NOTES ON ISLAM
BY
SIR AHMED HUSSAIN, K.C.I.E., C.S.I.
(NAWAB AMIN JUNG BAHADUR)
Collected and Edited
by
Khan Bahadur Hajee Khaja Muhammad Hussain
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning
of knowledge.“—Proverb
HYDERABAD, DECCAN
GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS
1922
2
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
3
TO
THE MEMORY
OF
K. AMJUD HUSSAIN.
One of the four for whom these Notes
were first written,
in 1917.
4

FOREWORD
The following Notes were enclosed by the author in
his weekly letters to his brother and sons who were students in the
Universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh and Birmingham. I persuaded
him to allow me to have them printed, as I thought they were
suggestive and useful. He has however desired me to say that they
should not be regarded as anything but concise memoranda jotted
down (at short intervals between the busy hours of his official
life) as general answers to questions put to him. They contain some
passages which are too concise or abstract, if not vague or
enigmatic. But, the author says, he left them designedly so in
order to induce his readers to try to understand them or at least
to seek explanation and illustration. Numerous foot-notes have been
added for the same purpose.
He frankly admits that his view of Islam is
neither quite orthodox nor quite heterodox but something midway
between the two. It was put forward in order to make his boys think
for themselves and argue with him. The first three Notes may be
‘skipped’ at the first reading.
Sincere acknowledgments are due to Nawab
Imad-ul-Mulk Bahadur Bilgrami, c.s.i.,
Mr. J.C. Molony, i.c.s., Khan Bahadur
Abdur Rahim, b.a., b.l., Mr. Syed Ross Masood, m.a., and others who very kindly read the proofs and
favoured the author with valuable suggestions.
Banganapalle, | ![]() | K.M.H. |
11th August 1922. |
6
Proverb
7
CONTENTS
Page | ||
Foreword | 5 | |
Muslim Prayer | 9 | |
Note | 1. Introduction | 11 |
” | 2. The First Chapter of the Qur’an | 15 |
” | 3. What is Religion? | 20 |
” | 4. What is true Islam? | 25 |
” | 5. What is not Islam | 29 |
” | 6. “Islam” and “Not-Islam” | 35 |
” | 7. Why is Islam the Best Religion? | 43 |
” | 8. Unity & Union | 49 |
” | 9. Perfection & Self-help | 57 |
” | 10. Moderation & via media | 63 |
” | 11. Evolution & | 73 |
” | 12. “Religion begins | 79 |
APPENDIX | ||
Muslim Reformation | 87 | |
Our Prayer | 97 |
THE MUSLIM PRAYER.1
Surai Fatiha
of the Worlds! O Merciful, Compassionate
art Thou! The King of all on Day of
Reckoning, Thee only do we worship and
adore, To Thee, most merciful, we cry for
help; O guide us ever more on the straight
path, The path of those to whom Thou
gracious art On whom Thine anger falls not
then nor now, The path of them that from
Thee go not stray. Amen.
may be the knowledge worth
having.—Thomas a Kempis.
NOTES ON ISLAM
1.
WO of
you—Lateef and Altaf—will recollect that more than a
year ago you wrote to me saying that you were puzzled by certain
questions which a Missionary had put to you. I remember that Amjud
or Mahmood even went so far as to ask what was the good of Islam,
when countries and people professing that faith had weak
governments and were crumbling to pieces under the influence of
Christian Powers.2 I answered your queries
only in a general way as your University education had not then
advanced far enough. But I think the time has now come when I
should try to explain to you what I conceive to be the true spirit
of the religion of our fore-fathers.
I firmly believe that Islam is the best3 religion in the world—I mean, Islam rightly
understood and interpreted and not the 12Muhammadanism4
of some of our formularist Maulavies,5
who say that a man goes to Hell or Heaven according as he wears his
trousers lower or higher than his ankles! They have degraded our
religion by paying undue attention to formulas and forms to the
exclusion and neglect of its living spirit and reality6. The poet Hafiz rightly stigmatised their vain
controversies when he said that
چون نديدند حقيقت ره افسانه زدند
“since they did not see the fact, they ran after fiction.”
I am more than ever convinced of two characteristics of
Islam:—
1st.—It is not inconsistent with true
Christianity, or with any other true religion7 of which the fundamental principle is
توحيد One God
لا شريك له و حده
“the Peerless One.”8
132nd.—It conforms to modern
scientific ideas better than any other religion.
I have already explained, in some of my letters9 to you, why I believe that Islam is but a
continuation and consummation of Christianity as taught by Jesus
himself in his own speeches which are reported in the
Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament. We have nothing to do with
the interpretation of his words by his Apostles and others after
them. If we take the plain words and the plain meaning of those
words reported to have proceeded from his own blessed mouth,10 we clearly see that they
teach the same sublime truths as our Prophet himself inculcated.
Jesus did not live long to complete his mission, Muhammad completed
it. Both were God’s holy messengers
رسل ال. Says the Qur’an: “This
day I have completed your religion for you.”
اليوم اكملت اكم دينكم
I need not now go into details, or refer to other religions, to
shew that the spirit of Islam is not inconsistent with their true
spirit, if rightly conceived and interpreted in the light of modern
science. I hope I shall be able some day to write down the result
of my own thought and investigation in the matter. I 14content
myself at present with drawing your attention to the first
characteristic of Islam, and I propose to write a few Notes to draw
your special attention to its second characteristic which is the
more remarkable—the characteristic that it is quite
consistent with modern ideas of science.
No scientific idea influenced the thought of the last century
more profoundly than the idea of progress or development embodied
in what is called the Law of Evolution. It is now widely accepted.
You will be surprised to know that many an Islamic tenet is
entirely in accord with it. Indeed Maulana Rumi outlined it
poetically in his famous Masnavi in the thirteenth century,
in the same manner as Lord Tennyson did in his Princess in
the nineteenth. I desire that you should try to understand it in
its modern form. I strongly recommend that you should read an
admirable book by Edward Clodd called The Story of
Creation11. When I first read
it, some years ago, I felt it was as pleasant and interesting as a
novel. Its introduction and Part II are quite easy to read. They
will give you a very good idea of the great revolution which Darwin
and Wallace, Huxley and Spencer have wrought in the thought of our
own times.
HE following
is a translation of the “Opening Chapter” of our Holy Qur’an. I
have analysed it by placing Roman and Arabic numerals, the first
indicating verses آيات and the second
indicating sub-divisions of verses.
Opening Chapter. | سورة فاتحة | ||
In the Name of God Compassionate, the Merciful. | بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم | ||
I. | Praise be to God, | الحمد لله | .I |
(1) Lord (Nourisher) | ١) رب العا لمين) | ||
(2) the Compassionate, |
٢) الرحمن الرحيم) | ||
(3) King of the Day |
٣) مالك يوم الدين) | ||
II. | .II | ||
(1) Thee only do we |
١) اياك نعبد) | ||
(2) and Thee only do | ٢) و مالك يوم الدين) | ||
(3) Guide us in the |
٣) اهدنا الصراط المستقيم) | ||
16III. | the Path of those | صراط الذين | .III |
(1) to whom Thou |
١) انعمت عليهم) | ||
(2) who are not objects |
٢) غير تامغضوب عايهم) | ||
(3) and who go not | ٣) و لا الضالين) | ||
Amen12 | آمين |
The whole Sura divides itself into three parts and each part
into three divisions thus:—
Part I.—Nature of God. | |||
Three principal attributes of God:— | |||
(1) Creator or Nourisher | رب | ||
(2) Protector | رحمن و رحيم | ||
(3) Adjuster | مالك يوم الدين | ||
Part II.—Man’s | |||
(1) Worship | عبادت | ||
(2) Seeking His Protection | استعا نت | ||
(3) Seeking His Guidance | استهدا | ||
Part III.—The Straight Path اسلام = مذهب for Man | |||
(1) the path of Grace (= path of | |||
(2) not the Path of Sin (=path of | |||
17 (3) nor the Path of Error (=path | |||
Observe:— | |||
(a) Each of the three duties in the second | |||
(b) The third part, the Path of Grace, | |||
(c) The Islamic prayer is simpler than the |
The Christian Prayer. | The Muslim Prayer. |
THE LORD’S PRAYER. | THE FATIHA. |
Adoration. | Adoration. |
(a) Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed | (a) Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds, the |
Submission. | Submission. |
(b) Thy will be done in earth | (b) Thee only do we worship and of Thee only |
18Supplication. | Supplication. |
(c) Give us this day our daily bread. And | (c) Guide us into the right path—the |
St. Matthew, vi 9-13. | The Qur’an, i. |
If you will carefully compare the parts of each Prayer which I
have written as separate paragraphs marked (a), (b)
and (c), you will observe that there is difference only in
the language, but no difference whatever in the real meaning. There
is in both Prayers absolutely the same spirit of
a) Adoration,
(b) Submission, and
(c) Supplication.
Both begin with the praise of the Lord to whom all praise
is due. This is followed in both by an expression of our entire
dependence on Him and submission to His will. Lastly, there is
solicitation for guidance, positive and negative,
viz., guidance towards right action and guidance for
avoiding temptation.
The three parts (a), (b) and (c) of the
Christian as well as of the Muslim Prayer are in19 perfect
accord with the results of a comparative study of the religious
systems of the world. They correspond to three essential elements
in all religions, viz.,
(a) Belief in the existence of a
Supreme Power which is Infinite and Absolute,
(b) Feeling of man’s entire dependence
on that Power, and
(c) Desire to seek or solicit guidance
of that Power in the daily life of man.
You will thus see that both the Lord’s Prayer in the Bible and
the Opening Chapter of the Qur’an go to the roots of all religions
ever professed by man. They are truly Universal Prayers. No man
need hesitate to join in the solemn recitation of either.
