The Black Rainbow Page 5

  “The mainstream institutions teach the will to doubt, we impart the will to believe. The mainstream institutions teach servitude to a person or class, we impart submission to Allah only. The mainstream institutions teach how best to serve one’s own interest; we teach how best to serve the ummah.” Maulvi Zia would often compare the two sets of educational institutions in that fashion.

  “If one has faith in Allah and is ready to live and die for that, then everything is possible including miracles. Belief in God and the righteousness of one’s cause is the strongest weapon, which can be profitably deployed to defeat an enemy however mighty and enormous, strong and well-equipped.”

  For Maulvi Zia, politics and economics, education and culture, arts and literature, laws and morals, science and technology, business and industry, all must have a religious basis. Divorced from religion, they would make for untrammeled freedom, which would beget anarchy and disorder, mayhem and chaos, ruthlessness and lawlessness, injustice and oppression.

  It was on such ideals that the edifice of the Jamia Islamia was erected. The students would get up at dawn, offer prayers, followed by strenuous exercise, which included training in martial arts. After breakfast, classes would start and continue till afternoon prayers. The students would have lunch and an hour nap. After evening prayers, the students would take to sports like football and wrestling. They would reassemble for sunset prayers. Then they would have dinner followed by late evening prayers. At 9, the students were supposed to go to bed.

  In short, the Jamia had its own Spartan way of life, which every one had to follow scrupulously. Maulvi Zia would often remark that in his Jamia, in contrast with the mainstream institutions, teachers religiously performed their duty, were seldom absent from their class and students respected their teachers as they would respect their parents. However, students who made even a slight deviation from the prescribed code of conduct were subjected to severe punishment. For the maulvi that was perfectly legitimate as fear of punishment was an important element of the recipe for being virtuous. Students of ripe age were sent for tabligh, as it was regarded as the duty of every Muslim, a form of jihad, to invite others to the right path and prevent them from treading the wrong path.

  One day while Maulvi Zia was sitting in his modestly furnished office in the Jamia, a message was delivered to him from the head of a militant organization. Written in Arabic, the content of the message was as follows:

  Our most respected Maulvi Zia,

  May Allah bless you!

  As you are aware, the security forces have stepped up their campaign against the mujahideen. The purpose of the operation is to wipe out the soldiers of Islam so that the voice for Islamisation is muffled once and for all.

  We have been dubbed militants, fundamentalists, extremists, terrorists and what not for purging the society of evil and promoting Islamic values. While we are not afraid of death, rather we welcome death, which will open to us the gates of the paradise; we want to live for the success of our noble mission.

  Since you command tremendous respect and influence among politicians as well as civil society, you are requested to seek the support of political parties and civil society for putting an immediate halt to the military operation. Kindly remind them that the war that is being waged against us is that of the Christians, Jews and the West and that the misguided souls are being used against us.

  Maulvi sahib you are a fountain of inspiration for us all and have been too kind to us in the past. We believe that you will not disappoint us this time as well.

  May Allah protect us all and give us success!

  The letter was unsigned and undated. However, the maulvi knew where it came from. Therefore, he assured the messenger of leaving no stone unturned in helping the militants.

  Maulvi Zia was keeping a close eye on the recent developments in the war against terror. He was greatly concerned at the stepped up campaign against the militants. A number of them were the graduates of his seminary and he had pinned high hopes on them. He could not let the movement fizzle out as he saw in it the seeds of an Islamic revolution. He wondered that while there were more than fifty Muslim countries, none of them had an Islamic government. Only Afghanistan under the Taliban had an Islamic regime but that was removed by the West. The fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, he believed, was one of the bleakest events of Islamic history.

  The maulvi had raised his voice against the surge in the campaign against militants. But he believed that much more was needed and that too urgently and systematically. He paced across the room thinking what to do. Eventually he decided to consult his confidant Dr Junaid.

  “Junaid could we meet in the evening; it’s urgent and important?” he asked him on the phone. “Yes my brother at your service,” Dr Junaid replied.

  At 5, in the evening, Junaid came to the farmhouse of Maulvi Zia.

  “Your voice conveyed me your concern,” he said to him.

  “Yes, indeed I am very much concerned,” Zia told Dr Junaid and also showed him the letter that he had received earlier in the day.

  “What do you make of it?” he asked as Junaid finished reading the letter.

  “We have many channels open to us,” Junaid replied calmly. “We have political parties; we have students; we have the media; we have even human right organizations. We can use them to our advantage. There is already a lot of opposition against this war for one reason or another. What we need to do is to use this opposition in an apposite way.”

  “But how? Maulvi Zia asked anxiously.”

