Connect with us

Opinion

Erosion of the role of the Editor

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

🕒

on

IST

By AdilTyabji

For an idea of what it meant to be an editor in the days when I was aspiring to be one in distant 1968 and how that role has changed since, one needs to examine how publishing has fundamentally changed. Publishing then was perceived to be a profession clearly differentiated from a business: a gentleperson’s genteel engagement with earning a living, but just about achieving the latter. Very few people knew what a publishing career meant so it had a certain cachet, particularly when you threw in mysteriously that it had to do with books, an even more mysterious commodity, provided you did not need to reveal what you actually earned; fortunately, not many stooped to ask you that, at least on casual contact.
Publishing then was a low-key, low-paid profession shorn of the razzamatazz that surrounds it today, but those within it believed they were performing a service of great value and thoroughly enjoyed engaging with it. Notwithstanding the low salaries there was very little staff turnover. I occasionally mourned that if no one left, there would be no room at the top to which to aspire!
Having broadly set the scene we come to what the editor actually did. As in all professions, where you work and with whom makes an enormous difference to your functioning and responsibilities. I personally worked for only two publishers: first with Orient Longman (OL), as the Orient BlackSwan of today was then known (three years), and Oxford University Press India (OUP).
Fortunately, and in a sense surprisingly, both, in the main, functioned more or less identically. Both had a head office in Delhi and branch offices in Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta, and each had an academic/general list which attempted to earn its keep and more but there was no acute scrutiny of that because it was the flagship or loss-leader. The real earnings came from (1) the educational list (school and college textbooks), annotated college anthologies prescribed by various state educational boards (if there was a somewhat seamier side, this was it!), and supplementary reading material; and (2) reprints of reference material (dictionaries in the main), at various levels, largely generated by the respective UK parent companies (although OUP stoutly maintained that it was not a company but a department of the University of Oxford, and we wore that as a badge of honour! and attempted to live up to it).
In OL then there was no strict bifurcation between the academic/general and educational departments so an editor could be simultaneously working on academic/general and educational books, although usually a broad bifurcation came about depending upon skills and preference; in OUP specific editors were assigned to each department but come the last minute rush preceding the academic year and most editors pitched in with the educational list, the academic/ general editors usually working on supplementary reading material. There was no specialisation within these broad categories either until later years when it crept in to a degree.
As a largely academic/general editor, in OUP I was either assigned a manuscript by the then chief editor/general manager (Ravi Dayal when GM, for many very fruitful years, combined these roles) or generated it myself on the basis of an idea or proposal, with of course the concurrence of the former, and where necessary a specialist report. There were visits to the university for inspiration and bookshops for feedback.
Manuscript in hand you were on your own without any external interference, no time pressure except from within and occasionally from the author.
Ivor Lewis for instance, a charming sprightly individual of 80+ years from the Isle of Wight, who became a great friend and spoke eloquently about the charms of the nuns at the convent where he stayed when in India, was forever threatening to die and once, just as we were approaching the end (not of him but the book!), in a state of depression, wrote lightheartedly that he would sue me. Then it was an intense 6-to-8-month engagement (although Irfan Habib’s An Atlas of the Mughal Empire took three gruelling years and Ivor Lewis’s Sahibs, Nabobs and Boxwallahs, two!) with the MS to be edited, detailed queries and suggestions exchanged with the author, the focus on expression and presentation but also on structure, discrepancies, repetition.
Then the proofs arrived and moved between editor and author, accompanied by carefully crafted letters, drafted and typed, with more queries, pleasantries, and humour, providing the author, frequently anxious and impatient, continuing reassurance and support. The relationship at this point was frequently very intense, albeit transitory.
