Human Will — Free or Not…???

The question of free will (more precisely the issue of “Jabar-o-qadar”) is not really simple. Once a person asked Hazrat Ali (RA) whether human will was free or not. That person was standing before Hazrat Ali (RA). Hazrat Ali (RA) asked him to upward lift one of his FOOTS. That person did it. Then Hazrat Ali (RA) again asked him to now try to lift the other FOOT at the same time. Obviously that person could not do it. Hazrat Ali then told him that HE WAS FREE IN LIFTING ONE FOOT BUT HE WAS NOT FREE IN LIFTING BOTH THE FOOTS AT THE SAME TIME.

It is true that we do not come to this world at our own will, neither we shall go in this way. There are many other compulsions also. Our will, actually functions within the framework of its own area of functionality. The area of functionality of will is restricted by the NATURAL COMPULSIONS. Wherever there are natural compulsions, we cannot do the things according to our will. Where there are no such compulsions, we can do the things according to our own will. I have a mind, which considers itself free in its thinking. I have a body, which can follow the instructions of the freethinking of my mind. All what my mind can think by itself, my body may or may not actually perform that thing accordingly. I can think of going to my friend’s home which is located about 5 km from my home. I can think that I can reach his home if I walk towards his home for let’s say half an hour. It means that I want (my will) to go to my friend’s home by walking within half hour. Can I do it? Obviously I can do it. I can do it because the structure of the physical world and of my own body allows me to do it. In this way I did according to my will. My will was what I wanted to do.

Now consider another case. Now I want to go to my Cousin’s home who lives in USA. I want to reach his home by walking for half an hour. It means that I want that I want to reach the home of my cousin who lives in USA by walking for half an hour starting from my home, which is located in Pakistan. Consider that here I want to do a particular thing. It means that I have a particular will. In this case however the structure of the physical world and of my own body would not let me do it successfully. This is actually the compulsion due to which I cannot successfully act according to my will. So my will is not free in this case. My will is bound by the physical compulsions here.

Our will is free if it is not bound or restricted by the physical compulsions. And there are so many compulsions to which we all are subject to. For example you cannot touch your elbow of right arm with your own right hand even if you want to do it. There is a physical compulsion, which you can feel when you shall try to do so. Similarly when you speak, you can move only your lower jaw of mouth. You cannot move the upper jaw even if you want. You have the will to move the upper jaw but your this will is restricted by another physical compulsion which you can easily feel. so your will is not free because of being subject to physical compulsions. But you can touch the elbow of your left arm with your right hand whenever you want. What you want is your will. Your this will is not restricted by any physical compulsion. So you can easily do it. Your “will” therefore is free in this case. So our will is free but within a limited functional area.

A very important point here is that okay we cannot remove many of the physical compulsions BUT WE ARE ABLE TO OVERCOME MANY OF THE PHYSICAL COMPULSIONS USING OUR AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUES. For example while standing, I cannot uplift both of my legs at the same time. It is due to the presence of a physical compulsion in the form of gravitational attraction force of the earth. I cannot remove this force. But I however can use some scientific technique through which I shall apply a net positive upward force in order to OVERCOME the downward gravitational force. If I do it, then I would be able to lift both my legs at the same time. I, here have made free my will from a physical compulsion using a scientific technique. In this way I actually have expanded the functional area of my will. Yes! we can expand the functional area of our free will in this way, i.e. by using proper scientific techniques. In old days, humans had many this type of wishes such that they found it impossible to act according to their those wishes due to the presence of physical compulsions. But in the present world, those type of wishes can be easily acted upon. It means that the functional area of the human will has been successfully expanded over time, as a result of the growth in scientific knowledge and techniques.

Our will is not free in following cases:

1- Where there are physical compulsions which we cannot overcome using our available scientific techniques.

2- Where there are physical compulsions which we can never overcome because of having inherent limitations in our knowledge and abilities.

Our will is free in following cases:

1- Where there are no any physical compulsions.

2- Where we can overcome the associated physical compulsions using available scientific techniques.

3- Where we can overcome the associated physical compulsions by inventing new scientific techniques.

Another very important thing is that a blind faith in rigid fate results in a pessimist approach. For example USA is the super power in the world whereas Eastern societies have been declined. A person who keeps blind faith in rigid fate would say that it was already decided by the fate. So even if he wants the revival of Eastern societies, he shall not do any effort to correct the situation by trying to overcome the associated physical compulsions. Why should he do any effort whatsoever? Everything, for him, already has been decided by the fate. So what shall be the use of his efforts if the things are pre-decided? As a result this person shall not do any concrete effort in order to correct the situation. At the most he can try to find some means, which can provide him a sort of psychological satisfaction. He, for example, can get the psychological satisfaction by thinking that all what the West knows today was actually told to them by the ancient Muslim or other Eastern scholars and scientists.

A person who is having the above mentioned scientific outlook that the functional area of the human free will can be expanded with the help of scientific techniques; he shall be optimist in his approach. He shall do concrete efforts with the view to trying to correct the situation. And when he shall get the success, the pessimist person would say, “it was pre-determined by the fate”.

There is another BIG issue about this topic. It is the question about the nature of “will”. What is this “will” after all? In general terms we can say that what we want is our will. But if we try to investigate the deep meanings of will, it would come out that “what we want” is also determined by many factors. These factors are the structure of the universe and of our own mind. Our wants and desires are actually determined by our surrounding environment and the level and type of education and experience that we get from the society. For example in some parts of the world, people can “want” to eat insects, snakes and lizards etc. We Pakistanis however cannot keep this type of wishes. Why is it so? Surely the difference in type of wishes (types of wills) is determined by the customs, traditions and ideologies of the surrounding environment and cultural forces. Our wants and wishes are actually just a state of our mind. The state of mind is the reflection of the forces of material and cultural environment. The type of material and cultural environment determines the types of our wants and wishes. We feel that we want something. This feeling is just due to our particular state of mind and that particular state of mind is the result of combined forces of material and cultural environment. If the material and cultural environment is changed, the type of wishes also change. Present day many of Pakistani women keep this wish to not to miss the daily episode of “Saas bhi kabhi bahu thi” (i.e. a TV serial play). Just 50 years back, our women could not keep this type of wishes. The change in wishes (types of will) has occurred because a change in the material as well as cultural environment has been occurred.

So environmental forces determine the type of wishes and the presence/ absence of physical compulsions and scientific techniques determine which wishes can be successfully acted upon. Therefore human will is free within the framework of its functional area. Functional area however is determined by many factors. Functional area actually provides an opportunity of making new expansions in it. This opportunity can be availed and can be rejected. Optimists avail this opportunity and thus expand the functional area of the human will. Pessimists on the other hand do not avail the opportunity of making new expansions in the functional area. They however do enjoy the benefits of the already expanded functional area due to the effort of optimists. So even if in the final analysis, it seems that the will is actually just determined by environmental forces, even then the role performed by optimists is better than that of pessimists. Even if we cannot find conclusive evidence about free will, still then we should be optimistic in our approach because it is the better way.

Nature of “Double Standards” of Western and Muslim World:

Very often we ourselves do many such things which may be considered as ‘double standard’ from the point of view of others. A common American citizen actually thinks his country as being on the right if it successfully prolongs the present uni-polar world regime.

I try to explain it while supposing that I am an American. Being an ‘American’, I am feeling my nation is endowed with this divine responsibility that it has to maintain global peace at any cost. I also think it is due to the efforts of my country that international peace forums like United Nation etc. are ‘effectively’ functioning now. The role of my nation is that of an active, good and successful policeman. It is due to the efforts of my country that now nations throughout the world do not indulge themselves in wars. Now powerful countries do not occupy the territory of weak countries. Iraq for example did it once. But it was due to the efforts of my country that it had to pay heavy price for it and the sovereignty of Kuwait was restored as a result of the efforts of my country. There are many fanatic people living in this world. They forcefully interrupt the peaceful lives of other nations. For example there were Nazis and Communists. If my country did not become the supreme military power of the world, then either Nazis or Communists would have become. What if Nazis were the supreme military power of the present world? Obviously the relationship between Nazis and rest of world would have to be that of master and slave because Nazis are ‘racially superior’ to all the others. I would think, as a good American, that role of my country as a super military power is really very positive because it is after all not preaching any idea of racial superiority. My country is trying to promote democracies in the whole of contemporary world. Since democracy is good, it means that my country is thinking for the goodness of other countries of the world. Our country has saved the world from Communist Devils. They wanted to forcefully over-throw the peaceful governments of other countries. They wanted that other countries also follow their insane economic and political system. A Communist system does not allow liberty of thought to the populace. It is our country, which is the strong advocate of, and vigorously confederates the freedom of thought. Bertrand Russel was right in his analysis that people under the communist system could not be allowed to deviate their minds from Dialectical Materialism. In USA, on the other hand, people are free to choose any ideology or creed whichever satisfies their thirst of wisdom. Thus in our country, there are Christians, Jews, Muslims and others as well as people of our nation follow such wide range of ideologies as positivism, pragmatism, materialism, idealism, existentialism and so on. If our country were not the super military power of the world, the ruthless Arab Muslims would have eaten-up relatively very small group of Jews who just want to live in their ‘promised’ land.

