The issue created by the
controversy between the Qadianis and the orthodox Muslims is
extremely important. The Indian Muslims have only recently begun
to realise its importance. I intended to address an open letter to
the British people explaining the social and political
implications of the issue. But unfortunately my health prevented
me from doing so. I am, however, glad to say a few words for the
present on a matter, which, to my mind, affects the entire
collective life of the Indian Muslims. It must, however, be
pointed out at the outset that I have no intention to enter into
any theological argument. Nor do I mean to undertake a
psychological analysis of the mind of the founder of the Qadiani
movement; the former will not interest those for whom this
statement is meant and the time for the latter has not yet arrived
in India. My point of view is that of a student of general history
and comparative religion.
India is a land of many religious communities, and Islam is a
religious community in a much deeper sense than those communities
whose structure is determined partly by the race idea. Islam
repudiates the race idea altogether and founds itself on the
religious idea alone. Since Islam bases itself on the religious
idea alone, a basis which is wholly spiritual and consequently for
more ethereal than blood relationship, Muslim society is naturally
much more sensitive to forces which it considers harmful to its
integrity. Any religious society historically arising from the
bosom of Islam, which claims a new prophethood for its basis, and
declares all Muslims who do not recognise the truth of its alleged
revelation as Kafirs, must, therefore, be regarded by every
Muslims as a serious danger to the solidarity of Islam. This must
necessarily be so; since the integrity of Muslim society is
secured by the Idea of the Finality of Prophethood alone.
This idea of Finality is perhaps the most original idea in the
cultural history of mankind: its true significance can be
understood only by those who carefully study the history of
pre-Islamic Magian culture in Western and Middle Asia. The concept
of Magian culture, according to modern research, includes cultures
associated with Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Jewish Christianity,
Chaldean and Sabean religions. To these creed-communities the idea
of the continuity of prophethood was essential, and consequently
they lived in a state of constant expectation. It is probable that
the Magian man psychologically enjoyed this state of expectation.
The modern man is spiritually far more emancipated than the Magian
man. The result of the Magian attitude was the disintegration of
old communities and the constant formation of new ones by all
sorts of religious adventurers. In the modern world of Islam,
ambitious and ignorant mullahism, taking advantage of the
modern press, has shamelessly attempted to hurl the old
pre-Islamic Magian outlook in the face of the twentieth century.
It is obvious that Islam, which claims to weld all the various
communities of the world into one single community, cannot
reconcile itself to a movement which threatens its present
solidarity and holds the promise of further rifts in human
society.
Of the two forms which the modern revival of pre-Islamic
Magianism has assumed, Bahaism appears to me to be far more honest
than Qadianism; for the former openly departs from Islam, whereas
the latter apparently retains some of the more important externals
of Islam with an inwardness wholly inimical to the spirit and
aspirations of Islam. Its idea of a jealous God with an
inexhaustible store of earthquakes and plagues for its opponents;
its conception of the Prophet as a soothsayer; its idea of the
continuity of the spirit of Messiah, are so absolutely Jewish that
the movement can easily be regarded as a return to early Judaism.
The idea of the continuity of the spirit of Messiah belongs more
to Jewish mysticism than to positive Judaism. Professor Buber who
has given an account of the movement initiated by the Polish
Messiah Baalshem tells us that "it was thought that the spirit of
the Messiah descended upon the earth through the prophets and even
through a long line of holy men stretching into the present time —
the Zaddiks" (Sadiqs). Heretical movements in Muslim Iran under
the pressure of Pre-Islamic Magian ideas invented the words
buruz, hulul, zill, to cover this idea of a
perpetual reincarnation. It was necessary to invent new
expressions for a Magian idea in order to make it less shocking to
Muslim conscience. Even the phrase "Promised Messiah" is not a
product of Muslim religious consciousness. It is a bastard
expression and has its origin in the pre-Islamic Magian outlook.
We do not find it in early Islamic religious and historical
literature. This remarkable fact is revealed by Professor
Wensinck's Concordance of the Traditions of the Holy Prophet,
which covers no less than eleven collections of the traditions and
three of the earliest historical documents of Islam. One can very
well understand the reason why early Muslims never used this
expression. The expression did not appeal to them probably because
they thought that it implied a false conception of the historical
process. The Magian mind regarded time as a circular movement; the
glory of elucidating the true nature of the historical process as
a perpetually creative movement was reserved for the great Muslim
thinker and historian, Ibn Khaldun.
The intensity of feeling which the Indian Muslims have
manifested in opposition to the Qadiani movement is, therefore,
perfectly intelligible to the student of modern sociology. The
average Muslim who was the other day described as "mullah-ridden"
by a writer in the Civil and Military Gazette is inspired
in his opposition to the movement more by his instinct of
self-preservation than by a fuller grasp of the meaning of the
idea of Finality in his faith. The so-called "enlightened" Muslim
has seldom made an attempt to understand the real cultural
significance of the idea of Finality in Islam, and a process of
slow and imperceptible westernization has further deprived him
even of the instinct of self-preservation. Some of these so-called
enlightened Muslims have gone to the extent of preaching
'tolerance' to their brethren-in-faith. I can easily excuse Sir
Herbert Emerson1 for preaching
toleration to Muslims; for a modern European who is born and
brought up in an entirely different culture does not, and perhaps
cannot, develop the insight which makes it possible for one to
understand an issue vital to the very structure of a community
with an entirely different cultural outlook.
