Whereas the foundations of Islamic civilization are moral and spiritual, those of materialistic civilization are utilitarian. The question to consider is which of the two deserves to serve as the stabilizing influence or bulwark. While analyzing this question, we may well uncover certain hidden factors working for the downfall of civilization and come upon an explanation for certain causes of turmoil in the world today.

       What do we understand by "the right," and whose prerogative is it, that of the most powerful or the most pious? Several thousand years of history teach us that civilization does not confine itself to any particular area, nor is it the monopoly of any one people. As a matter of fact, it may be compared to a commodity, like gold, circulating from hand to hand the globe over and ultimately returning to its point of origin.

      Civilization therefore belongs to no one race in particular; it benefits those who are able to sustain it until such time when, through failure to shoulder its responsibilities, they Relinquish it to others more worthy of marching forward with it. History amply testifies to the fact that no one people or race has had exclusive possession of civilization or been especially endowed with unique capacities for discernment.

      Anthropology, the science of man, refers to types of human species and, in spite of its ambiguities and limitations, differentiates between one people and another in physical terms, but it does not measure differences in mind and spirit. When attempting to establish categories on the basis of inherent and spiritual differences between peoples and thus to discover the merits of one race over another for bearing the message of civilization and culture, we must move on from true science to speculation.

        Indeed, modern anthropological studies might help us measure the intelligential capacities of certain human groups as distinct from others, but it cannot help us delineate the multiple facets of moral and spiritual traits and instincts and their manifestations. To say it another way, as a science anthropology can guide us to an understanding of certain spiritual elements which we regard of some significance in determining the merits of a race to bear the message of civilization; however, this role requires a number of varied spiritual and moral forces and a balance between such forces.

      Let us look into the racial differences existing among peoples of the world, beginning with the time when the Pharaohs raised the pyramids in witness of their far-reaching ambitions and as an expression of the civilization attained by the ancient Egyptians.
Egypt played the first and most important role in the development of civilization; it was she who taught man agriculture, building, and writing. Next came the Sumerians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Chinese, Indians, Romans, and Arabs; they were in turn followed by the nations of Europe and, in recent times, of America, all of whom added to and improved upon civilization.

      If we assume that civilization had its origins in Egypt and has reached its highest material expression in America to-day, and if we leave aside for the moment the fate of the yellow race and its influence on our part of the globe, we will be able to confine the area of the civilizations we are dealing with to Western Asia, North Africa, Europe, and America.

       Anthropologists seem to agree that what they call the Caucasian race consists of three racial subdivisions, distinguished by clearly defined physical differences, whose habitat stretches Civilization from West to East. To the extreme north we have the "Northerners" or Nordics, to the south of them the Alpines, and to the south of the latter the Mediterraneans. The Nordics are tall, blue-eyed, and long-headed; the Alpines are round- headed, and the Mediterraneans are long-headed and shorter in body than the Nordics, with black hair and dark eyes.

       There is no need to dwell upon the physical differences by which anthropologists have distinguished among these racial elements or to go into tracing their past and present, as we derive no particular assistance from these data in reconstructing ancient civilization. We possess no absolute standards of truth for the peoples who carried the torch of civilization be fore the Arabs or for the Arabs themselves. The same scientific research that has pointed to physical differences among the three elements of the so-called Caucasian race shows also that no one nation is populated uniquely with any one element. As insulated as Britain is, still she contains all three racial types, and in proportions that have no specific relation to distance from lands of origin; in the British Isles, the Mediterraneans are proportionally greater in number than are the Alpines. All that we can affirm confidently is the predominance of the physical traits of a given racial element in one nation over its other racial traits.

      Even if we were able to measure the physical differences mentioned with accuracy, we would still be far from able to measure spiritual forces and influences in any one people; nor could we obtain a better knowledge of these influences even if we were to consider them the outcome of the interaction of blood inheritances from different peoples. Consequently, we are justified in asking, whose civilization is this? Can we attribute it to any one race or deny it to any other?

       Were not ancient nations, the Pharaonic Egyptians not withstanding, like those of today, a mixture of races in which the Mediterranean predominated? What are the few thousand years about which we know a little when compared to the tens of thousands of years in human history about which we know nothing? Whether the ancient civilizations were shouldered by one of the three racial elements in the Western world or by peoples born of an intermingling of the three, there is one consideration which we cannot escape: civilization is not specifically or exclusively related to any one set of racial traits, that is, it does not necessarily either reside with or bear the stamp of a single race's characteristics. Civilization is not the product of natural hereditary forces, nor is it the rightful possession, so to speak, of the physically most powerful under any circumstances.