With the fall of Communism, another kind of fanatics, the extremist Muslims now want to rule the world in their own very ignorant style. They do not want that women, out of their masses, be given proper education. They inhumanly treat those who belong to other religions. They consider it their religious duty to destroy even the archeological remains. They do not allow that other religions be preached in the countries wherever they may establish governments. When they assume power, they require from their masses such insane things as to keep beard of a certain length and to wear dresses having designs which come up to certain specifications. They want to promote a thing, which they call “jihad”, which is very wicked, harmful and dangerous for other ‘peaceful’ nations. Jihadies consider it all right that civil buildings of other countries be destroyed by bombs. They do not feel guilty if innocent women and children also die as a result. They want to employ WMDs in their terrorist activities. It is our country, which is so dedicatedly fighting against this global level terrorism.

Obviously when I would think all these things, as being a good American citizen, I would feel not much bad of what my country did in Hiroshima, in Vietnam, in Iraq and elsewhere. I would feel then that this was actually a price, which had to be paid for attaining and maintaining the global peace etc. etc. And it should be noted that it is true that Americans really do not feel much bad of their acts in Hiroshima or elsewhere. Because, in my assessment they think in above mentioned way.

Now I stop assuming that I am an American. I actually thought over the issue of ‘double standards’. We do not feel good of these so-called ‘double standards’ wherever we see them. Problem however is that we (obviously others also) can see ‘double standards’ in the acts and policies of only others. Normally one group of humans cannot see its own double standards. USA is no exception. I think that ‘double standards’ exist in two main forms. First can be considered as ‘value preference’ whereas other can be regarded as pure double standard.
The concept of ‘value preference’ can be seen as functional in our own daily lives. There are many things, which we consider as ‘valued’. The way of thinking, action, behavior and attitude, which we consider ‘important’, are our values. We prefer telling the truth to telling a lie. Truth for us therefore is more important. Normally we shall continue to prefer telling the truth to telling a lie but only up to the point where our truth remains in harmony with the rest of our value systems. For example I prefer telling a truth to telling a lie. This is my ‘value’. I possess some other values also. For example I want that my friends may not suffer any severe loss. My wish that my friend may not suffer severe losses can be considered to be another of my ‘value’. And sometimes I may face such situations where I would be needed to prefer one of my values to the other. I value truth and at the same time I also value my friends. Sometime there may arise conflict between these two of my values. Sometimes I may prefer the value relating to my friends to the value relating to the truth. This seems to be a ‘double standard’ but I like to call it as ‘value preference’. When I have to prefer one of my values to the other, I justify myself on the basis of comparing the difference between what I get and what I lose, in ethical terms, in this way. If my minor act of telling a less wicked lie saves my friend from a grave loss, then I can ethically justify myself in telling a lie over telling the truth. In other occasions I would still continue to prefer telling the truth over telling lies. Someone may point out that I am practicing double standard. But as I said earlier, I do not think so as I know that my behavior in this case would be characterized by ‘value preference’ and not by any ‘double standard’. And I find nothing ethically wrong in this type of value preference because here we are bound to choose between two evils. If we really face this situation and then choose the option which is less wicked it means that we can justify our-self by thinking that we are still ‘good’.

‘Double Standard’ is quite a different thing. It is such a way of thinking that I myself want to live an honorable life but I want to humiliate others. When I humiliate others, I get no extra benefit of it. So pure double standard is actually a pure selfish behavior.

When I apply this analysis to the study of the behavior of contemporary Muslim and Western world, I find that about all the behavior of Muslims which is considered negative by the western world, is actually a matter of ‘value preference’ for the Muslims. Muslims, how much bad their behavior may seem to others, in my complete honest and impartial opinion, fall in the category of ‘value preference’. They value so much to the honor of Prophet (PBUH) that they may not feel bad of their violent strikes. Even the extremist Muslim sects actually value their particular creeds so much that they become ready to even kill the people who belong to different sect. This extreme negative behavior can be regarded to be the result of their ignorance of the true Islamic teachings but it cannot be regarded as any pure selfish behavior.

Behavior of western powers, which seems bad to us, however cannot always be considered to be ‘value preference’. When there were reports of CIA that Iraq actually does not possess any WMD’s then the decision of initiating military attack on Iraq was a pure selfish decision. During the war time, when USA was pretending to act like as if it were just doing ‘value preference’, i.e. when USA’s aircraft were throwing evil weapons and ‘good’ food and other necessaries at the same time, USA’s this act cannot be considered ‘value preference’ in any way. Iraq was not so big a power that could pose any real threat to the security of USA. The dictator ruler was also not bad in himself because he was given the punishment for those acts, which he committed when he was USA’s ally. So in this case, a powerful country only humiliated a weak country without any moral objective. It is very important to understand that USA tends to commit ‘double standards’ under the disguise of ‘value preference’. In the case under review, they did it using the propaganda of WMDs.

The negative behavior of Muslims mostly is the result of their present state of ignorance. They sometime value some those things, and in such a manner, which actually do not come up to the standard of original and pure Islamic teachings. Muslim world is facing two main challenges which are first, the curse of their own ignorance and secondly, the ‘double standards’ of western powers.

Some Possible Historical Roots of Iqbalian ‘Ishq’:

Some Historical Facts About “Ishq”:

In the context of Iqbalian ‘Ishq’, it is important not only to differentiate between ‘Haqiqi’ and ‘Majazi’ Ishq, but also to differentiate between “ishq vs Fear” and “ishq vs Rationality”. It is clear now that Iqbal, in his work has compared Ishq with Rationality. The difference beween ‘Haqiqi’ and ‘Majazi’ Ishq is quite famous. So here I only shall mention some historical facts regarding “Ishq vs Fear” and “Ishq vs Rationality”.

“Ishq vs Fear” has been the issue of religion whereas “ishq vs Rationality” has been the issue of Philosophy. Haqiqi and Majazi Ishq, on the other hand, have been the issues of religion and Sufism.

1- Ishq vs Fear:

Since most religions require their followers to offer certain prayers. The issue in various religions has been that what should be the reason of prayers. Should humans offer prayers in order to ensure some worldly benefits? Or should they offer prayers with the view to avoid punishment in after life? Or with the view to acquire good status in paradise, surely in the after life? In other words, the issue has been that should humans offer prayers because of worldly gains, or because of fear of God, or because of anything else?

Aryian Vedas are the most ancient religious teachings which are available to us. Contents of Rig-Vadas show that the ancient Arians had been offering their whatever form of prayers with the view to ensure worldly benefits for them. For example they used to offer those prayers so that they might get good crops, or so that they win wars against their enemies etc.

Soon Arian religion turned into a strict but invisible code of many customs and traditions. Vedas did not contain any mention about the stratification of society into caste system. At first, Arians had been just fighting against the native Indians, throughout the time of Vedas. Eventually, they however had to include the native Indians also in their society. This was the time when they felt the need of splitting up their society into various castes so as to ensure the survival of their distinct identity from the native Indians. In the main classification of four castes, first three i.e. Berhaman, Khashtaries and Vesh were Arians whereas Shudars were the Native Indians. With the view to introduce such a social stratification, they brought about many changes in their religious doctrines as well. Now reason for offering prayers also changed, for them. Previously, they had been offering prayers with the view to ensure worldly benefits, now on ward, they would offer prayers with the view to avoid “Janam-Chacker”, which was a new introduction to the religious outlook of Indian people. Actually, with the view to legitimize such a rigid caste system, Hindu religious leaders had developed a philosophy of “kerma”. This philosophy asserted that after death, the soul again would take birth in some other body. Whether the soul would go to some inferior body or to some superior body, would be determined by the “karams” (i.e. Aamals …. doings) of the person. A person who did good aamals in his life, after his death his soul would go to superior body. For example the soul of a good vesh would again take birth in the body of a Khashtari or even Berhaman. Similarly, the soul of a bad Berhaman could go in the body of Shudar or even in some other inferior animal. In this way, this philosophy of “kerma” “successfully” legitimized the rigid caste system. This philosophy deprived shudars, of their right to complaint against their such a low status in society because according to this philosophy, their low status was the result of their own bad kermas (aamal) in their previous life. So the basis of Aamal (or prayers etc.), in those days, had been the fear of bad transmigration as well as the fear of social punishments because of strict social customs and traditions.

