patience and this is also a part of Islam, as I know it. So what is it which you are comparing? That has to be decided first. Is it Western civilization you are comparing, or is it influence of Christianity which you are comparing? First that has to be decided. And as I see it, Christianity is no longer seen in practice anywhere in the world as such, because centuries ago, the Christian world had revolted against Christianity and the new civilization which emerged from that revolt is called Western civilization or Christian civilization erroneously.
In fact, for instance, if the teachings of Christianity were kept in mind, that part of the teaching in particular which even they agree is there, I mean not the controversial part. For instance, if somebody slaps on one side of your face, you should offer the second one. Now, if this is Christianity, and this is Christianity, everybody agrees, where is it in practice? And it is completely an erroneous idea to consider the Western civilization as a Christian civilization, as it is wrong to claim that the Muslim civilization today is Islamic civilization. Both have lost their bearing completely and what we see is the civilization of a well-to-do people who are scientifically advanced, who have had long experience of conflict and of struggle between themselves and between them and the others, and they are a few centuries ahead of us, not in religion, but in that experience and that learning process.
Their clergy has had to pass through those narrow channels of minds which our clergy in the East is passing through today. Their conduct in religion, their behavior towards other mankind, their so-called supremacy over others in piety and religious values, all that is an experience of the West left far behind in centuries. The economic, the phase of economic development through which we are passing today, if you want to observe the West passing through the same phase, you better start reading English novels covering that period or English history, if you want to be more sure of it. But there are certain English novelists who are very true in depicting the culture of that time and the habits of that time and the economic values, and how they came into clash with each other. Today, when you see a few boys being abducted for the sake of forced labor in Pakistan or in some other Western, Eastern poor countries, when the West is found in the same stage of economic development, you would see much more horrible pictures evolving there and much more intensive.
When you see religious hatred in exercise in some Eastern countries in the name of Islam, one thing is positive that Islam doesn’t dictate such things, so does not Christianity. But when you go back in history, when the same period is found in the West, as we are passing through today, you will find much more heinous atrocities were committed by the Western people than centuries of despotism on the part of Muslims could have produced. And this is historical evidence, I have given it before, I can repeatedly give it, and so far, I have not come across a single Western scholar who contradicted me on this issue. There are reigns of Western emperors where terror was let loose in the name of religion which surpassed the entire terror which was let loose in the Islamic history, the whole Islamic history, in the name of religion. Just go through the history of plague as I mentioned earlier, once here in this session, go through the history of 14th century plague and you will be surprised that atrocity committed against the Jews by the Christians almost offset the early atrocities committed against the Christians by the Jews.
The outshone or out, I should say outshone is not the right word, if there was some word outdarkened, that should have been used. So to see things in their relative perspective is highly important before you begin to draw your conclusions. So this has to be analyzed before the question is to be asked. What are we comparing? Comparing an advanced society which is 200 years ahead of us with a backward society and calling this Islam and calling that Christianity or something else? I mean this is just stretching things too far, too much. Islam has to be compared with the values of Christianity or the claims of Christianity at best. Islamic civilization has first to be analyzed in theory and then it has to be compared with any other civilization in theory. That would be a right comparison. But you can’t compare a dream with reality, a thing which is non-existent with a thing which is existent.
It is a theory, Islam is when not in practice is a theory and a civilization in practice is not a theory. However weak it may be, when it is compared with a theory, it would defeat the theory. But the comparison is wrong. So all that you can say is that unfortunately the Muslim world has gone astray and has left Islam far behind with the result that the present civilization which is so ugly to look at, so horrible, so so ridden, that civilization is something which has emerged from the local conditions of a backward nation. That is the best conclusion you can draw. And on the other side, whatever credit there is, it goes to a long experience which is economic experience more than anything. For instance, you see milk not being stolen here. Why? Because everybody’s standard of economic standard is so high that to steal milk is just useless and meaningless. But whatever is meaningful they do, they don’t hesitate.