We ought to view all monotheistic religions—religions
which enjoin belief in one God—in the spirit in which St.
Peter viewed them when he said (Acts x. 34-5): “Of a truth I
perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation
he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted with
Him.” The same is the spirit of the oft-repeated definition of
‘Muslims’ in the Qur’an: الذين
آمتواوعملوا
الصلحت “those who believe and
work righteousness.” “Trust in the Lord and do good,” as the Psalm
says.
have said
that true Islam is the best religion in the world. I
must prove my assertion. In order to do so I have to
explain:—
I. | What do I mean by religion? |
II. | What is true Islam? |
III. | Why is it the best religion? |
Religion.—No thinking man can help asking himself
the questions: “Whence has this world come? Whither is it bound to
go?” in other words, “What was the origin
مبداٌ and what will be the end
معاد of the world of men, animals, plants
and things that I perceive?” The answers which each man gives to
these questions constitute his religion. A few earnest
persons (poets, philosophers and theologians) try to answer these
questions for themselves by patient study and earnest thought13. But a large majority of
men and women merely take the answers taught them by their parents,
teachers or priests. There may possibly be a small number of men
who do not trouble themselves about these questions. These are not
“thinking men” and may therefore be left out of account.
Religion is a silent and subtle power that works in the heart of
man and makes for righteousness. It is generated by his conviction
as to the beginning and end of himself and the world in which he
lives and moves14.
God.—No intelligent and intelligible answers can be
given to questions as to the origin and the end or the government
of Nature15 without assuming the
existence of the One and only one God who is Infinite
and Absolute, i.e., One who hath neither beginning
nor end and who is not conditioned or limited by anything
whatever16. The Infinite and
Absolute One has been called by different names by different people
at different times17. Yezdan, Ishwara, Jehovah, God, and Allah are the
names, in different languages, of the same Infinite and Absolute
God.
Rose Soul of the Sparrow and the
Bee! The mighty tide of being flows
Through countless channels, Lord, from
Thee.
22* Conceptions of God,
His attributes, and His relation to Nature.—These have
been and will ever be many and various. But I summarise three
principal conceptions under each head, for I believe that other
ideas, notions or conceptions are but combinations of two or more
of these:—
I. Conceptions of God:—
2. God as the Omnipotent Energy or Power.
3. God as the Supreme Being or Person18.
II. Notions of God’s principal attributes:—
*Paragraphs marked
with asterisks and their footnotes may be omitted at the first
reading.
III. Ideas of God’s relation with Nature20 (i.e., with the world of men, animals,
plants and other objects, and their inter-relations, of which men
are aware):—
1. All is from God | = God is above Nature which He created |
2. God is in All | = God is in Nature although Nature is |
3. God is All | = God is Nature and Nature is God |
* The above is but a rough summary. I have neither time nor
space to explain and illustrate it. I have ventured to give some
hints—imperfect hints, I fear—in the footnotes. I may
however state here that, of the above three conceptions, notions or
ideas Islam accepts the medium or the middle one which, as a little
thought will show, includes the other two conceptions also. You
need not at present try to understand the summary or the words
given in brackets. My subsequent Notes will explain it to some
extent. 24Please remember that there are many men and
many minds, and that there are likely to be as many religions, as
many conceptions of God, as many notions of His attributes, and as
many ideas of the beginning or end of things,
(مبد اٌو
معاد) as there are thinking minds22.
Let me conclude this Note with a short answer to the question
why religion is necessary to Man23. No society is possible without religion, because
of the dual nature of Man. As our poet says, با
بها ئم بهره
داري با
ملائك
نيزهم and as all modern men of
science (such as Sir Oliver Lodge and others) admit, there is a
higher and a lower in every man’s nature, the one lifts him up and
the other pulls him down in the scale of animal and social
existence. Religion is necessary in order that every man’s higher
nature may conquer his lower nature in order that he may become a
social being who is virtuous and does good of his own accord, and
may not remain a mere beast whom the whip alone prevents from doing
mischief. It is religion that fosters high-thinking and
holy-living, so necessary for the advancement of the human
race.
HE answer to
this question is contained within the four corners, as it were, of
the Opening Sura24
سورة فاتحة
which is a general summary of the whole Qur’an. I have already
analysed it and asked you to compare it with the Christian prayer
called the Lord’s prayer. I am sure you have noted and admired its
simplicity and clearness and its almost scientific precision and
comprehensiveness. I am only amplifying what I have already said
when I say that the Sura teaches three cardinal and eternal
truths:—
1st.—There is but One God who has created the
worlds, maintains them, and rules them. In the inimitable words of
the Sura of Purity.
سورة اخلاص | |||
قل هو الله احد | Say, God is one. | = One. | |
الله الصمد | God is Eternal. | = Infinite. | |
لم يلد و لم يولد و لم يكن له كفواً احد | He does not beget | ![]() | = Absolute.25 |
nor is He begotten. | |||
And He hath no | |||
kith or kin. |
2ndly.—(a) God being our Creator, we have to
worship, adore and love Him and Him alone. This is the duty
we owe to God. (b) Again, God being our merciful Preserver,
we have to seek the 26protection of Him and Him alone. This is the
duty we owe to ourselves. (c) Finally, God being our Judge
or Ruler, we have to solicit guidance of Him and Him alone. This is
the duty we owe to our fellow-creatures (including lower animals)
in the world we live in.
You must not fall into the error of believing that God is
Creator at one time or place, that He is Maintainer or Preserver at
another time or place, and that He is Judge or Ruler at a third
time or place. No, no; He, being the One and only God, is all the
three together, Creator, Preserver and Ruler, at all times and in
all places. It is we who, in order to understand Him properly and
adore Him rightly, separate in our minds His three principal
attributes, and think of Him as our Creator when we worship
Him, think of Him as our Preserver when we seek His
protection, and think of Him as our Ruler or Judge when we
solicit His guidance. It is only we, finite and conditioned
creatures, that are tied down to and limited by time, place and
circumstances. To God there are none such. He is the One Infinite
and Absolute, the One who hath neither beginning nor end—the
One who is absolutely unlimited and unconditioned by time, place,
circumstances, or anything else. This is the Islamic conception or
idea of God.
3rdly.—What does the Sura teach us as to the
guidance which we have to ask of God in our dealings with our
fellow-creatures? It is guidance27 into the straight path. What
is the straight path? It is the path of righteousness or the path
of Grace which is between two extremes, the path of
Sin and the path of Error. A Muslim’s right path,
i.e., his right course of conduct, lies between two extreme
paths or courses of conduct, viz., on the one hand, the path
of those who sin, who knowingly and deliberately go against the
will of God, which is manifest in Nature, and on the other hand,
the path of those who unwittingly, through ignorance, go against
His will. The right path lies thus:—
Path of Sin | ![]() | Path of Grace | ![]() | Path of Error |
which leads | which leads to | which leads to | ||
to ruin or | eternal bliss. | confusion worse | ||
destruction. | confounded. |
You thus see that true Islam consists in a threefold duty
to God, to oneself, and to others, and this duty is to be
discharged by simply adopting, under God’s guidance, the mean
between two extremes. As our Prophet has pithily expressed it
خير الامور
اوسطها “the best of things is
the medium thing.” This is the fundamental principle which
underlies everything which is Islamic or Muslim.26 Please remember it, as also the three-fold
Islamic Duty:—
(a) Duty to God, which is Worship or
Adoration implying, as it does, complete submission to His will
= اسلام
(b) Duty to yourself, which is
self-preservation or self-perfection
= اسلام
(c) Duty to others, which is peace and good
will towards them = اسلام
“Islam”27 as a religion means
nothing more nor less than those three duties.
Islam is not Philosophy, much
less is it Science. It is but a Religion, an attitude of man’s
mind towards his environment—the attitude of self towards
others and God. Both Philosophy and Science influence one’s
attitude of mind. To that extent Islam has to reckon with both. It
is therefore that Sufis and other philosophic sects have risen in
Islam from time to time. The sphere of Islam is Faith manifesting
itself in good works; and the spheres of Science and Philosophy are
Knowledge and Reason. The latter often come into contact with the
former, but can never be identified with it.
N my
previous Note I tried to sketch briefly what is true Islam. I now
offer a few observations on, or illustrations of, what is
not Islam. In order to know anything quite well, it is
desirable not only to know what it is but also to know
what it is not.
1. The religion taught by the Qur’an and the Traditions
احاديث of our Prophet is
Islam and not “Muhammadanism,” as it is often named. Those
who profess Islam are Muslims and not “Muhammadans,” as they
are called. The word “Musalman” is but a corruption of the Arabic
plural مسلمون
مسلمين of the singular
مسلم. We and our religion have been
called28 after the name of
Muhammad just as the terms Christians and Christianity have been
derived from the name Christ. But “Muhammadanism” and “Muhammadans”
are not at all the correct names of “Islam” and “Muslims” as you
will presently see.29
2. From the point of view of Islam, all religions may be divided
thus:

False: being beliefs in more gods than one, (Paths of Sin) | ![]() | or | ![]() | True: being beliefs in one and only God; and True Religions are either, |

Pure, such as true Islam unmixed with any inconsistent ideas. (Paths of Grace) | ![]() | or | ![]() | Mixed, such as religions which mix up inconsistent ideas with the idea of one God. (paths of Error) |
Observe that a pure Religion, such as true Islam, comes in
between false Religions and mistaken or mixed Religions, just as
the Quranic Path of Grace lies between the Path of Sin and the Path
of Error. It is the mean between two extremes.
