The Light was founded in 1921 as the organ of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam (Ahmadiyya Association for the propagation of Islam) of Lahore, Pakistan. The Islamic Review was published in England from 1913 for over 50 years, and in the U.S.A. from 1980 to 1991. The present periodical represents the beliefs of the world-wide branches of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam, Lahore.

ISSN: 1060–4596
Editor: Dr. Zahid Aziz. Format and Design: The Editor.
Circulation: Mrs. Samina Sahukhan, Dr. Noman I. Malik.

In the previous four lessons we had a brief glimpse of the profound knowledge and wisdom contained in the verses, Bis-mil-laa-hir Rah-maa-nir Ra-heem (In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) and Al-ham-du-lil-laa-hi Rab-bil ‘aa-la-meen (all praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds). Today we shall, by the grace of Allah, contemplate on the meaning of the verses: Maa-li-ki yau-mid-deen (Master of the Day of Requital) and Ee-yaa-ka na‘-bu-du (Thee do we serve). The word yaum is ordinarily translated as ‘day,’ i.e., the time between sunrise and sunset; however, in the Arabic language and also in the Holy Quran, it has been used to specify a time or period which may be very small or large. For example, the Holy Quran states:

In this verse, the word yaum stands for a moment of time. Compare this with:

In this verse, yaum represents fifty thousand years as stated. What then is the meaning of Maa-li-ki yau-mid-deen (Master of the Day of Requital)? There is no doubt that a day will come when mankind is to be judged and recompensed for all his actions, good or evil, including the secrets hidden deep down within his bosom. That day can either be a single day, the whole time during which a person is rewarded for his good actions, or the extended period during which he faces the consequences of his evil deeds and internal detriment. The Day of Requital also stands for every passing moment of time in which the reward or punishment for every good or evil action is being recorded, though most people do not have true knowledge of it. Thus we observe that a good action immediately leads to a feeling of contentment and joy, while an evil one causes restlessness, worry and anxiety in one’s mind. An honest person may go hungry, but he has the peace of mind and consequently a restful sleep at night. A dishonest person, on the other hand, is fearful of impending doom, and is uneasy and anxious. The reward and punishment for good and evil actions are therefore immediate, though man remains in denial in this life.

The two types of paradise that are mentioned in the Holy Quran for those who guard against evil (muttaqi) are, by consensus, the paradise of this world and the Hereafter. The possessions of a righteous person in this world seldom include gardens with streams of running water (metaphorical language used in the Holy Quran for describing paradise); however, he is surely guaranteed peace and tranquillity of mind. On the contrary, an evil person may own a garden with streams of flowing water, but he is void of inner peace and serenity, and his heart is always burning with the desire to acquire more material wealth. A person having thousands is worried about making millions, and a millionaire is likewise eager to reach the billion mark. After death, the burning desire and greed of a worldly person manifests itself as the external fire of hell, as the Holy Quran tells us:

On the other hand, the one whose heart is a recipient of internal peace and tranquillity, i.e., the paradise of this world, will after his death enter the external blessings of heavenly paradise as the Holy Quran states:

The reward of heaven and the punishment of hell begin in this life, but are hidden from the physical eye. They assume a more apparent and palpable form in the life Hereafter. In both situations, that is in this life or the life Hereafter, this reward and punishment is not under man’s control, otherwise he could easily manipulate it to suit his advantage. The power to control this lies in the hands of One Who has been called "Master of the Day of Requital," in the chapter Al-Fatihah, and how very true it is!

The verses: "All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds; the Beneficent, the Merciful," draw man’s attention towards Allah, the Source of all goodness, the One Who guides and nurtures man from the lower to the higher stages of his development. Mercy is so preponderant in His nature that He provides for our physical needs before, and after, our coming into existence. He has also provided for our spiritual sustenance, by revelation of a complete and excellent guidance, the Holy Quran. If we act upon this guidance, His mercy will reward us manifold not only in this life, but also in the Hereafter. In the verse, "Master of the Day of Requital," mankind has been informed (which was very essential) that the way he spends his life in this world is his own responsibility. Whatever he thinks, speaks, or acts upon, the compensation for it starts in this very life; although in the Hereafter it assumes a more perceptible form. Thus, mankind is in need of Allah’s guidance and help for his existence and well being not only in this life, but also for the success and comfort of the life which occurs as a result of this.

