The Realism Of Humility
4. THE REALISM OF HUMILITY
Islam is about ‘al Haqq’ which is the name of a concept combining truth and reality. In English we have the two separate words ‘true’ and ‘real’; ‘real’ means what is factual and effective as far as our senses’ verification of it. A tree I see is real because I can go to and touch it, I can cut pieces from it etc. and so all others can if they want to verify its existence. As for ‘true’, this means a correct statement about reality. As far as the said tree is concerned the statement “There is a tree there” is true. The Arabic word ‘al haqq’ can cover both meanings and more. Let us take examples from the Qur’an:
“It is Allah Who sent His Messenger with Guidance and ‘al Haqq’ (Truth)...” (48: 28),
“The Day those who deny are presented to the Fire- “is this not real?”. They reply “Yes, indeed our Lord...” (46: 34).
Now, we are claiming that humility is admitting truths and also acknowledging realities. By acknowledging realities we wisely take them into account whenever we are faced with making a decision. For example, if I know that a normal two year old child is incapable of reading books I will neither disdain the child nor accuse it of being lazy in learning. Yet many people accuse or resent others when they act at a level which is the highest possible for them instead of acknowledging their honest inability and expecting them to act as well as they can. This is even valid in moral cases: One cannot expect a fellow proven to be unable to control his greed for money or lust for sex and go ahead and entrust him with money or a desirable woman. A Turkish saying expresses this situation as “trusting a cat with liver”. In this context a striking demonstration of Islam’s banning alcohol and in fact all mind-clouding means can be offered: under the influence of alcohol or other mind-distorting substances people may make fools of themselves and commit crimes or cause accidents they could otherwise avoid. Now, Muslims not admitting this fact (truth and reality) cannot be good enough Muslims while non-Muslims for the most of which alcohol and sometimes also drugs are legitimate enjoyments worth their risks and as a result their not appreciating Islam’s great service to humanity on this matter is not admitting truth and acknowledging reality. To end this argument as we began it we can say this: Since admitting truths and acknowledging realities takes humility, being humble must be door to wisdom. In fact all moral philosophers agree on this alongside true prophets and saints. How many of us can achieve this humility and how much is another matter.
What is the use of such humility-based wisdom? Why, it can be none other than mastering one’s life in safest, most honourable and charitable way. If that is not acting wisely what is?
Now we can drive the lesson so gleaned home as far as Sufism is concerned: A Sufi is true when he can be humble under all circumstances, even when he risks appearing a loser to the less wise.
The less wise are those who regard this world’s coarser enjoyments as the measure of success in life and as such regard God less than true and real; in fact they may regard Him as irrelevant if worth not hurting others about. Many who are perceived or perceive themselves as successful in a worldly sense don’t bother to discuss God either way and may in fact choose to project the image of a respectful if non-committed acknowledger- just to keep everybody happy. They may even condescend to attend religious ceremonies and rituals but otherwise could not ignore God more in their daily dealings. What they miss by this kind of belief and attitude they cannot appreciate. As we always said, God, as far as human psychology is concerned, represents what is the very best and noblest in man and ignoring and missing the opportunity of becoming what you may become with the attraction and help of God is the most regrettable foolhardy in life.
To understand this better let us imagine two groups of men. The first group is made of truly godly men as we defined it: humble before truths and realities and therefore wise and fired with an ambition to become the very best and noblest characters they can be. Can these men be ever imagined to lie to, cheat and fight each other? Who can live better personal and social lives than this group of men who follow the lead on any subject of the one most skilled and talented among them on that subject and therefore being not jealous or competitively ambitious in a hostile sense they always get the best deal in a collective sense. If they are academicians for example, they will listen to the mathematician on mathematical subjects, to the chemist on chemical subjects, to the military officer on military subjects, to the medical doctor on health subjects and to the finance expert on their finances etc. How nice, successful and peaceful their affairs will be!