       With all its materialistic and cultural offshoots, civilization is a product of spiritual conditions which do not necessarily accompany the physical traits that distinguish one people from another. No matter how much effort we might put into an attempt to find evidence that certain physical traits point to certain spiritual peculiarities, we would still be far from an understanding of the mystery, for we cannot alter the truth that no set of distinct racial traits with which we are familiar possessed at any time in human history a monopoly over intelligence, knowledge, and originality. What is clear is that the spirit alone illuminates the obscurities of human life once the ground has been prepared for it. The bulwark of civilization is spirit and moral character, not materialistic force. How true Koranic law is in this respect, as revealed in the words of the Almighty:  "Lo! Allah changeth not the condition of a folk until they [first] change that which is in their hearts. . . .."1

      Even if we were to assume that spiritual traits, like physical, can be inherited, still there would be no doubt that other intangible influences shape and mold spiritual forces and that strong beliefs and ethics are what initiate and safeguard civilization.

      We are as ignorant of the nature and depth of the spirit as we are of the causes and effects, the sources and consequences of spiritual action, which prevents us from establishing scientific principles by which to distinguish among the spiritual traits of races as we do among the physical. All we are able to determine from observing and reading about the present or the past is that peoples of varying racial strains are equally ready to acquire knowledge and pursue ethical conduct, and that in general they can adopt a civilization and a culture regardless of its form or source.

     If we overlook certain limited differences based on climate and other circumstances in given situations, we are on safe ground when we speak of the complete equality of human spirits; at least, we know of no evidence to the contrary. The transmission of knowledge and initiative or of ignorance and corruption throughout the ages reflects a common and equal proclivity on the part of all men for good or evil. And if the differences we note can be considered as the result of living under varying conditions, then we can claim that they also are indicative of a common spiritual capacity; in other words, the mental resources of all men are similar.

      This suffices to negate the theory that certain physical racial traits automatically imply certain spiritual characteristics and thus give one race perpetual predominance over others. We are justified in saying that there is no indication of differences either in physical or in spiritual traits that would make a civilization a monopoly of a segment of mankind or would prevent the universal acceptance of the obligations set forth in the Islamic Shari'ah. Once this becomes clear, racial doctrines crumble, as does the principle of force qua force as a basis for civilization. For if on the other hand it could be proved that nature chooses and prepares a certain people to lead in knowledge and progress, then this people would have the right to compel others to imitate them; that is, this compulsion would be justified.

      Experience, science, and knowledge do not assure predominance to any one people. Moreover, the conduct of nations shows that they tend to utilize the forces granted them to benefit themselves at the expense of those they have temporarily defeated. The desire to become the master race does not originate from traits inherent in any one race. History has shown that defeated nations do not necessarily benefit from their conquerors; on the contrary, they can be obliterated as a result of subjugation.

     To say that might makes right is to show preference for some nations over others for no natural reason and to sanction tyranny for those capable of exercising it to wipe out the rights of the weak. This the Islamic Shari'ah vehemently rejects; the Shari'ah requires the same obligations of all before the law, trusts the most pious and beneficent, and decrees that people constitute one family with the kindest among them the favored of God.

     The faithful Messenger declares, "There is no preference for an Arab over a non-Arab except for his piety and what Allah has given him of love for human welfare and peace." The noblest is not the strongest physically or the one who possesses the largest inheritance or the most learned but rather the kindest spiritually, for the kind spirit is enshrined in piety, which prevents it from perpetrating evil and moves it to do good.

                        The Maintenance and Perpetuation of Civilization

       The bulwark of Islamic civilization is spirituality, and the proper guardians of civilization are thus the most pious and most beneficent. I have just said that men are equal, that the science of man falls short in explaining the truth concerning mental capacities and responsiveness to impulses, and that the external racial differences manifest in human beings do not render one race any more qualified than the next to create civilization or give to any one people as distinct from another a monopoly over civilization.
The history of mankind indicates that civilization is a torch passed on from age to age and shows how the nations that produced the greatest civilizations eventually fell from the apogee to the perigee of their glory.