With the passage of time, Janeism and Buddhism emerged mainly as a reaction to this caste system and the philosophy of Kerma. Both Janeism and Buddhism rejected caste system and introduced the idea of Nirvana with the view to end up the evil “janam chacker”.

Rapid success of Janeism and Buddhism posed severe threat to Hinduism. Hindu religious leaders again felt the need to introduce new reforms in their religion in order to counter the threat of Janeism and Buddhism as well as to win the popularity of Hinduism among the general public.

Emergence of such literature as Ramayein and Maha-Bharata relates to this point in time. Bhagwat Geeta is the important portion of Maha-Bharata. Philosophy of Bhagwat Geeta provided for a new basis for why humans should offer their prayers. Philosophy of Bhagwat Geeta is also not in favour of caste system. Secondly this philosophy asserts that basis of prayers should be the LOVE OF HUMANS FOR GOD. According to this philosophy, this love should be unconditional — means the basis of this love should not be the fear of punishment, or expectation of reward after death. Humans should love God without any hidden or secondary motive, and Such a love for God should be the reason for the offer of religious prayers.

In Semitic religions like Judaism and Christianity, the reasons for why humans should offer prayers have been both (i) to ensure worldly benefits and; (ii) the fear of punishment or expectation of reward in the after-life. The examples of worldly benefits include that Jews were promised for the acquisition of ‘promised land’. Hazrat Isa (RA) had promised for the ‘heavenly kingship’ for his nation.

In Islam, the reason for offer of prayers include (i) spiritual growth, (ii) fear of punishment and expectation of reward in the after-life, (iii) Love for and obedience to Prophet of Islam (PBUH). etc. (iv) As a thanks to God.

The concept of ‘love of human for God’, in an elaborated and transparent form, has been evolved after 1st century of the emergence of Islam. By that time, many ‘Abid-o-Zahid’ Muslims had lost the spiritual basis of their prayers. They used to offer their prayers just to show before others that how much ‘ibadat-guzar’ they were. The ‘riakary’ of such ‘Abid-o-Zahid’ persons was apparent in their dishonest conducts and attitudes in various worldly matters. Sufism, in Islam, has been emerged, originally as a reaction to this type of ‘riakary’ of such type of ‘Abid-o-Zahid’ persons. Early Sufis differentiated between ‘Zahir’ and ‘Batan’. They took the initiative to offer their prayers with such purpose as the purification of their inner-self (batan), instead of just to make show of their number of prayers to others. In those days, Hazrat Rabia Basri (RA) happened to be the first Muslim scholar who introduced the idea of ‘Love of Human for God’, as a basis for the prayers.

This original idea of ‘Love of Human for God’, later on was contaminated by later Sufis with the Greek notion of ‘Ishq’. Actually later Sufis had adopted various elements of ‘Immanatalist’ doctrines of Indian ‘Vedantas’ and Greek’s ‘Neo-Platonist’ theologies. I shall discuss about the historical development of ‘Neo-Platonism’ theology later in this post. Here I shall discuss only the main doctrine of this ‘Neo-Platonism’. This theology, or philosophy, was developed by the 1st century B.C philosopher Platinus. According to him, the whole reality or the source of origin of everything is a single unity which he calls ‘Zat-e-Behet’. This entity, according to him, transcends the universe but everything of the universe which are (i) First Intellect, (ii) Ruh-e-Kul, (iii) Ruh-e-Alvi of humans, (iv) Ruh-e-Safli of humans and (v) matter; have been EMANATED from that ‘zat-e-behet’. ‘Emanation’ means just like light emits from sun in such way that no loss is suffered by the sun.

According to the details, first of all ‘first intellect’ emanated directly from ‘zat-e-behet’. Then Ruh-e-Kul emanated from the intellect. Then Ruh-e-Alvi of humans emanated from that Ruh-e-Kul. Then this Ruh-e-Alvi lost its true status and became inclined to matter and thus became ‘Ruh-e-Safli’. According to Platinus, human body is composed of matter. Human soul has been imprisoned in matter in this way. The highest goal before human is to try to purify his soul (through ‘riazat’, ‘maraqba’ etc. etc.) so that the soul may get freedom from the imprisonment in matter. After getting freedom from matter, the ‘purified’ souls then starts backward, or better to say, up-ward movement towards Ruh-e-Kul, then to intellect and finally again units with the ‘zat-e-behet’.

Platinus says that when human soul is in imprisonment of matter, it feels intense missing of ‘zat-e-behet’ and the soul acquirs the feeling of ‘Be-Qarari’ for meeting or uniting with ‘zat-e-behet’. This feeling of ‘Be-Qarari’ of human soul for uniting with ‘zat-e-Behet’ has been named as ‘Ishq’ by Platinus.

It is this ‘Ishq’ which compells humans to do such things as ‘maraqbas’, ‘riazat’ etc. etc. so that the soul may be purified and get freedom from the imprisonment of matter. To get his soul re-united with the zat-e-behet is the ultimate real goal for any human, according to this doctrine.

It is important to mention that not only Muslim Sufis, but Muslim rationalist philosophers such as Al-Farabi and Ibn-e-Sina also had adopted this emanation doctrine with its details — but after some modifications. Muslim Sufis have derived their concepts of ‘Ishq-Haqiqi’, ‘Fana-Fi-Allah’, etc. from this doctrine. In addition, various concepts which are found in works of Muslim scholars such as sufli, alvi, first intellect etc. also have Greek origins. Just like in this ‘Neo-Platonism’, where ultimate goal for human is to get his soul re-united with ‘zat-e-behet’, in many forms of Sufism, the ultimate goal before Sufi is also ‘Fana-fi-Allah. Just like in Neo-Platonism, where maraqbas and riazats are required for this purpose, in many forms of Sufism also the same maraqbas and riazats are required for this purpose. In addition, according to Neo-Platonism, since everything has been emanated from a single source, so all the beauty found in universe is just the reflection of that singe source. This concept has been taken up by Sufis by the name of ‘Husn-e-Azal’ and they have named the ‘attraction’ for this ‘Husn-e-Azal’ as Ishq.

Hazrat Muhayyudin Ibn-e-Arabi, the main proponent of Islamic Wahdat-ul-Wajood, has taken many things from Neo-Platonic doctrines. Both ‘Neo-Platonism’ and Ibn-e-Arabi’s ‘Wahdat-ul-Wajood’ are ‘monistic’ doctrines instead of ‘mono-theistic’ doctrines. Monism asserts the unity between God and universe. In other words, according to Monism, God and Universe are one and single thing as no other thing can exist except God. Mono-theism (Islamic Tauheed) on the other hand, asserts that God and universe are two separate entities. The thing which mono-theism emphasizes is that God is only one i.e. there are not more than one gods. But fact remains that one God is considered separate entity than universe. Universe is the creature and the creator is only one God, according to Mono-theism. Secondly Ibn-e-Arabi has described ‘creation’ of universe in Neo-Platonic terminology of emanation etc. In addition, he also has adopted another Greek concept of ‘Logos’, after some modifications.

2- Ishq vs Rationality:

Iqbal, in his work, has compared ‘ishq’ with ‘rationality’. It means that he has taken whole different meanings of ‘ishq’. It is clear by now that the term ‘ishq’ has Greek origins. The meaning, which Iqbal takes of this term, also has very interesting history. In various poetic verses, Iqbal has equalized ‘ishq’ with ‘masti’. Then Iqbal compares this ‘ishq-o-masti’ with ‘rationality’ and then gives preference to ‘ishq-o-masti’ over ‘rationality’. Here, ‘masti’ vs ‘rationality’ also has Greek origins. In ancient Greece, a god of ’sharaab, masti and be-khudi’ was imported from the nearby island of Kareet. The name of that god was ‘Dyonisus’. The worshipers of that god used to heavily drink ’sharaab’ in order to get ‘masti’ and ‘be-khudi’. They had the belief that during ‘masti-o-be-Khudi’, their god i.e. Dyonisus entered in their inner selves (halool ker jata hai). A person named ‘Orphios’ is said to be the main proponent of this Dyonisusism. When this god enters into the innerself of a ‘mast-o-be-khud’ person, that person is supposed to acquire ‘irphan’ (i.e. famous ilm-o-irfan’). Note at this point that many Sufis use to call themselves as ‘Arifs’ (i.e. this term has been derived out of this ‘Orphios’ which becomes ‘oriph’ and so ‘Arif’). So this ‘Dyonisusism’ is also known as ‘Oriphism’. ‘Oriphies’ endeavoured to get ‘irphan’ (irfan) in the state of ‘masti-o-be-khudi’.