In India circumstances are much more peculiar. This country of
religious communities, where the future of each community rests
entirely upon its solidarity, is ruled by a Western people who
cannot but adopt a policy of non-interference in religion. This
liberal and indispensable policy in a country like India has led
to most unfortunate results. In so far as Islam is concerned, it
is no exaggeration to say that the solidarity of the Muslim
community in India under the British is far less safe than the
solidarity of the Jewish community was in the days of Jesus under
the Romans. Any religious adventurer in India can set up any claim
and carve out a new community for his own exploitation. This
liberal State of ours does not care a fig for the integrity of a
parent community, provided the adventurer assures it of his
loyalty and his followers are regular in the payment of taxes due
to the State. The meaning of this policy for Islam was quite
accurately seen by our great poet Akbar who in his usual humorous
strain says:
O friend! pray for the glory of the Briton's name:
Say, "I am God" sans chain, sans cross, sans shame.
I very much appreciate the orthodox Hindus' demand for
protection against religious reformers in the new constitution.
Indeed, the demand ought to have been first made by the Muslims
who, unlike Hindus, entirely eliminate the race idea from their
social structure. The Government must seriously consider the
present situation and try, if possible, to understand the
mentality of the average Muslim in regard to this issue which he
regards as absolutely vital to the integrity of his community.
After all, if the integrity of a community is threatened, the only
course open to that community is to defend itself against the
forces of disintegration.
And what are the ways of self-defence?
Controversial writings and refutations of the claims of the man
who is regarded by the parent community as a religious adventurer.
Is it then fair to preach toleration to the parent community whose
integrity is threatened and to allow the rebellious group to carry
on its propaganda with impunity, even when the propaganda is
highly abusive? If a group, rebellious from the point of view of
the parent community, happens to be of some special service to
Government, the latter are at liberty to reward their services as
best as they can. Other communities will not grudge it. But it is
too much to expect that a community should calmly ignore the
forces which tend seriously to affect its collective life.
Collective life is as sensitive to the danger of dissolution as
individual life. It is hardly necessary to add in this connection
that the mutual theological bickerings of Muslim sects do not
affect vital principles on which all these sects agree with all
their differences, in spite of their mutual accusation of heresy.
There is one further point which demands Government's special
consideration. The encouragement in India of religious
adventurers, on the ground of modern liberalism, tends to make
people more and more indifferent to religion and will eventually
completely eliminate the important factor of religion from the
life of Indian communities. The Indian mind will then seek some
other substitute for religion, which is likely to be nothing less
than the form of atheistic materialism which has appeared in
Russia.
But the religious issue is not the only issue which is at
present agitating the minds of the Punjab Muslims. There are other
quarrels of a political nature to which, according to my reading,
Sir Herbert Emerson hinted in his speech at the Anjuman's2
anniversary. These are, no doubt, of a purely political nature,
but they affect the unity of Punjab Muslims as seriously as the
religious issue. While thanking the Government for their anxiety
to see the Punjab Muslims united, I venture to suggest a little
self-examination to the Government themselves. Who is responsible,
I ask, for the distinction of rural and urban Muslims — a
distinction which has cut up the Muslim community into two groups
and the rural group into several sub-groups constantly at war with
one another?
Sir Herbert Emerson deplores the lack of proper leadership
among the Punjab Muslims. But I wish Sir Herbert Emerson realised
that the rural-urban distinction created by the Government and
maintained by them through ambitious political adventurers, whose
eyes are fixed on their own personal interests and not on the
unity of Muslims in the Punjab, has already made the community
incapable of producing a real leader. It appears to me that this
device was probably originated in a desire rather to make it
impossible for real leadership to grow. Sir Herbert Emerson
deplores the lack of leadership in Muslims; I deplore the
continuation by the Government of a system which has crushed out
all hope of a real leader appearing in the province.
Postscript
I understand that this statement has caused some
misunderstanding in some quarters. It is thought that I have made
a subtle suggestion to the Government to suppress the Qadiani
movement by force. Nothing of the kind. I have made it clear that
the policy of non-interference in religion is the only policy
which can be adopted by the rulers of India. No other policy is
possible. I confess, however, that to my mind this policy is
harmful to the interests of religious communities; but there is no
escape from it and those who suffer will have to safeguard their
interests by suitable means. The best course for the rulers of
India is, in my opinion, to declare the Qadianis a separate
community. This will be perfectly consistent with the policy of
the Qadianis themselves, and the Indian Muslim will tolerate them
just as he tolerates other religions.