A SHAVIAN AND A THEOLOGIAN
An
illuminating Conversation between
His Eminence Mawlana Muhammed Abdul Alīm
Siddiquī Al-Qaderī
and
George Bernard Shaw
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
نحمده ونصلىعلىرسوله الكريم
سيدالمرسلين خاتم النبيين
A Shavian and a Theologian
His Eminence Mawlana
Muhammed Abdul Alīm Siddiquī Al-Qaderī, the eminent Muslim
divine, who was on a visit to Mombassa, interviewed George
Bernard Shaw, world-renowned Irish savant, who was passing
through on his way to South Africa on a holiday.
The Union Castle
Liner, Linlithgow, by which he was travelling, stopped for
three days at the
George Bernard Shaw,
a well-built medium-stature, erect and imposing figure, a
gentleman of noble men, was smiling, not the smile of the
sceptic that flickers round the corners of the lips, but one
of real welcome suffused his face, and there was nothing
Shavian about him, if the phonetic pun be permissible, for
even his chin was not shaved and a long, flowing beard, on
the contrary, imparted a serene dignity to his, falsely
represented Freudian features. Full of
vim and vigour, if it were not for the grey colour of his
hair, beard and eyebrows, he could scarcely be credited with
the
As His Eminence, a
venerable figure in his dignified Arabic robes,
comparatively very young, for he was only forty-three,
although his grey hair, due to chronic catarrh and
unceasingly intense mental strain, made him look much older,
stepped out of the car, there was a hearty exchange of
greetings, after which His Eminence expressed his great
pleasure at meeting him. The Grand Old Man immediately
rejoined that having heard about his missionary exploits and
his novel way preaching Islam, he himself was very eager to
know him, and it was indeed a very happy coincidence that
they had met there that day.
The conversation
which followed was very interesting, though devoid of
Shavian shafts and sarcasms, perhaps because the usual roles
of interviews with George Bernard Shaw who asked the
question of the interviewer, and listened attentively to the
prompt, lucid and informative replies of His Eminence.
As an indirect
account of the lively discussion might rob it of its
personal touch, it is preferable that the stalwarts are made
to speak for themselves.
George Bernard
Shaw: I regret, I was not
able, on account of a previous engagement, to attend your
lecture last night, although I was very keen on doing so.
You spoke on the Philosophy of Peace, but, as a Muslim, it
would have been more appropriate if you had delivered a
lecture on the Philosophy of War, for Islam, doubtless, has
spread at the point of the sword.
His Eminence:
This is a common misunderstanding regarding Islam. I was
dealing with this problem only last night, and I am really
surprised that this myth, which has been thoroughly exploded
by now, should receive any notice from a scholar of your
calibre. However, I may briefly tell you now that the
literal meaning of the very word “Islam” is peace.
An authentic record
of the teaching of Islam in their pristine purity has been
preserved intact in the Qur’an and the Traditions.
They go to establish, beyond the shadow of a doubt,
that Islam permits the use of the sword only when wantonly
attacked and compelled to defend itself.
Besides, there is an explicit injunction in the Holy Qur’an
that
“There is no
coercion in religion.”
thus clearly
forbidding the use of force or compulsion in matters of
religion.
As a matter of fact,
I entertain the same conviction regarding the teachings of
genuine Christianity; for our sense of reasoning tells us
that if they be Revelations and their source of emanation be
consequently Divine they cannot but emphatically veto any
manner of violence in respect of belief and enjoin its
inculcation by means of arguments and rational discourses.
As far as Islam is concerned the Qur’an distinctly
says:
“So that he who
perished hereafter may perish after demonstrative evidence
and that he who lived may live by the same evidence.”
The method that
Islam teaches for its propagation, and to which its
acceptance by all reasonable men and its spread to all the
corners of the world in the past and the present is due,
consists of the Qur’an dictum:
“Invite people to
the Way of your Lord with wisdom and mild exhortation, and
dispute with them in the most conciliation manner.”