In addition to the interaction with the author there was close coordination with the production department. I was extremely fortunate for most of my time at OUP to have the able and sage guidance of DipenMitra, a soulmate, as production manager.
They did the costings, chose the typeface, designed the text, and selected the most suitable press. When considered necessary, the press was jointly visited where I was privileged to watch the magical sight of molten metal pouring down to form letters and pass through successive generations of evolving technology: hand setting, monotype, linotype and admire the exceptional skills of the people who operated them and occasionally rescued us from the brink of disaster. Sadly, a sterling and dying breed of professionals defeated only by technology. Publishing and printing presses were then inextricably intertwined.
Those are glimpses of the past, what of the present? I have observed that in publishing it was initially the editors who were in control, and that was the period with which I naturally empathise, then the baton passed to the accountants, and eventually to the sales and marketing people who have since maintained a stranglehold.
Although from a purely economic point of view the present arrangement makes eminent sense, should publishing be subject to purely financial criteria? Does publishing in its present form adequately play its essential role of having the author at the centre and providing the mutually enriching services necessary to enable the organisation to get the best out of him/her and publish the best possible books in the most attractive form possible?
What brought about this dramatic change in the structure of publishing and even infected the renowned university presses whose fundamental role it is to nurture authors and scholarship. Some time in the 1980s I think, publishers overseas, followed astonishingly even by the renowned university presses, decided that having copyeditors on their payroll was a waste of money. They occupied too much expensive space, spent far too much time worrying about commas and split infinitives, so why not hire them in their own space at rates they (the publishers) thought they were worth. They succeeded in some measure because in consequence there were hundreds of experienced copyeditors on the limb with few other alternatives. Also, given the scale of many of their operations they were able to have an entire department monitoring the performance of their external copyeditors. OUP UK, for instance, which in the first flush of enthusiasm fired a substantial clutch of brilliant editors, has I believe an elaborate and very well-organised one.
A decade later, when the Indian general managers, by now rechristened managing directors! with a background in sales and marketing, with no interest in or inclination to fight for the traditional independence of the Indian branch operations, this organisational blueprint was transported to India.
To my mind this was an entirely misplaced move; the situation in India was very different. There were relatively few experienced editors and with the model being adopted by a large number of publishers, the catchment too narrow. In OUP we could by no stretch of the imagination claim to have had the best editors but what was important was that they were on the payroll and responsible to the management and the authors for the books they produced and how they produced them. A reasonably competent in-house editor, responsible to the organisation for results, I think, produces better outcomes than someone out of the blue, generally underpaid, under-qualified, and no sanction beyond not getting a second assignment from a particular publisher. I would imagine, and given my experience as a freelance editor of a couple of decades, the commissioning editors of today frequently do not have the time or the ability to evaluate the quality of the work offered.
I had naturally seen these winds of change and decided that my interest in working on manuscripts far exceeded that of merely planning and soliciting them. Perhaps the nature of the change can best be illustrated by a brief exchange I had with a charming lady from OUP’s International Division at a party to welcome her to India. Touching on the future, she informed me with the utmost gravity: “You will not be an editor you will be a product packaging manager.”
Needless to say, much as I admire individuals who tirelessly and splendidly package our goods, I did not envisage that as my future. My new avatar overnight as a freelance copyeditor was somewhat daunting with only a meagre provident fund and gratuity in the bank, and those took a month or more to arrive. I was rescued by my editorial colleagues in OUP, first RukunAdvani, the then editorial director, academic and general, and when he himself resigned, NitashaDevasar, who kept me almost continually in work, albeit at the near starvation wages that were then available, for over a decade.