       If we were to trace history back nation by nation over the span of five thousand years, we would discover that one unchangeable rule applies: a nation rises and falls like a stone thrown up in the air, rising to the height of its range, hovering momentarily, then falling straight to the ground. The nation that rises, however, is somewhat different from the nation that falls and disintegrates. For some of the nations that have survived seem to have left their descendants unaware of their glory, as if no ties exist between them and their forefathers!

      How can we explain the causes of the rise and fall of nations? Those who adhere to the economic interpretation of history attribute them to material factors, of which the Koran gives a more concise explanation in these words of the Al- mighty: "These are [only] the vicissitudes which We cause to follow one another for mankind . . ." 2 These men explain the rise and fall of societies in terms of matter-as the fructification or transformation of land from natural causes like rain and climate, the discovery of new routes, the invention of a tool, the output of a mine, or similar developments which enrich and increase the materialistic elements of life. They claim that these are the forces that impel a people to become civilized and to achieve progress, even as the loss of such economic forces is followed by downfall and deterioration.

       Others see the reason for the emergence of a certain nation as inherent in the race itself-in the strengths derived from its racial heritage and from intermingling with peoples of like background; out of this is born a stronger racial strain which is directed toward loftier heights and which adds growth, knowledge, and culture to the human heritage.

     These assertions alone are insufficient to explain the enigma; many a time a people has succeeded and failed, its civilization has risen and fallen, without economic conditions accounting for its appearance and disappearance. The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, who stood at the head of civilization, were the ones who planted the desert; it was not the desert that planted them. They rose and fell in a land always fertile.

      The egress of the Arabs from the peninsula and their expansion, their bridging of old and modern civilization, and their innovations in and cultivation of sciences and industries were not due to local economic reasons, even as the fall of the Arabs, the Romans, the Egyptians, and the Babylonians was not due to barren lands, changing climates, or new routes and newly discovered lands.

       Very often material deprivation was a seeming cause of emergence-a people achieved control over their surroundings and won difficult goals by crusading efforts, and in the process created mighty civilizations for the world; this was the case, for example, with the Greeks, Arabs, and Phoenicians. The resources of America and Central Africa did not produce a vigorous civilization for thousands of years, but American civilization was made by the disinherited heirs of European culture.

      Furthermore, there is no scientific proof that the integral self-perpetuation of a people, that is, their refraining from intermarriage with others, results in their deterioration- the contrary seems to apply. Indeed, it has been said that the emergence of the ancient Egyptian civilization was the result of the incursion of alien peoples, the predecessors of the Arabs, who mixed with the inhabitants of the Nile Valley to produce the ancient Egyptians who built the pyramids. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the
reinvigoration of a people is a prerequisite for their continued ascendancy.

      In sum, neither the economic nor the anthropological theory is sufficient to explain the causes for the emergence or disappearance of a civilization. Either view may throw light on a given situation, but not in all cases.

     If we want to be specific in our views, we will discover that spiritual and moral causes have always contributed substantially to the emergence or disappearance of a civilization and that ethical factors are always the determining elements among all peoples. The Koran yields numerous verses in confirmation:
 
    "Lo! Allah changeth not the condition of a folk until they [first] change that which is in their hearts" 3

       "Like Pharaoh's folk and those who were before them, they disbelieved Our revelations and so Allah seized them for their sins. And Allah is severe in punishment. " 4

     "That is because Allah never changeth grace He hath bestowed on any people until they first change that which is in their hearts . " 5

      "And if the people of the townships had believed and kept from evil, surely We should have opened for them blessings from the sky and from the earth. But [unto every messenger] they gave the lie, and so We seized them on account of what they used to earn." 6

     "And verily We have written in the Scripture, after the Reminder: My righteous slaves will inherit the earth." 7

     "Allah hath promised such of you as believe and do good work that He will surely make them to succeed [the present rulers] in the earth even as He caused those who were before them to succeed [others]; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He hath approved for them . . . . " 8
 
      "Allah coineth a similitude: a township . . . dwelt secure and  well content, its provision coming to it in abundance from every side, but it disbelieved in Allah's favors, so Allah made it experience the garb of dearth and fear because of what they used to do. 9

       "How many a community that dealt unjustly have We shattered, and raised up after them another folk! And, when they felt our might, behold them fleeing from it! [But it was said unto them:] Flee not, but return to that [existence] which emasculated you and to your dwellings, that ye may be questioned. They cried: Alas for us! Lo! we were wrongdoers. And this their crying ceased not till We made them as reaped corn, extinct. " 10

    No people went out into the world with a message of knowledge and civilization without having been prepared for it by a strong faith, a strong culture, and a strong calling; and no nation's beliefs lessen, ethical conduct deteriorates, or existence wavers without its being struck as others before it and falling as if it had never existed. True belief, sound moral conduct, and righteous laws can be compared to the power of fuel in a missile, propelling a nation forward to the extent permitted by the power and righteousness of its beliefs.