After becoming aware of these attributes of the Divine Being, the soul of the suppliant cries out spontaneously, "Ee-yaa-ka- na‘-bu-du wa ee-yaa-ka nas-ta-‘een" — Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help. These being the verses of Al-Fatihah that follow. I have translated na‘-bu-du as ‘to serve’ or ‘obey’, although most people misunderstand its meaning to be recitation of prayers. In fact the Arabic word salaat has been used for prayer in the Holy Quran. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘ibadat (noun of na‘-bu-du) is obedience with humility. Allah has clearly differentiated between the meaning of ‘ibadat and salaat in the Holy Quran in verse:

and in the verse:

In this verse ta‘budu (serve) from `ibadat can certainly not mean prayer because no one performs the prayer service before the devil assuming the traditional postures of qi-yam (standing with folded hands), ru-ku (bending over), or sajda (prostration). The real meaning of ‘ibadat in this context is exactly what the dictionary tells us that is ‘serving and obeying,’ in this case the devil, which most human beings unfortunately do. It is a unique ability of the Arabic language that with a choice of a few words a very comprehensive and excellent meaning is conveyed. This is why it has been selected by Allah as the language of His final revealed scripture, the Holy Quran which is a book of complete guidance. We have seen an example of this in the use of the word Rabb (One Who nurtures unto perfection). Also we have just seen how the extensive subject of obedience with humility is addressed with the use of the word ‘ibadat. It is necessary to know all of this, because obedience can be of two kinds. One form is accomplished under duress and with infliction of chastisement. The other kind is purely voluntary and accomplished with humility. Compare the example of a child, who studies because he is afraid of being punished by his teacher with the one who considers the teacher as his benefactor and complies with his instructions, with enthusiasm and humility. Both of these cannot derive similar benefit from their teacher; certainly the one who is humble and obedient benefits the most. The same rule applies to parental guidance for children. Allah’s mercy for mankind undoubtedly exceeds far beyond that of parents. In fact He is responsible for inspiring mercy in the hearts of parents for their offspring. Who can be a greater benefactor of man than Allah? No one knows more than Him what is beneficial or harmful for the human race. Parents, teachers and worldly leaders are liable to human error, however, Allah is Subhan (free of all faults). In fact according to verse, "Al-ham-du lil-laa-hi¼ .(All praise is for Allah)," He possesses all attributes and excellence to the degree of perfection. All Praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the Beneficent, the Merciful, Master of the Day of Requital. Whatever He commands for mankind to be carried out is beneficial for him and what He forbids is harmful. Therefore, one can only benefit from His Rabubiyat (nurture unto perfection) by humbly submitting to His command.

In spite of good intentions, man’s effort may be lacking or faulty. This may be because of forgetfulness, lassitude, or lack of knowledge regarding Divine commandments. The devil is also continuously trying to incite man, who is liable to fall to his temptation, particularly so during periods of trials and tribulations. This is why the subsequent verse is, "Thee do we beseech for help." In this verse one begs Allah for His protection and help, and the strength required for complete submission in order to obtain full benefit of His blessings and save oneself from loss and deprivation.

It is worth noting that in the verses, "All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the Beneficent, the Merciful, Master of the Day of Requital," Allah is addressed in the absent form. This is because when one starts reciting the Al-Fatihah, Allah is absent from the mind’s eye. These verses with their profound meaning and wisdom, when recited with full concentration, bring before the mind’s eye the full excellence and goodness of the Divine Being. This being the reason for addressing Allah in the present tense in the subsequent verse, "Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help." In order to create a concept of the Divine Being during prayer, people made idols, images or pictures of their prophets. These devices present a very poor and degrading concept of the Divine Being. Does this concept compare at all with the one presented by the verses of Al-Fatihah? — the concept which defines the grandeur, power, excellence and goodness of the Divine Being and how mankind benefits from it. When this powerful concept is presented to the mind of the suppliant, his heart cries out spontaneously, "Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help." In this way those true feelings which are essential for prayer are generated in the heart.

