THE
QUESTION OF DRESS
Syed
Abul A'la Maududi
(This
article was originally written in 1929 for the
journal Mar’arif of Azam Garh. In 1940 it was
reprinted in the journal Tarjumanul Qur’an. It was
subsequently included in the author’s book
Tafheemat (vol. II), from where it has been
translated)
Viewed
exclusively in relation to the natural need which
first prompted man to use it, with the cultural
super additions to it left out of account, the thing
called dress would appear to have just two
functions.
- To
provide a covering—since man has an innate
sense of shame and modesty—for certain parts
of the body; and
- To
protect the body against the impact of the
weather.
A
dress which meets these twin needs should, in its
simple form, be the dress of all places since the
bodies of all human beings, as also the obvious and
convenient methods of covering them, are alike. At
most, for climatic reasons, there could be this
difference that the warm regions have dresses which
are lighter and cover a lesser part of other body,
and the cold regions’ dresses which are heavier
and cover a greater part of the body.
Available
information about the earliest human being also
shows that in the times when dress catered only to
the original, natural needs of man, it had no great
diversity of shapes. The little diversity it did
have was due largely to climatic difference. But as
human consciousness developed and man marched
towards civilization, as new resources were
discovered and industries set up, and as that human
faculty called taste became cultivated, certain
super additions were made to the original dress. And
since the new influences had varied in quality and
magnitude from nation to nation, the super additions
which different nations made to the original dress
came to be different as well.
EIGHT
DETERMINANTS
It
is impossible to enumerate all the major and minor
factors which cause the birth, change, and evolution
of variously-shaped dress among various peoples. In
a span of several thousand years, the collective
life of nation and the personal lives of the members
of each nation come under countless influences,
internal and external, which are nowhere recorded.
Some of them are too subtle to be perceived even.
But if we skip details and concentrate on the
principal factors which accustom different nations
to different styles of dress, we shall find that
they divide into eight categories.
1.
Geographical conditions, which compel the
inhabitants of a country to adopt a particular kind
of dress and living.
2.
Moral and religious nations, whose divergence
make nations use dissimilar dresses.
3.
Taste, the natural faculty of taste is, in
the case of each nation, worked upon by peculiar
influences. It, therefore, develops in each nation
differently. As a result the likes and dislikes of
nations differ.
4.
The mode of life, which, too, develops
distinctively in the case of each nation, conforming
as it does to the distinctive geographical,
economic, intellectual, and moral conditions of that
nation. Consequently, each nation uses a dress which
is best suited to her mode of life.
5.
The economic situation. This includes a
nation’s general means of living, her vocations
and industries, her strong or weak financial
position, etc. The dress of each nation is closely
related to the state of her economy and change with
a change in the latter.
6.
Culture and refinement. Each nation exists on
a certain level of culture and refinement and her
dress necessarily keeps to that level.
7.
National traditions, by means of which one
generation inherits from another a particular style
of living and dress, and, altering that style here
and there, bequeaths it to the coming generation.
This continuity in the phenomena of life is actually
a guarantee of continued national existence.
Naturally, it is held dear by every nation.
8.
Extraneous influences, which are exercised
upon the thoughts and living patterns of every
nation as she come into contact with other nations.
But the nature and extent of these influences are
determined largely by the political, intellectual,
and moral climate of the nation in question.
These
are the main factors which have a rigorous control
not only over the dress of a nations but over her
whole social life. The dress of each nation is the
product of their combined operation.
TWO
FUNDAMENTAL FACTS
Two basic facts emerge from
the foregoing analysis.
One,
that dress is not merely an external device for
covering and protecting the body, it is also rooted
deep in the psychology, culture, civilization,
traditions, and social setting of a nation. It is as
a matter of fact, a manifestation of the spirit
which informs the body of a nation. It is through
her dress that a nation articulates her nationality
and introduces herself as a collectivity before the
world.