So the comparative difference of outlook has created this so parallax between the two civilizations, while in reality in internal comparisons they are reacting in the same manner as in religious societies governed not by the religious laws but by the laws of human nature. And those laws follow these conditions and the economic experience and there are so many other factors which have to be fed into them before you realize in what way certain people are going to react. When stresses come, that is the time to see what happens to these civilizations, their advanced, their claim of advanced morality for instance, the sheen of culture which they present to the onlooker. At the time of stresses it completely vanishes into thin air.
A very different and ugly picture emerges from within. Similarly, as I have been telling you before, the so-called morality is a relative term in the West and it is shattered to pieces when that morality is sought to be applied to other nations as against their own interest. That is to say, I will explain that further, when the moral concept of a Britisher is to be applied to a Pakistani, it won’t equally apply in both places. If the national interest of the Britisher is served by that equal application, it will be equally applied. If it does not serve the national interest of a Britisher, the moral concept will go overboard because the ultimate analysis of their morality is whatever is good for the nation is moral. The other day, a group from Cambridge, the students, some postgraduate students from Cambridge came here to discuss these things. So, one of them asked this very question in a different manner. So, when I told him about their moral concept and its relativity, the questioner fully agreed immediately. He said, I know this is absolutely correct. I said individually, when the question of justice comes and when it does not clash with your national interest, you will be more just to a Pakistani, to a Hindu, to a Jew, than perhaps a Pakistani would be.
But when you think in national terms, even if the whole nation is to be wiped out from the face of earth, if the interest of that nation, however just, clashes with your interest, your loyalty would demand that you decide in favor of the British interest. This is an overruling moral philosophy which governs every moral subordinate law for you. I said, so why do you have to laugh on Lenin’s philosophy, which ultimately breaks down to this? This is exactly what Lenin said. He had the courage to admit, while the West does not have the courage to admit that. Lenin said that all this morality is hocus-pocus, unless it is defined as such, that whatever serves the cause of communism is moral, and whatever does not serve the cause of communism is immoral. So, this in reality is the concept of morality. When they go into wars, their behavior is so immoral and beastly, that you simply cannot imagine unless you read the history of their wars. I have read that history. I have read many books on the history of the previous war, particularly that by Churchill.
Nobody can say that he is not an authority. It’s a five-volume, big, huge book, and once you go through it, then you realize what beastly depths they can reach when their interests clash with others, even if they are Western nations. And when they begin to decide in the issues, global issues, then they admit openly that they decide issues on the color basis, the yellow threat, and the black threat, and the dark brown threat, and so on and so forth. And even communist philosophy is forgotten at that time. As against the evil of the yellow threat, the Russian white would favor the Western white. So, what is morality here? As I explained earlier, the morality in nutshell here is an economic experience, nothing more.
A long economic experience gives you a sort of wisdom in normal everyday conduct. And in the final analysis, morality is nothing but a gained experience in wisdom, a sum total of experience of ages of wisdom, or the vice-versa, wisdom gained by ages of experience. Because common man could not reach such things directly, so either sages had to tell them that this is ultimately good for you, or religion had to tell them. Where religion tells them despite great deterioration in economic values, some remnant is still left. And when faced with extreme stresses, those nations who previously were less moral, as compared to some other worldly nations, do not sink below a certain level of immorality. But those nations whose roots are not religious, but they have gained their morality through a long experience alone, when stress comes to them and their pride, they break down completely and their moral standard stoops much lower than those poor nations against whom they were rated higher in moral values.
For instance, I’ll again compare, not West with East, but Hinduism or the Indian morality with the Pakistani morality. However cruel you may call Pakistanis to behave to you, when the anti-Ahmadiyya hostility comes into play, they have a lowest minimum moral standard taught to them by Islam, which is not taught to Hindus by Hinduism or by Indian culture. So, they can stoop to a certain depth, but no longer, not beyond. And beyond that, it’s impossible for them, they break down themselves. So, I have seen, I remember, 34 agitation as well as 53 agitation, as well as 74 agitation against Ahmadis. Some among them were really cruel, of course, but the majority could not be cruel. Despite all the hatred that was worked up by the Mullah, they had that Islamic values in them, which, the rock bottom for which was quite high. While the Hindus, when they are excited in hatred against any other, they know no limit.