  “Just give me couple of days and I’ll come up with a comprehensive plan. Meanwhile, forget your worries and have a nice time with Rubina, said Dr Junaid in a confident tone. “But where is she?”

  “She should be around,” replied Maulvi Zia in an abstract way. At that moment, Rubina entered dressed like an Arabic woman.

  “Rubina,” said Dr Junaid, you are looking like a princess from the Arabian Nights: hot and seductive. I’m sure you’ll take my brother out of his dejected mood.”

  “Rest assured, Rubina replied and took Maulvi Zia’s arm in. I’m a perfect antidote to all doubts and all worries,” she said smilingly getting closer to Maulvi Zia.

  “Before you ask me to leave, I take your leave,” said Dr Junaid winking at Maulvi Zia, as he rose from the chair. “Have a nice time.”

  The philosophy class was discussing the existence of God. They were all Muslims and since their childhood had been taught that God is the creator, sustainer and master of the entire universe. But being true seekers after the truth, they wanted to discuss the problem in a rational way transcending their childhood beliefs.

  “Is the existence of God a philosophical problem?” Naila threw the question at her classmates.

  “It must be so because no problem is outside the scope of philosophy,” Sara responded. “Of course, it cannot be a religious problem, because religion takes the existence of God for granted. For religion, the existence of God is not a problem but a fact, not a question but an answer, not an assumption but an axiom, from which all other facts and truths follow. The universe, for religion, is a contingent being, which may or may not have existed. But God is a necessary being, whose non-existence is a logical contradiction.”

  “But if it were a philosophical problem,” opined Javed, “then the existence or non-existence of God could not be taken for granted. While dealing with the existence of God philosophically, we must start with a clean slate. Is it possible? We all have been brought up in a particular religious tradition. And I don’t think it’s possible for us to completely transcend that tradition. It’s an inseparable part of our collective psyche. Even if that were possible, whatever conclusion we reach, must be a tentative one and not a conclusive one. But would it make sense to affirm or deny the existence of God in a tentative fashion?”

  “Well that’s why we are here,” remarked Sara. “If we cannot rise above our traditional beliefs, there is no reason we should study philosophy. Besides, it’s no
t necessary that the result of our philosophical enquiry is at variance with our traditional beliefs.”

  “But what criteria should be used for establishing the existence or otherwise of God?” Naila asked. “Should it be a moral argument, a rational argument or a pragmatic argument? Does God exist because there must be a being to administer absolute justice — punishing the wicked and rewarding the virtuous? Or does God exist because the order and harmony in the universe is inconceivable without a Supreme Intelligence, who ensures that the movements of the stars and planets and the alternation of the day and the night follow a regular pattern? Or God exists, simply because we need him?”

  “Is not the existence of God a private affair of every individual? If I believe that God exists, I need no proof to confirm my belief,” Zahid sought to simplify the problem.

  Sara disagreeing said, “Friends, I’m afraid you are off the mark. We aren’t disputing that the existence of God is a private affair and every one is entitled to have his or her own view of God. Mind you, there are different views of God in both philosophy and religion. The God of Spinoza is different from the God of Hegel. The God of Schopenhauer is different from the God of Bradley. The God of Christians is different from that of Hindus. We the Muslims have our own view of God. But as students of philosophy we need to examine the assumptions on the basis of which the existence of God is affirmed or denied. What are the beliefs in religion become the assumptions in philosophy. While a religion may provide some rational explanation for its beliefs; there’s a red zone into which no one should enter and the first point in that red zone is the existence of God. In philosophy, however, there’s no red zone and every zone is a green zone open to speculation.”

  Ali was all ears to the conversation. But as usual, he was reluctant to join it, because he was uncertain of what to say. Since childhood, he was taught that “God is the creator and sustainer of the entire universe. The world and everything in it owes its existence to God. Man has been created with a purpose and he is responsible to God for all his deeds and thoughts, actions and intentions.”

  He had grown up with those beliefs. He remembered that as a child he would often wonder, “If everything is made by God, who made God.” Out of curiosity, he would put the question to his parents. Their answer was simple. “God has always existed and will always exist. He is above the limitations of birth and death, creation and destruction, growth and corruption.”

  But as he made the transition from belief to skepticism, dogma to doubt, axioms to assumptions and began looking for rational explanation of things visible and invisible, tangible and intangible, material and non-material, Ali was no more satisfied with childhood explanations. “If everything must have a cause, why should God be an exception?”

  Sara noticing that Ali hadn’t uttered a word invited him to join the discussion.