A freelance editor does not have to prepare him/herself to rush to office in the morning, has the luxury of working uninterrupted in the comfort of home, can concentrate single-mindedly. On the other hand, there is an obligation to adhere to prescribed schedules, there is no guarantee that the morrow will see a manuscript on the desk, and if, as I do, s/he works on a single manuscript at a time, promising offers have to be declined, and it is more than likely that in consequence follow-up ones will not be forthcoming. The other disadvantage is that unless you are working directly for an author there is no contact with her/him whatsoever.
The commissioning editor emails a manuscript, you edit and return it with broad comments and suggestions, text-related queries highlighted within the text, email it back, and wait for a cheque to arrive a month or so later! You, more often than not, do not know what the book looks like, when it is published, how it was received/reviewed. When a trifle diffidently (time had passed, memories were hazy) I agreed to write this piece, the first few lines were tapped out on my mobile phone on a Saturday afternoon at the bar of the India International Centre.
A little Dutch courage is always useful in igniting resolve! This is only relevant here because it vividly illustrates how technology has dramatically changed the palate in terms of the editorial function, communication, and author-editor interpersonal relations, largely for the better, certainly for convenience and efficiency, and in some respects perhaps for the worse. Throughout my years with OUP there were no computers whatsoever, except during the last few years when a large, handsome standalone Mackintosh was acquired for design purposes which I admired from a safe distance! Then everything was done by hand. Manuscripts (ironically, the very word means book written by hand) were edited with fountain pen or ballpen, depending upon preference, proofs were corrected in the same way, letters were carefully crafted by hand unless you had a forte for dictation, and then typed and retyped.
For years after computers became omnipresent and ubiquitous, I obstinately maintained that editing by hand produced superior results because the slow pace of the operation permitted greater time for thought and consideration.
It was only quite late into my editorial freelancing days that I bought a laptop on a whim and was persuaded by its convenience, and that conversion itself was gradual, for some years both methods going hand-in-hand, depending upon clients’ preferences. Today I would regard hard copy as an enormous imposition but still miss the convenience of flipping the pages backwards and forwards. How times change!
Another significant change that technology brings is the instant availability of information. While in the past the editor scoured her/his reference shelf, and those of others, for references/words/meanings or queried the author, today the click of a button and there on your mobile phone is your dictionary, thesaurus, Wikipedia, Google, the last giving birth to that frightful term “googled”.
Again another major change wrought by technology is in author-editor interpersonal relations. Because in the past correspondence, both in the writing and its conveyance (with the humble postman a star actor), was so much more time-consuming and infrequent, if utilised effectively it could create a great bond between author and editor. It is difficult to replicate the same personalised effect with today’s instant electronic communication, which has taken a toll too on the art of correspondence and the pleasure of receiving a letter. Alas, no longer can “Lost in the mail” be proffered as a convenient excuse. On the positive side, everyone is constantly in touch with everyone else which, if it lacks magic it is convenient and efficient but with that comes the price of an enormous overload of information which is often difficult to digest and maximally utilise.
In conclusion, a couple of thoughts and questions run through my mind. Where will future generations of copyeditors come from and with what background? Will future generations of commissioning editors be in a position to evaluate the quality of copyedited manuscripts they receive? What effect will the new arrangement have on the traditional, mutually enriching relationship that existed between the author, the editor and the publisher, now that the functions of the traditional editor have been cleft in half?