History bears
testimony to the fact that Christ was declared
consubstantial with the Father by the Council of
Nice, convened by Constantine in Bithynia in the year 325
A.C., and to enforce the belief in the Divinity of Christ,
there followed a most horrid and inhuman slaughter of
thousands of innocent people who refused to accept the
dogma, not only in Europe, but in the sacred city of
Jerusalem as well; but in spite of it all, I can never hold
the real Christianity responsible for it. Of course, those
representatives of the Church who wanted to impress the
hearts of the people with their power and greatness and
perpetuate their priestly authority, ensuring the people’s
submission to their will, can be rightly saddled with all
the blame.
Similarly, the
sanguinary wars, known as Crusades, were the outcome of the
Machiavellian machinations of such interested ecclesiastical
groups of men, who, realising that the uncompromising
preaching of the Oneness of
God by Islam was a great obstacle in
their path and their self-fabricated Divine Authority was at
stake, launched an unscrupulous campaign against Islam and
Muslims. They instigated the credulous mediaeval Europe to
wage the so-called “Holy wars” against Islam and Muslims, by
circulating blood-curdling tales of imaginary atrocities by
Muslims on Christians, describing the Muslims as infidels
and inveterate enemies of their religion, property and
persons. Obviously, therefore, these Church dignitaries
alone can be held liable to account for the cruel,
protracted, futile wars and not the original teachings of
Christianity or Islam and the Muslims.
Further, if we grant
as a supposition, that some Muslim rulers and tribes,
actuated by the lust of conquest, became aggressors, long
after the advent of Islam and let slip the dogs of war for
self-aggrandisement, we can in fairness, condemn, those
individuals for the reprehensible acts, and surely not
Islam.
In this connection,
I happen to have made certain remarks recently, in one of my
speeches at
(So saying, His
Eminence read out the following passage from a booklet which
he was carrying with him):
“If certain nations,
immersed in paganism and superstition and ignorant of the
real teachings of religion, wage wars in its name, the crime
is theirs, and no blame can be ascribed to religion. Were
not millions of human beings killed during the Great War
safe-guarding the rights of weaker nations?
Should we then condemn these humane and noble
qualities because some statesman abused these terms and
sanctioned the inhuman slaughter of the attainment of their
own selfish ends?”
George Bernard
Shaw: There is no doubt that
the Roman Church fanatics were, to a great extent,
responsible for the sad events, and the pure teachings of
Christianity have no concern with their occurrence. It may
also be admitted, that a great many misunderstandings
prevail regarding Islam, and that it is being widely
misinterpretation, and do they believe that Muslim masses
agree with your interpretation, and do they believe that
Islam was not, and should not be spread by force?
His Eminence:
Every Muslim is bound to
endorse it, for whatever I say is precisely what the Qur’an
says, and my own views or conceptions have nothing to do
with it. Many books have been written on this subject, and
Sayyid Amir Ali, Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan, Allama Shibli and
other learned Doctors of Islamic Theology have exhaustively
dealt with all the aspects of this problem in their books.
George Bernard
Shaw: I know that there is a
considerable amount of concord between Islam and
Christianity!
His Eminence:
The correspondence is not
merely nominal of superficial, for the Qur’an expressly
predicates that when the ultimate source of origin of an
inspired of revealed and Divine religion is the Being of
God, unanimity in such Revelations is indispensable. Islam
has been conceived as a new religion, but according to the
Qur’an itself, the religion preached by it is the same that
was promulgated by all the true Prophets and, from Abraham[1]
right up to Jesus[2],
God deputed them, one and all, for the dissemination of much
the same teachings.
It was only because
their original teaching were tampered with and corrupted,
and their authenticity became dubious, that the Almighty God
sent the Last Prophet[3]
, and the Last Book[4],
to re-state, confirm and complete His original Message. The
Holy Qur’an has made it quite clear by saying that:
“We ordained for
you the Religion with which We commanded Noah, and which We
have revealed unto thee (O Muhammad)! and with which We
commanded Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Observe this
religion and be not divided therein”.