  Ali mustering up the courage began, “I think the three arguments mentioned by Naila can be the starting point of our discussion. Let’s begin with the moral argument. Presume that the existence of God is a moral necessity, while His non-existence is a moral impossibility. But we need to define our terms first. What is meant by moral necessity and moral impossibility? Is absolute justice a moral necessity? But what is absolute justice or even justice?” “I think before grappling with the problem of the existence of God, we need to settle the problems even basic to that like justice and injustice, necessity and contingency. Alternately, we may begin by assuming the existence of God and then should see whether it helps us answer basic ethical, epistemological and metaphysical problems in a more meaningful way than otherwise. If yes, God’s existence is established. If not, well, then we need to revise our assumptions.” In other words, either we infer the existence of God from the world or of the world from God.”

  Prof Ghani who was patiently listening to the discussion interposed. Addressing Ali, he said, “I’ll give my views on your second suggestion first. Taking the existence of God for granted and then driving the existence of the world from that is a deductive approach relied upon by religion. While inferring the existence of God from that of the world is an inductive approach. I’ll not pass any judgment as to which approach is sounder. But you need to be aware of the distinction. When Ali says that we need to define our terms, he has a point. The definition of the terms is important, because it influences the result of our enquiry.

  “When we say God exists,” continued Prof Ghani, “we must define what attributes we are investing in the concept of God. Is it the impersonal God of Spinoza we are talking about or the personal God of Jews, Christians and Muslims? This is important because few people would categorically deny the existence of God. The real split is not as much on the existence of God as on the attributes of God. Do we believe in a God, who is simply another term for nature and who merely represents the totality of the universe? Or do we believe in a God, who is qualitatively different from the world and its inhabitants? Do we believe in a God who shapes and regulates the affairs of the world and who is the sovereign power in the universe? Or do we believe in a God who, like mortals, has desires and fears and who is also subject to fate?

  “Do we believe in a God who was merely the first cause and is no more related to the World? Or do we believe in a God who is very much involved in the world, who responds to our solicitations and petitions, who frequently intervenes in the affairs of the world to reward the just and punish the evil doer, and who even incarnates himself in human form at crucial moments in history? The different concepts of God that we have had essentially differ on the divine attributes. When we change the divine attributes, we change the concept and meaning of God and we have a different philosophical problem. My advice to you therefore is to know precisely what you are seeking. In other words, as Ali said, you must define your terms. Any question or comment?”

  I have a question sir,” Riaz raised his hand. “Sir do you think it makes sense to have a God, who is not related to the world and is merely an abstraction.”

  “As students of philosophy,” replied Prof Ghani, “you should overcome the tendency to defining things to suit your interest and desires. Again, are you looking for God as an objective reality independent of what you think and feel, pray and wish? Or are you looking for a God who responds to your subjective impressions and desires, needs and wants, hopes and fears, prayers and supplications?”

  Before Riaz could reply, Sara intervened: “As a student of philosophy, to me the soundest concept of God is the one enunciated by Benedict Spinoza. God is an objective reality, the only substance, who exists in itself and of itself. If God exists merely because he is useful to us, then he exists for us and in this way is dependent on us. But I concede that such a concept of God does not appeal to the lay man. Hence, not surprisingly, Spinoza was charged with heresy.”

  “To me, whatever problem we discuss must have a meaning. The idea of God as merely a substance divests it of all its meaning. If Spinoza’s is the correct concept of God, why do we even call Him God; call him just Nature with a capital ‘N’. My point is that the relationship between the individual and God is the most personal and the most intimate of all relationships. Such a relationship is possible only if the individual can communicate with God. Hence we have prayers in every religion as the channel of communication between man and God,” Riaz replied.

  Sara looking askance at Riaz responded: “I’m afraid there’s too much of religion but too little of philosophy in your thoughts. You first suppose what God should be like and then reject the concept of God that doesn’t fit into your supposition. You are just begging the question. What do you say professor”?

  Prof Ghani pondered for a while and then said, “Sara’s point is valid theoretically. But I would also add that in practice belief in God is largely a psychological question. Philosophical merits apart, people will believe in a God who bests suits their psyche. We tend to remember God more when we are in trouble than we are in comfort.”

  “Excuse me sir” interposed Sara, “but if y
ou are right, then every concept of God is equally legitimate and valid. Then the terrorists who believe it to be a divine command to kill others are as much right as those preaching tolerance and compassion in the name of God.”

  “Your point is well taken,” said Prof Ghani calmly. But you’re talking normatively while I was speaking positively. I don’t say that the terrorists who kill others in the name of God are justified. What I say is that most of the people most of the time will believe in a God who fulfils their psychological needs. That’s why we have a host of ideas of God and will continue to have those. There will be as many concepts of God as the number of psyches. Even in this small group, there are multiple concepts of God as you differ in your psychological make-ups. As students of philosophy, we should be interested not only in what people believe but also why they believe.”