Lexical & Connotative meaning of the word Revolution

Lexical and connotative meaning of the word Revolution

After this introductory discussion, it is essential for us to understand what the term revolution means. In the literal sense it means change. Hence we can use this term in conjunction with any other word for instance educational revolution, cultural revolution, scientific revolution, military revolution. But when it comes to the general and broad meaning of the word Revolution, there is absolutely no margin for such limited application. Rather, connotatively it refers to a fundamental change in the political, economic and social system of a country.

In today's world human life is generally considered to be divided into two spheres. One of these spheres pertains to the individual life of the person whereas the second sphere encapsulates the collective matters. Amongst these the first mentioned is the sphere of religion which consists of metaphysical beliefs or dogmas, rituals and social customs. Today an individual is considered free to follow his will in these matters the world over. Hence a person has the freedom to have whatever dogmas he wishes to entertain: whether he wishes to worship one God or a hundred or a thousand or adopt atheism or to perform whatever religious rituals he wishes to perform. He is free if he wishes to become an ascetic, or prostrate before statues or worship one unseen God. He has total freedom to follow whatever religious rituals he wishes to. He can fast, offer prayer, go to a temple or church. Likewise he has the freedom to perform social customs. He can either get married by contracting a Nikah (Muslim marriage) or perform 'phairay' (Hindu marriage). A person who has died can either be buried or burnt on the pyre in accordance with his belief and wish.

The second sphere pertains to civilization, culture, state and politics that pertains to the social system which is comprised of the Politico-Socio-Economic system. It has nothing to do with the religious sphere of life. This is called secularism. It should be clear that secularism does not mean irreligiosity but it is multi-religiousness based on the rule of 'ladeenyat' (all faiths at the level of religion, but no 'deen'). In secularism all religions are acceptable. Even George W. Bush says that "We are ready to tolerate Islam", Islam as a religion is perfectly acceptable to them and they have no objection to it. They say that the Muslims in America bought Churches and Synagogues and converted them into mosques and that they never objected. The Muslims converted a large number of Afro- Americans and quite a few Whites to Islam and they never objected for the simple reason that they have no conflict with Islam as a religion. But it is Islam as a way of life that they cannot allow to flourish. It is this facet of Islam that they term fundamentalism and since the methodology adopted by some fundamentalists has been given the label of Terrorism therefore they equate Fundamentalism with Terrorism. Hence sometime they speak of a "War against Terrorism" and at other times they speak of a "War against Fundamentalism". In reality this is a war against Islam as a 'deen' or way of life and not against the dogmas, Ibadaat (prayers) and social rituals of Islam.

In modern terminology the term Revolution refers to change in the second sphere i.e. the social or corporate system. The greatest change in the field of religion cannot be termed a revolution. This is a very important point, kindly do understand this very clearly. The greatest religious change in the history of mankind was brought about in the year 300 C.E. when the Emperor of Rome Constantine the Great adopted Christianity and thereby all his subjects did too. Never had such a mass conversion taken place in religious history. When this event occurred the Roman Empire was spread over 3 continents; the whole of North Africa, Eastern Europe and Western Asia always have praise for you but true praise is the praise coming from an enemy's tongue. If Richard the Lion- Hearted praised Salahuddin Ayubi it was so because Salahuddin Ayubi was truly a great personality. M.N. Roy, a Bengali Hindu and member of the International Communist Organization delivered a lecture in Bradlaugh Hall, Lahore in 1920 C.E on the topic of "The Historical Role of Islam" and said that there was absolutely no doubt that the greatest revolution in the history of mankind was the one brought about by the Prophet (SAW). It is to be kept in mind that he was not a follower of Islam; in fact he was a Bengali Hindu and a leading communist but he acknowledges this fact openly and in unambiguous words.

This was in 1920 C.E that is 20 years after the beginning of the century. Let us now come to 1980 C.E, 20 years before the end of the century; Dr. Michael Hart wrote the book "The 100" in which he has selected and graded the 100 most influential people in the 5000 year known history of mankind because they played a pivotal role in turning the tide of human civilization. In this gradation he has placed the Prophet (SAW) at number one. Dr. Michael Hart is a Christian by religion and, according to my information, is alive and residing in Manhattan. His book widely spread in the world but very soon after publication it became very rare and the general opinion is that the disappearance of the book was due to a conspiracy because he placed Jesus Christ, whom the Christians consider to be God's only son, at number three whereas he placed Prophet Muhammad at number ONE. This was something that was not acceptable or palatable to the Christian world. He writes (the opening sentence): 

"MY CHOICE OF MUHAMMAD (SAW) TO LEAD THE LIST OF THE WORLD'S MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS MAY SURPRISE SOME READERS AND MAY BE QUESTIONED BY OTHERS, BUT HE WAS THE ONLY IN HISTORY WHO WAS SUPREMELY SUCCESSFUL ON BOTH THE RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR LEVELS."