George Bernard
Shaw: The translations of the
Qur’an, which I have read, certainly go to substantiate your
statements. I very much prefer the translation made by one
who has adopted a different variation of the arrangement of
the verses to that which is generally followed by other
translators. I had it always with me during my tour of
His Eminence:
The translation you allude to is that of Mr. Rodwell!
George Bernard
Shaw: Yes.
His Eminence:
There is no doubt that Mr.
Rodwell has expended a great deal of energy and industry in
translating the chapters of the Qur’an in their
chronological order, but as his knowledge of the Arabic
literature and Islamic history was not sufficient, wide and
profound, a considerable number of translated passages are
so misleading and contain such flagrant mistakes (which I by
no means attribute to a deliberate intent on his part, but
as I have already said, they may be the result of his
limited knowledge in the said spheres) that they are likely
to create wrong impressions about Islam.
As far as the
translations of the Qur’an are concerned, I would
recommended you to read “The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’ªn”
by Mr. Marmaduke Picktall, and I am sure that
its perusal will enable you to appreciate considerably more
the exquisite beauty, the sublime transcendence and the
appealing and impressive style of the Qur’an’s perspective.
However, I do not imply that it is a perfect version of the
original, for you yourself can aptly judge, being an
admittedly splendid writer, that, in spite of the translator
being the ablest and the best, he can never transmit the
force and brilliance of your original writings into his
translations.
George Bernard
Shaw: It is quite true that
the spirit of the original cannot be transplanted into its
translation in another language, and the same is the case
with the translations of the Bible, but they have now
achieved a very high standard, and the process of raising it
still higher is being continued.
His Eminence:
Although the
translations of the Bible may attain the highest stage of
perfection from the standpoint of language, one cannot say,
under any circumstances, that they contain the original
message of Christianity, or are the genuine versions of the
teachings of Jesus Christ[5],
for the original message, as you know, in its unalloyed
purity, as delivered by Jesus, is no more extant. The result
of the numerous lections of the Bible, and the absence of
the original manuscript, is confusion worse confounded, and
a seeker after truth cannot quench his thirst at its hydroid
font, whilst the Qur’an, in contrast, has been preserved in
such a manner, that there has not been the slightest change,
not even to the extent of a letter or a dot. Hence, if we
want to know the real teachings of Christianity, we must
look for them in the Qur’an.
George Bernard
Shaw: Has there been really no
alteration in the Qur’an, and is it absolutely preserved in
its original form? Did Prophet Muhammad know how to write,
and is his writings existence?
His Eminence:
There is a complete and
authentic record of each and every chapter, nay, even of
every verse, or I might say, of every word of the Qur’an.
The Prophet , immediately following the Revelation of a
verse or verses to him, used to send for the special Scribes
appointed for the purpose and dictates the same to them.
When transcribed, he would ask them to recite what they had
written and, after listening to and verifying it, would
explain to them its meaning.
The manuscripts in
the handwriting of one of the most honoured and trusted
among the Scribes, by name Zaid bin Thabit , are preserved
intact in the archives of Constantinople and Medina, and all
the editions of the Qur’an in the world are their exact
copies, not differing among themselves even in point of a
comma or a dash.
George Bernard
Shaw: What! Are there
punctuation marks in the Qur’an?
His Eminence:
The punctuation marks in the
English language merely comprise commas, colons,
semi-colons, full-point, etc., but the principles of the
Qur’anic elocution comprehend numerous signs of a different
kind. For instance, a stop is compulsory in certain places,
whilst it is optional in others; some endings are to be
fully pronounced, whilst others are quiescent, etc. The
correct accents, pronunciations, accurate halts, etc., are
so intricate and difficult of acquisition, that the Qur’anic
elocution has been evolved into a distinct art, and copious
volumes have been written on its theory and practice.
George Bernard
Shaw: All this is rather
astonishing and new to me. I was also surprised to learn
that you delivered a speech on “Islam and Science” at
Nairobi. What I find difficult to understand is how you can
possibly present the picture of Heaven and Hell, which is
portrayed in the Qur’an, in a manner convincing to persons
conversant with science, whose minds are inured to accept
nothing without visible or palpable proof.