Two,
that the above mentioned factors, with the exception
of the first (geographical conditions) are, in
respect of every nation, undergoing a constant,
though imperceptible, change. Slowly but surely,
their change and evolution affect not only the dress
but the whole gamut of the national life. A little
elaboration will make this point clear.
When
a nation advances in the field of knowledge and the
arts, achieves enlightenment of thought, develops
her industry, commerce, and craftsmanship, attains
economic prosperity, make closer contacts with other
nations and learns from their morality, culture, and
mode of living various kinds of lessons, then a
natural process of evolution is touched off in her
social life: her sentiments change, her taste and
manners improve, and her way of life acquires grace
and elegance. She devises new methods to meet the
newly-arisen needs and express her respect for the
national traditions in more benefiting forms. With
gradual development taking place in all spheres of
life, her dress, in stuff and style, becomes more
tasteful, attractive, and decorous. At no stage of
this evolutionary process is the need felt to summon
a conference or Parliament and push through it a
resolution which would prescribe a particular shape
or style of dress for the whole nation.
Automatically, under the impact of the jointly
operating social factors, the old forms of dress are
modified, new forms come into vogue, and the
national taste and temperament, in keeping with
their true inclination, go on refining the dress.
CHANGE,
NATURAL AND UNNATURAL
This,
then, is the only natural way in which a national
dress is born, changed, and evolved. There is an
artificial or unnatural way also, namely, compelling
a nation to abandon her dress and take some other
nation’s dress as her own. As for change, it would
occur in both cases. But there is a world of
difference between the two types of change of a
tree. As a tree grows, its colour, size, fruit,
leaves, flowers, and branches change constantly. In
spite of all these changes, however, the
“selfhood” of the tree remains unimpaired. If it
is a banana tree, it will remain such till the end.
If it is a mango tree, it will continue to be one
throughout the various stages of its growth. It will
take in much soil, water, air, heat, and sunshine,
but will thoroughly assimilate whatever it takes in.
The
other kind of change is exemplified by a tree which
began as a banana tree but on which were suddenly
stuck the bark, twigs, and leaves of a mango tree.
No one can tell what this queer specimen actually
is—mango or banana! Stunts like this do not
produce any genuine and profound change. They in
fact impede natural evolution. But people who
possess no insight into social problems and have a
superficial way of looking at things, childishly
think that if the external features of a nation’s
dress and living are altered, the nation herself
will change in some real sense.
THE
CASE FOR A CHANGE OF DRESS
The
arguments generally advanced in favour of a change
of dress are as follows.
A
change of this kind transforms the mentality of a
backward nation. It replaces her inaction by action.
No sooner is the dress of the decadent age cast off
than all the inner weaknesses and the interests
associated with that age do the vanishing trick. And
no sooner does a nation slip into the new
dress---especially if it has been taken from a
developed nation—than her psychology and way of
life undergo a radical change: she gets a
spontaneous feeling of being developed and is
accepted by the advanced nations as a peer and
equal. Once she adopts the mode of life of the
advanced nations, she becomes civilized, practical
and enterprising like them. It follows that, in
order to become civilized and efficient, it is both
necessary and useful to adopt the dress and living
of the civilized and efficient nations.
THE
FLAW IN THE REASONING
Such
are the arguments—and there are no doubt many
other arguments like these—which are adduced in
favour of changing the national dress. But they are
all flimsy; no deep thinking or insight underlies
them. It is sought to reinforce them by citing in
their support some renowned personalities, with the
expectation that their names, the moment they are
pronounced, will strike an instant awe into the
listeners. (It should be kept in mind that this
article was written in 1929, at a time when the
rulers of certain Muslim countries were putting
their nations on the path of “development” by
forcibly changing their dresses. In India also,
certain sections of people were urging the use of
this recipe for progress.). But the fact remains
that quoted authorities hardly possess any greater
wisdom and insight than do the quoting followers.