Pythagoras was actually a reformer of this ‘Oriphism’. The reform which he brought about was that he replaced the method of ‘masti-o-be-khudi’ with the method of applying rational thought and pondering etc. with the view to get ‘irphan’. Although for Pythagoras also, the meaning of ‘irphan’, just like other followers of ‘Orphism’, was not ‘getting of knowledge’. Actually, even in those times (i.e. about 500 BC), some Greeks (including Pythagoras) believed that body was the prison of soul. The objective before human was the same … i.e. to get freedom for soul from the prison of body. These views later on would serve the founding stone of above mentioned Neo-Platonism. The purpose of getting liberty from body could be achieved if a person acquired the state of ‘irphan’. Orphios and other followers of Orphism used to try to get this ‘irphan’ in the state of ‘masti-o-be-khudi’. Pythagoras introduced reforms whereby he replaced the method of ‘mast-o-be-khudi’ with the method of ‘rational thought and pondering’. So this was the first ever comparison between masti and rationality. Masti was older than rationality. But this masti had no any such roots over which Allama Iqbal sahib can feel any pride.

Actually, in old times, the process of acquisition of new knowledge was considered to be the most mysterious one. There was no such idea that rationality could produce new knowledge. In many ancient nations, it was only ‘Kahins’ etc. who used to tell mysterious new things to general public. And those Kahins usually did it in the state of ‘masti-o-be-khudi’. The meaning of Kahin is also that a person who tells mysterious things in the state of masti-o-be-khudi. In the pre-Islamic Arab, whenever any poet used to say any new poetry, common people would consider that it was actually some JIN in the inner self of that poet who was telling that poetry to the poet. It was due to the simple fact that those people did not know that new poetry was just a product of rationality (obviously inspired by intense feelings) of poet. Due to the ignorance of this fact, ancient people only could think that new knowledge or poetry could only be produced in the state of masti and be-khudi when the inner self of person was pre-occupied by some super-natural entity such as Jin or god etc. Comparison of ‘masti’ with ‘rationality’ has this type of history … but Iqbal, in his work has taken immediate inspirations out of the work of Rousseau, who in his work had given preference to passions over rationality. Rousseau was a supporter of dogmatism. Dogmatists are those who think that since they already know all the possible things, so they are not in need to apply their rationality with the view to get knowledge of any new thing. But instead of following the views of Rousseau, we must think that we are behind other nations just because we really do not know so many things. We must accept this clear fact that we are in need of acquiring new knowledge and for this purpose we should apply our rationality. But before applying rationality, we first should give the rationality its due respect, which unfortunately has not been given to rationality by our national heroes. Rather, they unduly have de-graded the rationality by just following the views of some anti-rational type western scholars.

Enlightened Moderation

The notion of ‘Moderate Islam’ has been emerged as a reaction to the so-called ‘Extremist Islam’. Some half educated Muslims believe that all the miseries and all the difficulties upon which the whole Muslim Ummah has been trapped, has only two reasons namely; (i) that all the Muslims throughout the world do not follow their own (i.e. that small group’s) particular interpretation of Islamic teachings and; (ii) all the other nations of the world are doing nothing but just conspiring their some ill agenda towards Muslims.

So this small group of half educated Muslims hates all those Muslims who happen to follow some different interpretation of Islam and they also hate all the other nations of the world particularly three i.e. (i) Jews, (ii) Hindus and; (iii) Christians.

We cannot have any doubt in the sincerity of this small extremist group for the betterment of Islam. They are really very sincere to Islam by their heart. An extremist Sunni, for example, would do a real great service, in his mind, for the ‘cause’ of Islam when he kills some shias and vice versa. In the same way, these extremist people, in their own feelings, are really very sincere for the cause of Islam when they hate or try to promote hatred towards other nations.

The problem is not with the sincerity of this extremist group. They are good sincere Muslims by their heart. The only problem is the boundless volume of grave ignorance, which they possess. Their ignorance is evident in the fact that they do not know any cause of the decline of Muslim societies other than above-mentioned two reasons. They do not know that Muslims are behind in science and technology just because they themselves have just marginal contribution towards the knowledge of science and technology. Instead of knowing this, what they know is that all what westerns know today, was actually told to them by the ancient Muslim scientists. In their minds, they already know all the hidden secrets of Universe so there is no need to try to find any new secret of Universe. Since they already know all the possible secrets of Universe, so the only thing needed is that all other nations also should believe in those absolute secrets. What are those secrets? These are something like that a man must have this much certain length of beard. That people belonging to a particular sect of Islam are kaffirs, in fact. In order that people regularly offer prayers, there is a need of special state police force. That a particular sect is ‘Murttad’ so it is all right to kill the members of that sect. Another universal fact, which they know is something like that, all other nations are all time busy in making more and more conspiracies against Muslims.

Despite their all ignorance, they possess certain positive qualities. They ‘know’ the ‘problems’ and they also ‘know’ the ‘solution’. The ‘problems’ have been discussed above. Solution is of course ‘Jihad’. Meaning of ‘Jihad’ is ‘fighting’. Their real positive quality is that they really fight. They fight for what they consider true and right. So they do not possess negative or destructive intentions. Their intentions are positive because they struggle for the cause of righteousness. They are wrong however because their concept of righteousness is not right.

Their negative quality is that they hate others on quite wrong basis. Their positive quality is that what they consider right, they do struggle for its achievement, and in a way, which they consider right.

Their conscience can be doubted but their intentions cannot be. They think it necessary that in order that people regularly offer their prayers, there should be a special police force. When they really form their government somewhere, they then really establish one such special police force. Their criminal laws include such punishments as for not offering the prayers, and for not keeping beard of a certain length. By doing this sort of things, they just follow their own ignorant minds. They claim to follow the Shariah of Islam. But they never bother to see that according to the essence of Quranic punishments, human authorities are authorized to punish the people only in those matters, which relate to “Haqooq-ul-Ibad”. Thus Quranic Punishments include the punishment for murder, for theft and for other matters relating to ‘Haqooq-ul-Ibad’. But Quranic Punishments do not include punishment for not offering the prayers, punishment for not keeping beard of any certain length and so on. Human authorities have not been authorized by Quran to give punishment in any matter, which relates to ‘Haqooq-Allah’. Because according to the essence of Quranic teachings, punishment in the matters of ‘Haqooq-Allah’ shall be given to the wrong doers in their after life, and by God Almighty himself.

So extremists are actually those people who want to take authority of God also in their own hands. And they do it not due to their any negative intention. They do it just because of their ignorance. Their role for the nation is that of a ‘fool well-wisher’.

Now come to see who are these so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims. These are ‘silent majority’ Muslims. They just like their routine lives and do not want any disturbance in their daily routines. They are quite peaceful. They do not care much about what is going on internationally because most of the international affairs have little to do with their daily routines. At the same time, they do get themselves well informed on various international matters. They often talk about cruelties and double standards of westerns but they know that they can do nothing against those westerns. Having this characteristic, they can be considered to be much passive than those ‘extremists’ because ‘extremists’, after all do take some practical steps. ‘Moderate’ Muslims know that they, as a nation, are just following the dictations of west but they do not feel much ashamed of this fact. They just prefer their daily routines and do not undertake to perform their any role towards the correction of the situation. They put all the responsibility either on government or on ‘others’ and again get themselves busy in their routines. So in this way the ‘extremists’ do wrong efforts whereas these so-called ‘Moderate’ Muslims do nothing at all. This ‘silent majority’ has no positive program to be acted upon. The only thing, which it has, is just its ‘silence’.

What is needed?

Obviously this ‘moderate’ Islam is not the need of the day. Slogan of ‘Moderate Islam’ has been created just to show before westerns that all the Muslims are not extremists and therefore ‘terrorists’. Intention was just to show that majority Muslims are quite peaceful. ‘Extremists’ hate others and want to promote hate for others just due to their ignorance. ‘Moderate Muslims’ on the other hand are ‘peaceful’ not because they have found any corrective solution in their peace. They are ‘peaceful’ just because they do not want to disturb their routine lives and they also find themselves quite helpless before the mighty power of the west. So this ‘peace’ is actually a sign of their crowdedness. Rather than these ‘moderate’ Muslims, there is actually a need of ‘progressive’ Muslims. These should be the people who should not hate others on just baseless things. There is no need to hate any Jew just because he/she is a Jew. Similarly there is no need to hate any Hindu or Christian just because he/she is Hindu or Christian. But there is definite need to hate cruel whether they are Hindus, Jews, Christians or even Muslims. There is definite need to hate those who hate others just because of religious or sectarian differences. There is no need to adopt any absolute ‘peace’. There is definite need to try to become masters of our own destiny, rather than just following the dictations of the west. There is need to feel ashamed of our mistakes and weaknesses. There is need to investigate and find out the real causes of our present day’s backwardness as compared to Westerns. We, as a nation, have been quite addict to the finding of easy solutions to all the problems. Present competitive world is more complex and we must accept that our present policy of finding easy solutions shall not be useful. There is a need of a class of ‘progressive’ Muslims who should devote their lives in the analysis of national crises with the view to find out workable solution to the problem. There is definite need of social reforms and there is need to well educate the entire society. We should be peaceful but not because of our any weakness. We should be peaceful and at the same time we should not compromise our national dignity and honor. We should be peaceful in the sense that we should not force others to follow our dictations. We should not be peaceful in this sense that we have no other option but to follow the dictations.