     If the general culture and customs of a people are considered as moral forces, then it is these that push a nation forward. If these elements deteriorate, a civilized nation will remain for a time in its present state and then fall to the ground, a lifeless society. History attests to the fact that the decline of every nation begins when materialism gains control over its life, leading it and replacing spiritual and moral values in predominance; in other words, when a lust for luxury replaces spiritual desire, that is the decisive point of demarcation between progress and regression.

      Some consider Western civilization as having reached this stage undeceived by the power displayed by materialistic forces; but not wealth nor knowledge nor airplanes, tanks, and cannons nor any of the instruments for the control of materialistic life can avert the defeat of civilization and the obliteration of peoples whose beliefs have shrunk, whose conduct has deviated, and whose laws have become perverted.

      Learned men do not consider brilliant mental powers as necessary for material advancement. Such advancement may continue for some time even though man may lack brilliance and proper perspective; a people may continue to prosper until the judgment of God, reserved for the over- luxurious, ends civilization:" when the earth hath taken on her ornaments and is embellished, and her people deem that they are masters of her, Our commandment cometh by night or by day and We make it as reaped corn as if it had not flourished yesterday." 11

     The coming of the commandment by night or by day refers to the element of surprise; for the decline of a civilization and the downfall of those who maintain it would not be detailed by any apparent evidence but would be subtle and difficult to perceive, as are the forces of mind and spirit that are the real and fundamental causes of the continuation or the downfall.

     It is very difficult for us to explore deeply the causes, effects, and speed of the decline and extinction of a civilization, but that does not prevent us from pointing to two factors which might be agreed upon: the life of ease, and the loss of faith.

      Once a righteous spiritual home has been prepared for a nation, it grows and advances to achieve knowledge and better itself. It produces, and things go well for it because of the faith and ethical behavior that unite it, set its course, prevent it from deviating, and preserve it from faltering and despairing. Before long, this nation finds itself enjoying the bounties of life with the niceties of material possessions within its reach. Preoccupied with such niceties and indulging in them, a nation may then begin to live for these pleasures and to compete with other nations in its lusts. The message of truth then becomes burdensome to it because of its loss of patience and the delights it finds. Next it begins to doubt the origin of its civilization, to question every aspect of its ethical heritage, and to turn its attention away from the mission of truth. Soon the traditions that bind it are lost; the forces that sustain its existence crumble; sterility begins to play havoc, and turmoil sets in. Allah now appoints as trustees over civilization other peoples who are "empty bellied," in the Prophet's phrase, and who love the truth at least as much as the materialistic love their luxurious life.

      The life of ease engenders the second cause of deterioration. The message to earlier people is simple because they master it by devoting themselves to it; but to their successors, the burdens of the message increase with the natural growth of civilization itself and its demand for greater efforts, clear-sightedness, and unceasing vigilance. The cavalry captain in the army of an early conqueror is replaced after a generation in a new empire that has attained new standards of civilization by the commander of an army, the manager of an industry controlling tens of thousands of workers, and the director of a bank handling billions in currency.

     At such a juncture, civilization requires from its partisans unoccupied hearts, pure minds, and healthy bodies, as its load has become heavier. But in the meantime, the life of pleasure will have deprived men of their reason; delight will have put an end to simplicity, for "Allah hath created not two hearts in the hollow of man." 12 The new generations become incapable of assuming the burden of the culture originated by their ancestors, lose their faith, and collapse, stripped of their spirit, victims of their own crooked ways. In their ascendancy, the forefathers were martyrs to truth, virtue, and chivalrous action; they met death with some satisfaction. They will be remembered with gratitude while their descendants, who loved material things, will be forgotten.