Both are intellectually shallow and academically
inferior. A military general whose successful
strategy in an emergency prevents the destruction of
a nation must be esteemed and admired. But the
honour accorded to him should strictly commensurate
with his accomplishment. Moreover, he should be
honoured only in the capacity in which he has made
that accomplishment. But to elevate him to an
unmeritedly high plane and to describe him as a
thinker, reformer, and architect of civilization is
to commit a folly of the same magnitude as when an
able engineer who has secured a town against floods
by raising embankments is eulogized as a genius and
saviour in every sense and is named for the
directorship of education and health also.
THE
CASE AGAINST A CHANGE OF DRESS
So
far the problem has been dealt with in principle.
The discussion, it is hoped, has sufficiently
exposed the error of the pro-changers. But it seems
that the misunderstanding bred by the trend of the
times are a little hard to banish. I therefore feel
that the case against changing the national dress
should be stated with greater explicitness.
- The
shape and style of a dress are not in themselves
something lasting or permanent. They are rather
the result of the combined working of a large
number of natural and social factors. If this
fact is granted, it will also have to be
admitted that the style of dress natural to a
nation is the one produced by the working of
those factors, and that it would be extremely
unnatural to replace it by a style which has not
been produced in that way.
- There
is a close affinity between a nation’s dress
and her mode of life. The latter, again, has
many sorts of correlations with the cultural
life of that nation. These correspondences are
able to survive the changes in the dress and
mode of life when the changes have occurred
naturally. But if the dress and mode of life are
changed artificially and compulsorily, or only
the dress is thus changed, chaos strikes the
entire social life, because the other
departments of life fail to keep step with the
change, and, consequently, suffer in the harmony
of interrelationships.
- For
a dress to be decent, handsome, and congruous
with a developed state of existence, it is
essential that the nation should as a whole make
progress and grow to be a cultured, tasteful,
enlightened, and practical-minded nation. Her
advancement in that direction will be
accompanied by an improvement in her dress. As
she covers the stages of development, she will,
naturally and unconstrainedly, better some of
its old things, and, borrowing certain other
things from outside, will adapt them to serve
her turn. To disregard this natural method of
improvement and, instead, abruptly change the
dress is like attempting to leap out of one
state into another. No real transformation can
be brought about in social life by such funny
jumps.
- To
upgrade a nation’s living and dress before she
has developed socially and to raise her to an
undeservedly high position is just like making a
minor reach puberty by placing him in an
explosive situation and giving him special foods
and drugs. The havoc that this extraordinarily
attained puberty will play with the young
innocent’s mental and physical mechanism is
only too obvious and gives an idea of the
disturbance and anarchy which will afflict the
mind, morality, and social set-up of a nation on
her being compulsorily “civilized”.
- To
weigh down a nation with a dress and a living
which are too much for her economy is tantamount
to ruining her. For she will then try to adopt
not only the dress and living of the richer
nations but their norms and mores also, and that
will have a disastrous effect upon her.
- Dress,
language, and script are the basic elements of a
nation’s individuality. Without them her
individuality suffers corrosion and a time comes
when she is totally absorbed into other nations.
It is this fact which explains why certain
nations, now called extinct nations, disappeared
from the face of the earth. Their extinction
does not mean that their members all perished.
It means that those nations failed to retain
their individuality. They either themselves
knocked down the props of their individuality or
allowed them to collapse. Their members went on
adopting the dress, language, script, and social
manners of other nations and so ended up by
‘losing their identity. A like fate awaits the
nations who are taking the stupid measures of
their unwise leaders as a guarantee of progress.
- A
nation who adopts the dress and living of
another nation in fact betrays deep inferiority
feeling. She owns that she is low and
contemptible. She acknowledges that she
possesses nothing of which she could be proud.