And concluded the biography with the words:

"IT IS THIS UNPARALLELED COMBINATION OF SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE WHICH I FEEL ENTITLES MUHAMMAD TO BE CONSIDERED THE MOST INFLUENTIAL SINGLE FIGURE IN HUMAN HISTORY."

According to Dr. Michael Hart human life can be divided into two distinct and disparate spheres. One sphere is that of religion, morality and spirituality whereas the other comprises the aspects of culture, civilization, politics and sociology and according to his candid assessment, the only person supremely successful in both these spheres is the Prophet (SAW). Generally people who are believed to be great are considered so due to their unsurpassed performance in any one field or facet of life. Gautama Buddha is known for his piety and self mortification. In terms of moral uplift and sermonizing Jesus Christ is unsurpassed but he has made no contribution in the domain of governance or politics. In terms of conquests and war adventures Alexander the Great is unsurpassed, so are Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Akbar the Great and many other great conquerors. But did they have any position in the fields of religion, morals or spirituality? One cannot even give them a zero, rather we would have to resort to negative marking. In the entire history of mankind there is only one man who is most successful and unsurpassed in both these spheres and that is the Prophet of Islam Muhammad(SAW).

The third testimony from amongst the testimonies of non-Muslims which I usually quote is that of H.G Wells. But the text that I quote from his book for this purpose has been removed from the latest editions of his work 'A Concise History of the World'. Truly no greater tribute could be paid by an enemy because H.G. Wells was actually a staunch opponent and enemy of Islam. He has made more vitriolic and more vile remarks about the holy person of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) than those made by Salman Rushdie and Tasleema Nasreen two unfortunate born Muslims. But when he refers to the following quote from the Last Sermon of the Prophet (SAW) he is forced to admit and bow down to pay tribute to the greatness of the Prophet (SAW). In the Last Pilgrimage Sermon the Prophet (SAW) said: 

"O people! Truly there is only one God and you are all the offspring of Adam (AS). Beware! no Arab is superior to a non-Arab and no non-Arab is superior to an Arab. Neither is a white man superior to a black man nor is a black man superior to a white man. True superiority is due only to a God-fearing person.” 

Even though H.G. Wells is a Christian but after quoting from the Last Sermon he is forced to admit that "Even though there have been a lot of sermons given on human fraternity, equality and freedom and we find a great number of such sermons by Jesus of Nazareth yet we have no option but to accept that it was only Muhammad (SAW) who for the first time in the entire history of mankind was able to create a society on the basis of the lofty principles outlined in his sermons"

Hence even the testimony of the enemies of Islam and non-Muslims points to the ultimate verdict and proves that the greatest revolution in the history of mankind was the one brought about by the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). If one were to compare the Revolution brought about by the Prophet (SAW) to the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution one can see that in the French Revolution only the political system was changed and in the Bolshevik Revolution only the economic system underwent a change — but in the Revolution of the Prophet (SAW) everything changed — religion, beliefs, rituals, the political system, the economic system, the social life. Nothing remained as it had been. I invite you to find a single aspect of life that was not affected and changed. 

A nation where literate people could be easily counted on one's fingers was transformed by the revolution of the Prophet (SAW) into the world leaders in the field of knowledge and sciences. The Arabs discovered new fields of knowledge, procured knowledge from all over the world from India to Greece, developed it further and placed it before the world. All the above mentioned points prove that the most comprehensive, the most deep and the most profound revolution was the revolution of the Prophet (SAW). No other revolution can stand up to it in comparison. All other revolutions were partial. In all other revolutions you can see that the visionaries of the revolution and the thinkers were a separate group of people and those who actually brought about the revolution were another group. The book Das Capital was written by Marx and Angels in Germany and England but the Marxist Revolution did not occur in any part of Germany or England. It was in another distant place, in Russia, that a revolution based on the revolutionary ideas outlined in Das Capital was brought about by the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and it so happened that Lenin appeared on the scene at the right time. Neither Marx nor Angels had any role in bringing about this revolution. Hence the visionaries and thinkers of the revolution were not the ones to bring about the revolution and vice versa. Similarly, it was men of letters like Voltaire and Roseau who imparted a vision, the thought of liberty, freedom and democracy but they too were just intellectuals and desk workers; they could only write books not lead men in the field. Hence it was the dissolute part of the population that brought about the revolution in France. This is the reason why the French Revolution was such a bloody revolution. There was nobody to control it and a mob can get away with anything that it does.