3. It is not Islam to believe that there has been no true
religion besides Islam.30 Such an erroneous belief leads to intolerance,
thereby begetting bigotry and fanaticism
تعصب. It is 31contrary to the teaching of the
Qur’an and the Prophet. The first verse of the second Sura
الم = سورة
بقرة commands us to believe in not only
what was revealed to Muhammad but also in what was revealed to
those who went before him. It clearly indicates that there are, and
will ever be, many true religions of which Islam is one. Almost the
first saying of our Prophet reported in collections of his
traditions احاديث is “whoever
says ‘there is no god but God,’ will attain Salvation” i.e.,
will obtain eternal bliss. This shews clearly that all religions
which inculcate belief in one God are true religions—are
right Paths of Grace which lead to eternal bliss. Observe that most
Muhammadans (not Muslims) of to-day have forgotten this principle
and have therefore become intolerant fanatics,31 which accounts largely for the loss of
political power of most Muhammadan Governments of modern times.
4. Neither is it Islam to believe that all religions are true.
Such an erroneous belief leads to indifference, thereby begetting
caprice and impiety. It is obviously contrary to the teaching of
32the Qur’an and the Prophet, for they both
denounce many a false religion. If everybody thinks that every
religion is true, there will be no two men professing the same
religion, and there will be no real agreement between their
thoughts and actions. Co-operation32 اتفاق و
ايحاد among men (which is the root of
Family, Society and State) would tend to become impossible. Note
that it is the indifference to religion and the consequent impiety
of some of the Muhammadans of to-day that accounts mostly for their
lack of co-operation, and for their loss of political power in
modern times. Degradation is the lot of faithless Muslims,
for as the Qur’an says, “Ye will be exalted only if ye be faithful
Muslims.”
From what has been said you can easily infer that we should
adopt the mean between two extremes and must therefore believe that
neither are all religions true nor are they all false, but that
some religions are true and that Islam is one of them. The
characteristic mark of true religions is belief in one God; and
this indeed is the reason why Muslims are permitted to eat and live
with, and even marry, Jewesses, Christians and others who believe
in one God and possess sacred Scriptures.
5. I, for one, would not hesitate to call all Monotheists (Jews,
Christians, and other Unitarians
موحدين) Muslims, because
they believe in one God: but I would not call them Momins
مومن, 33because they do not believe in
one God in accordance with the teaching of our Prophet. You know
that our Creed كلمة consists of two
parts:—
(i) There is no god but God,
(ii) And Muhammad is His Messenger.
Those who believe in the first part are Muslims
(مسلم = the peaceful)33 and those who believe in the first as well
as the second part of the Creed are Momins
(مومن = the faithful). Both Muslims and
Momins are believers in one God; the only difference between them
is that Muslims may not (like Momins) accept Muhammad as their
guide in the belief. The Qur’an (iii. 83) defines Islam
thus:—
Say ye; We believe in God, and that which hath been sent down
(revealed) to us, and that which hath been sent down to Abraham and
Ismail and Issac and Jacob and the tribes; and that which hath been
given to Moses and to Jesus and that which was given to the
Prophets from their Lord. No difference do we make between
them—and to God we are resigned (Muslims).
6. “There is no deity but
God.” Since God is One, His Revelation to Man cannot be other than
one and the same for all time. There has therefore been and will
ever be but one true religion. That religion is Islam.
إن الدين
عند الله
الاسلام “Verily the
(only) religion with God is Islam” (Q. iii 17). All the prophets
from Adam to 34Muhammad received but one and the same
Revelation and therefore preached Islam and Islam only.
ذالك الدين
اقيم “It was (and is) the standard
religion”—Q. xii. 41.34
Whenever any people went astray and deserted Islam for idolatry
a prophet arose among them to preach Islam and bring them back to
righteousness.35 Each prophet or
messenger of God did nothing but try to restore the universal
religion to its pristine simplicity and purity.
It was only in interpreting the Revelation and applying it to
the practical needs of their age, that successive prophets and
their followers differed; and the differences gave rise to the
so-called religions and religious systems of the world.
must devote
this Note also to my observations on “Islam” and “not-Islam” in
order to prepare you for a just appreciation of my contention that
there are many good religions in the world but Islam is the best of
them36.
1. The Prophet Muhammad lived and died more than thirteen
hundred years ago. There are now on the face of the earth no less
than 250 millions (= 25 crores) of human beings who profess his
religion, and who love and respect him just as his own immediate
followers loved and respected him. These two simple facts are
enough to prove—
(1) that there must be something real and true in the religion
professed by so many people, and
(2) that the man who preached and established it must have been
both great and good to an extraordinary degree;
for common experience leads us to conclude (a) that
nothing which is false or unreal can survive centuries of change
and (b) that none who 36is not good and great can be
loved and respected by millions of men. No Muslim or Momin need
therefore believe in any thing more than:—
(i) that Islam is a real and true religion, and
(ii) that Muhammad was a very great and good man.37
Thus, your belief in one God لا
اله الالله
makes you a Muslim38 (= peaceful), no matter by what other name
you call yourself; and your belief in the goodness and greatness39 of Muhammad
محمد رسول
الله makes you a Momin (= faithful),
no matter by what name others may call you. Let me quote here a
passage from Sir Edwin Arnold’s Preface to his beautiful poem “The
Pearls of Faith: the Ninety-Nine Names of Allah:”
اسماء
حسنى
“The soul of Islam is its declaration of the unity of
God: its heart is the inculcation of an absolute resignation
to His will. Not more sublime, in religious history appears the
figure of Paul the tent-maker, proclaiming ‘the
Unknown God’ at Athens, than that of the camel-driver Muhammad,
son of Abdullah and Amina, abolishing all the idols of the Arabian
Pantheon, except their chief—Allahu ta ‘Ala, God the Most
High—and under that ancient and well-received appellation
establishing the one-ness of the origin, government, and life of
the Universe. Thereby that marvellous and gifted Teacher
created a vast empire of new belief and new civilization, and
prepared a sixth part of humanity for the developments and
reconciliations which later times will bring. For Islam must be
conciliated; it cannot be thrust scornfully aside or rooted out. It
shares the task of the education of the world with its sister
religions, and it will contribute its eventual portion to
—”that far-off divine event Towards which the whole
creation moves.”
The italics are mine. I shall have to refer to them in my
subsequent Notes. Observe, the cosmopolitan poet uses only the word
“Islam” and not “Muhammadanism”.
2. It is not Islam or Eman ايمان
to deify Muhammad or to represent him to be akin to God, as
sometimes some Moulvies represent him and call him “the One (Ahad)
in the guise of Ahmad40.” Our Prophet himself never claimed 38 that he was
anything more than a mere man. Indeed, he taught us all to say
اثهد ان لا
اله الا
الله و اثهد
ان محمداً
عبده و
رسوله that he was but “a servant and
messenger of God.” The only thing he ever claimed for himself was
that God had chosen him to be a messenger
رسول to convey His messages to men. “That
an immense mass of fable and silly legend,” says Rodwell, “has been
built up upon the basis of the Qur’an, is beyond a doubt; but for
this Muhammad is not answerable,41 any more than he is for the wild and bloodthirsty
excesses of his followers in after ages.”
3. God’s messages which Muhammad delivered to men were all
collected soon after his death and are preserved intact in a
remarkable book called the Qur’an—a book which has lived through no less
than thirteen centuries without undergoing the least alteration in
a single word or even a dot! The difference in the messages
contained in the Qur’an and the ordinary sayings of the Prophet
reported in books on Hadis حديث is simply
this:—that when delivering God’s messages Muhammad himself
felt, and those who were in his company witnessed, that he was
inspired by some divine energy or power which impelled him to say
what he said; whereas at other times, when he was talking like an
ordinary man, no signs of divine energy or inspiration were
visible. It will carry me too 39far if I endeavour to explain
here the real nature of “the divine inspiration” under which he
delivered what he and others believed to be “divine messages”. You
will understand it if you read such books as Professor James’s
Varieties of Religious Experience. Let us, like good Momins,
take it as a fact, what our Prophet’s intimate companions
صحابة vouched, that he appeared to be
quite a different man when he uttered such messages. Their style or
matter itself even to this day proves to all unbiassed minds that
they are no ordinary sayings of an ordinary man. There is something
unique in them which we can only feel but cannot define or express
in words. Even historians and biographers like Gibbon and Muir and
translators like Rodwell, Palmer and Lane-Poole are obliged, in
spite of themselves, to admit and admire, what some of them call,
the rugged grandeur and eloquence of the Qur’an. Even Sale says
that some passages are really sublime.
4. We call the Qur’an the word of God, chiefly because it
contains messages of high spiritual value delivered by an
illiterate man like Muhammad. It is neither a history like some
of the books of the Old Testament, nor a biography like the four
Gospels of the Bible. It is only a collection of sermons, commands,
and instructions delivered and issued from time to time as
occasions required. It contains, indeed, references to stories of
older Prophets and previous events well known40 to the
people of Arabia. But they are less by way of narration than by way
of illustration. They are parables more or less 42 (تلك
الامثال
نضر بها
لناس). Commentators like Zamakh-shari
(تفسير كشاف)
and Imam Razi (تفسير
كبير) whose learning and authority cannot
be questioned, have clearly proved that there is nothing in the
Qur’an which is improbable or cannot be rationally explained to be
quite in accordance with the laws of Nature
قانون قدرت.
If you read Sir Syed Ahmad’s Commentary
تفسير
احمدى or his Essays
خطبات you will find rational
explanations of the ideas of Paradise and Hell, the Day of
Judgment,43 etc. I need not dwell on
them here. I would however draw your attention to what is called
the rule of “Parsimony in Thought” which is in vogue among men of
Science. It is that if and when you can explain anything by what is
well-known and understood by every one, you should not believe in
the existence of “supermen” or assume the occurrence of
supernatural events. When, for example, we can explain any action
of Muhammad as an ordinary action of a reasonable man, we should
not assume or believe that he performed a miracle. If we can 41explain
the defeat and discomfiture of Abraham’s Army by natural causes,
such as an epidemic, we ought not to assume the occurrence of any
supernatural event44.