That her forebears were incapable of leaving
behind anything which she could preserve without
bringing shame on herself. That her taste is too
vulgar, her mind too obtuse, and her creative
faculties too mean to devise a proper mode of
life for her. That, in order to pass herself off
as a civilized nation, she is prepared to borrow
indiscriminately from other nations, whom she
regards as her model. That her own existence
during the thousands of years has been no better
than the existence of beasts since she has
failed to produce anything commendable or worthy
of survival. It is obvious that no nation with a
modicum of self-respect would make a spectacle
of her self like that. History, current as well
as past, bears witness that a nation puts up
with such ignominy only in one of the following
two cases: when, in every field, she has
suffered defeat after defeat at the hands of
other nations and finally knuckled under (E.g.
India, Turkey, Egypt, Iran); and when she
possesses no glorious traditions; no culture
worth the name, and no high-grade creative
powers and is a parvenu among the nations of the
world (Japan, for instance).
- The
only thing which a nation may, in fact must,
borrow from another is the results of the
latter’s researches, the fruits of her
creative activities, and those practical methods
of hers which have led her to success. Any
lessons that can be learnt from her history,
morality, and administration must be learnt. The
causes of her rise and success must be canvassed
and all things of use picked up since these are
the common heritage of mankind. To slight and
spurn them on nationalistic grounds is mere
prejudice. But to disregard them and borrow from
a nation her foods, wearing apparel, and living
style and to consider these a means of progress
is crass stupidity. What sensible person would
for a moment think Europe owes her advancement
to jackets and petticoats, skirts and
waistbands, hats and bonnets? Or that she has
developed because she makes a liberal use of
powder and rouge and lipstick? If it is not
things like these which have made Europe
developed, then why do the advocates of reform
and progress make their first rush for them? Why
does it not sink into their heads that the
splendour of European life is due to efforts put
in unremittingly through centuries? Why do they
fail to understand that any nation who works
industriously, resolutely, and perseveringly
would achieve a quality of life as enviable as
the quality of European life?
These
arguments make it amply clear that the nation who
adopts the dress and living of another nation
behaves unreasonably and unnaturally. In normal
circumstances nobody would even play with the idea
of abandoning the general lifestyle prevalent around
him and adopt in its place the lifestyle of an alien
people. Such thinking is the product of abnormal
circumstances only and is comparable to the act of
eating earth by some women in their period of
pregnancy, or to the condition of the man who has a
defective eye structure and to whom, therefore,
everything looks askew.
THE
VIEW OF THE SHARIAH
So
far we have been treating the subject from the
social standpoint only. Now we shall approach it
from the angle of the Shariah and see what Islam has
to say about it.
The
religion of Islam is in complete harmony with
nature. In every matter it takes up a position which
is supported by common sense and vindicated by sound
thinking. Take an unjaundiced view of things and you
are sure to reach the conclusions which Islam has
already arrived at Islam does not force man to wear
a particular kind of dress and choose a particular
mode of life. However, purely from the ethico-social
viewpoint, it enuciates a few principles and wants
every nation to amend her dress and living in
accordance with them.
The
first principle relates to satr or essential
concealment. Islam thinks it morally necessary that
all male persons, to whatever nation or country they
may be belonging, should conceal the bodily parts
between the navel and the knees; and that all female
persons, no matter what region of the earth they are
inhabiting, should cover the whole of their bodies
except the face, hands, and feet. (It should be
noted that, in regard to women, this injunction
relates to satr and not to hijab. Satr implies what
a woman must conceal from all which includes her
father and son) except her husband. Hijab means more
than that. It draws a distinction between the
closely related and the unrelated males. Islam does
not permit women to go about displaying their charms
and graces outside the limits of their domestic
life.
And
“face” means just face and not half of the
breast; “hands” means hands up to the wrists and
not arms bared up to the shoulders; “feet” means
up to the ankles and not uncovered legs).
If a nation’s dress is not meeting these
conditions, Islam would require it to be altered in
the light of this principle. Once the conditions are
fulfilled, Islam will deem its object achieved and
will not concern itself with what type of dress that
nation wears.