       There is no doubt that righteous belief clothed in piety is the primary force that builds a civilization; the loss of righteous belief presages civilization's doom. Furthermore, the faith that rests on a set of beliefs suitable for progress engenders and gives power to righteous laws and ethical behavior. These are the forces that organize civilization and are the prelude to the decisive phase of a civilization's growth. The ordinances of Allah are based on the assumption that man's soul delights in possessions, in success, and in the benefits and niceties of the earth; if these are prepared for man, then he is relieved of the necessity of striving for them, an effort which in turn tends to render him iniquitous and to lead him to the fate of former like-minded nations.

     It is a cause of grief that we should behold in the world today a foreshadowing of God's pending judgment. There is no evidence that much piety exists either among Muslim nations, considered regressive, or among the Christians and Jews, who are regarded as progressive. Beliefs seem to have deteriorated and beneficence to have departed; love of this world's goods has prevailed, and ingratitude has arisen everywhere. Has the promise of God approached? We pray to God to entrust the care of civilization to "empty-bellied people" who love the right as those who claim to be civilized love possessions and wealth-to a people who would inherit civilization, add knowledge to it, progress with it, and restore to this world the intelligence and faith of which it has been deprived.

     Those who inquire will find in the Message of Muhammad what the pioneers found: spirituality, enlightenment, piety, and guidance. Indeed, they will discover the guidance which the Qurayshis once derided, saying, "If we were to follow the right path with thee [Muhammad], we should be torn out of our land." 13  But when the Qurayshis followed Muhammad, they were seized and dispersed from their land not for a servile life but for their honor and glory in the world!

       Let us endeavor as best we can to discover those bases which we consider appropriate for a new order acceptable to individuals, communities, and nations alike. In so doing, we shall avoid opinionated declarations made by spokesmen the world over, and we shall seek to free ourselves from the biases of others regarding any one creed. Should we succeed, it would be all to the better; should we fail, then it is hoped that our efforts in the search for truth and guidance will lead to similar attempts in the future.

     We must be willing to eschew those theories which some time ago were looked upon as realities but which through the evolution of social life and the rapid increase in the speed of communication have become damaging to the course of civilization. There is no doubt that the world is going through a trial the like of which has not been seen before; from our knowledge of history, we do not know of any thing similar to the events that have astounded the modern world in one generation. The Tartar raids, still referred to as catastrophes, are unworthy of mention in comparison with the widespread destruction and killing wrought by air weapons and the mass extermination made possible through the misuse of modern knowledge. It is urgent, therefore, that we seek a new order for this world to rescue it from down fall and ruin.

      What will the nature of this order be? This is a problem that interests people everywhere. If we approach the subject as would a doctor searching for the cause of an illness, we may hit upon a method of diagnosis and cure.

       The first question that comes to mind is why our modern civilization is accompanied by such prevalent evil, regard less of man's advances in science and general knowledge.

      A striking element of modern civilization is speed. Let us examine this for a moment. How many centuries did man spend in learning how to use animals as means of transportation? How many additional centuries lapsed before he discovered the wheel so that an animal could move it, and before he used a sail on a boat and made use of the wind? And during all these centuries, to what extent did the speed of his movement increase? When we compare that progress with the utilization of steam in trains and ships, we realize the startling suddenness with which our present civilization leaped forward a century and a half ago. if we add to that the harnessing of electricity, the invention of telegraphic and wireless communication, and the domination of the skies by airplanes, and if we examine the increase in the speed of movement during the past twenty years, we will also gain some notion of what the difference will be between the civilization of this generation and the next. The maximum speed of man's movement in most countries two hundred years ago was some hundred miles a day, while it is possible today to far surpass the speed of sound; and we may safely postulate that man's travel speed will continue to increase by leaps and bounds. 14

      If speed is a distinguishing criterion, then the difference between the speeds achieved in our age and in that of our forefathers will be the standard by which we measure civilization. And even as steam separated the old from the modern world, so will electronics and ever-increasing speeds separate the next age from our own.

      It is the misfortune of my generation that, serving as the link between these two worlds as it does, it should have to sacrifice its customs to such cruel changes. Accordingly, are we members of this generation actually qualified to bequeath a world order to our successors? The order that would satisfy our successors might be as different as ours has been from the thinking of the pre-steam era! From another point of view, men are still in ignorance of themselves, unable to penetrate the realities of their bodies and souls and hardly able to master their mental and spiritual forces; it will always be difficult for a given generation to establish an order for a world that is not of its making, for man is but an animal endowed with enough strength to allow him freedom of action within a limited sphere only.