5. The Qur’an does not favour any particular system of
Philosophy. It leaves Muslims free to adopt any system of thought
that commends itself to them, provided that it is not inconsistent
with the (توحيد) idea of the one
eternal and absolute God. Thus the Qur’an confines itself to the
sphere of religion—the sphere where man is brought face to
face with his God.
(a) What, then, is the object or aim of the Qur’an?
من عرف
نفسه فقد
عرف ربه (He who has understood
himself has understood his God.)
(b) Why should a man be revealed unto himself?
In order that he might know his true relation with the rest of
the world so that he might shape his conduct accordingly
i.e., be true to himself, true to others, and true to his
God in thoughts, words, and deeds.
(c) How does the Qur’an reveal a man unto himself?
By showing him:—
(1) God in History45 (هوا لا
ول و الاخر He is
the First and the Last.)
(2) God in Nature46 (و الظا
هر He is the Manifest.)
(3) God in Man’s Conscience47
(والباطن and He is the
Hidden—Qur’an lvii. 3.)
In this sense the Qur’an is truly a revelation!
His sign is in all things, | ![]() | * ففى كل شى له آية |
Indicating that He is One. | * تدل علىا انه و احد |
religion?
Y real task
begins with this Note. I have to explain to you why I consider
Islam48 the best of the religions
that are now professed by men all over the world. Mark, I do not
say that other religions are not good, but I only say that Islam is
the best religion of all those I know. Why do I say so? Because no
other religion accords so well as Islam with the modern ideas of
Science.
By applying the adjectives “good,” “better” and “best” to
religions, I indicate the degree to which each religion, by
its tenets and teaching, induces men to seek their welfare
فلاح: and by the word “Science”
علم I mean simply the systematised knowledge of
things known and knowable.
Science discovers things that are necessary or desirable
for human welfare. Arts generally show the way in which
those things can be obtained or manufactured. Governments
provide, 44or ought to provide, facilities for
scientific investigation and for improvement in arts. And it is
Religion that should move men to take the fullest advantage
of the science and arts of the time. You may take a horse to a
river but you cannot make him drink unless he is thirsty. If he is
thirsty he will drink of his own accord; but if he is not, neither
the appearance of clear water, nor the easy way to get at it, nor
indeed your whip or coaxing can ever induce him to drink. In the
same way Science may show you water or anything that is useful,
Arts may show you different ways of getting it, the Government of
your State may offer rewards or even threaten punishment; but you
will not drink, that is to say, you will not take advantage of the
good things shown you and placed at your disposal, unless you are
thirsty, unless there is something in you which impels you to it.
This thirst, this something that is the moving force or
motive, is created or furnished by Religion.
The chief use of religion lies in the desire that it fosters in
men to live well, and virtuously.49 It is true that for most men the fear of
punishment and the hope of reward, either here or hereafter, are
motives for right conduct: and some religions (and even Islam as
taught by some Moulvies) give glowing pictures of Heaven 45and
Hell awaiting good and bad people after death.50 But these motives are unworthy of the
higher nature قوا ئى
ملكو تى of man. They are like
the crack of a whip or the show of green grass to a horse that will
not run. They are not so effective and lasting as the high
spiritual motive for a virtuous life furnished by true religion. I
cannot dwell further on this point without entering upon a
philosophical or metaphysical discussion which is foreign to the
purpose of these Notes. Suffice it to say that the spiritual or
religious motive for virtuous conduct is the best of all motives,
as it conforms to the higher or angelic
ماكو تى nature of man and
assists him in subduing his lower or animal بها
ئمى nature.51
“The son of man is a unique and complex product (of Evolution) which has combined in him the natures of both the angel and the beast. If he leans towards the latter, his animal nature, he falls lower than the beast itself, but if he turns his attention to the former, his angelic nature, he rises higher than the angel himself.” | ![]() | آدمى زاده طرفى معجو نےاست از فر شتى سر شتى وز حيوان گر كند ميل اين شود كم ازين ور كند قصد آن شود بى ازان |
It is but religion, true Religion, that enables the “son of man”
i.e., mankind to surpass angels in godliness. Note, this is
exactly what Sir Oliver Lodge says in his book, The Substance of
Faith allied with Science.
There is another use of Religion to which I should refer briefly
before I pass on to the main argument. You always intend doing many
things but never succeed in doing them all, either because
you change your mind or because somebody or something prevents you
from carrying them out. It is nevertheless important to yourself
and society that your wishes, which are naturally more numerous
than your actions, should be as good as the actions themselves.
Laws and social conventions cannot adequately control them, for
they take account of only outward manifestations, that is, actions
which flow or result from your inward desires, passions and
prejudices. These are controlled by such religions as true
Christianity and true Islam which take that as done which was
merely intended to be done, and inhibit bad intentions even before
they appear in action.
Now, whatever religion supplies the best motives for virtuous
conduct and most effectively prevents mischievous intentions, must
necessarily be one which conforms best with the most approved ideas
of the science and arts of the time. I hold that Islam is such a
religion.52
Let me begin by showing a conformity of Islam to a modern idea,
that there are more 47worlds than one.53 There are still some religions which assume that
there is no other world than the world we live in, and that God
created and maintains it for men only. Science has proved that such
assumptions are unwarranted, and has even suggested grounds for
believing that there are beings in the innumerable worlds of stars.
This world of ours with its inhabitants has therefore no right to
monopolise God to itself. Nor indeed have we, human beings, any
right to consider ourselves as its superior inhabitants. Science is
now-a-days on the track of finding out beings who are or who may be
superior to man. Note that all this is implied in the expression
رب العا
لمين “the Lord of the worlds”
contained in the Sura and other parts of the Qur’an. It does not
say “the king of the world” (رب
العالمين) or of
men رب
العالم but says generally and
truly that God is the King or Lord of great or grand worlds:
رب الانسان,
the definite article رب
العالمين in Arabic
is often used to express greatness or grandeur as in the word
ال which means the Most High God.
According to Islam there are two sources of knowledge,
Science and Revelation: the one represents man’s
effort to learn God’s ways, and the 48other represents God’s grace to
discover His ways to man.54 I for one believe that the difference between the
two sources of knowledge corresponds to the difference between
“Experience” and “Intuition,” between Acquired Ideas and Innate
Ideas—a difference which modern philosophers (Spencer and
Bergson) consider to be one of degree only and not of kind.
cannot go
over the whole field of Muslim theology to show how its ideas are
in accord with the scientific thought of our days. I will confine
myself to three principles and three maxims implied in the analysis
of the Opening Sura سورة
فتحة given in one of my previous Notes56.
I. The verse الحمد
لله رب
العالمين
الرحمن
الرحيم
مالك يوم
الدين points to the Principle of
Unity:
There is but one God who created the worlds, maintains and rules
them.
From this results the Maxim of Union & Loyalty:
Union is strength = Be loyal to your King.
II. The verse اياك
نعبد و اياك
نستعين
اهدنا
الصراط
المستقيم points to
the Principle of Perfection:
Worship of God, His protection, and guidance are necessary for
the perfection of our mind and body.
From this results the Maxim of Self-help:
God helps those who help themselves = Be true to yourself.
III. The verse صراط
الذين
انعمت
عليهم غير
المغضوب
عليهم و لا
الضالين points to the
Principle of Moderation:
It is the straight path of righteousness that enables you to
avoid crooked paths of sin and error and leads you to
happiness.
From this results the Maxim of the Average:
Adopt the mean of two extremes = Be moderate in everything.
I will now endeavour to shew, as briefly and as simply as
possible, how the principles and maxims I have stated correspond
with the best scientific ideas of the present age. By “the best
scientific ideas,” I mean nothing more than conclusions
arrived at by eminent men of science after severe study and
prolonged investigation. I can only refer to the conclusions as
such without attempting to summarise the reasoning, etc. by which
they have been reached. You may read the works of authors I shall
name, if you wish to learn more of their thoughts.
1. The first Principle of Unity
توحيد implies that there is but one
Energy or Force whose different transformations we call
forces, but one Life whose appearance in different shapes we
call lives, and but one Mind whose different manifestations
we call minds. But the universal Energy, the51 universal
Life, and the universal Mind57 الرحمن
الرحيم
مالك يوم
الدين رب
العالمين are
themselves but so many forms, appearances or manifestations of the
one Being الله who is Infinite
الصمد and Absolute لم
يلد و لم
يولد و لم
يكن له كفوا
احد. This is exactly what scientific men and
philosophers have said and are saying to-day. Read the works of any
of the eminent men mentioned in the margin, 1. Herbert Spencer.
2. Dr. A.R. Wallace.
3. Prof. James.
4. Sir Oliver Lodge.
5. Dr. Theodore Merz. and you will find that the conclusion
they have reached after life-long investigations, tallies
remarkably with the conception of God which Islam formulated
centuries ago.
Every child begins with the experience of ‘This is mine‘
and ‘That is not mine.’ This experience matures in the adult
into “I” and “not-I”—the subject that knows and the
object that is known. We call the knower or subject,
Mind; and the known or object, Matter. Most modern
Philosophers agree in believing that Mind and Matter are but two
aspects of One Reality underlying All. Just as a big building like
the Falaknuma Palace presents different aspects when viewed from
different directions, and yet is one and the same building; so the
Reality of Existence appears to us in different 52aspects as
Mind and Matter, and yet is one and the same Reality58.
Dr. Theodore Merz of the Durham University, at the end of his
grand survey of the Scientific Thought of Europe in the 19th
Century,59 says: “The scientific
mind advances from the idea of Order or arrangement to that of
Unity through the idea of Continuity.”