Animism and Mythology

Animism and Mythology

Humans happen to have two different types of life. First one is their ‘physical’ life. Humans are not unique in this world in having this form of life. Obviously, other animals also possess this type of life. The real distinction or uniqueness of humans in this world is due to their having a second form of life also, which is their ‘mental’ life. Human needs are not restricted to just food, clothing, housing etc. These needs relate only to the ‘physical’ life aspect of them. Due to having the ‘mental’ life, humans also are in NEED to get ‘theoretical explanations’ of whatever they observe in their surrounding environment. Thus humans had always been in such needs as to get some theoretical understanding of their environment, their own selves, about the world, about universe, about their own relationship with the universe, about their own purpose or role in this universe, about the role of universe for them and so on, throughout the time when they first might had started their ‘conscious’ life in this world.

Presently, humans possess mainly two types of ‘theoretical understandings’ of above-mentioned things which are (i) Divine told Explanations and; (ii) Human self made Explanations.

In this way, the God Almighty Himself tells the theoretical knowledge of true religion to humanity whereas rest of the theoretical knowledge is man made.

Humans always want to get some theoretical ‘explanation’ of whatever phenomena they observe because they are RATIONAL beings in character and essence. It should be considered that as opposite to the Existentialist’s opinion, human ‘essence’ really comes first, due to which they feel the need of getting ‘theoretical explanations’ of observed phenomena. It is also due to having this ‘essence’ that they want to make ‘choices’. Coming back to the point, humans can ‘explain’ the things only on the basis of (i) whatever information (may be even incomplete or incorrect) they already possess and; (ii) what ‘approach’ they follow in the process of making interpretations of already possessed information. I shall explain this point later on.

Thus humans, due to their particular essence, always tend to explain not only the material world which they observe, they also tend to explain their own feelings, emotions, thinking, imaginations, dreams and so on. Here, we can refer to the material world as ‘external world’ and those feelings, emotions etc. as ‘internal world’.

I already stated that humans can explain the things only on the basis of whatever information they already posses and by following some approach for the interpretation of that already possessed information. In Anthropology, these ‘approaches’ are generally classified as:

1- Animism
2- Mythology
3- Religion
4- Philosophy
5- Science

Animism:

This happened to be the earliest form of approach of looking at various matters when humans still were in their early stages of conscious life. They might have found themselves in material environment and they might have developed some incorrect explanations using whatever limited information they possessed in those days. They also might have encountered with such quite strange things as although they used to sleep, let’s say in caves, but during sleep time, i.e. in dreams, they could find themselves in jungles, they could see and meet their dead relatives and so on. To form somewhat explanation about material things might not have posed much problem to them. But the matter that they used to sleep in cave and in this way could wonder about in jungles and could meet their dead relatives, must have been much difficult for them to properly explain. Keeping in view the type of information, which they possessed in those early days, they might have reached such type of ‘rational’ resolution that they assumed the presence of ‘something’ inside the human body. So they might have explained this complicated matter in a way that they thought that ‘something’ could separate from the body during sleep and could come back when awakened. In addition to this, those early humans might have noticed that their life was dependent upon breathing. They might have noticed that when this chain of breath stops, human dies. So they would have reconciled this chain of breath with that ‘something’ which could leave their body during sleep and could come back when awakened and they would have called it the ‘Spirit’. That ‘spirit’ finally became a real object for them.

It is also important to consider that to properly distinguish between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ world might have been near to impossible for those early humans just because due to the much limited information which they possessed in those days. Even today wild uncivilized tribesmen and children make no difference between their ‘internal’ and ‘external’ world. Children sincerely think that external world events are dependents on their own thinking and emotions and so they sincerely think that their own thoughts and feelings can affect the physical world. When some event does not occur as per their emotional feelings, they cry and weep. Children also tend to think that toys are alive just like them. So they clothe them and ‘marry’ them. In the same way ancient humans had been considering lifeless objects as conscious in the same manner as they themselves were. So they sincerely thought that all those lifeless objects also ‘feel’, or that they also had ‘emotions’. Those ancient humans could not differentiate between external, internal, objective and/ or psychological factors or things.

These type of objective situations resulted in the emergence of Animism, which is a belief on ‘spirits’; that other lifeless objects also possess ‘spirits’ and that external world events occur as per the will of those ‘spirits’ etc.

This Animism was the first ever attempt of human kind to get themselves ‘theoretically’ and ‘emotionally’ relate to the Universe and this belief have had an everlasting impact on all the coming times.

A complete uneducated human mind, just like that of a small child, tends to believe that external world events are dependents on one’s own feelings and emotions. It is interesting to point out that throughout early history to even the present modern times, humans always have tried to ‘control’ the external world events using their own emotions and feelings.

When a small child sincerely believes that certain event must happen according to his/ her own emotional desire, it is just the case of ‘innocence’ of that small child. There is another interesting common notion of ‘children’s world’ (There is a Children’s digest also with this title — I used to study it in my childhood). What is this ‘children’s world’? How it is different from the ‘real world’? This ‘children’s world’ actually is a way in which a child identifies the relationship between his/ her ‘internal’ and ‘external’ world. For a child, the external world is filled by his/ her own emotional objects such as fairies, Ghosts, kind prince and princesses and so on. Similarly, for a child, the external world events must depend on his/ her owns emotional (innocent) feelings. For example, in my childhood, as I can remember even now, I used to think, “Kal school se chutti ho gi – just because I wanted this” (tomorrow shall be holiday, just because I wanted so!).

This ‘children’s world’ approach should be differentiated with the ‘realistic’ approach, where a ‘realist’ person clearly identifies the difference between internal and external world and he/ she knows that events of external world are dependent on rigid and constant laws of nature i.e. physical world and are not dependent on his/ her own thoughts or ideas. Here this thing must be kept in mind that ideas do have impact on external world but only in a realist sense. For example a person first conceives the idea of doing some business. Then he realistically translates that idea into reality thus affecting the events of external world.

Children of our era normally come out of the ‘children’s world’ not just because they grow up. They come out of the ‘children’s world’ due to the fact that they have been provided with sufficient education and they also have got the experience of living in a realistic society. If a child is not given proper education or if he does not get the experience of living in a realistic society, he/ she will continue living in that ‘children’s world’ throughout his/ her life. HE/ SHE CANNOT BECOME ‘REALISTIC’ BY HIM/ HERSELF.

Now consider those ancient humans who were in the initial stages of self-consciousness. They just like a child believed that entire world was filled up by their own emotional object, which was ‘spirit’. And what they could understand of external world events was just that those events must be dependent on their own emotional feelings. When a small child tries to ‘control’ the external world events by just his/ her emotional desires, we call it ‘innocent’ behavior. But when grown up people develop some formal method using which they suppose themselves able to control the external world events as per their own emotional desires, we call this ‘strategy’ as ‘magic’ (or witchcraft). These formal methods are of course various ‘jantar mantar’ or other methods. I try to explain this ‘magical’ approach by differentiating it with the ‘realistic’ approach. Suppose a ‘realistic’ person wants to kill his enemy. What he shall do? Most direct method would be to get a gun, then to go to that enemy and then to shoot him with that gun. Enemy shall die in this way. What a magician would do? A real prevalent practice for doing this task is something like that the magician makes a small statue of the enemy. Then he would dig in many needles in the body of statue. In this way magician supposes that real enemy shall die. Although it is quite un-realistic way of killing the enemy i.e. by just using a formal method to effectively utilize the ‘powers’ of one’s own emotional desires but even in this case, if enemy happens to be a superstitious person and if he also has been informed in some indirect way that magician has done this sort of thing with his statue, that enemy can really die in this case. He would die just because of psychological reason and not because of any real effectiveness of that magical method.

As I already mentioned that throughout from the early history to the modern times, humans always have tried to control the flow of external world events using the ‘powers’ of their own emotional desires. So this ‘magic’ is still prevalent but mostly in the vast lower strata of about every present day human society. This ‘magic’ seems to be more ancient than Animism itself. People had been trying to control the external world events by using their own emotional desires without using any formal method i.e. just likes an innocent child. But with the emergence of Animism, role of ‘spirits’ also entered into this magic. Magic took another shape. Now spirits were classified into two categories i.e. (i) evil spirits and; (ii) good spirits. Now the role of magician was to call for ‘evil spirits’ for such purposes as to destroy the enemies and to call for ‘good spirits’ with the purpose to provide help to the friends. This magic however had a great role in the evolvement of present day’s sciences. Both magic and science have similar purpose i.e. to control the flow of external world events in the desired way. The only difference is that magic offers such methods for this purpose, which now have been proved to be wrong whereas science offers realistic methods for this purpose. Emergence of modern science however would have been quite impossible if humans would never had tried to control external world events using the incorrect method of magic. Actually it happened to be the many failures of magical method, which led the clever people to try to find some realistic methods for the purpose. And remember that these realistic methods are now known as ‘science’.

