Hazrat Maulana Abdur Rahim Dardra (1894-1955)
In a letter addressed to the editor of The Review of Religions (1925), Dr Walter Walsh makes the following remarks:
“It seems to me that the real object of religious people everywhere and of every name should now be to fraternise rather than to proselytise. It is certain that no one religion will ever become the common belief of mankind, and that therefore it is not enough to tolerate one another but that we ought to recognise and acknowledge that which is good in each and all, and on the basis of that common goodness to come together to confer on the great practical questions that concern humanity at the present critical time, especially the all-important question of the establishment of world peace. I regard this as the paramount duty of all religious teachers and professors, and that duty can be discharged only in proportion as they cease to proselytise and commence to fraternise.”
Dr Walsh’s opinions are susceptible of two interpretations. If he means that in propagating a religion its missionaries should confine their preaching solely to the exposition of the truth and beauty of their religion and not seek to give it kudos by derogatory reference to other religions, then we are in complete accord with his views. The truth of one religion can never be proved by drawing invidious attention to defects in the structure of another, but only by reference to the ethical worth of its own teachings. This is what is taught by the holy Founder of our Movement, [Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas].
If, on the other hand, Dr Walsh is arguing that the propagandist activities of the various religions and missionary societies, all holding different views, should cease and no effort be made by them to call people to the truth as they respectively understand it, we take leave to differ with him on the following grounds:
Dr Walsh says that “we ought to recognise and acknowledge that which is good in each and all.”
Only a Muslim can understand, feel, and enjoy the full significance of these words. The attacks upon Islam and its Holy Founder[sa] by the adherents of other religions are fresh in his mind. He remembers the indiscriminate abuse to which the Holy Prophet[sa] of Islam has been so mercilessly subjected. For centuries the Muslim has had to listen, with bridled tongue, to the blackest and most shameful calumnies showered upon his Holy Master, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him. The etymology of the words “Mawmet,” “Mammetry,” and “Paynim” is not forgotten. Writers in the East and in the West have applied to him [countless hurt] epithets […].
What is the answer of the Muslim? Does he in return abuse the various founders of other religions? Does he speak in a derogatory fashion of Rama Chandra, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, or Jesus? No. He is forbidden to do so by his noble Prophet[sa].
A Muslim knows that none of these leaders of other religions could ever be a God. He is convinced that the religions preached by all of them are far from perfect, but he dares not retort to the abuse. He controls his temper and acknowledges the good points in them even in the face of the most provocative remarks of his adversaries.
Christ, he regards as a true and righteous servant of Allah; he reveres him and fights for his honour. He believes that Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, and Moses, peace be on them, were all righteous and honourable people, and that they were the chosen ones of God; not because the record of their personal perfection as handed down by their followers demands such belief, but because his magnanimous Master has taught him so. What more convincing display of generosity and brotherhood could be expected from a human being? A Muslim can make peace with the most venomous reptiles of the world; he can reconcile himself to the most ferocious wolves of the forests, but he can make no compromise with those who calumniate his beloved Master, for whose sake he is ready to sacrifice his life, his relatives, his friends, his all. He would rather die than stoop to any such disgraceful surrender.
Surely, a Muslim is the only person who truly appreciates and acknowledges the good points of his enemies. All his teaching has been directed towards making him ready to perceive the good in others and improve himself by such influences, whilst casting from him all that is worthless. The Muslim searches for truth everywhere, always [Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 4169]. He is taught to entertain no malice, jealousy, or enmity towards his fellow beings. He is enjoined to treat his enemies as he would himself be treated by them. The Holy Quran says that Allah loveth those who act with fairness and deal towards others with kindness. [Ch.5: V.43]
He is not only to tolerate others, but to treat them kindly. Again, the Holy Quran says that let not the enmity of a people lead you to transgress, but rather be helpful to one another in good and righteous deeds. [Ch.5: V.3]
Islam does not teach its followers alone to recognise and acknowledge the good in others, but also adjures those others to keep this precept in view. The Holy Quran says that the Jews say, the Christians are on nothing (have nothing good in them), and the Christians say, the Jews are on nothing, while they both read the book; likewise said those who had no knowledge according to their saying [Ch.2: V.114]; i.e., it is the work of the ignorant to ignore each other’s good points and not to discriminate between merits and demerits.