 

The Kashmir Monitor is the fastest growing newspaper as well as digitial platform covering news from all angles.

Advertisement
Loading...
Comments

Opinion

Prophet Muhammad’s Lessons in Leadership

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By John Adair

Trust being lost, all the social intercourse of men is brought to naught – Livy (Roman Historian)

During his hidden years in Mecca working with merchant-caravans, probably as a caravan leader, Muhammad acquired a new name: al-Amin, the Trustworthy One. The same root, incidentally, gives the English word amen, often used at the end of prayers, an expression of hearty approval. We can only guess What it was about the character or conduct of Muhammad that gave rise to this attractive sobriquet, but there is a clue. In 622 CE, while making ready for his migration from Mecca, Muhammad – in danger of his life – delayed long enough to dispose of some moneys that had been deposited at his house.

 

For centuries the whole life of Mecca centered on its caravan trade. Everyone in Mecca, rich and poor alike, including women landholders (of whom there were a number), was anxious to have a stake in this lucrative business. The powerful families grew richer and more in?uential with each annual expedition; and the poorer families saved every available dinar in order to share in these commercial ventures. The merchants of Mecca formed themselves into a syndicate, pooling their capital to equip the caravan, and then shared proportionately in the returns from their joint enterprise. Usually a single person would be asked to constitute himself the banker for the occasion, receiving deposits from everyone interested in a particular expedition, and then administer the funds as economically as possible. Most probably it was Muhammad’s consistency and scrupulous honesty in this role that earned him his reputation for trustworthiness.

A young widow in Mecca by the name of Khadija bint Khuwaylid more than once entrusted her investment money interest in a caravan into the keeping of one of her cousins – Muhammad. She was so impressed by him professionally, and attracted to him personally, that following a custom allowed among the Arabs – the sexes were much more equal than in other societies – she sent him a proposal of marriage which included the words: ‘0 son of my uncle’ [Arabic has no word for cousin], she wrote in her letter, ‘I like you because of our relationship and your high reputation among your people, your trustworthiness and good character and truthfulness.’

Muhammad accepted her proposal. It was one of the wisest decisions he made. She was his only wife for 25 years until her death (620 CE), she bore him Fatima and sons (none survived) and other daughters. And she was the ?rst person to believe in Muhammad’s prophethood.

No man is a prophet in his own land, said a proverb already ancient in Muhammad’s day. He would know the truth of it, for he had to endure years of rejection and even hostility from most of his fellow townsfolk. Through all these trials and tribulations in Mecca, Khadija was Muhammad’s chief stay and support. She knew her man and believed him as only a woman in love can. Perhaps these words of the French historian and political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville about his wife may well express what Muhammad felt about his wife: ‘She softens, calms and strengthens me in difficulties which disturb me but leave her serene.’

Clearly, then, Muhammad was a man with a reputation for integrity. That word, from the Latin integer whole, is especially appropriate for Muhammad as far as Muslims are concerned, for in its primary meaning integrity implies unity that indicates interdependence of the parts and completeness and perfection of the whole. Human beings are like stones, some Muslims say, and Muhammad is as the only ruby among them.

Honesty means a refusal to lie, steal or cheat in any way. Integrity goes a mile beyond honesty: it implies trustworthiness and incorruptibility to a degree that one is incapable of being false to a trust, responsibility or pledge. A leader with integrity is like the English poet William Wordsworth’s ‘Happy Warrior’:

Who comprehends his trust, and to the same
Keeps faithful, with singleness of aim;
And therefore does not stop, nor lie in wait
For wealth or honour, or for worldly state.

This integrity extends through the entireness or wholeness of the character. It is found in small matters as well as great, for allegiance to truth is tested as much by small things as by those that are more important.

Notice the centrality of the value of truth, as evidenced by a ?rm adherence to truth in all things – in the concept of integrity. Khadija, you recall, mentioned Muhammad’s ‘truthfulness’ – that he habitually spoke the truth – as well as his ‘trustworthiness’, but in fact these two virtues go hand in hand. If you tell the truth, people will trust you; if you lie and the other person ?nds out, then trust will be diminished if not lost for ever.

Why does truth or veracity, honesty and high principle, matter in a leader? The reason is simple. Leaders who are true, and always speak the truth, create trust. And trust is vital in all human relations, professional or private.

You can see why Muhammad insisted upon integrity in those who were chosen to be leaders in the Umma, the growing Muslim community. There was to be no place for any form of bribery or corruption: not that this prohibition was – or is – easy, for man is ‘Violent… in his love of wealth’ (Quran 100:8).

I will stand surety for Paradise if you save yourself from six things: telling untruths, violating promises, dishonouring trust, being unchaste in thought and act, striking the ?rst blow, taking what is bad and unlawful. Prophet Muhammad (s)

Perhaps of all Muhammad’s successors it was the second caliph, Umar, who is the chief exemplar of integrity in Islam. Although he lacked Muhammad’s humour and charm, Umar matched him in scrupulous honesty and uprightness in matters ?nancial, his passion for impartial justice and his adherence to the simple, open and approachable Bedouin style of leadership. Numani, the authoritative biographer of Umar, emphasizes his unbending integrity:

Here, we must note that all the Caliph’s efforts in this regard would have counted for little if he had not himself led by example. He stressed repeatedly that, as regards the Law, he stood on an equal footing with any other individual. He claimed no special privileges or exemptions as caliph. He proclaimed, instead, that his powers were limited and his exercise of them subject to scrutiny and criticism.