Now in contrast, let us look at the revolution brought about by the Prophet (SAW) which from the beginning to the end was masterminded only under the leadership of one person. Here we see the Prophet (SAW) simultaneously preaching in the streets of Makkah, going from one street to the other inviting people to enter the fold of Islam and preaching the fundamental tenets of Islam. Some people would call him mad and some would call him a poet. The Prophet (SAW) was tolerating all this. The Prophet (SAW) never turned around and called them mad. But then you have seen the same person leading his men in the battlefield in the Battle of Badr. Is there any comparable precedent and example in history? I will once again repeat the words of Dr. Michael Hart that "He is the only, the only, the only person". We see him changing from a person going from street to street inviting people to accept a new religion to the role of a commander of an army in the battlefield. Is there any relation between these two or are they poles apart and contradictory?

In this regard, kindly note a very important point. Toynbee, a British philosopher of history in the past century has made a statement steeped in poison about the Prophet (SAW) that "Muhammad failed as a prophet, but succeeded as a statesman". As an elucidation of Toynbee’s statement, Professor Dr. Montgomery Watts wrote two books: Muhammad at Mecca and Muhammad at Medina. In Muhammad at Medina he has seemingly used all possible laudatory words in the superlative degree to describe the person and character of the Prophet (SAW). But in fact he has tried to highlight a contrast that Muhammad (SAW) of Makkah was an embodiment of peace and compassion where as Muhammad (SAW) of Madina was quite different. Taken in by these apparently laudatory words the late President Zia-ul-Haq invited Montgomery Watt as the chief speaker to the Central Seerah Conference in 1983 C.E. He had absolutely no idea in what a cunning and conniving manner he had tried to show a contrast in the seerah of the Prophet (SAW) and that these two Muhammads (SAW) are different from one another. Their attitudes and policies are totally different and at odds with each other.

Even though these writers and scholars do not believe that the Prophet (SAW) is a messenger of God, when they see the life of the Prophet (SAW) in Makkah they do accept that his life does bear some resemblance to the life of prophets. The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) appears like Jesus Christ who traveled and preached and the Prophet (SAW) just like Jesus Christ tolerated everything that anybody said and did not retaliate at all. Hence for them this presents a pattern somewhat similar to that of Prophets in which according to them the Prophet (SAW) failed (God forbid). According to their perception the Prophet had to flee from Makkah in order to save his life. They term Hijrah a "flight". Whereas flight usually is due to fear, Hijrah was not due to fear but it was a strategy the aim of which was to search for an alternative base. Anyway these orientlists see a totally different and new Prophet Muhammad settled in Madina, one who is a wise and sagacious politician, who is the ruler of a state and the commander of an army. Here we see the Prophet entering into treaties with the Jews. Here the marvels of his sagacity, statesmanship and acute political vision become visible. For them this is the split or contradiction in the life of the Prophet (SAW).

I am referring to all this because the Holy Prophet's life truly represents a contrast in the sense that he not only initiated a revolutionary message but also successfully saw it through to its final stage. Among the revolutions of the world no other revolution reached its culmination within the life span of one individual. In fact, the thinkers and visionaries were long dead and gone and it was much later when their thoughts and visions started burgeoning and on the basis of these a revolution would come about somewhere. Whereas the revolution of the Prophet (SAW) is unique and unsurpassed in that within the life span of one individual, in a duration of 23 years, all the stages A-Z of a revolution were accomplished.

From all this I derive the conclusion that today if a student of Social Sciences i.e. Sociology or Political Science with all sincerity wishes to derive the correct methodology of bringing about a revolution, he can get complete guidance only from the life of the Prophet (SAW). The lives of Marx, Angels, Lenin or Voltaire can provide absolutely no guidance in this regard. This in effect means that for the entire world there is only one source for the methodology of a revolution and that is the life of the Prophet (SAW). Hence my source for whatever I am saying about the methodology of revolution is only the biography of the Prophet (SAW). Without using the Islamic terms like Deen (way of life), Islam, Iman (belief), Jihad (strife) and Qital (armed combat) I would like to acquaint you with the stages of Revolution. The reason for this being that during the period of our decline these terms have acquired limited and distorted meanings and whenever we use any of these terms it is these limited and distorted meanings that come to mind. Hence if we are to avoid these terms and in their stead use modern terminology it will be easier to understand an outline or blue print of what a revolution is? It will be appropriate later on to add to this sketch the parallels from the terminology of Quran and Hadith, the Seerat-un-Nabi (life of the Prophet (SAW)) and the events described therein .

Source: The Prophet's Strategy for Islamic Revolution

To be continued ....