A Muslim, however, is not blind to vice and virtue. He cannot be expected to help or take part in what he considers to be wrong and untrue; because the Holy Quran, which is a perfect law for all ages, lays down: وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوْا عَلَى الْاِثْـمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ, i.e., “And be not helpful to one another for sin and transgression.” [Ch.5: V.3]
Again, it says: وَ لَا تَرْكَنُوْۤا اِلَى الَّذِيْنَ ظَلَمُوْا, i.e., “Do not incline towards the oppressors and the unjust.” [Ch.11: V.114]
So, he is taught to cooperate even with the sinners and wrongdoers in all matters, but he is not allowed to help vice, sin, or wrong. He must despise the act and not the actor. Good in others he must recognise, but not allow the recognition to deter him from remonstrance against their faults merely for the sake of expediency.
Islam is preeminently the religion of peace. The one idea dominant in Islam is that of peace. Peace is the greeting of one Muslim to another. Peace he has to practise in this life (Ch.43: V.90). He is to walk in the paths of peace (Ch.5: V.17). He shall talk and practise peace in the face of great provocation (Ch.25: V.64). In short, Islam is the only religion that teaches practical peace and holds out the promise of a world at peace. But, notwithstanding all this, Islam does not permit any compromise with evil, falsehood, or injustice. And it is for the establishment of world peace and brotherhood that Islam orders Muslims to preach and propagate the truth always by urging men to do good and keeping them from doing evil (Ch.22: V.42).
True brotherhood does not consist of the mere passive recognition of the good points of others. Other religions have much that is good in the tenets of their faith. No Muslim would deny this for an instant. But this admission does not carry with it any obligation upon the Muslim to refrain from missionary work in the interests of what he regards as the good of mankind. It would surely be carrying the idea of “toleration” too far to demand o f the missionaries of Islam that they should relax their efforts to effect the conversion of people to what they feel to be the only true religion.
Such an invertebrate line of action does not constitute brotherhood, the central idea of which is something active and practical: the positive desire to help and improve others translated into proper action.
He is a poor sort of brother who, when called upon to aid a fellow being suffering, let us say, from tuberculosis, merely points out to the sufferer that his limbs are strong and his eyesight good and makes no attempt to diagnose and find a line for his complaint. And are not moral and religious defects after all a form of spiritual consumption due to a lack of the sunshine of truth and the nourishment that true knowledge gives? Surely, if we really know, as we honestly believe we know, the truth, we cannot refrain from bringing its healing power to the help of those whom we see suffering from the want of it.
It is no use hiding the face of the sun. Truth is like the sun to the world. Obstruct its rays and darkness and diseases follow. No restraint should be imposed upon the proclamation of truth by any measure of expediency. The light of truth can never shatter the peace of the world.
The more truth we spread, the more peace there will be on the face of the earth. To injure the feelings of others and to transgress upon their rights in the name of truth can, of course, never be tolerated. But, at the same time, it is obvious that there can be no real progress towards universal peace without the propagation of truth and that the missionaries of every religion have a right to call people to the truth as they themselves understand it.
Intolerance, prejudice, and persecution are the greatest obstacles in the way of peace. Remove these impediments, and if, in accordance with the beautiful teachings of Islam, a distinction is always made between the wrong and the wrongdoer, if the sinner is treated with kindness, and a strong appeal is properly made to his better self with a view to reforming his defects, peace will most surely prevail in the whole world. If the advocates of world religion and world peace really are of the opinion that the propaganda [i.e., preaching] work carried on by the various missionary societies and religions for the increase of their respective adherents is detrimental to the cause of universal brotherhood, they should first cease their own propaganda before asking others to do so. The very fact that they continue, by means of lectures, meetings and other forms of publicity, to propagate their views shows that, in their opinions, proselytisation is essential and that mere fraternisation of communities of differing religions is insufficient if genuine world peace is to be secured. There is nothing wrong or objectionable in the simple effort of proselytisation so long as it takes the form only of an appeal to reason and conscience. It is when proselytisation is conducted with undue stress and by improper methods and when an intolerant and unbrotherly attitude is adopted that the seeds of a dangerous discord are sown.
We believe that the world is corrupted and needs guidance. It has lost its way. People no longer walk in the paths of goodness and righteousness. They have forsaken their Creator and do not want to be bothered even with the idea of Him. They are too busy for Him. Irreligion and iniquity prevail all round. And it is only on account of this that there is no peace in the world.