Another point is worth noting that in the verse, "Thee do we serve," the plural (‘we’) is used although one is praying individually. This is because this prayer is recited several times in the obligatory prayers, which are enjoined to be said in congregation whenever possible. Also when reciting non-congregational portion (sunnah) of the prayer one is frequently in the company of other Muslims in the mosque. Even if this is not the case one should include his friends, relatives, and members of the congregation in his prayer, for no other prayer excels the Al-Fatihah in terms of blessings in this life and the Hereafter.

Siddiqui, Kalim.

London: The Open Press, 1996, x + 138 pp.

isbn 0905081 75 7

{Note: This book review is an early version of an article published in the Islamic academic journal Periodica Islamica (vol. 6, no. 3, 1996).}

The Scottish essayist and historian Thomas Carlyle once complained that the Holy Quran was a "[a] wearisome confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement.¼ Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran" [1]. Unfortunately, there are times when a comparable "sense of duty" is demanded of the critically-minded Muslim when reading Stages of Islamic Revolution, Kalim Siddiqui’s disappointing collection of essays on contemporary Islamic politics.

There is a frustratingly vague, meandering quality to the work. As if to give the reader fair warning, the publisher’s blurb sets the hazy tone by promising to elucidate "processes and events in the world of Islam", whatever that might mean. While words like "empirical", "paradigm", and "axiom" are liberally sprinkled throughout the book’s 135 pages, the author rarely supports his assertions with evidence of any sort.

The book is divided into nine chapters and an appendix. Upon opening to the table of contents, the reader’s interest is immediately piqued by promising chapter titles ("The role of the intellectual revolution", "The process of globalisation", "Interim movements and partial revolutions"), but these turn out to be misleading, as the accompanying essays are neither systematic nor rigorous. [2].

This ad hoc quality is doubly unfortunate, since the book is not without its insights. However, for every trenchant observation (e.g., "All modern Muslim societies are living examples of societies that have undergone mindless, uncontrolled, unguided, and imposed change" (12)) there is generally a host of careless generalizations ("Examples of this can be found in all parts of the world and at all stages of history" (13)), highly debatable assertions ("The Western media … normally insist that Muslims living in different countries of the world have nothing in common and cannot act together" (38)), and oversimplifications: "[Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan was] the chief instrument of British policy towards their Muslim subjects in India … Service and sycophancy came naturally to him; he was good at it" (56)). Many fascinating and complex figures from Islamic history — from the anti-Russian resistance leader Imam Shamyl and the founder of the Sokoto caliphate in West Africa, Othman dan Folio, to Muhammad Iqbal and Ali Shariati — are invoked but never explained or integrated into the thesis, which leaves the impression that their ultimate function here is largely ornamental.

One point is clear, though: Siddiqui sees the Iranian Revolution as the sole example in recent times of an Islamic resurgence and believes that the Muslim world is inexorably advancing towards the Iranian model where political authority is in the hands of the ulama/mujtahids (one of whom is to assume the position of khalifah/vali-i faqih). He does not advocate the Shia doctrinal stand, but he does laud the new-found spirit of political assertiveness of Iran’s ulama class and their emphasis on a return to Islamic tradition, seeing the Revolution as a spring of inspiration in a desert of sterile Sunni political thought which, at best, leaves the unjust status quo unchallenged.

A thumbnail sketch of Iranian history is given to illustrate how the Revolution is the culmination of a gradual process of Islamic scholars rejecting the subordination of din to dunya. This malaise came into being with Umayyad rule and went largely unchallenged until the triumph of the usuli mujtahids over the then-dominant akhbari school within Shia thought towards the end of the eighteenth/twelfth century ce/ah, which, in the words of a prominent scholar, created "a clear doctrinal basis for appeals to the ulama over the head of a ruler" [3]. A century later in 1892, this doctrinal change bore fruit when Mirza Hasan Shirazi led ulama resistance to the Qajar Shah’s collusion with the colonial powers by issuing a fatwa against the consumption of tobacco produced under the time’s monopolistic concession to the British. Soon after this successful campaign, the Constitutional Revolution of 1905–1909 occurred and the Shah was forced to accept a constitution which would, in theory, limit his powers. The next blow against injustice was struck by Mohammad Mossadeq when he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1952, though he was quickly overthrown by a CIA-sponsored coup to protect Western financial interests. Finally, in 1978, a full Islamic revolution was obtained under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini. And the process continues today.