There’s no comparison between atrocities committed by Hindus against Muslims, as compared to the atrocities committed by the Muslims against Ahmadi Muslims. So, again, the same is the comparison point. Under stress, certain values remain to stay, and those are religious values, and certain values are superficial, with an apparent shame, and they are the values gained by long experience. So, even this comparison, even if you give them full marks for their culture, because it is a culture which is seen by some eyes. Ordinary liberty, human liberty, nobody would snatch your bottle of milk or things, while the purses are not being snatched. This is why the gentleman, quite an intelligent gentleman, said it is hypothetical, if that civilization had remained intact as we saw it a few decades ago. This is why that if was added. But the fact is, why it is breaking down? Because the values are breaking down which were responsible for this culture, that economic standard is breaking down, that world empire has broken down, which gave the culture of nobility. It is like the culture of a king’s family, as compared to the poor man’s culture. When kingdoms break, then the same people begin to behave even worse than the poor man. I have noticed myself, sometimes when in Rabba we have large feasts where poor people are also invited, some callous observers very cruelly begin to laugh at the way the poor people eat. When they are given the chance of eating pulao and delicacies, they sometimes laugh and giggle, they look here, you know. So, that makes me cry sometimes, and I tell them later on, it’s a shame on you.
In fact, you’re forgetting this fact, that even if you were tried by, with one day’s deprivation of those good things which you are provided every day, you would fall more inhumanly upon these things, fall to such food without control, and in a more shameful manner, as you judge these people. They still have the decency of offering you first, when they see a rich man come stand closer to them, but you won’t have that decency left to you. Your children, at the time of crisis, they completely break down and forget that they have been fed so much by Allah, and they become so impatient by the trial of one, just one missing meal or so, you know. So, that is what I mean, things when they are compared, they have to be put in the right perspective, and it should be made very clear what is being compared to what. So, given everything, this civilization of today cannot be compared with what is found in the East of today, because there is an age lapse of at least 200 or 300 years. So, go back to that age, and then begin to compare and draw your conclusions.
I won’t have any objection, but to take something from far ahead, and something from a backward place, and to begin to compare, this is not a correct approach. This is like my brother’s case. Mr. Azir Ahmed is one of my brothers, who is not, I mean, our family is not very fair, but quite fairish, as compared to the general standard of our country. Unfortunately, this boy, and one other brother, are not very fair. Rather, this Azir happened to be on the darkest side, particularly when he was a young child. So, the other brother used to tease him, look here, you are dark, and he got irritated very much. So, once he thought of a very clever device of comparison. Hazrat Musleh Maud was watching him while he was doing this.
He got hold of his younger brother and said, look here, you say I am dark, come on, show me your hair, look at my skin, which is darker. He got hold of his hair, a bunch of his hair, and compared it with his skin, and said, can’t you see, you are darker and I am fairer. Azir had a good laugh at this. So, a comparison has to be made in the same values, and at the same juncture of history. And I must tell you, I am offering, this is not the part of the question, but I am offering you this, that most often than not we make mistakes in our judgment by not understanding time. When we say we are modern people, the word modern is most often misapplied, because human procession at one time is found to indicate so many different ages. This is not the time for every nation, the most forward time. There is a vanguard. If that vanguard is to be taken as standard, belonging to 1984, in that very time there would be people living in 2000 BC on this same earth. So, there is an unbroker procession which goes back, the tail end goes back and emerges thousands of years before.
For example, go to visit this Congo and the Pygmies or Aborigines of Australia, in their encampments, not in the cities, who are not yet educated, and many other civilizations in the West, or dead Indian civilizations, Mayas, then you will understand what I mean. The human procession is never found at one stage in time, in terms of time. The vanguard is living in the present, and the tail end emerges thousands of years before. So, how can you make comparisons? In time. You can only make comparisons with conditions. Lay preconditions first. That this is a religion, when this religion faces such stresses, then this is the result. Put another religion in the same condition, and apply the same stresses to that religion, what would be the result? That is a comparison, which is valid. A civilization, unde