Regarding public funds, Umar said: ‘I have no greater right on your money [ie public funds] than the guardian of an orphan has on that orphan’s property. If I am wealthy, I shall not take anything. If I am needy, I shall take for my maintenance according to usage. You people – you have many rights on me which you should demand of me. One of those rights is that I should not collect revenues and spoils of war unlawfully; the second is that the revenues and spoils of war that come into my possession should not be spent unlawfully; another is that I should increase your salaries and protect the frontiers, and that I should not cast you into unnecessary perils.’

For believers, God has self-evidently many qualities or attributes, or ‘names’ as they are called in the Islamic tradition. Encouraged by the Quran (Q7:180; Q17:110; Q20:8), Muslims selected 99 of these attributes of God describing this perfection, from the Quran and traditions. Referred to as ‘the most beautiful names of God’, they describe a range of characteristics that balance the power of God (the Creator, the Sovereign and the All- Knowing) with His love and mercy (the All-Loving, the Most Gracious and the All-Forgiving). The names are frequently memorized and used in prayers. One name that has been hidden by God is Ism Allah al-a’zam, ‘The Greatest Name of Allah’. Yet all this unfathomably rich diversity is encompassed in an essential unity: ‘Say: He is Allah, the One…’

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Pleasures of Seeking Knowledge

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Ibrahim Bijli Syed

The rise of Muslims to the zenith of civilization in a period of four decades was based on lslam’semphasis on learning. This is obvious when one takes a look at the Qur’an and the traditions of Prophet Muhammad which are filled with references to learning, education, observation, and the use of reason. The very first verse of the Qur’an revealed to the Prophet of Islam on the night of 27th of Ramadan in 611 AD reads:

“Recite: In the name of thy Lord who created man from a clot. Recite: And thy Lord is the Most Generous Who taught by the pen, taught man that which he knew not.” (Quran, 96:1-5)

 

“And they shall say had we but listened or used reason, we would not be among the inmates of the burning fire.” (Quran, 67:10)

“Are those who have knowledge and those who have no knowledge alike? Only the men of understanding are mindful. ” (Quran, 39:9)

The Qur’an encourages people towards scientific research:.

“And whoso brings the truth and believes therein such are the dutiful.” (Quran, 39:33)
Every Muslim man’s and every Muslim woman’s prayer should be:

“My Lord! Enrich me with knowledge..” (Quran, 20:114)
The pursuit of knowledge and the use of reason, based on sense and observation is made obligatory on all believers.

The following traditions of the Prophet supplement the foregoing teachings of the Qur’an in the following way:

Seek knowledge “even though it be in China.”
“The acquisition of knowledge is compulsory for every Muslim, whether male or female.”

“The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.”
“Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave.”

“God has revealed to me, ‘Whoever walks in the pursuit of knowledge I facilitate for him the way to heaven.’
“The best form of worship is the pursuit of knowledge.”

“Scholars should endeavour to spread knowledge and provide education to people who have been deprived of it. For, where knowledge is hidden it disappears.”
Someone asked the Prophet: “Who is the biggest scholar?” He replied: “He who is constantly trying to learn from others, for a scholar is ever hungry for more knowledge.”

“Seek knowledge and wisdom, or whatever the vessel from which it flows, you will never be the loser.”
“Contemplating deeply for one hour (with sincerity) is better than 70 years of (mechanical) worship.”

“To listen to the words of the learned and to instill unto others the lessons of science is better than religious exercises.”