The process adopted by Science of arriving at Unity is only the
reverse of what Islam adopted: the former begins a
posteriori with Order, finds Continuity and arrives at Unity,
but the latter started a priori with Unity, passed over
Continuity, and found Order, thus:—
Science. | Islam. |
1. Order | 1. Order 1. Unity = الله = رب العالمين The Reality58 of which both Mind and Matter are different aspects. |
2. Continuity | 2. Continuity = الرحمن الرحيم = Force or Energy. |
3. Unity | 3. Order60 = ملك يوم الدين = Order or Process. |
What Sir Edwin Arnold calls the soul of Islam, i.e., the
Principle of Unity, so patently 53corresponds with the ultimate
results of modern Science and Philosophy, that I need not dwell on
it at any great length. It is sufficient to point out that Science
has now proved three Unities, the Unity of Substance, the
Unity of Force, and the Unity of Process; and
Philosophy has shown that the three Unities resolve themselves into
One Infinite Power.61
“There is no strength (to avoid evil) nor ability (to do good)except through God who is great and supreme.” | ![]() | لا حول و لا قوة الا با لله العلى العظيم |
Maxim of Union and Loyalty.
2. How is the Maxim of Union and Loyalty inferred from the
principle of Unity? Man, being a creature of God, should try to be
godly and godlike, try to imitate God in actions, try to co-operate
with his fellow creatures for the good of all, and should thus
attain the ideal: “Union is Strength.” This is the Islamic doctrine
of Atonement62 (= at-one-ment
فنا فى الله):
to be at one with God by union and
co-operation with God’s creatures so far as your and their
constitutions and environments allow. But you need not bother
yourself with theories at present. It 54will be enough if you
remember that the ultimate aim or the sole object of the Prophet’s
mission was to establish the universal union and brotherhood of
mankind by means of a firm belief in the eternal truth of God’s
unity. He preached the Unity of God and worked all his life for the
union of men into a universal Brotherhood.
In order that you should co-operate, i.e., work
together with your fellow-men for the good of all, your work must
needs be co-ordinated. It must be guided and directed so
that it tallies with the work of others. This guidance and
direction comes from your leader, whom you and your fellow-workers
must obey, in order to attain the best results. Co-operation thus
implies Co-ordination which requires a leader—Caliph or
King—whom you ought to follow loyally. Loyalty to your
leader is therefore the gist of co-operation. The Qur’an and
the Traditions are full of injunctions for obedience to “those in
authority among you” 63 اولوا
الامر منكم
“The surest way of pleasing God is to obey the King.”
Modern Science teaches exactly the same thing. I have a series
of little books in my Library called “People’s Books” published at
6d. each by 55Messrs. Jack, London. One of them on
“Zoology” is written by Professor MacBride, F.R.S. He traces the
development of Man from Protozoa,—little specks of
animalculæ—and points out how each species of animals
has risen higher than another by (i) greater “inventive capacity”,
the capacity of adopting new means to an old end and old means to a
new end: and (ii) higher “tribal morality” implied in co-operation
and loyalty to leaders. He says: “Mankind progresses by the
appearance of individuals in whom (besides the inventive genius)
the instincts of co-operation and loyalty are more strongly
developed”. It is precisely those instincts that Islam fosters by
its doctrine of the universal brotherhood of Muslims—a
doctrine which implies primarily loyalty to your King. Just as the
affairs of a family like yours, consisting of a dozen members,
cannot prosper unless each follows loyally the lead of the eldest,
or the wisest among you; so the affairs of a nation can never be in
a satisfactory condition unless each individual is loyal to his
King and country, and co-operates with his Government by willingly
doing what is required of him.
Muhammad enjoined اطلب
العلم و لو
كان بالضين
“Seek knowledge even if thou hast to go for it to China”—(the
farthest country known in his days).
divine Ev’n unto Cathay’s
mine.
He said that wisdom was the birthright of every Muslim who
should seize it wherever he found it. He thus encouraged the
learning of Science and the consequent acquirement of inventive
capacity which is biologically as essential for human progress as
co-operation and loyalty.
A study of animal life from the lowest animalcule to the highly
civilized man, teaches us to know, feel and act, in a particular
manner, viz.,
(a) to know our environment, i.e., to know
the Laws of Nature in order to improve our general capacity for
invention, manufacture and commerce, (Knowledge)
(b) to feel for our fellow-men in order to
increase mutual good-will so necessary for co-operation,
(Sympathy)
(c) and to act for the general good of our race
under the guidance of our political and social leaders,
(Loyalty).
“Knowledge, Sympathy and Loyalty” are thus the watchwords of the
Science of to-day no less than of the Islam of our ancestors.64
LLOW me to
explain here that my object is not to persuade you to believe what
I say but only to make you think for yourself. I will therefore
avoid arguments and discussions as much as possible and content
myself with bare outlines of certain Islamic doctrines and brief
references to the corresponding ideas of modern Science. I shall be
very pleased if they serve to excite your curiosity and stimulate
your thought.
1. The second Muslim doctrine which I have called the Principle
of Perfection may be inferred from the second part of the
Sura:—It is essential for our perfect development that we
should worship God and implore Him for help and guidance in the
discharge of the three-fold duty of our life.
No sane man thinks that he is perfect as he is. There is always
a feeling of some sort in our mind that somehow, and in some
respect or other, we are not as perfect as we should be. It is to
remove this feeling of imperfection inherent in us that we have to
worship God and supplicate His help and guidance. If you ask: “Why
should I worship God?” Islam answers your question by asking
another: “Why should you admire beauty in Nature and Art?” You
can58 answer only: “Because it is beautiful. I am
so constituted that I cannot do otherwise than admire a beautiful
object when I see it”. You are unable to give any other reason
satisfactorily accounting for your admiration of the beautiful.
Islam returns a similar answer to your question: “You should
worship God because He is God”. You, as one of His creatures,
cannot help worshipping or reverently adoring Him when you see, at
every instant of your life, manifold manifestations of His divine
Goodness and Beauty. Some Sufis65 even go to the extent of identifying God with
“Infinite Beauty” حسن
ازلى which is the object of their love
عشق and ecstacy وجد.
You remember the verse which every devout Muslim recites when he
hears the news of the death of any one: انا
لله و انا
اليه
راجعون
“Verily we are God’s and to Him we shall return”.
This as well as some other verses support the Islamic belief in
the re-union of a man’s soul with God. As I have mentioned in my
previous Note, Islam conceives that there is but one Universal
Soul. Small parts—infinitesimal fractions—of the
Universal Soul are confined in men’s bodies and break free at death
to 59re-join the Whole66. This belief is in entire accord with Sir Oliver
Lodge’s theory (or “speculation”, as he calls it) put forward in
his book, Faith allied to Science. Without stopping to
enquire how far the belief indicated by Qur’anic verses, or the
theory advanced by a man of science, is supported by scientific
facts, I would only point out that it gives a clear and
intelligible meaning to the word “worship”
عبادت. It is the communion of the
fractional soul, which is somehow confined in a man’s living body,
with the Whole Soul, the Soul of the Universe, to which
it—the fractional soul—shall return some day freed from
the trammels of the flesh. This “communion”
عبادت includes Adoration
تسبيح و
تهليل and Prayer
دعا.
I cannot do better than quote Sir Oliver Lodge’s admirable
description of the meaning and object of Prayer:—
“In prayer we come into close communion with a Higher than we
know, and seek to contemplate Divine perfection. Its climax and
consummation is attained when we realize the universal Permeance,
the entire Goodness and the Fatherly Love of the Divine Being.”
[الحد لله
رب العالمن
الرحمن
مالك يم
الدين
Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds, compassionate and
merciful, King of the day of Reckoning.]
“Through prayer we admit our dependance on a Higher Power, for
existence and health and everything we possess; we are encouraged
to ask for whatever we need as children ask parents;
[ادعونى
استجب
لكم Call upon me—I will hearken
unto you] and we inevitably cry for mercy and comfort in
times of tribulation and anguish.”
“The spirit of simple supplication may desire
chiefly:—
“1. Insight and receptiveness to truth and knowledge.
[ايم نعبد We
worship Thee alone.]
“2. Help and guidance in the practical management of life.
[واياك
نستعين We seek help from
Thee alone.]
“3. Ability and willingness to follow the light withersoever it
leads.”
[اهدنا
الصراط
المستقيم
Guide us into the right path]
Compare the verses I have placed in brackets with what Sir
Oliver says, and you will observe how well he has interpreted the
Qur’an. It looks as if he had the Opening Sura
سورة فاتحة
before him when he wrote. Even the sequence of his ideas
corresponds practically with the order of the verses. But
you may be quite sure that he never thought of the Qur’an at all.
He evolved it all from his own inner consciousness well trained by
scientific studies.61
Maxim of Self-help.
2. There are numerous verses in the Qur’an which enjoin
“purification تز كيم of one’s self”
and prohibit “cruelty ظلم to one’s own mind”.
They obviously imply the rule of conduct which I have called the
Maxim of Self-help. No one has expressed it more beautifully and
truthfully than Shakespeare in the well-known speech of
Polonius.
self be true, And it must follow, as the
night the day, Thou canst not then be false
to any man.
(Historian), Profs. Muirhead, Mackenzie, and Sen.
It is the basis of the ethical system advocated by authors
mentioned in the margin. There are at present two contending
schools of Morality. Each tries to determine what is ‘good’ or
‘bad’, and sets up a ‘standard’ or test by which men’s actions
should be judged as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. The standard according to
the one school is Happiness (the surplus of pleasure over pain);
according to the other it is Perfection (the fullest development of
men as social beings). I think the latter school is more in favour
now than it was at the end of the last century. Men of science
now-a-days realize with Herbert Spencer that every one ought to
develop himself by freely exercising all the powers of his mind and
body to the fullest extent consistent with, and limited by, the
like exercise62 by his fellow men.67 I cannot expatiate on this subject without
entering into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics. I have only
to say that the teaching of Islam as regards self-development is in
entire accord with the views of latter-day moralists.