       The world has pursued a singularly uniform path for thousands of years. Civilization has advanced slowly and moved on slowly from one land to another, and it took hundreds of years to degenerate among one people and centuries more before it flourished anew among another. Within the range of its capacity, human intelligence was able to keep pace with and guide civilization to a considerable extent; but when the powers of modern science exploded suddenly, the earth quaked and threw out from its depths all sorts of new things. Man, struck with awe, was overwhelmed, and wanted to understand what was happening.

      In a few generations, the countenance of this civilization has changed; the old and the new hardly recognize each other. By way of example, let us look at a village chieftain in the vicinity of Thebes in Upper Egypt. This man still lives as his forefathers lived in ancient times. During the early part of this century, he sent his son to America to be educated; the son married and returned with his family to his village. There he found his father live, plowing his land with a plow used in the days of the Pharaohs, living in a dwelling in the style of those of the Hyksos, and thinking as men thought in the days of Khufu. Unquestionably, son and father did not recognize each other when they met again; it was as if the son had descended on his father from another planet. They were unable to live with each other or to co- operate.

      Let us assume that during the hour of meeting Allah resurrected one of the former inhabitants of Thebes, say, the head of the village during the days of the Ramses, an ancestor who was made to witness the family celebration over the son's return from America. Would citizens find the present chieftain closer to the head of the village resurrected from his grave after almost three thousand years or to the son born in the twentieth century and absent for less than thirty years?

      Those present at the celebration would find the father closer to the ancestor, to his mentality and mode of living, than to the son born in their midst and just returned from the New World.

     Thirty years succeeded in altering the pattern of one family where thirty centuries had failed to do so .This enormous change has occurred not only in Egypt but through the en tire world. Like an earthquake, one century has so changed the surface of the earth and has so widened the gap between us and the past that we appear to have been transplanted to another planet.

      Can it be said that we who are the victims of this sudden change, who have dominated the machine and have been dominated by it, who have directed it toward the unknown and have been transported by it to greater unknowns, are actually capable of propounding a new order for the future? Were we to believe so, then we should receive the reward of our pretensions. It may prove more beneficial and sensible for us to be satisfied with a negative approach to a new order-to refrain completely from using the forces we control for destruction and ruin and from multiplying those conditions which have agitated our entire existence. In essence, our objective in what we call the "new order" should be to minimize the troubles attending our age of change.

      We were witnesses to World War I, and we heard and grew excited over proposals of new principles of organization for the world; then we witnessed the greater conflagration of World War II and listened to more inspiring talk. But does there appear to be much difference between the mentality that supervised the instruments of destruction during the four years 1914-1918 and the mentality that supervised them for the more than four years 1939-1945? It is indeed the same handicapped mind, captive of the past and the present, enmeshed in the machine, in matter, in transportation, in communication, and in ever increasing speed, which have staggered it and caused it to bend under the weight it has borne.

      In our youth, we listened to discussions concerning a new world order with great enthusiasm; but when we hear about such plans today, we are more skeptical and fearful because of the deceptions and failures they reveal.

      The past civilization of man progressed in slow evolution through hundreds of centuries, thus enabling the human mind to digest it; it will take more time than we have yet had for the human mind to digest modern civilization.

      I have little confidence that the world's leaders are able enough and the common man mature enough to bear the huge and renewed responsibilities of our day, but I have great faith in that transcendent power which directs this world! For in nature all our hopes may be realized. Man was born with sufficient strength to recover from shock, and he possesses the ingenuity, competence, and adaptability needed to guarantee the survival of the species and the continuation of its progress. Through fearful and harsh trials and through his instinctive drive for survival, man will discover a suitable and renewable world order which will keep pace with the era of the machine, the era of ever-increasing speed. I say a suitable and renewable order because it does not appear sensible in any way to attempt to dictate a perfect and stable order which would not admit of change, for by their very nature all forms, situations, and innovations bear the seeds of change, decay, and obliteration.

      Most of the catastrophes besetting man are the result of presumption and ignorance; and most of the evils that befall him redound from his own hostility and provocative
pretensions.

       Were we to attempt to endow the world with an exemplary order and ignore the love of recognition, power, and exaltation deeply entrenched in the human ego, we would be at tempting to cap a bursting volcano of uncontrollable instincts. Every proposed order that is not built on the requirements of human nature will therefore be destroyed by human nature itself, for it is the way of man to upset every exemplary order and to form it anew if this order is not to become intolerable in his eyes.

