The World and the Image of God

In Javid Nameh, published in 1932, Iqbal offers a dialogue between Zinda Rud and Hallaj.  Part of this dialogue is relevant to the contemporary discussions about secularism, secularization, resurgence of prophetic religion, and the chances for the emergence of a post-secular world.  It is also relevant to discussions about the so-called clash of civilizations, religiously motivated violence, terrorism, and Islam’s alleged plot to dominate the world.

The character of Zinda Rud (Living Stream) is the poet himself; Hallaj is the tenth century Sufi who is famous/infamous for having claimed “Ana Al-Haq” (or “I am the creative truth”).  In Javid Nameh, Zinda Rud travels through the celestial spheres in the company of Rumi.  His encounter with Hallaj takes place in the sphere of Jupiter.  Only part of the dialogue is being quoted here.

 

 

حلاج

نقش حق داری جہان نخچیر تست
ہم  عنا ن  تقدیر با   تد بیر  تست

عصر حا ضر با تو می جوید ستیز
نقش  حق  بر لوح این کافر  بریز

 

Hallaj: Do you posses the image of God within you?  If you do, you are the hunter and the world is your prey.  The reins of your strategy control the unfolding of destiny.  The present age seeks combat with you; go ahead and make an imprint of God’s image on the tablet of this unbeliever. 

Several points are worth noting in these two couplets.  1. The present age is an unbeliever because its tablet is devoid of the image of God.  2.  Anyone who is aware of the image of God within his/her self is a believer.  3. The present age, having denied or erased the image of God from its own tablet, wishes the same fate for the believers.  4.  Since the believers resist, the present age seeks war against them in order to make them as ungodly as itself.  5.  The believers ought to welcome the struggle without fear.  6.  In addition to resisting the present age to erase the image of God from their own souls, the believers’ mission is to imprint that image on the tablet of the present age.  7. Since the aim of the believers is to establish the image of God on the present age, they are in greater harmony with the natural propensities of the cosmos; on the other hand, the goal before the present age is in discord with those propensities.  8.  The present age is in conflict not only with the believers, but also with the natural propensities of the cosmos; it is fighting against the inner urges of reality itself, and so it is doomed to fail in the long-run.  9.  The believers can be assured of their victory, because their goal is in perfect agreement with the inner urges of reality.  10.  Consequently, the forces of destiny are more than willing to cooperate with the believers; in effect, the believers do not just control their strategies in this war, they actually control cosmic destiny itself.

زندہ رود

 

نقش  حق  را  د ر جھا ن انداختند
من  نمی  دانم  چسا ن  اند ا ختند

 

Zinda Rud: Imprinting the image of God on the world was accomplished in the past too; but I don’t know how it was done.

 

حلاج

یا  بز و ر   د لبری   ا ند ا ختند
یا  بز و ر  قا ھر ی  ا ند  ا ختند
زانکہ حق در دلبری پیدا تر است
دلبری ا ز قا ہری اولی  تر  است

 

Hallaj: There are two ways of imprinting the image of God on the world.  You can either do it with the force of violence or with the force of love.  Because God is more clearly manifested in love than in violence, it follows that the force of love is superior to the force of violence.

Iqbal’s key terms in the above couplets are most interesting, viz., zur-i qahiri and zur-i dilbari, very losely translated here as the “force of violence” and the “force of love.”  Qahiri is from the Arabic word qahr, and “Al-Qahar” القھار  is well-known in the Islamic tradition as one of the “most beautiful names” of God, meaning “the Subduer” or “the Dominant.”  Iqbal’s phrase “zur-i qahiri” should be undersood in the broader sense of coercion and forced submission rather than in the limited sense of violence, though violence or the threat of violence is certainly part of its meaning. The other term, “zur-i dilbari” is entirely Persian; the word dilbar means a beloved.  Dilabri, then, is the way of the beloved, and is, by extension, the way of love. 

When Iqbal uses Hallaj as his mouthpiece to identify these two ways, he is acknowledging that zur, or force, is not synonymous with political and military strength.  Max Weber famously defined a state as that institution which claims a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence.  The phrase “zur-i qahiri” can therefore be understood as the state’s power to enforce particular laws and policies in order to promote particular values that it deems most desirable.  To say that the image of God can be established in the world through “zur-i qahiri,” the meaning seems to be that the state is in a position to accomplish this through its institutional and administrative authority.  Yet, coercion, without or without violence, is only one way in which zur, or force, manifests itself.  There is also the power of love, zur-i dilabri.

Since the aim is to imprint the image of God on the world, on the tablet of the present age, the two options are not of equal worth.  For Iqbal, and for the Islamic tradition more generally, God is manifested in a variety of ways, including as a coercive force that overpowers and subdues, but also as a loving attraction that melts away all resistance and opposition.  God is free to act in either of these modes as God sees fit; yet, according to a hadith qudsi, God’s mercy takes a definite precedence over God’s wrath.  Consequently, for Iqbal, and for the Islamic tradition more generally, there is an asymmetry in divine attributes; the divine attributes of wrath and vengeance are less important ontologically than the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness.  Since God is manifested more clearly as love than as coercion, it follows that for human beings too the way of love is superior to the way of coercion.  Notice that Iqbal does not exclude the role of coercion entirely; there are, of course, situations when coercion -and violence- can have a legitimate role.  Iqbal’s point is simply that there is a hierarchy of values that cannot be ignored.

It is far better, therefore, to establish the image of God in the world through the force of love, mercy, and compassion, than through the force of coercion, domination, and violence.