I hold the Prophet
of Arabia in great esteem and I can quite understand that it
would have been impossible to restrain and wean the
illiterate, ignorant and perverse race, sunk in the miasma
of utter moral depravity, from committing the most heinous
of crimes, and imbue its people with enthusiasm to strive
after righteousness and assimilate high morals and virtues,
without projecting such a terrible and intensely
awe-inspiring spectacle of Hell and an equally captivating
and enticing image of a land flowing with milk and honey to
represent Heaven before their vision.
I also very much
admire the forcible and striking diction of the Qur’an. What
elegant grace and beauty characterises that passage which
depicts the dreadful scene of the Doomsday field, and, when
dealing with infanticide, dramatically leaves off at the
question:
“For what crime
were thou slain?”
to the innocent
child that was buried alive or put to death. In my opinion,
it is the most effective way of the people. But I am afraid
I am digressing, for I would very much like to know how the
problem of Heaven and Hell can possibly be elucidated in the
light of science.
His Eminence:
You are a master of the art of
writing, and your enchanting and novel literary productions
with your magical pen revolutionise the mentality of the
readers. I am sure you will agree with me on this point,
that material language cannot possibly act as an apt vehicle
for the accurate conveyance of the significance and reality
of spiritual problems and phenomena without the help of
metaphors and similes, and these at best can serve to frame
analogies.
One must, therefore,
bear this fact in mind and make due allowance for the mode
of expression in describing Hell and Heaven in the Qur’an.
Simultaneously, however, with such illustrations that
confine their appeal to physical senses, God Almighty
stipulates in the clearest terms not to be too inquisitive
regarding the true nature of the blessings of Heaven.
“So no one knows
what is in store for them of that which will refresh the
eyes”.
And, according to
the Traditions, we should, under no circumstances, think of
them in any way comparable to the objects of this world:
“The reality of
their constitution has been neither witnessed by any human
eyes, nor have the ears listened to words capable of
expressing it; it is indeed, beyond the pale of human
imagination, and even a perfunctory surrogate of it cannot
be visualised”.
How can it be
asserted in the face of this pronounced explanation that the
blessings of Heaven resemble in any way, whatsoever, the
things that please us or contribute to our happiness in this
world? The truth of the matter, on the contrary, is that
just as a consequence of compliance with natural or physical
laws, material progress and comfort, commensurate with the
degree of comprehension and execution, follow as a matter of
course, so in proportion to allegiance or adherence to moral
and spiritual laws and their translation into practice, one
attains the utmost possible spiritual bliss and beatitude,
and likewise their violation entails spiritual torture and
tribulation.
Now if, according to
the law of progress, everything is heading for advance,
there must naturally be a zenith of it, and beyond that
there must be no point of further progress. Comfort or
happiness and grief or sufferings are two states which a
person experiences in this life; hence there must be an
extreme point of both these states. This very extreme point
of pleasure or bliss is called Heaven, and the extreme point
of pain or sorrow, Hell.
Just as there are
material media that are either conducive to happiness or
instrumental in inflicting suffering in this world, so must
there be some kind of media to procreate that state of bliss
or generate pain and suffering in the other world. A
metaphorical word-picture of the former has been sketched to
portray Heaven, and the tremendously appalling and dreadful
portrait of torments has been drawn to symbolise Hell. Now
this other world which we call spiritual of celestial is
neither like this material world, nor is it purely
spiritual, having no connection, whatsoever with matter, and
where there are only souls utterly free from matter.
The human being,
body and soul together, is responsible or accountable for
his activities. Hence the soul in partnership with the
quintessence of this very physical organism will meet with
the kind of happiness of grief suitable to the conditions
obtaining in that world.
Now it only remains
to define matter, but as you know, this is not possible even
at the present stage of scientific progress. For, what
matter really is, is a conundrum that has not been solved in
spite of the attempts made by the best human brains. Far
from succeeding in analysing it chemically, the greatest
scientists have not been able even to picture its reality.