If you are a student of Ethics you will observe that the
doctrine of “making the most of oneself” (Perfection) is, in
accordance with the Islamic principle of Moderation, the mean of
two extreme doctrines:—the doctrine of “duty for duty’s sake”
(Rigourism) on the one hand, and the doctrine of “the greatest
happiness of the greatest number” (Utilitarianism) on the
other.
I have to add that “self-perfection” really means “self-help,” =
due exercise of one’s faculties with patience and perseverance. If
you have not read Dr. Smiles’ book on Self-help, you had better
read it at your earliest convenience. I can recommend no better
commentary on the saying: “God helps those who help themselves.”68
slam69 is, so to
speak, the youngest of all the great religions that are now
professed by millions of people. Like a child who is heir to all
the mental and physical tendencies inherited and acquired by his
ancestors, Islam inherited all the revelations which “one hundred
and eighty thousand” (i.e. innumerable) prophets had
communicated to the world before the advent of Muhammad. I have
already referred to the injunction, contained in the Qur’an, that
we should believe not only what was revealed to Muhammad himself,
but also what was revealed to all “Messengers of God” who had come
before him; provided always that we have authentic records of those
revelations.70 (This proviso is
very important.) It is therefore no detraction from the merits of
Islam that some of its doctrines resemble those of other revealed
religions. Parsis say that Islam borrowed: بسم
الله
الرحمن
الرحيم “In the name of God the
most merciful and most compassionate”71 from their 64holy scripture, Zendavesta,
which begins with the words بنام
ايزد بخشا
ئنده بخشا
يشگر
مهربان داد
گر. Some Christian writers on Islam seem to take
delight in pointing out that the Prophet of Arabia borrowed this,
that, and the other doctrine from certain Christians and Jews whom
he had met in his earlier life. It is very doubtful whether he had
ever met such people. But it is certain that he was too illiterate
امى to understand their recondite doctrines if
they had condescended to teach him. Even if we admit that he
borrowed doctrines from other religions, his own religion is not
thereby rendered the less valuable; for there is no religion which
is absolutely original. He never denounced former religions
but only claimed to have confirmed and supplemented them by the
religion revealed to him. He always referred to “former
revelations” with great respect.
Muslims picture the Supreme Truth as a beautiful citadel built
on the top of a steep mountain. Different religions are but so many
paths مذا هب leading to it from
different directions. In their estimation Islam is the best and the
easiest path of all. This fanciful idea implies that some of the
paths might cross each other at different parts of their course,
and others might run parallel to one another or even run together
for a considerable distance. Many religions may therefore have
certain doctrines bearing close resemblance to each65 other like
parallel paths. Some religions may even have certain doctrines in
common, like paths running together. All religions are, and purport
to be, paths leading to one and the same citadel of Truth.72 None the less has each of them an
individuality of its own and a claim that it is better and easier
than all others.73
I have prefaced this Note with the above remarks because the
Principle of Moderation and the connected Maxim of the Mean, which
are indicated in the third and last part of the Sura, were
enunciated by Plato فلا طون and
his disciple Aristotle ارسطو who
lived more than 1,000 years before Muhammad. Some Muslims count
those great sages of ancient Greece among the innumerable
(1,800,000) Messengers of God who preceded 66our Prophet.74 The records75 صحايف possess an
authority second only to that of the Qur’an itself, being in fact
revelations which God vouchsafed from time to time for the benefit
and guidance of mankind.
1. I need not repeat what I have already said as to ‘the Path of
Grace’ صراط
الذين
انعمت
عليهم being the mean between
two extremes, ‘the Path of Sin’ غير
المغضوب
عليهم and ‘the Path of Error’ و
لا الضالين. I
may however explain that the pursuit of the Path of Grace implies
the Principle of Moderation in the sense that we should fully and
freely exercise all our mental and physical powers with due
regard to their respective limitations. For all practical
purposes, you may take Reason, Passion and Action as the principal
representatives of a man’s powers, and view Reason as the guiding
force in his constitution,
Passion as the moving force, and Action (voluntary acts and
omissions) as the resultant of the guiding and moving forces
thus:—

Now, the Principle of Moderation means simply that you should
not allow your passions to influence your actions unduly, nor
should you allow your reason to control your passions unduly; but
you should ever try to hold the balance even between them in order
that the resultant action might be quite right—might
discharge the three-fold duty of man,—and might thereby tend
(be it in ever so small a degree) to the perfection of the
individual and the race. If at any time your passion over-rides
your reason, you commit Sin; and on the contrary, if you exercise
your reason so much as to stifle your passion altogether, you fall
into Error. If you permit neither reason, nor passion to discharge
their respective functions, you lapse into Inaction which is again
an Error. Undue suppression of Passion, and over-exercise of
Reason, as well as non-exercise of both—militate against the
Principle of Moderation, the essence of which is (as Aristotle
pointed out) that no power should tyrannize over any other in our
constitution.68
What is “due” or “undue” exercise of a power, is a question
which your common sense should decide in each case with reference
to the person acting and the circumstances under which he acts. The
only general rule that can be laid down is implied in the ideal of
perfection explained in the previous Notes. Every exercise of any
of your mental or bodily power is right or wrong according as it
does, or does not, tend to the perfection of yourselves or your
offspring, and your community or race.
I have only to add that the Principle of Moderation, in the form
in which I have roughly described it, is fully recognized by such
up-to-date writers on the Science of Ethics as Sir Leslie Stephen,
one of the two talented Editors of the Dictionary of National
Biography.
2. Addressing Muslims the Qur’an says:—
كذا لك
جعلناكم
امة وسطا
لتكونوا
شهداء على
الناس
“We have thus made you a middle nation (= a moderate people)
in order that you should be an example to mankind.”—i.
137.
One of the ways in which God has made Muslims a moderate people
is by enjoining them to avoid extreme courses of action and to
adopt the middle or the mean course whenever and wherever it is
possible76.
The Maxim of the Mean is the objective counter-part of the
subjective Principle of Moderation. The latter says: Don’t over-,
or under-exercise any of your faculties; and the former says: Don’t
have too much or too little of any thing. Too much of any thing is
good for nothing. Too little of it is worse than nothing. “Too
much” and “too little” are relative terms and signify nothing by
themselves. It is only with reference to oneself and one’s
environment at any particular time and place that they acquire a
meaning as “excess” and “defect” respectively. I cannot explain it
better than give a few instances in a tabular form where the “mean”
comes between the “excess” and the “defect” of a quality of the
head or heart, or a course of action.
(1) Qualities of the Head (Reason):—
Excess. | Mean. | Defect. |
Caution | Prudence | Neglect |
Doubt | Conviction | Uncertainty |
Conceit | Modesty | Diffidence |
Sensitive | Attentive | Indifferent |
(2) Qualities of the Heart (Passions):—
Cowardice | Courage | Rashness |
Sensuality | Temperance | Abstinence |
Bigot | Enthusiastic | Lukewarm |
(3) Courses of Action:—
Restriction | Liberty | Licence |
Favouritism | Justice | Injustice |
Prodigal | Generous | Miserly |
You will find out for yourself what are the appropriate
qualities or courses of conduct, of which the excess, mean and
defect are expressed by the words given above. Fear, for example,
is the feeling of which excess is Cowardice and defect is Rashness,
while the mean is Courage. Similarly as regards one’s own opinion
of one’s powers, excess is Conceit and defect is Diffidence, while
the mean is Modesty. Again too much or too little restraint on
action is Restriction or Licence while the mean is Liberty.
It will be a useful exercise to make a long list of such words
as express the difference of degrees of the various
qualities or functions of Reason, Passion and Action (= Knowledge,
Feeling and Will.) But it will not always be possible to
find three contrasted words, like those in the table, for every
quality or action; because no language is so perfect as to have
separate and single words to express the immense number and
manifold shades of ideas which our mind is capable of entertaining.
Still the fact is duly recognized by modern Science that there are
differences not only of kind but also of degree in
everything—ideas, feelings, desires, actions, objects and
attributes of objects—with which we are concerned. Although
you may not have a word expressive of degree in every case, yet you
can practically ascertain the extremes and the mean in all
cases without exception, and can so order71 your conduct as to avoid
the one and adopt the other in all cases. I may point out here that
“the Mean” is not the “arithmetical mean” (like 6½
which is the arithmetical mean of 5 and 8) but only an
approximately medium or middle course of conduct—via
media.77
خيرا لا مو ر
ا و سطا
You may object that, since the ascertainment of the mean in each
case requires calm thought with reference to yourself and your
environment, the rule is too difficult to follow in these days of
quick communication, speedy locomotion, and urgent action. I answer
that it is but an ideal rule of conduct. Like all rules of
Logic (Thought), Æsthetics (Beauty), or Ethics (Conduct), it
sets before you an ideal which you should ever strive to attain
though you may not attain it fully at any time. No thinker may have
been absolutely logical, no Artist may have wrought a perfect work
of beauty, and no man may have ever been quite moral. But that is
no reason why thinkers, artists, and men generally, should not
endeavour to attain perfection in their respective spheres of
thought and action.
There is a further and greater objection to the rule of the
middle course, viz., that, if followed strictly, it will
reduce all men to a dead level of mediocrity, and will not foster
the development of men of genius. I have to admit regretfully 72that
such will be the case, and, as my next Note will show, it will be
in accordance with a Law of Nature recently discovered. Some
writers have even attempted to prove that genius or
excessive intelligence is a form of madness as bad as its opposite
form, imbecility or defective intelligence. They seem to
believe that only the men of average intelligence are quite
sane.
near allied And thin partitions do their
bounds divide.—Dryden.
The late Sir John Gorst created a sensation when he declared in
the House of Commons that great countries were governed by
mediocrities only.