We believe that God has raised the holy prophet, Ahmad[as], the Prince of Peace, for the reformation of mankind. He is the one doctor for a sick world. He is calling people to the truth. His aim is to bring the world to God, and to the peace that can only be restored through Him. He claims that God sent him to bring peace to the universe so that men may be gathered in the fold of one faith and thus find outward and inward peace.
Now, to ask such a one to stop his preaching and recognise instead the good points of all other religions is tantamount to demanding of him the surrender of prophethood. This is out of his power to do, even if he would. If he were to pose as a doctor, while he were not really so, and if he were not really commanded and deputed by some Higher Authority, the advice would have perhaps been not so impertinent. But as he repeatedly declares, he has no choice in the matter. He says:
“Why draw against me such a dagger of thy tongue,
Not from self am I but from the Mighty, High and Great.
Heaven commissioned, I have had no choice myself,
(If you don’t like it) Go and say the same to Him who is the Commissioner.
O thou that fliest at me with a hundred axes,
Fear the Gardener, I am the fruitful branch.
The orders from heaven I convey to the earth,
Should I hear them and convey them not, say what shall I do with them.
Let not my words, my people, make you uneasy,
Foam not at the very outset, endure to the end.
I say it not myself, the divine slate has it the same way,
Wipe off that divine writing if thou can’st.” [Izala-e-Auham, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 3, pp. 181-82]
We cannot fully agree with Dr Walsh’s assertion that no religion will ever become the common belief of mankind, and that therefore we should not proselytise or propagate the truth. If this principle were to be strictly followed in practice, the world would be a chaos of nullifying influences. As diversity cannot be avoided, no efforts for unity should be made? As all men cannot agree on any one point, no effort should be made for reconciliation between those who happen to fall out on account of a misunderstanding? As disease cannot disappear from the world, no effort should be made to learn, practice and improve medicine and surgery? As evil cannot be stamped out of existence, no attempt should be made to fight with it? Everyone cannot be virtuous; therefore, nobody should try to practice virtue? The argument can be carried ad infinitum. We do not think any advance would have been made in the world towards truth and universal contentment had this doctrine of peace and tranquillity been preached down the ages.
Let us conclude with a quotation from the writings of the Prince of Peace, which sets at rest all such doubts and misgivings. He says:
“Let the whole world bear witness that I prophesy in the name of the Lord of the Earth and Heaven that He will spread my followers in all countries and make them overcome every other people by reasons and arguments. The days are approaching and are very near when the religion preached by me will be the only religion that will be regarded with honour upon the face of the earth. Almighty God will bless this religion and this movement in a wonderful manner, and will bring to naught everyone who thinks of destroying it. The victory which it will gain will be a lasting victory and its supremacy will continue to the end of days. It matters little if I am scorned now, for there is no prophet who was not laughed at. It was necessary that the Promised Messiah should have been laughed at, for says the Holy Quran, ‘Alas for the people, no apostle comes to them but they laugh him to scorn.’ Everyone that comes from God is bound, therefore, to be laughed at and scorned. But it is impossible that men should laugh at a man who descends from heaven before their eyes and is accompanied by hosts of angels. Every sensible person can see from this that the descent of the Messiah from heaven is an absurd and false theory. Bear in mind that no one will ever descend from heaven. All those who oppose me will die, but they will not see the Messiah coming down from heaven. Their children will then pass away without witnessing the descent of the son of Mary. The children of their children will also pass away, but they too will not witness such a strange sight. Then the upholders of this theory will be confounded, for the time of the supremacy of the cross will have passed away and the world will have entered a new era, but Jesus will not come down from heaven. All sensible men will then feel an aversion to such a belief. The third century from this day shall not have passed away when all those who look for the descent of Jesus from heaven, whether Christians or Muhammadans, will despair of it and will forsake the false belief which is now so fondly cherished. Then there will be one religion in the world and one leader. I have been sent to sow a seed and I have sown it. It will now grow and bear flowers and fruit in due season and there is none who can uproot it.” [Tadhkiratush-Shahadatain, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 20, p. 66-67]
(Transcribed and edited by Al Hakam from the original English, published in the January 1925 issue of The Review of Religions)