The other group cannot be more unaware that God is the very best and noblest in man and being unaware of this truth and reality they are unable to be humble but doomed to remain proud fools. Each will strain to look the brightest and most decisive member of the group and will only concede leadership to somebody who is even prouder and more ruthless than himself. But the strain and jealousy shall always play the background music and frequent leitmotif. If you don’t believe me look at parliamentary party groups- as soon as their leader shows signs of fatigue several move forward to down and replace him. They are like packs of hyenas and the like; anyone who falters is trampled down. The truth that God is the very best and noblest in man and they shall have lost their chance to be godly - having no alternative but to burn in the hell of the selfishness and unrealism they are dwelling in. This in fact summarises the perennial history of folly and cruelty of mankind since the dawn of history to this day. This also explains why God had to be introduced and fought for: the messengers of God had to fight the swamps of moral-spiritual ignorance and the volcanoes of bestiality trapping most human beings. Despite the superficial impression that prophets failed, there can be no doubt that their advent, preaching and example did much for us: if we have relatively civilised societies with even a lukewarm sense of fairness and charity it is to the credit of men like Moses, Confucius, Guatama (Buddha), Jesus Christ and Muhammad and their respective saintly followers. All, praised and recommended humility as we defined it and also sincerely and consistently practiced it.
We Sufis want and hope to be on the same path as they. Yet there is something separating Sufi groups from the community of true messengers of God. The true messengers are the perfections of humanity- we Sufis can be anything. While each messenger is sent by God and comes and acts singly (except like the cases of Moses and Aaron who complemented each other) in a given era and within a given society Sufis are often self-appointed candidates of social spiritual leadership and therefore never safe from the treacheries of their lower selves which the Satan often visits and inhabits. As a result they often conspire and compete as politicians do and may in fact hurt and victimise each other. That is not on. We must be real pure and not impure Sufis and that is only possible when we keep our lower selves (egos) on check and live and act from our higher, nobler natures. This boils down to this: To be known as a Sufi is no guarantee that the person so known is perfect- in fact he may be very bad but somehow able to pose as a saint.
True Sufis are so humble that it is not unknown for a master to declare himself a disciple of a disciple of his, simply because that particular disciple excelled his master sometime in the course of their interaction. Yet, the ex-disciple and now new master will be equally humble continuing to respect and honour his ex-master as a good, loyal son will continue to treasure his worthy father whose he had been an apprentice but eventually excelled his father. And the father will be only too proud of his son and too happy to congratulate the son’s superiority at all times. Now this is sincerity towards Allah at its best. It is by this kind of sincerity that all past prophets praised their youngest and ultimate successor Muhammad (sws).
We titled this lesson ‘Realism of Humility’. It is now time to justify this: Yes, we are truly realists when we conquer our egotism and recognise and admit those superior to us in a given field and then defer to them and feel honoured and privileged by learning from them. Will you believe it, when such realism based on humility is attained by all members of a group that group cannot fail, cannot be tempted by the Satan and cannot be splintered as a result. Such realists know that all the honour and praise which accrues to their worthy superior leader automatically accrue also to them: don’t you see when a sea commander wins a great sea battle all his junior officers and sailors are appreciated and praised as heroes and rightly so. Our beloved Prophet Muhammad could not praise Abu Bakr and then Umar more because they contributed greatly to his success. For example when the opening duels of the battle of Badr were being launched Abu Bakr wanted to be one of the duellers but the Prophet stopped him “O Abu Bakr, stay put” he said “You are like my hand and foot Or (my eye and ear) to me”. In other words the Prophet saw no contradiction between relying on Allah and relying on Abu Bakr (and in many other cases on other companions). That is because Allah and His obedient servants are not separate: they act together in this world with Allah as leader and live together in the hereafter as Allah the Host. Read if you wish “It was not you (o Muhammad) when you threw (at the Battle of Badr) but it was Allah Who threw (things against the enemy)” (8: 17). That in the hereafter Allah and His good believing servants live together you may read “Indeed the pious are in gardens and rivers, on seats of truthfulness in the company of an Able King” (54: 55).
Who is a believer if not one who defers to Allah for guidance and approval in every contemplated act of his and who makes some persons superior to others in some matters if not Allah? We should look at each and every person that we are engaged in some affair together with, and if a certain person seems to be superior to us in some speciality we should not be jealous but believe that it is Allah Who will be leading and helping us through that servant and none else. Let us combine the following two verses and see that that is what is required:
Verse 1: “Deliver trusts to those who are worthy of them” (4: 58). Verse 2: “Obey Allah, obey the Messenger and any appointed leader among you” (4: 59). What do we see? Why, don’t we see that each public affair or asset should be deposited with the most reliable and competent person available in a given society and that once so appointed he should be obeyed just like Allah and His Messenger are obeyed, with one exception which is what the Prophet said “There is no obedience to a creature when disobedience to Allah is required”.