“Acquire knowledge: it enables its possessor to distinguish right from the wrong, it lights the way to heaven; it is our friend in the desert, our society in solitude, our companion when friendless – it guides us to happiness; it sustains us in misery; it is an ornament among friends and an armor against enemies.”

The Islamic Empire for more than 1,000 years remained the most advanced civilization in the world. The main reasons for this was that Islam stressed the importance and respect of learning, forbade destruction, cultivated a respect for authority, discipline, and tolerance for other religions. The teachings of Qur’an and Sunnah inspired many Muslims to their accomplishments in science and medicine.

By the tenth century their zeal and enthusiasms for learning resulted in all essential Greek medical and scientific writings being translated into Arabic in Damascus, Cairo, and Baghdad. Arabic became the international language of learning and diplomacy. The center of scientific knowledge and activity shifted eastward, and Baghdad emerged as the capitol of the scientific world. The Muslims became scientific innovators with originality and productivity.

For example Islamic medicine is one of the most famous and best known facets of Islamic civilization in which the Muslims excelled. The Muslims were the great torchbearers of international scientific research. Some of the best and most eloquent praises of science came from the pens of Muslim scientists who considered their work to be acts of worship. The same motives led to the establishment of Al-Azhar (800 AD) the first university in the world. They hit the “source ball of knowledge” over the fence to Europe. In the words of Campbell, “The European medical system is Arabian not only in origin but also in its structure. The Arabs are the intellectual forbearers of the Europeans.”

Learning is a natural pleasure. This pleasure is inborn and instinctive. The pleasure of learning is one of the essential pleasures of the human race. Without learning, survival itself is threatened.

The process of learning starts right after birth. It is true that babies who can barely talk investigate problems with all the zeal and excitement of explorers, make discoveries with the passion and absorption of dedicated scientists. At the end of each successful investigation, one can see on the tiny face an expression of innocent and pure heartfelt pleasure. The process of physical growth stops when a boy or girl reaches puberty that is with the onset of menarche in the girls and with the change in the voice and growth of moustache and beard in boys. After puberty it is impossible to increase the height both in boys and girls.

On the other hand the mental faculties grow from birth until death. At some point in our lifetime, the physical body becomes sick or ill and gradually dies; even the emotions become duller. But the mind continues to live, and even grows more lively and active, enjoys itself more, works and plays with more expansion and delight. I have seen grandparents obtaining Bachelors, Masters and Ph. D. degrees at the ages of 70, 80 or 90.

There are many examples in the history of Art, Music and Science, of both men and women who significantly contributed and lead mentally productive lives at their ripe old ages. Learning extends our lives into new dimensions. It is cumulative. Instead of diminishing in time, like health and strength, its dividends go on increasing, provided one continues to learn throughout life and integrate the thoughts and make learning harmonious. One should make it a point to learn at least one piece of new information each day.

The pleasure of learning is not confined to learning from textbooks, which are too often tedious. But it does include learning from book magazines (periodicals), newspapers, movies, television, radio and traveling.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Importance of Understanding Attributes of Allah

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Naseer Ahmed

Allah is the sole source of all knowledge of what is right and what is wrong or what is moral and what is immoral. If we wish to master this knowledge perfectly, it is essential that we orient ourselves perfectly to receive this knowledge. The orientation is by gaining a perfect understanding of the nature of Allah or of all His attributes. Misunderstanding of any attribute leads to a wrong understanding of His Book, of right and wrong, and this is the way Satan misleads and deprives us of becoming perfect Muslim. The text of the Quran is preserved and protected from corruption but not the understanding of it.

This is not about memorising the 99 names of Allah but knowing the 99 attributes of Allah or of fully comprehending the nature or zaat of Allah. The attributes of Allah are best understood by a person who has understood the Quran without a single contradiction and without treating any verse as abrogated. Such a person has completely and perfectly understood the nature of Allah.

