|
 |
 |
Kismat & Muqaddar
| I’ve
been thinking for a long time that both ‘kismet’
and ‘muqaddar’ are two names of a same thing,
but later I found a difference and relation in both the
terms. I’ve asked my friends about this difference,
and they replied with variety of interesting views, which
I’ll share later. |
| "
‘Kismet’ and ‘Muqaddar’ are two
different things but they are related to each other in
some contexts, and success or failure of one’s aims
and strategies depends on this relationship at a great
extent."
|
|
The debate started with the point that if ‘kismet’
and muqaddar’ are the names of same thing then why it
is said that ‘kismet is made by an individual’ (insaan
apni kismet khud banata hai) and ‘muqaddar can’t
be changed’ (muqaddar ka likha koi nahi mita sakta). This
made us all to think about the difference of both the terms,
and everyone has come up with some really good points. This
difference of ‘kismet’ and ‘muqaddar’
can be in variety of dimentions. I tried to relate both the
terms in some systematic way. And here goes my explanation.
In my opinion ‘kismet’ is something combination
of ‘hardwork’ and ‘opportunity’. It
is all about how well you manage a particular situation, how
well you organize different activities of life and how effectively
you order or arrange patterns and schedules along with constructive
ideas and activites. For example ‘A’ appeared in
exam and scored good marks. A’s success can be termed
as his ‘kismet’ here which he made himself by availing
an opportunity (appearing in exam) and hardwork. In case if
A would have missed any of these two components, he won’t
have scored high score and hence couldn’t have made ‘kismet’,
for instance he won’t have scored high score if he had
not appeared in the exam but worked hard or if he had not worked
hard but appeared in exam.
On the other hand ‘muqaddar’ is series of ‘kismet’
combined with some predetermined routines or schedules, i.e.
birth, death etc. These routines and schedules are divine in
nature and are difficult to change. For example one cannot edit
his birth or death time, but between these two ends (birth and
death) he can have access to perform activities in his desired
way (but not always *). ‘Muqaddar’ in my opinion
is a complete schedule of one’s activities during his
life span, and these activities are scheduled by the creator.
Point is to be noted here that only activities are scheduled
by the creator, not the way of performing them, as Allah SWT
has blessed humans with ‘wisdom’ and allowed them
to select the way of their own choice to perform those predetermined
activities. For example a crises comes in one’s life (may
be as a result of his own deeds or may be as a result of some
unknown factors), it may be considerd as predetermined, but
strategies one will use to come out of this crises are not predetermined,
these strategies depend completely on that individual. In a
nut shell, opportunities and crises are smaller parts of one’s
life, and by handling all these at individual level he makes
his ‘kismet’ and the sum total of these opportunities
and crises of one’s life is his ‘muqaddar’.
I’m of the opinion that if one can bring a change in ‘kismet’,
he can bring change in ‘muqaddar’ (to some extent)
as well. Here Muskan asked me that how can ‘muqaddar be
changed, while one’s birth, death and ‘rizq’
are predetermined. As far as birth and death are concerned I
agree but for rizq I’ve a little disagreement. I’d
like to quote some text of my readings of some good times when
I used to read about historical events. I’ve two different
stories in my mind and I’ll just summarize them. First
one is about a labrour in the times of Hazrat Mosa A.S and Pharaoh.
Pharaoh used to be very cruel with labourers. Labourers used
to have very less wages and most of the time their wages were
stopped for unknown reasons as well, in this situation it was
very difficult for them to have food atleast once in a day.
And most of the time they used to have food after two or three
days. There was one labourer (I don’t remember his name)
among all who was in worse condition, he had four children,
and a wife. He never had a tummy full of food. Once his neighbour
was having very good meal but he and his children were hungry
more than ever before, so he asked his neighbour for some food
but he hid fearing that may be he won’t have anything
to eat on the next day. One day the man asked Hazrat Mosa to
ask his God that why he’s having so much scaracity of
food throughout his life. Mosa asked God and replied to the
man with God’s answer that ‘it’s written in
his muqaddar that he’ll have very less to eat throughout
his life’. The man then asked Mosa to request God to give
the whole food of his life to him at once. When Mosa forwarded
his request, God wanted the man to have another look at the
request because if he’s given the entire food supply of
his life at once he’ll not be able to have food any more.
At this man said that it’s no problem for him, because
he wants to feel the pleasure of ‘no-hunger’. So
the man was supplied with the complete food of his life. The
man and his family ate till they were no more hungry. Some of
the food was still left, so the man wanted to give that to his
hungry neighbour (who once refused to give him the food). Man’s
wife protested by holding that it’s the final supply from
God and he’ll never have any food supply after this, so
he should keep this safe for next meal, but the man replied
that he requested God to give him food enough to make him feel
the pleasure of ‘no-hunger’, and God did so, now
he has nothing to do with the remaining food. So he gave that
food to his neighbour.
Mosa have not been there for a long period and after some years
he got back there he was told about a generous person who daily
distributes free food among poor. When Mosa visited him he was
amazed to see that he was same person who once asked God for
the food of his whole life at once. Mosa asked the god about
this mystry and God said, ‘I’m indebted by this
person. As I promis to reward a person with 70 times the food
which he shares with other needy people,and this person has
made me indebted. When I gave him his entire food supply at
once, he shared a part of it with his needy neighbour, so I
gave him his 70 times share at it. And each time I give him
his share of reward he shares it with other needy people so
I keep on giving him.