The culminating point of scientific research up to date is
the establishment of the Theory of Protons and Electrons,
according to which the wave radiations of these are the
basis of the universe, and every physical body in its solid
form is the result of those very radiations.
This is what the
magazine “The World of Wonder” says about matter:
“Matter seems very
solid, but men of science tell us that if all the spaces in
the atoms that make up our bodies were done away with, and
the nucleus and electrons of the atoms were concentrated
into a mass, the whole matter of a grown man’s body would be
so small that it could not be seen with the naked eye.”
Hence, if it is
possible for a scientist to accept without positive proof
that an average electron flies round its nucleus several
thousand million million times every second, and base the
formation of solid physical organisms on their wave
radiations, there should be no difficulty for him to imagine
the soul and body in a form suitable to the conditions of
the kind of happiness or grief to be met with in the Great
Beyond. A very hazy picture of those states can be said to
reflect itself in those weird experiences of ours which we
call dreams.
George Bernard
Shaw: This is really a very
beautiful, eloquent and gratifying explanation, but will the
present day Muslims be prepared to accept it?
His Eminence:
This description is by no
means a concoction of my brain, but, as I have already said,
it is propounded by the Qur’an. I cannot claim any credit,
even for the manner of description, because my great
predecessors, Imams Fakhruddin Razī , Ghazzalī , and
Mohī-ud-deen ibn-al Arabi , when addressing enlightened
philosophers like you, expressed themselves in similar
terms. If I may say it in the oriental style, I have only
gathered a few crumbs from their tables of magnificent
feasts.
All the teachings of
Islam are rational; there are no mysteries and dogmas. They
only required to be explained in a proper light to transfuse
their correct sense. It is difficult understand the
literature of any art with which we are not conversant.
Hence, in order to grasp and assimilate the problematical
points related to any art, we must first acquire knowledge
and cultivate intimate acquaintance with that particular
art. If we then seek their solution in the light of this
knowledge we shall easily understand them.
(At this stage
Mr. Shaw’s hostess came in, and Mr. Shaw introduced His
Eminence to her. Addressing Mr. Shaw, she said that it was
almost time for him to leave for the docks. Mr. Shaw said he
must certainly make a move then, and, turning to His
Eminence, said:)
George Bernard
Shaw: Your conversation is so
very interesting and informative, that I would like to have
the privilege of enjoying your company for years, but,
unfortunately, I have to leave now.
His Eminence:
I also ardently desire to have
the benefit of exchanging views with such a cultured and
learned scholar as yourself, particularly when I find that
an inadequate acquaintance with the teachings of Islam from
unauthentic and perhaps taunted sources has evoked such a
positive and optimistic statement from you regarding Islam,
that: “The future religion of the educated, cultured
and enlightened people will be Islam.”
I would like to
speak to you about the profound philosophy and psychological
truths the Qur’an expounds, so that a gifted and erudite
savant of your parts and genius, perfectly familiar with the
tastes and mental tendencies of the civilised world, can
present them to it in an effective and desirable manner.
George Bernard
Shaw: I am really very sorry
that I could secure such a short time for speaking to a
learned sage like yourself.
His Eminence:
I am, however, grateful for
even this opportunity and avail myself of the occasion to
present to you the printed copies of two of my lectures on
“Religion and Scientific Progress of the World” and
“Spiritual Culture in Islam”, which I recently
delivered in
George Bernard
Shaw: I have been very pleased
to make your acquaintance, and it will be the most precious
of all memories of this trip of mine.
(Bidding farewell
to each other, His Eminence wishing George Bernard Shaw a
bon voyage, they parted, and George Bernard Shaw was seen
standing on the veranda waving his hand till the car went
out of sight.)
[1] Sayyiduna Nabi Ibrahim u.
[2] Sayyiduna Nabi ‘Isa u.
[3] The Holy Prophet Muhammad r.
[4] The Holy Qur’an.
[5] Sayyiduna Nabi ‘Isa u.