Secondly,
Islam asks men to keep from wearing silk dress and
golden and silver jewellery, and both men and women
to avoid using dresses which are luxurious and showy
and suggest conceit and vanity. The magnificent
trailing costumes (Worn, for example, by kings,
popes, priests, judges of the high courts, and other
high-ranking officials on ceremonial occasions, and
by brides on the eve of marriage. A costume of this
kind is so long that quite a few men have to walk
behind holding it up. The Prophet said:” On the
Day of judgement, God would not look at the person
who conceitedly trails his dress on the ground.”)
which give a swelled head to their wearers are, in
the eyes in Islam, condemnable. The prestigious and
ostentatious dresses which some men wear only to
create a lordly impression on the common people or
to flaunt their riches are also forbidden. Nor does
Islam like those flashy garments which engender
attitudes of luxury worn in your country or society
and it becomes an Islamic dress.
In
the third place, Islam wants the human dress to be
free from all those symbols of idolatory and
polytheism which have been adopted by any religious
sect. These would include the Cross, the Hindu cross
thread, pictures, and other un-Islamic emblems.
Besides introducing these ethical and cultural
reforms, Islam thinks it necessary that the
Muslim’s dress should have some distinguishing
mark so that they do not get mixed up with
non-Muslims, are able to recognize fellow Muslims
easily, and succeed in cementing the bonds of their
social life. No specific mark or symbol has been
recommended for this purpose by Islam. The matter
has been left to be determined by the people
themselves. When the Islamic Movement got under way
in Arabia, the Prophet and the other Muslims used to
wear the customary national dress of Arabia. But the
Prophet wanted the Muslims to be distinguished in
appearance from non-Muslims, so he instructed them
to wear turbans along with caps (Abu Dawud,
Tirmidhi, and Mustadrik contain the following
tradition; “That which sets us off from
polytheists is caps with turbans”. This tradition
has led some to suppose that wearing caps with
turbans is a sunnah and so constitutes a permanent
law to be universally observed by Muslims. But this
is a misunderstanding. The sunnah simply is that the
Muslims, when they are living amidst a nation
consisting chiefly of non-Muslims, should in some
way distinguish their dress.) The common Arabs
wore either turbans or caps, one to the exclusion of
the other. Wearing turbans and caps at the same time
thus became typical of Muslims and adequately served
the purpose of telling the followers of the New
Movement from the common people of Arabia. Later on,
when the whole of Arabia embraced Islam, it no
longer remained necessary to retain this mark of
distinction because now the Arabian dress itself had
become Islamic and none of its wearers was a
disbeliever or polytheist any more.
Likewise,
when Islam started gaining ground in Iran and other
countries, it was at first considered essential that
the converts to Islam should either wear the Arabian
dress or add to their old national dress some
distinguishing mark, (e.g. a turban or a cloak of
special type.). For their dress at that time was the
dress of non-Muslims and had they continued to wear
it without any distinguishing symbol, a separate
collective existence of theirs could not have been
made possible. But when most of the people of those
countries entered into the fold of Islam and their
national dresses were modified in accordance with
the specification noted earlier, those dresses all
became Islamic dresses. In modern times also, the
national dresses of the countries all or most of
whose people have adopted Islam are, with all their
variety, Islamic dresses. Where the Muslim and
non-Muslim communities are mixed, any dress which
identifies its wearer as a Muslim is an Islamic
dress. And where the whole population consists of
non-Muslims, every convert to Islam should add to
his dress some recognized Islamic sign so as to
distinguish himself from non-Muslims.
Imitation
At
this point we are faced with the question of
tashabbuh or limitation. Imitation means assuming
the likeness of someone. It is of four kinds, and
below we shall discuss each kind in the light of
Islam.