That man had changed his ‘muqaddar’ by selecting
a way himself and by requesting his creator. Here I’ve
found a tool for changing ‘muqaddar’, and that was
‘request’. We can call this request ‘dua’.
In the above story the request was taken to the god indirectly
by his prophet by in the contemporary situation whereby we don’t
have that facility the direct communication with the creator
is the only possible way. I think ‘dua’ has a lot
to do with ‘kismet’ and ‘muqaddar’.
I don’t mean that dua alone is the way out, but ‘dua’
has a greater pscychological effect on events. And it’s
human nature that when one finds himself helpless, he contacts
his creator (whatever the person’s belief is, he asks
his creator to help him out). Lets take an example of a general
organization whereby a manager is leading a group of workers,
he assigns them some tasks, (For workers these tasks are predetermined
bu t the efficiency of work depends on the way worker selects
to get them done), and if a worker comes up with something extraordinary
that gimmicks the attention of manager, it’s normal that
manager will reward him (if not in monetary terms then I think
a word of appreciation will also be a reward for the worker).
Now this was a professional example, but when it comes for the
dealing of God with his creatures (especially humans) the element
of love also comes under discussion which was the base of the
creation of this universe. This love makes a stronger bond between
two and when an individual does something extraordinary good
with the predetermined task, God rewards him. Sometimes manager
changes some predetermined tasks on request of workers, and
it depends on the pleasant relationship of both and effectiveness
of request, similarly many times God changes one’s ‘muqaddar’
on his request (dua) and this depends entirely on the effectiveness
of dua and person’s reputation before Him.
When we talk about the importance of ‘dua’, a question
arises in the mind that what type of language should be used
to communicate with the creator. I think ‘dua’ has
two parts; one is its content and second is medium. Content
of ‘dua’ includes the subject matter and demonstration,
and medium for ‘dua’, in my opinion is wireless.
Acceptance or rejection of ‘dua’ depends on its
purity and demonstration. Here came another contradiction of
thoughts in my mind which I forwarded to Khuram. Question was,
“Is it necessary for ‘dua’ to be in particular
language?’ if yes then what about those people who don’t
know that particular language? And if no then can we offer namaz
in language of our own choice?”
Khuram replied to me with a very interesting answer. He said
that according to orthodox people namaz can only be in Arabic
and Turkish people can offer namaz in their own language. I
won’t go in the details of these two facts instead I’d
present the thought which came in my mind laters. I think, ‘namaz’
is ‘ibadat’ which is ‘bandgi’ and ‘dua’
is one of its part, not the whole ‘ibadat’. Now
this part of ibadat has no particular format, (one can request
in the way he wants), but the whole ibadat is not free format.
‘ibadat’ does not only mean to forward the requests
of people to the creator but also to make him disciplined. And
in order to keep this discipline one format of Namaz has been
given which is in Arabic. I further think that if one offers
namaz by understanding its meaning he can be disciplined more.
Proceeding Muskan’s question of changing ‘muqaddar,
I’d like to quote another story in order to explain another
dimention of the relationship of ‘kismet’ and ‘muqaddar’.
I read this story in a monthly magazine. This story was about
a school teacher who used to have an income which was hardly
enough to meet his expenses. He once heard about a mountainous
range where iron turns into gold, so he decided to have two
months leave without pay from school and to visit those mountains
with some chains of iron in order to turn them into gold. Aiming
to turn iron into gold he went on two months journey. He pulled
those heavy chains on the mountains for two months but found
not single part of it turned into gold. This made him very disappointed
and he decided not to work hard any more and to return back
to his school job. When he got back into his village, he sold
all those chains. He had a look on his appearance and decided
to buy new clothes as the clothes he was wearing were tattered.
His shoes were also in very bad condition but he didn’t
have more money to have a new pair of shoes so he decided to
get them mended. When he went to the shoe mender he found that
small nails beneath the soul of the shoe were turned into gold.
And when he sold that gold in the market, the amount he got
from it was exactly equal to his two months salary. The writer
of the story concluded that whatever the amount of hardwork
one does, he gets only what is in his ‘muqaddar’.
But I disagree to this, for I think amount of hardwork alone
is not the requirement for changing ‘muqaddar’.
Or we can say that ‘hardwork’ can’t change
‘muqaddar’ until it’s on appropriate place
and time. If hardwork is on an inappropriate place or time,
it’s useless. For instance if that school teacher would
have done some part time job instead of going on mountain, he
would surely have earnt more money than that he had earnt from
school.
“Kismet’ and ‘Muqaddar’ are the themes
of endless debate, having variety of dimentions. Saying that
I’ve concluded this and that will be untrue, as this debate
has just started. But I’d like to summarize my idea in
few words. In a nut shell, I’ve come up with the idea
that ‘kismet’ and ‘muqaddar’ are two
different things but they are related to each other in some
contexts, and success or failure of one’s aims and strategies
depends on this relationship at a great extent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