Mythology:

I have discussed Animism in detail because this Animism happened to be the primary basis of most of the ancient mythology. It is clear that for the ancient humans, the entire world was filled by their own emotional object i.e. ‘spirit’. With the passage of time, as a result of many social interactions, many ‘stories’ about those ‘spirits’ emerged. Some of the spirits were appointed as chiefs of rest of spirits. Later on those chiefs became the gods and goddesses. Those stories were aimed at the satisfaction of HUMAN NEED OF GETTING THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS about the formation and structure of universe. These stories, which are now known as ‘myths’ or ‘mythology’ described, in interesting way, the role of various gods and goddesses in the formation and daily functioning of the universe. Those ancient humans kept blind faith in those myths and they could not doubt in the truth of those stories.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

When Rousseau sent his latest article to Voltaire for review; Voltaire after having read, wrote him, “Your latest work is the most intelligent effort, that I could never anticipate of its kind, to make us think that we actually are not humans at all, and that we should leave up our present day civilization and should go to Jungles and Deserts as naturally, really we are just like other animals and we in fact do wrong when we do such inferior and mean acts like thinking and living on the basis of our intellect and wisdom.” Voltaire was a profound advocate of using the light of intellect and wisdom. Rousseau on the other hand was known for his anti-rational philosophy. Despite being against using the intellect and wisdom, Rousseau however himself was a strong supporter of a kind of thoughtful dogmatism. Voltaire, being an advocate of using intellect and wisdom, was of the view that humans must be free in their thinking. That is, there should be, as he thought, complete liberty of thought because if there is any restriction on freethinking, we humans then cannot live a life, which would be based on the light of intellect and wisdom. The very tricky and “wise” attacks on wisdom by Rousseau however put Voltaire under a dilemma for he was very much against all what Rousseau wanted to preach and at the same time he could not ask Rousseau to stop his non-sense anti-rational preaches because if he asked him so, actually he would be putting a restriction on thinking of Rousseau. Obviously, if he tried to put any such restriction, he would go against his own point of view that was in support of full liberty in thinking.

How did Voltaire manage to come out of this dilemma? It was in the form of his famous reply to Rousseau, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Why Voltaire thought it necessary to disapprove of the Rousseau’s point of view but to still hold his right to preach whatever he wanted to say? Voltaire’s this position actually was an accurate reflection of all the intellectual environment of the west of his day. It is very important to mention however that the Voltaire’s intellectual environment was gradually so developed that now it was possible for him to take the position where he was disapproving and holding some that sort of things which really could not be so disapproved or hold out just a few centuries ago.

Such type of open hearts did not characterize the European history, earlier to the time of Voltaire where people could really hold the right to say of what they disapprove of. Actually there was the hold of quite an opposite point of view in those times. That point of view was something like that: “I disapprove of what you say, so I do not accept your right to even live in this world.”

This type of point of view had its roots in the Catholic religious dogmas of that time. There was no liberty of any kind of theoretical or other disagreement with the point of view of Church. Not only all the religious ideology of that time but every sort of knowledge including pure sciences were all in the form of very sacred religious dogmas to which church wanted to keep and exercise its sole authority and proprietorship.

Copernicus was very much aware of the fact that what new ideas about the structure of universe and solar system had he found, were going against the established point of view of his contemporary church. He was aware that church would not approve of his findings and therefore would not let him un-punished in response to his disagreement with them. Copernicus actually had found that the established view about the structure of universe, where earth was considered to be the center of universe and sun and planets were thought to be moving around the world, was wrong in fact. Copernicus had found the truth that earth was not the center of universe because actually earth itself was circling around the sun in the solar system, along with other planets. Copernicus was so much afraid of the anticipated response of church to this kind of disagreement that he could not dare to publish his great work in his own life.

“I disapprove of what you say, so I punish you for why you dared to say this”. This was the practical attitude of Catholic Church in the case of Galileo where he claimed to have confirmed the truth of the point of view of Copernicus by observing the night sky using his self-made telescope. Galileo happened to be bolder than Copernicus. This was not the first time when he disagreed the established dogmas. Previously he had successfully shown that all the objects, irrespective of their weights, fall toward earth at the same rate of pace. And this time again he made such a courageous stand of making claim of having an observable proof in support of the point of view of Copernicus. Church, in response, not only disapproved his claim but also compelled him to refute his own previous stand. Galileo could not bear the forceful anger of church. He did accept his ‘mistake’ before others but in his mind, he was still convinced of his own point of view. Society of his time could not give him his right to express his point of view, which was true.

Time passed by. Use of telescope became common. Wise people confirmed the truth of Galileo’s point of view at their own. Point of view of the Church was proved to be wrong. Johannes Capler successfully calculated the paths of earth and other planets in which they orbit about the sun. The method of observational proofs introduced by Galileo became popular. People started confirming the established dogmas using experimental method. Newton made his accurate observations of physical objects and found the laws of gravitation and motion. The observational or experimental method thus won the war against the religious ’scientific’ dogmas of the Church. Ethically, point of view of the Church became weak. Now it was a bright fact that Church was wrong in the case of Galileo. Copernicus, Galileo and Newton became the heroes of modern time. It was generally accepted that Copernicus and Galileo were not rightfully treated by the societies of their time. The modern society was feeling guilty over it. Society, as a whole wanted to rectify its wrong doings. Modern progressive forces were in favor of accepting the superiority of rationality and experimental method in the process of knowing the truth. These progressive forces became so strong that now they openly and very easily could go against the traditional points of view. Now the patterns of liking and disliking of the society reversed. Society now would hate those who prefer traditional views to modern views. But still there was a class, which still was not ready to accept the truth and superiority of the modern scientific views.

The progressive people, who were represented by people like Voltaire, identified that the main difference between old traditional world and modern scientific world was the acceptance of the superior role of human intellect and wisdom in the process of getting knowledge, in the modern world. For those progressive people, their contemporary world was better than the old traditional world. As already has been mentioned that some regressive forces in the society were also present. Since the tone of the mainstream society was totally changed, so the position of those regressive elements had become reversed. Now in the modern times, one who would take the side of traditional views, would be considered to be insane by the mainstream society because the experimental method had been proved so successful that it became synonym of truth itself, even for a layman.

Now the situation was opposite. Previously, it were the progressive people who could not openly express their views. Now this difficulty was for those who were still traditional in their approach and views. Previously those traditional minded people could easily abstain progressive people from openly expressing their views by just using the force. Now they were not in position to exercise force because by then, they had lost the support of general opinion. So those regressive elements could not effectively use the language of force to combat the widespread view of the superiority of human intellect and wisdom over the ancient traditions.

So the tasks before the regressive elements were to fight and reject the modern views and to again win the support of general opinion. They could not employ force for addressing to these objectives, so some of them tried to combat the modern views using the power of pen. Rousseau was prominent among them. He denied accepting the superiority of intellect and wisdom. He wrote, “those who think, are inferior animals”. He rejected the modern ideas of culture and civilization. He forwarded his own views about culture and civilization, which were based on ancient traditions. He tried to prove the authenticity of scientific nature religious dogmas. He was quite rational and he used strong arguments in support of his anti-rational views. He really made progressive people to seriously think about the negative aspects of accepting the superiority of human intellect and wisdom. Voltaire was his contemporary prominent progressive intellectual philosopher.

Now it was Rousseau, a regressive person, who was going against the general opinion of the society. Voltaire was the representative of that modern general opinion. He was against the points of view of Rousseau but at the same time he believed in the complete freedom of thought. Rousseau was thinking against freedom of thought, but after all he himself was ‘thinking’. Voltaire could not ask him to stop his negative thinking because he did not want to impose any restriction on thinking, even if it was negative.

In the modern world of his time, now he was able to approve or disapprove traditional views. He was in a stronger position, so he said to Rousseau, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

This was the result of a complete turn of the course of history. This is a good rational treatment against the opposing ideas but still we should not accept this solution to all the similar type problems because there can actually be some very sensitive issues where it may not be possible to accept the right to say of others, where others cross their legitimate rational and moral limits.