There is a beautiful example of this in the command of Usama b. Zaid of the Muslim army which the Prophet had formed just before his last and fatal illness. Usama was a mere eighteen years old when appointed the commander of the army and so long the Prophet was alive nobody dared to question the wisdom of the Messenger of Allah in appointing Usama. But before the army could march on the Prophet breathed his last and in a hurry to fill the dangerous leadership vacuum the Muslims had elected Abu Bakr to succeed the Prophet in the capacity of the community leader. Now two objections immediately rose their heads on the matter of this army ready to march off. One and the less impious was that Usama’s army should abandon the mission the Prophet had given them and instead be used to suppress separatist rebellions which began to brew almost as soon as the Prophet died. Some Bedouin tribes apostated while some false prophets felt free to advance their blasphemies seeing that their incomparable rival and the original, true Messenger of Allah had passed away. Now, some Muslims objected to the departure of the army on either or both grounds: That Usama was not fit to lead the army because there were far senior command candidates available, that the army should not proceed with the Prophet’s original plan but be sent against the rebels. In fact all who spoke up spoke negatively like this. But Abu Bakr would not budge. He said “It is better for me that I should be killed and my body trampled to pieces or that enemies should attack and pillage Medina and the bodies of the Prophet’s wives be dragged in the streets and torn and eaten by dogs than removing a commander the Prophet appointed or diverting the army from the objective the Prophet had named for it”. He prevailed and the results were a full and total vindication of Abu Bakr and red faces for all objectors. What had made Abu Bakr successful despite all virtual odds? Why, he had obeyed Allah and His Messenger and had made the rest of the community to obey the commander the Prophet had appointed.
Now listen to this: By the evidence of both the Qur’an and the Hadith no Muslim obeyed Allah and obeyed His Messenger and obeyed a leader appointed by a legitimate leader of the community and regretted his choice and ended up red-faced.
When the fitnas (troubles) of caliphate erupted as from the last years of our master Uthman’s rule and became worse by the day when Umayyads and Alids fought over caliphate, some of the best sahaba supported Ali, and rightly so (because he was elected like his predecessors while Muawiya the Umayyad leader declined to recognise Ali) while some other equally good sahaba (like Abdullah b. Umar) resisted all pressure to take sides but preferred to sit out of the troubles explaining that they wanted no part in shedding Muslim blood either way. This shows that when one is unsure he may choose to remain neutral and live in peace with both parties to a dispute. But to rebel against legitimate authority none has the right. Avoiding involvement in public affairs is an option.
Incidentally all these events and the attitude of the generality of the sahaba demonstrate that free discussion and free political choice as limited by Allah’s and His Messenger’s occasional commands were the ethos of Islam’s early and necessarily golden age (golden because by proportion the times produced the greatest number of most pious Muslims headed by the likes of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas, Talha, Zubair, Ammar, Selman, Abu Ubaida, Said b. Zaid and very many more who were the very disciples and helpers of the Messenger of Allah and the Messenger of Allah had declared his satisfaction with them repeatedly) and even in the time of the Prophet there was no compulsory military service or conscription but all such service was voluntary. This shows how foreign is absolutism to the spirit of Islam and to the natures of the first and best Muslims under the leadership of the Prophet.
Later on, especially as from mid-Abbasid age absolutism learned from the Roman and Persian examples won the day. This was inevitable because Islam had spread so much and diversified in cultures and ethnicities of its subjects so greatly that wisdom indicated the absorption of some of the ages-honoured practices habituated to by the now internationalised, too cosmopolitan populace- otherwise government could be impossible. From this angle one feels like sympathising a bit with the Umayyad shift towards absolutism (just a partial shift because the Arab individualism was still alive and kicking) and when it came to Abbasids the shift was becoming impossible to reverse: the overwhelming majority of the subjects of the Islamic state were from an absolutist oligarchic background and the tide they represented was unstoppable and overwhelming. We should understand this when we think like criticising post-sahaba, post-tabe’een Muslim nation the Umma. The populace then was ungovernable if not put under absolutist rule. There they felt happier whatever that may mean.
Our accepting such facts and apologies and not criticise ancestors of ours too much is part of the humility we should bear; pious pontifications from the ivory towers of self-styled pietism based on an impossible drive to return to the sahaba age may amount to unconscious fitna-seeking (stirring for trouble).
The same tolerant realism should be shown regarding Sufism as well. This deserves a new chapter.