- Imitation
of one sex by the other. Men’s imitation of
women and women’s imitation of men represent a
deviation from the course of nature and are
symptomatic of a diseased mentality. Islam,
therefore, a condemns it. The Prophet has cursed
the men who wear feminine dress and the women
who wear masculine dress. Every sane person
would do exactly the same. Femininity in men and
masculinity in women are, in any form,
detestable and revolting.
- Imitation
by one nation of another. Sometimes a nation as
a whole adopts the style of appearance of
another nation. This, again, is an irrational
attitude and is developed in a nation invariably
at the time when she touches the nadir of
indignity. It is severely censured by Islam. The
way in which, during the period of the
companions, such imitation was curbed and the
conquered nations checked from taking to
Arabianism in the Islamic spirit truly
expressed.
- Individual’s
imitation of another nation. When some members
of a nation imitate the ways of another nation,
they give evidence that they have a weak and
unstable nature, that their character is like a
liquid which assumes the shape of its container.
Such behaviour is morally reprehensible and may
be compared to a shameless fellow’s claiming
kindred with an unrelated person. The claimer of
false kinship and the imitator both deserve
reproach, the one because he thinks it a shame
to be the son of his real father, and the other
because he believes that it is unworthy to
belong to the nation he was born into and that
honour could be achieved only by being related
to an alien nation.
Culturally
also such conduct is wrong because the people who
take a foreign nation as their ideal become rootless
and, in the end, belong neither to the nation they
were born into nor to the one they wish to belong
to. That explains why the Companions, especially the
Caliphs Umar and Ali, upbraided those Muslims who,
while living in foreign countries, had abandoned the
beduoine dress and, bedazzelled by the glamorous
cultures of Rome and Iran, had started using Roman
and Iranian dresses.
4.
Muslims imitation of the disbelievers. Such
imitation is injurious to the collective existence
of Muslims. It alienates Muslims from one another
and obstructs the cooperation which Islam desires to
exist among them. Besides, it is an indication that
a person who is a Muslim has a quite strong leanings
towards non-Muslims. Politically, the danger is that
the man who presents the appearance of a non-Muslim
would be taken for and treated as a disbeliever by
the Muslims. For these reasons the Prophet has
advised Muslims to shun this kind of imitation. He
said: “Oppose the Zoroastrians”. These words,
found in so many traditions, clearly show that the
Prophet wanted the Muslims should be able to
recognize their brethren and treat them as such. The
Prophet also remarked that he would not responsible
for the Muslim who lives among non-Muslims. He meant
that if, in a war, such a Muslim is taken for an
enemy and killed by the Muslims, he himself would be
to blame for his death. And when then Prophet said
that he who imitates any people is one of them, he
again meant that the imitator is to be regarded as a
member of the nation he imitates and treated like
the members of that nation.
-Tarjumanul
Qur’an
Zil Qa’adah 1258/January 1940 C.E.
EUROPEAN
DRESS
(This
is a part of an article written in 1939 in criticism
of the address which a well-known religious scholar,
on his return to India after a long exile, delivered
while presiding over the Calcutta session of the
Jamiat Ulama-e-Bengal. In this address he advised
the Muslims to adopt Indian nationalism on the one
hand and European dress on the other.)
Queer
fish these Eastern nationalist! Vigorously preaching
nationalism on the one side, they feel, on the
other, no qualms about adopting the dress and
culture of an alienation or country. And that is not
all. They make so earnest attempts to popularize the
foreign culture and dress among their people as if
it formed an article of their nationalistic creed.
And, where they can have their way, they do not
hesitate to impose these things upon the people. In
India, Iran, Egypt, Turkey—every where they follow
the same line of action.
But
“nationalism”—if that word connotes national
self-respect also—naturally demands that a man
stick to the dress and culture of his own nation,
feel great and superior about them, and learn to
take pride in them. Where this sentiment is totally
lacking, goodness knows where nationalism comes into
the picture from. Nationalism and lack of national
self-respect exclude each other completely. But our
Eastern nationalists excel in yoking opposites
together. As a matter of fact, a man needs to have a
judicious mind and a sound vision to guard him self
against contradictions in thought and practice. And
if a man possesses these qualities, why on earth
must be leave the straight and smooth path of nature
and embrace, of all things, nationalism?