Though the author declares ex cathedra that "a global Islamic movement now exists [and] is a widely recognizable empirical reality" (27), he neglects to cite any concrete examples of either the "global Islamic movement" or this "Open University of Islam". Just who these groups and their leaders are is left to the reader’s imagination. Aside from an airy discussion of this movement’s "wide spectrum" of activities — everything from leaflet distribution to combat (36) — the only specific information given is that this murky movement’s literary vanguard is Siddiqui’s own Muslim Institute in London and an allied Islamic magazine in Canada, The Crescent International. These two organizations, Siddiqui claim, "became household names in many parts of the world" for their service in spreading the gospel of Iranian revolution (64). [5]

However, we do know who is not part of the movement. Egypt’s Ikhwan al-Muslimin and Pakistan’s Jama‘at-i Islami are scornfully dismissed as stooges of the Saudis and the West for their participation in the modern political process. Also in cahoots with this "Ikhwan-Jama‘at-Saudi triumvirate" are a large number of mainstream Islamic organizations, including the usa’s isna, the iiit in Washington, "Islamic Universities in Kuala Lumpur and Islamabad", wamy, and others (21-22).

Unfortunately, no explanation is given of what makes these organizations so un-Islamic. Why Egypt, Syria, and Jordan — kafir client states of the West, according to Siddiqui — would at various times ban and persecute the Ikhwan, an "ally" in this conspiracy against Islam, is not explained, either. Nor is how the Jama‘at-supported initiatives to impose shariah-based legislation — including the controversial blasphemy law (presumably a desideratum to Siddiqui, a fervid supporter of the Khomeini death sentence against Salman Rushdie) — in Pakistan are so fundamentally different from the author’s own vision of restoring "behavioral proximity with the Prophet … [through] links to the Sirah and the Sunnah" (13). Finally, beyond the correct but unoriginal observation that the usuli revolution opened the door to ijtihad in Iran, nothing is said to explain how Iran’s shariah-based legislation is more legitimate than that of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Malaysia, ¼

At times, the few arguments that are presented are shockingly simplistic. Thus, on the issue of women’s dress, Siddiqui opines: "The Muslim woman in hijab in the West almost certainly has a higher ‘feel good’ tolerance than most scantily dressed Western women on the arms of their umpteenth lover or boyfriend or third or fourth adulterous husband" (74). Here, rather than focusing on the real issue — namely, the objectification and commodification of women’s bodies in Western society — he indulges in stereo-typing worthy of the infamous anti-Iranian, Islam-bashing film Not Without My Daughter.

(Footnote: How would Mr. Siddiqui and his fellow-thinkers react if a non-Muslim publication portrayed the carricature of a Muslim potentate having four wives and scores of concubines at his service! — Editor, The Light.)

In the same vein, Siddiqui maintains that disproportionate numbers of non-Western soldiers are killed in U.N. peacekeeping operations because Western troops "will only fight so long as the chances of being killed are not significantly greater than being run over by a bus in civilian life" (75), which, at best, reveals a profound ignorance of how international peace-keeping works, since soldiers have no choice in their assignments; if Muslim troops are indeed being used as canon fodder, this is due to politicians and public opinion "back home", not Western soldiers’ cowardice. Again, rather than laying the blame on those responsible — the Western political class — the author stoops to invective and stereotyping.

Siddiqui’s whirlwind review of Iranian history leaves much to be desired, as well, as he idealizes the role of the ulama and writes secular resistance groups out of history, even though the ulama did not become revolutionary in any real sense until the 1960s. Thus, Hamid Algar writes: "¼ any wish to reshape definitively the norms of political life and the bases of the state was foreign to the ulama in Qajar Iran" [6], and, on the role of the ulama as resisters to injustice in pre-1962 Iran, Nikkie Keddie explains: "¼ the opposition role of the ulama was limited in its objectives. The ulama did not demand or agitate for a structural change of society, which was characterized by exploitation and oppression of the majority of the population" [7].