      Nothing bears out this assertion more clearly than the history of the systems of thought and the religions that have preached a noble ideology. Take, for example, the cases of Christianity and communism, separated by two thousand years: what has the primitive animal instinct of man done to them? Has not each sought to propound a noble, exemplary order? What has remained of high example in them? Only long historical sufferings!
In the name of Christianity and for the sake of Christianity, which forbids war, more blood has been shed than for any other message in the history of mankind. Moreover, the European Continent, which is the seat of Christianity, has been the vortex of wars and destruction throughout the last thousand years. What has become of the noble, merciful, and humble inheritance of Christ? Has it not been desecrated by man's instinct for domination, suppression, and self-exaltation? Is it not used to satisfy the low desires of human nature?

      As regards communism, its message is not new to this world; in many respects it is an ideological sister of the Persian Mazdakite program, which ruined Persia in the past. In the name of communism, more blood has been spilled than was shed by barbarians for loot in previous ages. What remains of communism?

      It would seem, therefore, that the exemplary or perfect order is to remain a dream for this world because human nature rejects it. Is it desirable for us to insist on searching for it? Or is it not preferable to remain content with an order that suits this world, that would serve nations and groups in the way common law serves individuals, that would limit the reaches of evil, perpetuate peace, circumscribe the harmfulness of war, and direct human instincts into acceptable channels which would satisfy temporary needs without recourse to hostility? Such an order should insure a better living for all, and should be sustained by common interests involving the individual, the community, and the nation in a world which, through the new means of transportation, has become one.

       In other words, the new order would encompass a set of regulations that are universally applicable, and would acquire in time the force of tradition and common law; it would thus become acceptable to all people, and would be observed throughout the world.

                                                   Duty Before Right

      Before World War I, as in the years since, many of the world's serious thinkers tried to formulate an order acceptable to man, an order that would spare him the misery and pains brought about by the causes of world turmoil that I have previously discussed.

      One of the many organizations concerned with this task was a group of noteworthy men from London publicized by the well-known writer H. G. Wells. After debating and corresponding at length, the group presented a program which enunciated the rights of man, and proposed that this program become a constitution for the world in the postwar era.

      The constitution consisted of eleven articles which, in the opinion of the group, embodied the rights of man, and asserted that these rights should not be contradicted by any existing law, constitution, or local custom of tribe or nation; for this constitution was to be the fundamental law which would abrogate every law that disagreed with it.

     The most important of these articles dealt with the sanctity of property, the right to education, freedom of belief, personal freedom, the right to work, and the right of the weak to protection from the community.

      The group sent the program to two of the great thinkers of the East, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, seeking their advice. Their responses were very different.
 
     Gandhi answered by first making a question: what were the practical results of declaring such rights, and who would watch over them and safeguard them? He suggested that the group had begun at the wrong end of the problem, that what the world needed rather was a conviction concerning human duties. This reply provoked Wells's anger, and the latter unleashed a shameful attack on the great leader for having refused to cooperate because of his passive faith, accusing him of retrogression and lack of appreciation of the necessities of the age.

      But did Wells do justice to Gandhi? Does his response not deserve consideration and reflection?

     As for Jawaharlal Nehru, his answer pleased Wells, who considered it practical and worthy of concerted attention, although he disagreed with him over a few minor issues. Nehru declared that, like the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing war, the proposed declaration might end in nothing because it did not incorporate specific methods for its realization. He said that the blame for the sufferings of the world of our time could be laid to the corruption of its imperialistic and capitalistic political and economic system, and that the system had to be altered before men could enjoy the rights outlined in the declaration. A new world based on socialism was the answer, in Nehru's view, to the problem of assuring all men their basic rights and liberties.

     I would agree that the rights of man have been frequently declared and as often violated; but I would depart sharply from Nehru's standpoint and cleave to Gandhi's in this: that as long as men of power are not motivated by ethical conduct, laws, and conscience-by the perception of their duties-the rights of man will remain in their present state: impossible of realization.

     It is proper that we try a new system of ethical conduct and a new approach, with a new order based on duty; instead of attempting to equate people on the basis of rights, we should make duty the basis of equality-perhaps that would be more effective in repelling aggression and more conducive to respect for the rights of others.