 

Islamic scholars have no problem with the contradictions their interpretations create because they think that Allah is free to contradict Himself because “He does what He wills” and this is proof of His omnipotence that he is not bound by any rule. By creating this misunderstanding of Allah’s attribute of His Will and Omnipotence, Satan has succeeded in making people worship the attribute of ‘whimsicalness’ which is Satan’s attribute and not Allah’s.

Allah certainly does what He wills but He has willed the rule of law and the law of perfect causality and He has also willed that he will never change His ways or change His command/word once it is issued. The Sign that the Qur’an is from Allah is that it is a Book without a single contradiction and if you are given a Book saying that it is from Allah and if that Book has even a single contradiction, throw it into the face of Satan because such a Book cannot be from Allah. While the Book is from Allah, our scholars, by their misinterpretations which create contradictions, have made it into a Book from Satan!

The Quran is a simple Book, easy to understand and without crookedness. All that is required is that we take its straight forward literal meaning. It is scholarship that puts a spin on every verse and misinterprets which is why the hadith which says that the scholars will be among the foremost who will be flung into Hell sounds true. The scholars put their spin because they misunderstand the attributes of Allah.

Take the attribute of justice. Is Allah just if those born into “Muslim” families have an edge over those born into families that practice polytheism? Some of our revered scholars of the past have said that some people are predestined to go to Heaven, while others are predestined to go to Hell or Allah has created some for Heaven and others for Hell. This obviously sounds whimsical and arbitrary which they explain away by saying “Allah wills what He wills”. They get both the attributes wrong.

The answer any reasonable person will give is that justice demands that persons born into any faith should have an equal chance of gaining Heaven/Hell, but Muslims will not voice this opinion, because it is drilled into their heads that non-Muslims are Kafir and they will all go to Hell, and what they see is that people born into a faith, remain in the same faith. Those who change their faith are a small number.

Those who seek an unambiguous answer from the Quran on this question, will find an answer, but those who firmly believe otherwise, will remain blind and deaf to the clear answer. This is because we have not even learnt to trust the word of Allah and read it without our mind cluttered with pre-conceived notions. The reading therefore does not benefit us. For more on the subject, read:

The Muslims, in general, are far from correctly comprehending the most important attributes of Allah. They may worship only one God, but this God is partial to them, which is not an attribute of the Rabb-ul-Alameen who is Al ‘Adl or perfectly just, but the attribute of the gods of the polytheists. So, how can a polytheist be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis a Muslim, whose concept of his God is defective to the extent that he attributes to Allah, the same quality of partiality, which is what makes the many gods of the polytheists so very attractive to them?

If the Muslims correctly understand this attribute, they will then know that they are not in any way superior to any other people except by virtue of their good deeds. Their attitude to the ‘other’ changes dramatically for the better. We are then open to what is good in them and appreciate it.

If there was no Hell would the world have been a better place? Allah is the epitome of morality or what maximizes good. Hell is also a part of His Mercy therefore without which there would have been more oppression, injustice and misery in this world. The description of Hell Fire in the Quran is that it is a great continuous torment.

(4:56) The Kafaru, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

If the warning of Punishment in Hell wasn’t a Mercy, Allah wouldn’t have said:

(55:37) When the sky is rent asunder, and it becomes red like ointment:

(38) Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

Our capacity for both good and evil is dependent upon the autonomy or free will that Allah has granted us. Without autonomy, we would have been like animals without choice for either good or evil and lived in accordance with our instincts. There would have been no need for either Heaven or Hell then. The question then is:

Was Allah Unjust in Creating Adam and Favouring His Progeny Over All His Creation?

If the Hell had been made less painful, then the Heaven would have been made less pleasant, and our autonomy curtailed to decrease our potential for both good and evil. Allah finds the perfect balance. There is both infinite divine wisdom and mercy in the creation of Hell and making it what it is, without which there wouldn’t have been Heaven either, and the freedom to choose our path. Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

Continue Reading

Latest News

Subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor and receive notifications of new stories by email.

Join 989,516 other subscribers

Archives

February 2019
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728  
Advertisement