Freedom and Constraint
Al-Risala (English), January 1986, p. 21
By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is named as the default author of the periodical; a piece that carries another writer’s byline is credited to that writer.
Freedom and Constraint
1986 1 January 21-22 Freedom and Constraint (472) On page 35 of the American ‘Newsweek’ (21 January, 1985) there is a photograph of a procession of American women whose leader is holding aloft a placard bearing in bold lettering the legend:
“Keep your laws and your morality off my body.”
The accompanying article explains that on the issue of abortions, American have divided themselves into two opposing groups, the ‘Pro-choice’ group being in favour of abortion without any restrictions whatsoever, while the ‘Pro-life’ group are entirely against this. For the former group, freedom, individual liberty is what matters.
Modern Western thinkers believe freedom to be their greatest asset. But actual experience of limitless freedom has not in any way demonstrated that it is the highest goal. Had absolute freedom been so, it would not ever have been possible for people to go to such horrible extremes, the above incident being a case in point.
There is no disputing the fact that freedom as a quality of life, is something extremely precious. In certain circumstances, for example, when a nation is suffering the oppression of an invader, or a minority community is suffering from the insensitivity of the majority, or one class of society is abominably restricted by the classes above it in the social hierarchy, the most valued aspect of one’s existence is obviously freedom. But in one’s everyday life, when such states of affairs do not prevail and justice is available to everyone, freedom takes on a new dimensions.
It is at the core of our existence, yet provides no guidelines for human conduct. It is something which affords limitless choices of our course of action. The good, the bad and the indifferent can all do as they please. Life then becomes an ethical jungle in which only fittest – or most maleficent – will survive. What, then, is best for the normal human individual living in society? Experience has taught us that a state of limited freedom is the only viable condition in which humans can attempt to live together.
Restrictions which are benevolent in intention can of course, be devised by the human intellect on the basis of trial and error, but ideally, the true inspiration for just and equitable societal living comes from God. In the eyes of God, no man is free. Every single human creature is subservient to Him and must prostrate himself before Him. The feeling of constraint thus engendered silutes his sense of freedom to an acceptable degree, so that his behaviour never becomes inconsiderate, oppressive or criminal. It then becomes clear that the desire for absolute freedom is something which should be suppressed or dismissed as being outrageous in terms of community living, and as being unworthy if anyone aspiring to be a servant of God. For it is only when freedom is limited that it can be put to a proper use.