     If through training we can accustom people to honoring the person who fulfills his duty rather than the one who demands his rights, we might succeed in making duty the source of ethical and social relations and thereby initiate a new order for a better world. For the training which focuses on duty as the goal of the refined human being leads to a form of respect for the rights of others which is more protective and beneficial than the employment of force in establishing and safeguarding those rights. Such training is more in conformity with the history of human reform inasmuch as it has always been the method of prophets and reformers. It would not be difficult to return to this method or to create a new attitude that dwells on praising those who fulfill their duty toward the rest of mankind.

     Prophets have forbidden killing, stealing, betraying, and deceiving, and have expounded upon the importance of one's duties to others, not one's rights. Should we become accustomed to denying ourselves that which is harmful to others and make our example universal, we would be taking a positive and decisive step in the direction of establishing a new order, although on the surface this might appear to constitute a negative message.

    By way of example, let us suppose that men were trained not to make distinctions between killing and warring because duty obliges the cultured and self-respecting man to refrain from depriving others of their lives when no crime has been committed and no law has been trespassed upon. This training could dissuade people from warring; the duty of the soldier fighting in a legitimate war would be regarded in the same light as the duty of the executioner is regarded by the public almost everywhere. Such training, and the ethics and law it would engender, would be more effective in preventing wars than all the pacts and charters mankind might draw up.

     Transforming the human concept of life is indeed a strenuous task, but then have not many views changed completely in a generation or two? Why should it not be possible to create, through proper upbringing and training, fundamental universal customs based on a respect for duty in all situations and circumstances? Perhaps it is feasible to direct those human instincts which we regard as sources of corruption to- ward the realization of pride in the fulfillment of duty.

      Man boasts when he saves someone from drowning or exposes himself to danger in extinguishing a fire. Now, if he could accustom himself to regarding nonviolence and self sacrifice - even martyrdom-in duty as deeds deserving the highest awards of society and as constituting perfect heroism, he would be employing his instincts for self-exaltation and boastfulness in the service of the general welfare.

      Why not immortalize the memory of those who have displayed virtue in fulfilling their duty rather than the memory of those who have exhibited their power in devouring and destroying others? To teach what constitutes duty and to sanctify it would be to erect and immortalize the citadel of the right. Thus, we would attain to reform through our natural disposition and refrain from disturbing such a disposition as we direct it toward the maintenance of the new order. It is difficult to believe that any member of my generation who has witnessed two world wars and who concedes that it is possible to achieve a new world order worthy of perpetuation would not advocate that war be completely outlawed. Can there be a way to this end more righteous than the way of the prophets-the abolition of crime through instruction in the precepts of duty?

      Why not teach people, therefore, to loathe war as they loathe murder? Is it possible to guarantee peace by disarming nations or by appointing certain armed nations as custodians of peace? What is there to prevent the armed custodians from warring against each other in a greedy desire to devour their charge if they do not have the self-discipline that ethical training based on the sanctity of duty instills? Such training is not impossible, nor are its fruits undependable; in the early times of man's experience he had considerable pride in his self-control and self-restraint. The history of human virtue is a long one, attending man in every generation, and the self-denial contingent on such virtue was acquired by man through social custom and religion. It became part of man's instinctive behavior because the instincts that serve human virtue are the same as those that suit man's sense of aggressiveness.

     When men take pride in being generous, they are satisfying their instinct to excel by expending and giving; but when they pride themselves on their material acquisitions, they are exercising the same innate power with selfishness and egotism.

      If, for example, we were to teach our children that their pleasure and self-admiration should not depend on donning new clothes on a holiday when the children of their cousins and neighbors cannot do the same, accustoming them to take pride rather in voluntarily refraining from putting them on as a form of self-respect, then the instinctive love for ostentation would be trained to satisfy its ends through restraint and would discover its fulfillment in duty.

     This would not be a new experience in the annals of mankind as it would conform with the spirit of the religions that have dominated man's history.

     Any natural disposition of man is universal, but its manifestations are many and various inasmuch as the human ego is shaped according to precepts of training and particular customs that aim at appeasing man's secret drives. There is no denying the fact that those who purport to organize the world should always have the natural instincts in mind. The way of the prophets, who directed instincts in a manner satisfactory to the standards of virtue and the common welfare, is the righteous way. If today, instead of announcing the rights of man, we enunciated his duties and clothed these duties in robes of honor and sanctity, we might succeed in arriving at a new order of righteousness. Let the law and customs fundamental for this order define the duties of man toward members of his household, his neighbors, and his country, toward his own kind and other beings. This practice may prove more enduring and more stable for future generations.