The world knows nothing of its greatest men.—Sir H.
Taylor.
T was
Adolphe Quetelet, Astronomer-Royal of Belgium, who in the seventies
of the last century attempted to prove that “the average man is
to a nation what the centre of gravity is to a body.” A
similar, if not quite the same, conclusion has since been reached
by Sir Francis Galton and Professor Karl Pearson in their
researches into men’s physical and intellectual qualities in the
light of Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection or Survival of the
Fittest. This theory which, in its more extended form, is called
the Law of Evolution, has profoundly influenced, if not entirely
revolutionized, the Science and Philosophy of our own times. It has
not however succeeded, as was at first feared, in destroying
men’s belief in God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. For it
has done no more than disclose but a few of the numerous ways in
which He creates and rules.
I have been a student of Evolution Literature ever since I left
College. Speaking for myself I can say that my study of it has not
in the least shaken my belief in God, but has rather74 strengthened
it. I entirely agree with a popular writer78 on “the Scientific Ideas of To-day,” who
says:
“True Science does not seek to deprive man of his Soul or to
drive the Creator from his Universe, but it honestly endeavours to
study His marvellous works … to see the manner in which He has
caused Nature to work out His design.”
The Law of Evolution or the Development Hypothesis, as it has
been called, is in fact a clever guess at truth—very valuable
as a formula which enables us not only to remember the result of
numerous observations and experiments, but also to predict certain
events to be verified by subsequent observations and experiments.
It is impossible to convey a clear idea of it in a few sentences. A
great man like Herbert Spencer spent 50 years of his life in
explaining and illustrating it in no less than ten stout volumes of
his “Synthetic Philosophy.” The central idea may however be
expressed in the following propositions, using the word
“thing” in its widest sense as any object of perception, or
knowable objects79.
1. Nothing exists absolutely by itself; everything exists in
relation with something else which is its “environment.”
2. A thing and its environment cannot exist side by side for any
considerable time without each affecting or influencing the other
in some 75respects at least: a thing A and its
environment B, which cannot but exist together, must needs act and
re-act on each other.

3. The action and re-action of the thing A and its environment B
on each other, brings about mutual adjustment, the fitting of each
into the other.
4. According as this mutual adjustment or fitting is relatively
complete or incomplete, there is Evolution or
Dissolution, survival or extinction, of the thing (A) itself.80
5. The process of Evolution or Survival is characterized
by:—
(a) Integration: grouping together of
certain like units (such as atoms or molecules, living cells
or individuals) into a whole,
(b) Differentiation: certain parts (or
functions) of the aggregated whole becoming unlike each
other or specialized, and
(c) Adjustment: fitting of the
aggregated and differentiated whole into its environment.
6. In the opposite process of Dissolution or Extinction the
thing undergoes the same changes in the reverse order before it
disappears as such.
In other words, given a thing and its environment, the one has
to adapt and adjust itself to the other, or cease to exist. Nothing
survives, as an individual, which does not change. Like a picture
in its setting, a thing has to fit itself to its environment
in order that it might survive for the best advantage of itself and
its kind. Thus, the fit lives and the unfit dies81. As the Qur’an expresses
it ان الارض
ير “the Earth is inherited by only the fit among My
creatures.”82 This applies not
only to plants and animals, man and society, but also to inanimate
or inorganic things, as the President of the British Association
announced some years ago.
A man, for example, has for his environment, the atmosphere of
the place he inhabits, the 77society he lives in, the occupation he
follows, the laws he obeys, etc. He can live long and happily only
when the qualities of his body and mind befit him to that
environment, i.e., when they enable him (to become
صا لح) to adapt himself continuously to the
circumstances of his position. What, then, is the general nature of
such qualities?
You know that one of the best methods of Science is Measurement.
No scientific knowledge is exact unless it enables you not only to
distinguish one quality from another, but also to measure each
quality or determine its degrees in some way or other. It is not
sufficient to know hot from cold but the degrees of temperature
must be measured by a thermometer.
The new methods of Statistics and graphic representation have
been applied to a large number of men and women for the purpose of
finding “the fittest” qualities or “characters” as they are
technically called. Professor Karl Pearson83 and others have thus found that among a large
number of men and women in a given community any physical or mental
character which deviates largely, by excess or defect, from the
mean or average, renders them the less fit to survive the struggle
for existence. Individuals possessing 78 any
character which deviates extremely from the mean tend to
disappear. For example, the average height of men has been
found by measurement of a large number of people to be (say) 5ft.
6in. and it has also been found by statistical methods that men who
are 7ft. or men who are only 3ft. are very rare. It is therefore
concluded that men who are too tall or too short i.e., who
deviate extremely from the mean, tend to disappear and are
therefore unfit to survive.
This is only a rough and ready example of what is called the Law
of Periodic Selection which has now superseded the Belgian
philosopher’s Law of the Average (or “the Mean”). It applies to
human conduct as well as to human qualities. That conduct alone
(i.e., only that particular course of deliberate action)
befits a man to his environment, which deviates the least from a
standard or average of such conduct. It is the indispensable
condition of his happiness and longevity.
You thus see that the Islamic Maxim of the Mean is justified by
Science.
ET me devote
this concluding Note to a few general remarks. The meanings and
definitions of certain words given below are somewhat arbitrary,
but I trust they will enable you to understand and remember certain
abstruse matters.
(a) Take the word “thing” to mean any object of thought,
such as, for example, a house, a labourer, redness, distance, home,
charity, eloquence, or the British Constitution. All these are
things which you can think of.
(b) You may then define a “fact” as a known or knowable
thing or relation between things; in other words, a fact is
any thing or relation, which you know or can know if you take the
necessary trouble.
(c) The word “Nature”, with a capital N, is but a name
for the sum-total of all facts known and knowable. Poets,
philosophers, and even some men of Science, personify this
sum-total of facts known and knowable, i.e., Nature
and refer to it as “she” or “her”. It is but a convenient way of
saying, by implication, that 80there is the same uniformity,
continuity and unity in Nature as in our idea of a person.
Now, all thinking men of all ages of history have ever tried to
understand Nature as a whole and to answer regarding her three
important questions represented by three interrogatives, what? how?
and why?
(1) What is Nature? = What are the facts
which constitute Nature. (Knowledge of Nature).
(2) How has Nature come to be what she is? =
How is it that facts constituting Nature have become as we perceive
them? (Explanation of Nature).
(3) Why is Nature as she is and not
otherwise? = Why is it that facts constituting Nature have a
certain uniformity (order) continuity and unity in spite of changes
that take place continuously? (Reason of Nature).
Broadly speaking, I may say that Science (with its various
departments called “Sciences”) tries to answer the first question
what, the question as to facts of Nature. Philosophy
tries to answer the second question how, the question as to
the explanation of Nature. Religion or Theology (which
includes highest Poetry) tries to answer the third and last
question why, the question as to the reason of
Nature. You may thus clearly81 remember the respective provinces of
Science, Philosophy and Religion by remembering three words What,
How and Why. When you read a book which treats of facts or the
what of Nature; or of the explanation or the how of
her; or of the reason or the why of her; you may be sure it
is Science, Philosophy or Religion respectively that you are
reading, whatever be the name of the book itself.
I have said that Science, Philosophy or Religion “tries
to answer” and not “answers”, because the answer of any of them can
never be final or immutable. None of them can ever reach finality.
As the experience of mankind grows continuously, new facts or new
phases of old facts are discovered in the course of time. Just as
men have to adapt or adjust themselves to new facts (or to changes
in old facts) or else die; so men’s Science, Philosophy and
Theology have to adjust themselves to new facts or else become
empty nothings.85
I have often said that I believe Islam to be the best religion
because (so far as I know) it accords best with the current ideas
of Science. If you accept my view of the respective provinces of
Science, Philosophy, and Religion, you can easily comprehend that a
Religion like Islam 82which purports to expound the reason
why of Nature must needs correspond with the what
(Science) as well as with the how (Philosophy) of Nature.
The three great divisions of Human Thought—I mean, Science,
Philosophy and Religion—are necessarily connected with one
another, as otherwise they cannot make up the whole Universe of
Human Thought and cannot satisfy men’s craving for complete and
consistent knowledge.
The Law of Evolution which I mentioned in the previous Note is
but a Theory of Creation, an explanation of how Nature has
come to be what she is. New facts which future ages may discover
may prove the theory to be either right or wrong. At present it is
the best hypothesis—the best guess—because it accords
best with known facts. It acts as a guide to knowable facts as
well. It has shown that men cannot progress, indeed cannot long
survive, if they fail to adapt themselves to the circumstances of
their position, if they fail to fit into their environment which
surrounds them like an envelope. Ceaseless change is the order of
Nature. Continuous adaptation is the law of life.
Adaptability is therefore the sine qua non of men’s
life and existence. The religion which suits them must also have
the quality of adaptability. I hold Islam has this quality in an
eminent degree and is therefore the most suitable religion.[ 83
Please remember that I speak of Islam as taught by the Qur’an
itself and not “Muhammadanism” as professed by some
so-called followers of the Prophet. You have to interpret the
Qur’an86 quite naturally as any
other book or historic document, but not in the way in which
some Muhammadans do it with the aid of marvellous fictions
and miraculous traditions. Islam has to resist (to use a big word)
the anthropomorphic tendency of the human mind, viz.,
the tendency to view abstract qualities or agencies as
persons having a separate existence as individual beings.
I have said that there is no inherent antagonism between
Christianity and Islam if and when the sayings and
doings of the founders of each are rightly viewed and understood in
a simple and natural manner. Muhammad never ceased saying that he
had come to attest and complete the mission of Jesus and his
predecessors, who were God’s messengers like himself.87 The greatest and the best rule of human
conduct which Jesus laid down was: “Love thy neighbour as
thyself”.