The
direct, clear, reasonable, and natural approach
which it is possible to adopt in any matter--- that
is what is called Islam. And Islam, just as it holds
no brief for the exaggerated and inflated version of
nationality, i.e. nationalism, lends no support to
anything which breaks the legitimate, natural bonds
of nationality, sponges out the individuality or
distinguishing marks of nations, and cultivates base
morals in the members of a nation.
The
Quran tells us that although all men have a common
origin, God has set up two types of distinctions
between them: the one between the male and the
female, and the other between families, tribes and
nationalities.
O
mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female,
and have made you nation and tribes that ye may know
one another.. (XLIX:
13)
And
that He createth the two spouses, the male and the
female. (LIII: 45)
These
two kinds of distinctions are at the bottom of
social existence and man civilization, and the
Divine Scheme calls for their maintenance. The
distinction between man and woman has been made so
that a psychological attraction may exist between
them. It follows that their distinguishing
characteristics must be fully preserved. The
distinction between nations has been made so that
human beings are divided into such social groups as
would facilitate cooperation among them. Again, it
is essential that each social division or cultural
group should have some distinguishing marks by means
of which its members may recognize, understand, and
become intimate with one anther and differentiate
t6hemselves from the members of the other groups.
Obviously, the only marks of this kind could be
language, dress, living patterns, culture and
civilization. The need to preserve them is thus
urged upon by nature itself.
That
is why imitation has been interdicted by Islam.
There is a tradition in which the Prophet has cursed
the woman who wears masculine dress and the man who
puts on feminine dress. (Mustadrik,
vol.iv, p.194.) In
another tradition he cursed the men who imitate
women and the women imitate men. (Bukhari,
“Kitabul-libas) The
reason for this tough-line approach is that such
imitation suppresses and diminishes the
psychological attraction which God has caused to
exist between the two sexes, whereas Islam wants
that attraction to be retained. Likewise, the
abolishing or mixing up of the cultures, practices,
and dresses of nations is against the interests of
collective existence. Consequently, Islam is opposed
to this also. When national distinction is
unnaturally blown up into nationalism, Islam makes
jihad against it. For it is nationalism which gives
birth to stupid chauvinism, savage prejudices, and
ruthless imperialism. But Islam is at enmity only
with nationalism and not with nationality. Denying
nationalism, it wants to keep nationality intact and
is as much opposed to abolishing it as it is opposed
to inflating it out of proportion. In order to
understand Islam’s balanced and moderate attitude
in this regard, the following transmissions should
be read carefully.
1.
A Companion of the Holy Prophet asked:
“What is partisanship? Is loving one’s tribe (or
nation) partisanship?” The Prophet said: “No
partisanship is to support one’s tribe (or nation)
in oppression”(Ibn
Majah)
2.
The Prophet said: “He who assumes the
likeness of any people is one of them.”(Abu
Dawud)
3.
The Caliph Umar wrote to Utbah bin Farqad,
Governor of Azerbaijan: “Take heed of wearing the
dress of polytheists” (i.e. the people of
Azerbaijan). (Muslim,
“Kitabul-libas waz-zeenah”.)
4.
The Caliph Umar had issued orders to all his
governors not to allow the non-Muslims citizens to
use the dress or present the appearance of Arabs. So
much so that, on making peace with the people of
certain regions, a regular clause forbidding those
people to wear the dress of Arabs was inserted in
the treaty. (Abu
Yusuf, Kitabul Kharaj.)
5.
The Arabs who were posted in Iraq, Iran etc.,
in connexion with military or civil service, were
continually reminded by the Caliphs Umar and Ali to
take care of their speech and refrain from speaking
foreign tongues. (Baihiqi)
These
precedents make it plain that the internationalism
espoused by Islam does not aim to intermix nations
by wiping out their distinguishing characteristics.