The Knowledge Explosion in the Modern times:

The Knowledge Explosion in the Modern times:

Humans are rational beings. Unlike other animals, they always need to have some kind of theoretical relationship not only between themselves and the universe as a whole, but they also need to have some theoretical understanding about the mutual relations among them. “Knowledge” is all what humans theoretically know, of themselves, of the universe and of their own mutual relations. “Knowledge” in our known world, is under the sole possession of mankind. Other animals do have their existence in this world and they do have their own mutual relations also. They do not possess ‘knowledge’ however because they possess no theoretical stuff at all. We are not sure whether they can feel their independent existence apart from their surrounding environment or not. Even if they feel so, we are sure then, that those feelings must not be of theoretical nature.

Humans are unique in this world in that they act in accordance with their theoretical understandings. To understand the exact nature of ‘human knowledge’, it is necessary that we must differentiate between humans’ theory based actions and the instinct based actions of animals.

Other animals’ all type of action result only from one or the other instinctive motive. Instincts are bodily pleasures and displeasures, which, in an automatic way, guide the animal behavior and action in such a way that would be helpful for the performance of various biological processes. Thus it happens that animals feel some bodily displeasure, let’s say in the form of hunger, they then feel odor coming from their food source, their legs get the motion and take them towards the source, where the odor was coming from. They, in a manner which we can call ‘biological mechanical’, just have to eat that food because exactly it would be the demand of their bodily instinct, which is perhaps, or can be regarded as, some biological genius, which although is quite un-aware about its own existence but still then guides and controls the animal action in such a purposeful way which is directed towards aims that not only the animal’s life be sustained, but also the species as a whole may be perpetuated. In this way, animals live such a biological life, which has no theoretical awareness, even about their own existence, at all.

Humans, on the other hand, not only live just a biological life, their life can be termed as theoretical-life also because of their heavy reliance on their theoretical nature understandings, in most of their behaviors and actions. Humans actually are inferior to other animals as far as the performance of their biological instincts is concerned. These biological instincts, no doubt, do have their role in shaping the pattern of human behavior and action but in the case of humans, greater than to the role of instincts, is the role of psychological and mental factors in the formation of this pattern i.e. of human behavior and action. In contrast to the instincts, which exist in the form of purposeful bodily pleasures and displeasures, humans also feel ‘happiness’ and ’sadness’ which should not be considered to be ‘bodily’ in nature but more precisely, can be thought of as ‘psychological’ in nature. To have psychological features, in addition to just having biological instincts is a great advancement in humans as compared to other animals. Humans however are not limited just in having the extra psychological features, they, in further advance form are also given the God gifts of intellect and wisdom. In contrast to psychological factors which function by giving the feelings of ‘happiness’ and ’sadness’, the more advanced features of ‘intellect’ and ‘wisdom’ give humans the thing that is the most advanced and mysterious of all, which functions by giving the ‘theoretical meanings’ of such diverse things as ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’ throughout to the capabilities of understanding science, philosophies and religion. All these things such as ethics, science, philosophy and religion, which are there because humans possess intellect and wisdom, and because the role of humans in this world is that of representatives of Almighty God, can be collectively termed to be “human knowledge”. This ‘knowledge’ makes humans the superior most form of life.

All the human knowledge can be thought of as a sum total of all the different types of theoretical understandings of various natural phenomena. This human knowledge can broadly be categorized in two main classes; first is the knowledge of true religion, which has been given to humans by God Almighty Himself. Second is in the form of Man’s self-made theoretical explanations, which are in the form of philosophies, sciences and technical understandings. For the purpose of this essay, we shall analyze the issue of “knowledge explosion” but only in second class of knowledge, which is man’s self-made.

The unique faculties of intellect and wisdom always compel humans to search for appropriate theoretical explanations of whatever phenomenon they observe in the natural environment. The title of this essay i.e. the knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times, also requires to describe in the essay, such a theoretical explanation that should properly account for the phenomenon of knowledge explosion in the modern times. So this essay should account for the theoretical problem of just how the human knowledge has been evolved over time and just how it has assumed its present day form.

This is a complex philosophical issue in fact and so all the technicalities relating to this topic cannot be covered in a short essay. Therefore, the process of knowledge evolution, only in a generalized way can be discussed here. Earlier we have identified humans to be the rational beings. Humans, as they are rational in their character and essence, always want to have some kind of theoretical awareness of whatever they identify in the observable universe. Humans, using their intellect and wisdom, can explain the identified phenomena but subject to a very important limitation. The limitation is that they can explain the identified phenomena only on the basis of whatever (limited or even incorrect) information they already possess. But afterwards, whenever any new information comes to their mind, humans then become able to re-explain the same natural phenomena on the basis of this new and increased stock of information. This new explanation, which is based on increased stock of information shall usually be superior and better to the previous explanation of the same identified phenomena because that previous explanation was based on lesser or inferior information.

The process of making explanations of identified phenomenon on the basis of whatever available information and then the re-explanation of the same identified phenomenon, but on the basis of increased stock of information, can be described with the help of an example. In the historical times, the early humans identified a natural phenomenon that sun daily rises in the east and sets in the west. Since they were rational beings, so they were in need to explain this identified phenomenon. They had to find the answer to the question: “why and how sun daily rises in the east and then sets in the west?” Surely, those early humans had to explain this phenomenon on the basis of whatever limited and inferior information they possessed in those early times. Those ancient humans did not know that the earth where they lived was spherical in shape. They could see only the flat surface of earth. They never had seen the ‘edges’ of their ‘flat’ earth. So according to this available information, the earth was ‘flat’ whose ‘edges’ might be located at some un-reachable distance. So this was the ‘available’ information on the basis of which our ancient forefathers had to find the answer to this question that why sun daily rises in the east and then sets in the west.

Experts of ancient history tell us that one of the early attempts of humans to find the answer to this question was something like that it was thought that every day a ‘new’ sun came from the un-reachable eastern corner of flat earth and then went to the western corner. The same thing, as it was thought so, happened on daily basis. This can be considered to be the example of the explanation of identified phenomenon on the basis of available information.

Now come to see the example of re-explanation of the identified phenomenon on the basis of ‘increased’ stock of information. The related information was up-dated in this case when humans came to know that the earth, on which they lived, was a large spherical object in fact. It happened in a way when some wise people took notice of such rarely observed things as (i) at the time of lunar eclipse, earth casts its curved shadow upon moon, (ii) during the course of journey in open sea towards extreme south, some of the constellations in northern sky disappear whereas some new ones appear in the southern sky and; (iii) the things which fall towards earth, seem to be falling towards a common center.

On the basis of these delicate rare observations, it was concluded after all, that our earth in fact is a large spherical object. Now on the basis of this new information in hand, humans became able to re-explain the above described phenomenon that sun rises in the east and sets in the west on daily basis. That re-explanation was something like that now it was considered that the ’same’ sun circles around the earth. This explanation was better than before but still it was not correct. With the passage of time, there came the time when still better information came to the notice of humans and they again re-explained this phenomenon accordingly.

We have seen, up till now, that just how the quantity and quality of our knowledge has been evolved over time. The term ‘knowledge explosion’ refers to the evolvement of such type of human societies where sufficient quantity of quality knowledge is accessible to the majority of humans.

After having seen that just how the quality and quantity of human knowledge has been increased over time, let us now consider a very important characteristic of human knowledge, which is that the ‘knowledge’ can be accumulated over time. Its meaning is that whenever some new information comes to the notice of humanity, the new information does not erase up the corresponding previous information. The previous information actually is just ‘flagged’ as being ‘out-dated’ but still remains intact as a functional part of overall human knowledge. To mention about still another characteristic of human knowledge is also important at this stage. It is that if humans possess less amount of information, then they can explain only less number of identified phenomena. But if humans possess greater quantity of information, then they become able to explain the large number of identified phenomena

Since the nature of human knowledge is such that the quantity of information that humans possess, accumulates over time, so with the passage of time, usually humans get relatively large number of explanations of the natural phenomena. In this way actually human knowledge ‘accelerates’.

The issue of knowledge explosion in the modern times requires discussing about another related issue. It is that each individual human does not need to explain all what he identifies, at his own. Ready-made explanations can easily be transferred from one human mind to the minds of other individuals. This is usually done in the form of formal education and training through which accumulated knowledge, which was evolved over centuries, is transferred to the minds of new generations in relatively very short period of time. The state of ‘knowledge explosion’ actually is the result of this type of very large-scale educational activities. Present day print and electronic media also has made it possible, for large number of people, to get as huge quantity of knowledge and information as never had been possible to get by a common person. In this way more and more people are having more divers sets of information in their minds. The facilities of interaction with other people who live on distant places also have been immensely increased which has resulted in such a phenomenon, which can be termed as ‘knowledge sharing’.

Its overall result is that more and more people throughout the world are now having that much quantity and quality of knowledge, which was not so possible in early historical times. And since the nature of the functioning of human mind is such that more amount of information produces more new knowledge, so we can anticipate that our future generations shall see relatively more intense ‘knowledge explosion’ to that which we see today.

