Follow Us on Google News
Now consider a very basic point. Because this is the basis for world systems and cause for conflict. Dostoevsky says whether it’s right or wrong, breaking something is just as enjoyable. This is what the Holy Quran says, “Indeed, mankind is in loss, Except for those who have believed and done righteous deeds.” The Quran states that if a person does not adopt the system ordained by God and follow the path of good deeds, he will be committing himself to harm and suffering,
According to Dostoevsky, man will continue to destroy himself and his intellect will not be able to save him in any way. There is no corner of the globe where man is unaware of the need for a “system of life” for himself. The West learned from its history that the “religious system” has caused harm. Therefore, excluding religion as a system is the only solution to the problem. The whole attention shifted to atheism and irreligiosity. The question is whether their religious system was really harmful. My answer is a resounding “yes”. So does this imply that Muslims should move away from a religious to a secular system? But here my answer is a resounding “no”. The reason is very crystal clear. Western nations were ruled by papacy that squeezed these nations by considering a family system to a religious system. Christianity does not even have the concept of a system of government nor did Jesus Christ establish a state nor did he instruct anyone. Turn the Bible, you won’t find anything about a system of governance. When the clergy imposed a self-styled deceptive religious system, it was the biggest fraud in human history.
On the contrary, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) not only established a state but the Quran also provided the basis for it. For example, when the Quran ordains to cut off the hand for theft, does it instruct us to do so? If someone steals from your house, will you grab and chop his hand with a kitchen knife. No. This is the responsibility of the state. But which government? Why would a secular state follow instruction from God? Obviously, the government established according to the Islamic concepts by Muslims.
In this context, our desi liberals say that Europe developed only when they got rid of the religious system. So we can only progress if we get rid of religion. This claim is even more deceptive than the Western clerical system of governance. It is a historically proven fact that Muslims progressed when their religious state was stronger. As their religious state began to weaken, their decline began. And they can never progress unless they return to the true meaning of religion. Let’s look at Turkey. In the secular era, 80 years later, the Turks are still an indebted nation. There is still no religious system, only a mindset has come in the government. This is a gradual but rewarding process.
There have been only two parts of Muslim history. One is the period of growth and the other is the period of decline. Does it take an intellectual like Aristotle to understand what caused the decline? The decline began as soon as religion began to drift away. This was just due to religious reasons but also scientific and materialistic. Where Adam’s descendants stand today is the result of continuous evolution and the establishment of civilization over 5,000 years. Just think of Al-Farabi and Khawarizmi, even Newton and Albert Einstein will be no match. It is only we who deny the Golden Era of Muslim development, even the West acknowledges it.
Like religion and Western thinkers, human suffering and its remedy is also the subject of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky’s works. But both have different views on suffering and its causes.
According to Dostoevsky, human suffering is of two kinds, economic and the other existential. Economic is external afflictions while existential is within. So most of the characters in his works are poor people. The remarkable thing is that even his rich characters seem to be suffering. The Brothers Karamazov, for example, has a wealthy father and a son who is also rich. But just being rich does not guarantee him to not suffer. Such a person is suffering from an existential aspect. His existence is enough for him to suffer. According to him, there are three causes of human suffering, weakening of the social system, alienation from religion, and individualism.
From the writings, I have read on Brothers Karamazov at various times, I have come to the conclusion the book has not been well understood in our country. It is rather tragic that we don’t have the intellectual ability to extract the concept from a novel. Does Leo Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or any other writer just want to tell us a story? The story is just the capsule shell carrying the medicine. Tolstoy dismisses the notion that the novel is a piece of entertainment. Let’s point to three philosophies Dostoevsky runs in Brothers Karamazov – religiosity, luxury, and rationalism. Thus, Dostoevsky’s rationalist brother is also an atheist. You will find all characters in this novel suffering. They cannot get rid of their suffering, only reduce it. Please read Brothers Karamazov with this in mind so that you can get the mindset Fyodor Dostoevsky wants to present.
While Europe offers a prescription for the liberation of mankind from human suffering and suffering, Dostoevsky says the development of consciousness is to some extent acceptable but only enough to solve problems like health and economy. He goes so far as to prove intellectual development as psychologically wrong saying too much consciousness is a disease.
When Tolstoy elaborates on this, he concludes that suffering is not only physical but also mental. The higher the awareness, the greater the mental distress. The most interesting repudiation of rationalism has come from outside Russia. Rabindranath Tagore. “Great consciousness is like a crippled giraffe. Its head is touching the clouds, but its heart is very sad.”
According to Tolstoy, human suffering begins when the individual ceases to play his part in society. It is as if collectivity is the only guarantee of relief from suffering. Therefore, it is the responsibility of every person to keep family, society and the nation strong. But it is not possible for you to persuade a person to do this. Rather, it is the responsibility of the family to educate and train the child when they are born to become an active member of society
In this regard, the nation also has a responsibility to help a child when he grows up and steps into the practical field. If the family and the nation do not fulfill this responsibility, then for Tolstoy a single dirty fish will pollute the whole pond. He draws attention to the problems of large national gatherings in ‘War and Peace’, problems of small family gatherings in ‘Anna Karenina’. However, in ‘The Death of Evan Elich’ he draws attention to how a selfish person spoils the whole pond.