Islam wants nations to preserve their identity and
traits and to establish among themselves such bonds
of morality, culture, beliefs, and ideas as would
eliminate international tensions, frictions,
prejudices, and oppression and promote brotherhood
and cooperation.
There
is another reason why Islam holds imitation is
contempt. A nation forswears her national
characteristics only when she has deteriorated
mentally and degenerated morally. The man who
readily accepts the influence of others and takes on
their colour while he gives up his own must be
morbidly fickle, docile, and impressionable.
Unchecked, that malady will get worse; and if it
turns into an epidemic, the entire nation will catch
a psychological illness; she will suffer from moral
enervation and her mind will grow too weak to take
the strain of a sound and solid ethical system.
Islam hates to see any nation nursing this
psychological disease. It therefore tries to protect
against it not only Muslims but, where possible,
non-Muslims also because it does not like moral
infirmity to be found in any human being.
It
is among the vanquished and subjugated peoples that
this disease spreads most widely. Not only are they
morally weak, they lower themselves in their own
eyes. They regard themselves contemptuously and hope
to win esteem by imitating their rulers, whom they
take as models of virtue, excellence, nobility,
refinement, and anything else they can think of
Slavery so eats away their humanity that they become
willing to parade their disgrace, and so far from
feeling ashamed of this act, take positive pride in
it (Should
anybody doubt our statement, he may note the
difference between the Englishmen and Indians in
India itself. A handful of Englishmen scattered and
dispersed, have been living amidst tens of millions
of Indians for two hundred and fifty years. But your
will not find a single Englishman who has taken to
the Indian dress. On the contrary, it is still
difficult to number the Indians who dutifully mimic
the Englishmen and who take pains to copy not only
the latter’s dress but their speech and behaviour
also. What explanation, after all, will be offered
for this?
It
should be remembered that the present article was
written in 1939, when India was one country and a
long-time colony of the British. However, what has
been said in this footnote remains. True even after
the passage of more than a quarter century. John
Bull is gone but the condition of his bondsmen has
not changed.)
Islam, which aims to redeem man from degradation and
invest him with nobility and honour, would do its
best to prevent his falling into the deep most pit
of indignity. That precisely is why the Caliph Umar
sternly forbade the non-Arab nations, after they had
come under the rule of the Islamic Government, to
imitate the Arabs. Had they been allowed to develop
slavish traits and habits, Islamic jihad would have
lost its sense and purpose. When the Prophet charged
the Muslims with the banner of Islam he did not want
them to become overlords of those nations and train
them in servility.
For
these reasons, Islam is against the idea of a nation
becoming a replica of another nation and trying to
copy the latter’s dress and mode of living. As for
the cultural borrowing and lending that naturally
takes place between nations in contact with one
another, Islam not only approves of it but
encourages it. It is not Islam’s wish to wall
nations off from one another by creating prejudices
among them and thus preclude any kind of cultural or
other exchanges between them. The Holy Prophet wore
the Syrian gown which was an article of the Jewish
dress. A tradition reads: “He (the Prophet)
performed the ablution while having a Syrian gown
on.” He also put on the narrow-sleeved Roman cloak
which was worn by Roman Catholics. The Naushirwani
mantle, described in a tradition as the Persian
royal mantle, was also in his use. Umar donned the
burnous, which is a kind of high cap and forms a
part of the Christian monks’ dress. Use of odd
things like these is a matter quite different from
imitation. Imitation is when a man’s total
appearance resembles that of another nation and it
becomes difficult to tell his nation by taking a
look at him. On the contrary, what we have termed
borrowing and lending implies only that one nation
may borrow from another something good and suitable
and assimilate it into her style of appearance, the
style of appearance, even after that assimilation,
on the whole remaining the same.
(Tarjumanul
Quran, 1358 H/1939 C.E.)