Identity Crisis of Pakistan

Identity Crisis of Pakistan

Outline:

§ Historical factors which brought about ‘Muslim’ identity to the territory of present day Pakistan.
§ Emergence of Muslim society and culture in the sub-continent.
§ Downfall of Muslim rule and culture.
§ Muslim mind-set under the British rule.
§ Demand of Pakistan on the basis of ‘two nation theory’.
§ Identity crisis after independence.
§ Issue of national language.
§ Issue of one unit.
§ Separation of East Pakistan mainly because of identity crisis of Pakistan.
§ Importance of National Identity.
§ Contemporary crisis of National Identity.

Essay:

Pakistani territory has been home to one of the most ancient civilizations (i.e. Indus Valley Civilization) of the World. The Indus Valley civilization flourished in period 2500-1700 BC. It is generally believed that Indus Valley Civilization was destroyed by Arian invaders. Originally those Arians were not accustomed to civilized way of city life and they only could establish many small village oriented states that were run by many Rajas etc. Later on, most of the Pakistani territory has been a large province of world’s earliest imperial power i.e. Iran. Afterwards, Alexander put an end to the Iranian rule and he invaded the Pakistani territory also. Alexander then went back but died in the way. But Iranian imperial rule and the type of Alexander’s vast scale military achievements drew profound impressions upon the political set up of the sub-continent. Chandar Gupata Moriah, following the Iranian imperial type political model, brought about most of the territory of northern India into a single political regime, which was later on further extended by his grandson Asoka.

But that large political set up could not last for long time period and the sub-continent was again divided into many small kingships of Hindu Rajas. A major political change, which shaped the identity of present day Pakistani territory was the event of 711AD when an Arab Muslim military commander, Muhammad bin Qasim, invaded the territory of Sindh, defeated the Hindu Raja Dahir and thus annexed the area of Sindh to the Muslim imperial rule of Umayyad Caliphate. Emergence of Muslim rule resulted in fundamental changes in the civil society of this area in a way that vast local population embraced Islam and thus acquired their identity as ‘Muslims’. After about three centuries, other Muslim invaders of Turkish origin managed to bring most of the northern Indian Territory including almost whole territory of present day Pakistan under the Muslim rule. Muslim society flourished under the Muslim rule because Muslim culture was more progressive and tolerant than the culture of Hindus, who were in majority. Muslim culture and society got its own distinct identity, which was quite different to the identity of majority Hindu culture. Muslim political rule continued over centuries until eighteenth century when signs of the decline of Muslim rule began to appear and many turn of events resulted in the shift of locus of political control in the hands of a British origin business oriented establishment which was doing business in the country in the name of British East India Company.

After the war of 1857, the political control over India formally shifted to the British Crown. British government introduced democratic type limited self-autonomy in India. Under this type of government, Muslims would have gone under the Hindu political control in case the country got freedom from Britain.

The two world wars made Britain so much weak that now it could not hold on its many colonies including India. It became apparent during the Second World War that sooner or later Britain will have to announce freedom for India.

Indian Muslims were already concerned about the future of their separate identity as a ‘Muslim Culture’ and a prominent Muslim leader Sir Allama Iqbal already had proposed the establishment of a separate Muslim state within India where Muslims could preserve the separate identity of their culture.

But it was during the second world war when top Muslim leadership first realized that Allama Iqbal’s proposal could become the real motto of Indian Muslim’s struggle for independence from British Rule. So Indian Muslims demanded for a separate homeland i.e. Pakistan for them. The basis of this demand was the ‘two nation theory’. The themes of this ‘two nation theory’ was that Indian Muslims were not just a minority community in India but were having a distinct complete culture of their own and so were a separate nation. The underlying idea was that future of India should be decided by not considering Indian Muslims as just minority community but should be decided while considering Indian Muslims as a complete nation, which should be given a separate homeland where they could preserve their distinct culture.

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah did lot of effort to persuade British rulers and Hindu leadership about the truth of this ‘two nation theory’ so that they may accede to the Muslim demand of a separate homeland for them. Quid-e-Azam succeeded in his efforts and so ‘Pakistan’ came into being as a homeland for Muslims who were having their own independent culture which was quite different from the majority Hindu culture.

Identity Crisis After Independence:

Muslims as a whole really were quite different from Hindus but within Muslims, the society was divided into many sub groups. As already has been mentioned that society of sub-continent has been a product of firstly the struggle between local Dravidians and Indo-Arians, secondly the struggle between Indo-Arians and Persian as well as Greek invaders, fourthly the political dominance of Muslims which effectively lasted up till eighteenth century and lastly the British rule and its downfall. Due to such a nature of historical events, the present day Pakistan’s society is ethnically diverse. Pakistanis trace their ethnic lineages to many different origins, largely because the country lies in an area that was invaded repeatedly during its long history. Migrations of Muslims from India since 1947 and refugees from Afghanistan since the 1980s have significantly changed the demographics of certain areas of the country. The people of Pakistan come from ethnic stocks such as Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Greek, Scythian, Hun, Arab, Mongol, Persian, and Afghan. The people follow many different cultural traditions and speak many different languages and dialects. At the time of independence, Pakistani territory was divided into two wings i.e. East and West Pakistan, which were separated by a distance of 1000 miles. West Pakistan corresponds to present day Pakistan whereas East Pakistan became independent country of Bangladesh in 1971, mainly because of the identity crisis of Pakistan. Originally, West Pakistan consisted of four provinces i.e. Punjab, Sindh, N.W.F.P and Balochistan. East Pakistan was a single province, which had its population greater than all the four provinces of West Pakistan combined. Pakistan faced its first identity crisis when government adopted Urdu as national language. Although Urdu was not just a regional language and was widely understood among the people of different provinces and so could better serve the purpose of inter-provincial communication but this language had not any deep roots in the East Pakistan, the largest province of the country. People of East Pakistan protested against the decision of making Urdu as national language and they raised the demand of making Bengali as a national language as this was the language of majority population of East and West Pakistan combined. But this demand could not be acceptable to the people of any of the provinces of the West Pakistan because Bengali language had no roots at all in any of the provinces of West Pakistan. Urdu language, finally became the official national language but without happy consent of the largest province of the country. Obviously, country was divided into many sub-cultures who had their own languages and they did have emotional attachment with their own regional languages also. Our early leaders however were trying to identify the country as a uni-lingual one but this was not the on ground reality of course.

Secondly, our early leaders also tried not only to conceive, but also to practically make the whole country a cultural unity. They abolished the provinces of West Pakistan with the view to make it one cultural unit. This was an attempt to eliminate the regional cultures of different provinces in order to promote the idea of a one single culture. The underlying purpose however was political in nature whose aim was to bring West Pakistan at the level of political parity with the otherwise more populous East Pakistan. Political benefit was going in the favour of West Pakistan but still then people of different provinces of West Pakistan protested against this new scheme and insisted on the separate distinct identities of regional cultures of the provinces. It means that people of country had strong emotional ties with their regional sub-cultures but our leaders were not ready to accept this fact. This thing created a grave unrest among the people of East Pakistan as the new scheme had put them on politically disadvantageous position. Since our leaders failed to apprehend the plural nature of the culture of country and since they did not identify the true national identity, so the consequent identity crisis at last resulted in the Separation of East Pakistan in 1971.

How a country identifies its National Identity is important because it is actually the comprehension of a country about the composition and structure of its own society and culture. This National Identity not only determines objectives and goals for the people and leadership of the country, it also determines the type of relationships with other sovereign countries of the world. Secondly, National Identity of a country is not any rigid or fixed entity, as its various aspects always remain in the process of change and developments as a result of the changes that occur in the political and cultural environment of the whole world. Pakistan’s National Identity also has gone through many such changes. Before the separation of East Pakistan, the main outstanding issues were those, which mainly related to the interrelationships of different provinces. Loss of East Pakistan resulted in somewhat reduced burden of this type of issues and so rest of the Pakistan successfully resolved the matters relating to interrelationships of the remaining provinces, in the form of unanimous constitution of 1973. With the passage of time however, those issues are again getting significance and so there is need to re-identify the current composition, structure and kind of country’s society. Country has also got the experience of both civil democratic political set-ups as well as various Martial Law regimes. But we still are in need to identify which form of government best suits to the taste and needs of our society. On the international environment, due to many factors, image of Muslim societies is being negatively projected. Mass international media is projecting this wrong information that Muslim societies are the supporters of terrorist activities on the global scale. Muslim societies are being labeled as ‘extremist societies’. Pakistan is also one of the victims of this wrong media projection. Under these current crisis, we are in need to evaluate our true identity i.e. whether we, as a nation, are extremist people or are enlightened, moderate, balanced, peace loving, and at the same time, brave people. By the Grace of Almighty God, now we are a nuclear power nation and so we should identify ourselves as more balanced and more responsible nation than before.