Though the author acknowledges the long tradition of ulama quietism, the roles of the National Front and the Tudeh — in many cases the only defenders of the interests of common people because of the cooption of the ulama (as during the Reza Shah period) — in resistance to the Qajar and Pahlavi dynasties, is completely ignored. Likewise, in this account Ayatollah Shirazi appears to be the sole hero of the tobacco boycott of 1892, even though it was the result of, in Keddie’s words, a "religious-radical alliance" bringing together "ulama, modernists, merchants, and ordinary people" [8]. Finally, it is observed that in the period after Mossadeq’s ouster, Ayatollah Kashani "played a key role in ending British imperial power" in Iran (51), which, while true, is deceptive for its omission of his own cooperation with the CIA and Shah in the infamous coup against Iranian independence!

One might be inclined to forgive such oversights in a better organized and cogently argued work, but this is not the case here, as Stages never makes the jump from slogan to argument. Thus, a coherent and convincing case for its recommendations is not made. In fact, so chaotic is the book’s organization that it is not always clear what these essays are advocating.

In conclusion, this book makes it clear that it is the author’s heartfelt belief that "the method of Prophet Muhammad ¼ is most suited to overcome the global challenges facing Islam" (103), but at the end the reader has little idea what this method is, even with the author’s oft-repeated mantra of "the Sirah and the Sunnah of the Prophet" (103). Early on, he writes: "History does not tolerate an incompetent leadership, faulty worldview and a sloppy method" (25), a warning which he would have done well to heed himself, as this book is by turns opaque, rambling and simplistic. The book’s blurb proclaims it "indispensable reading for activists in the Islamic movement", but Stages reads more like an impassioned Friday khutbah than a coherent plan for Islamic activism.

The True Message of the Quran, the Torah and the Gospel, by Ismail Peck, Cape Town, pp. 64. Obtainable from the author at: P.O. Box 18740, Wynberg 7824, Cape Town, South Africa.

This is an interesting booklet which examines various basic religious teachings and concepts of Islam with reference to not only the Holy Quran but the Jewish and Christian scriptures as well. It is divided into two parts, the first part dealing with the fundamental beliefs and practices of Islam (matters such as oneness of God, prayer, fasting, prophets, the hereafter, etc.), and the second part looking at other issues of interest in these three religions, such as the creation of the world, the birth, death and ascension of Jesus, and the position of women.

Under each head, the author first cites the Quran and then quotes from the Bible to show that the same concepts and teachings are borne out by the Jewish and Christian scriptures as well, even though the official beliefs of these two religions may not accord with the Quran. The book is written in a concise, clear and simple style and furnished with plenty of quotations. It is intended not only to increase the knowledge of the Muslim reader but, more importantly, also to show our Jewish and Christian friends the real teachings of the Quran and their support to be found in the Bible. The language of the booklet will not be offensive to anyone. The discussion about the life of Jesus and about the mi‘raj of the Holy Prophet Muhammad will also benefit large sections of Muslims who labour under misconceptions as to the Quranic teaching on these questions.

Being written in South Africa, I noticed one example of local pronunciation of Arabic sounds which may puzzle those who are not familiar with it. The Arabic letter h is rendered as g, so that ahad (‘one’) is written as agad (p. 4) and hamalat (‘she bears’) as gamalat (p. 41). These are probably the only two instances.

This book is a very commendable effort and we recommend it highly, especially to those Muslim and Ahmadiyya communities who live in proximity to Christians.

I cannot help mentioning that Mr. Ismail Peck was the plaintiff in the Cape Town Ahmadiyya Case, which ended in November 1985 with his claim being accepted by the court that as a member of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement he was a Muslim. It was an act of great personal courage on his part to allow his name to be put forward as the plaintiff, risking the wrath and vengence of many local Muslim religious leaders and their blind supporters. We wish his writing efforts well and look forward to further literary contributions from him. n

http://www.muslim.org