You remember the well-known lines of Burns:
gie us To see oursels as others see
us.
The gift which the poet prays for is vouchsafed to very few
mortals. Almost all of us have naturally, and often unconsciously,
such a high opinion of ourselves that, even if we would, we could
not see ourselves as others see us. The next best thing that we can
do is, therefore, to see others as we see ourselves, to
cherish the same regard for others as we instinctively cherish for
ourselves. If (to take an extreme case for example) we cannot
detest ourselves as others sometimes detest or hate us, we can at
least try to love others as we love ourselves, “try to do unto
others as we wish that others should do unto us”. Thus the rule:
“Love thy neighbour as thyself”, is quite consistent with human
nature and is the most comprehensive rule of conduct which has ever
been laid down for the guidance of mankind. To my mind there is no
better proof of the identity in spirit of Christianity and Islam
than the confirmation of Christ’s command by Muhammad himself.
No-one will be a faithful Muslim until he loves his neighbour as he loves himself. | ![]() | لا يو من احد كم حتىا حتلىا يحب اجا ره ما يوحب لنفس |
For this reason, I believe that there is no difference between
the two religions if the metaphysical85 doctrines
engrafted on both be eliminated. True Islam is but true
Christianity writ short.88 Both recognize that the source of virtue is
love,
For love is Heaven and Heaven is love.
We are indebted to Mr. J.C. Molony for the following
illuminating criticism which affords food for serious
thought—Editor.

If we assume the existence of a God, interested in the
governance of this world, it becomes impossible to deny that
Muhammad was God’s messenger, or, at least, God’s prophet. It seems
to me unlikely that a man could change the belief of nations by
chance, incredible that he should do so were he an impostor.
Muhammad was certainly honest; the persistence of the faith called
after him leads me to consider him as inspired. Or, if “inspired”
be objected to as a general religious term of very indefinite
meaning, let us say that he saw into the heart and reality of life
further and more clearly than any man has done since his day. How
then comes the fact, noted by Amjad and Mahmood and admitted by
you, that Islamic countries in the main have wretched governments,
and are crumbling away before Christian Powers? I do not think that
you have answered this question89. You 88have merely pointed out that Islam, if
rightly understood, is an excellent religion.
The boys, I think, have stated their dilemma too sharply; the
contrast is not entirely between Islam and Christianity. India is
for all practical purposes a “Hindu” country, and the power of the
old Indian Kingdoms has faded before Christian invaders. In that
section of the world in which Christianity is the prevailing and
accepted form of religious belief, the temporal might of those
nations professing one great form of the Christian creed, the Roman
Catholic, has undoubtedly waned in comparison with that of the
nations professing what is generally called the Protestant faith.
There are many varieties of non-Roman Catholic Christianity, but
Protestantism is a label sufficiently comprehensive and
sufficiently well understood for our purposes. I speak without
sectarian bitterness; I am not, I fear, a convinced adherent of any
particular form of religious faith. I have met many good men, and
have many friends, among Muhammadans, Hindus, and Roman Catholics.
But I think that the objective truth of what I say, particularly in
the Christian sphere, is indubitable. Compare for instance the
decay of Spain with the grandeur of England, the feebleness of
Austria with the strength and order (turned to ill uses though they
may be) of Germany.90 The question at once 89arises whether religion
has anything to say to the matter. I think that it has.
Muhammadanism, Hinduism, and Catholicism (I omit the prefix
Roman) have concerned themselves too much with Heaven and Hell,
with the avoidance of future damnation and the obtaining of future
bliss. These religions have afforded some justification for the
gibe that Auguste Comte levelled at Christianity; he said that it
sprang from “a servile terror and an immense cupidity.” Religion
should be rather a guide of life here than a guide to a
life to come. Kant would have curtailed the beatitude “blessed
are the pure in heart for they shall see God” into “blessed are the
pure in heart”. It is good to be good; it is not good to be good in
the hope of some ultimate gain thereby.91 The great Catholic Bishop of Pondicherry,
Monseigneur Bonnand, wrote to one of his desponding priests:
“Continue a missionary to the end, and you will assuredly be
saved”. In my opinion he was wrong; I should think little of a
missionary, whether Christian or Muhammadan, who endured the trials
of a missionary life (and some of those old French priests did
endure abundantly) solely in the hope of making a personal, albeit
spiritual and eternal, profit at the end of it all.
Now, “Bishop Blougram”, a character created by the poet
Browning, though supposedly 90inspired by the personality of Cardinal
Wiseman, says in his “Apology“:
Christian faith I happened to be born
in—which to teach Was given me as I
grew up, on all hands As best and readiest
means of living by.
The same, I fear, might now be said of Muhammadanism. But to my
mind there is no fixity, no absolute truth in any form of religious
dogma. Religion is a thing that must grow with man’s intelligence;
it is not a box of spiritual truths packed once and for ever, and
unpacked for the gaze of successive generations. It is not enough
to believe in certain facts that happened long ago, or to obey
certain injunctions given long ago in a particular country; we must
apply the spirit of a religion to the circumstances in which we
live. We shall never attain to final absolute truth, “the end is
not yet, and the purposes of God to man are but half revealed”
(Jowett).
Unfortunately when any religion has taken itself as final it has
developed a priesthood, and that priesthood has been apt to lay
down a code of fixed rules wherewith alone compliance is required.
It is a fatally easy thing to live in conformity with any definite
code of rules. Muhammad himself, I imagine, was a singularly91
liberal theologian. He laid down certain regulations for the
conduct of life, excellent considering his place and time; the
modern Muhammadan has accepted these as a maximum spiritual demand,
ignoring the fact that they probably represented the minimum
demands of common sense in Muhammad’s time and country.
Muhammad directed that a Muhammadan should not drink alcohol.
This is a maxim of excellent sense in Arabia; Haji Burton, who much
appreciated good wine, has told us that in the Arabian deserts wine
is positively distasteful as well as unwholesome. I have not the
least desire that Muhammadans should drink wine. I merely say that
there is no merit, other than that of common sense, in
obeying this excellent instruction in countries wherein
circumstances render it excellent. I do not believe that Muhammad
would find the least fault with disregard of his maxim in countries
where the climate makes the moderate drinking of wine both
pleasant and beneficial.
Muhammad instituted the Ramzan fast, mainly, I am told, to
harden his soldiers. But the Muhammadan of to-day finds a positive
merit in fasting. There is none; else the jockey’s profession
comprises the most virtuous men in the world.
Muhammad permitted polygamy, and enjoined the practical
seclusion of women. This, as92 Sir Syed Ahmad has pointed out, was the
counsel of common sense in Arabia at the time of the Prophet.
Apparently there were more women than men, and if a woman was not
under the protection of some man, and was not under guard, she was
very likely to come to harm. But I do not think that this counsel
holds good for all time. Polygamy among Indian Muhammadans is dying
out, but the general Muhammadan here still imprisons his womankind
in the comfortable assurance that he is thereby paving his own way
to salvation. I do not see much hope for the physical and mental
development of Muhammadans so long as one half of the people
remains in seclusion and ignorance, in a habit of life necessarily
unhealthy. If you observe that you thereby escape the evils that
are published to the world in European divorce courts, I would
answer that in the first place I doubt the completeness of your
escape, (it is a matter on which I have heard much sardonic comment
from Muslim friends), and that in the second place, even granting
what you say, 80% of women free, educated, virtuous and healthy, is
a far better result than 100% merely virtuous, and that by
constraint.
Muhammad laid down that a man should pray five times a day. To
my mind this was merely the Prophet’s way of saying that man’s
whole life should be a prayer: the modern 93Muhammadan too often
“repeats prayers” five times a day and is satisfied. He might as
well repeat the multiplication table five times a day. “Words
without thoughts to Heaven never go” said the king in
Hamlet. I do not know if our friend D.B. prays ten times a
day, or five times, or not at all, and (candidly) I do not care.
All I know is that in his responsible position he would die rather
than take a bribe, tell a lie, intrigue against his master. And I
fancy that the Prophet, could he return to earth, would find this
abundantly sufficient.
You mention a few other points of orthodoxy; the cut of one’s
hair, the length of one’s trousers. Dr. Khaja Hussain told me that
he once saw a Muhammadan Street aroused to frenzy and riot by the
appearance of a true believer in Feringhi (or Kafir) boots. It is
all of a piece. Muhammadans have concentrated their attention on
these ready-made rules for getting to heaven; their prophet found
no such easy road to bliss. I do not imagine that it would ever
have occurred to his great soul to claim any particular merit in
that he did not drink wine, in that he repeated prayers (he at
least understood these prayers) five times a day, in that he did
not let his wives roam the country a prey to any marauder of those
wild times. After all any one can obey these regulations with very
little trouble to himself; it is not quite so easy to adopt the
spirit that guided94 Muhammad’s life. Sir Afsur, I do not doubt,
will tell you that it is an advisable thing for a soldier to drill
smartly, to keep his arms and accoutrements clean, and that with a
little trouble it is not difficult for a soldier to do all this.
But he will tell you, I feel sure, that this is far from being all;
the supreme duty of a soldier is to be brave in battle—an
affair of much more difficulty. A soldier may be smart and clean,
but if he fails in battle his smartness and cleanness are worth
nothing—he is a bad soldier.
Muhammadanism has lost touch with life; it contents itself with
the letter of the Prophet’s teaching and shuts its eyes to, does
not search for, the indwelling spirit. It is a small kernel
rattling in a very big shell, as Charles Kingsley said in “Yeast”
of the Church service at St. Paul’s in the fifties of the last
century. Religion has been divorced from life, and so the
followers of Islam as nations have decayed.
It is the same with the other religions that I have mentioned.
The old time Brahmin called himself such because he was educated,
intelligent, sanitary in his habits, upright; he did not claim to
be all this simply because he was the son of his father. The great
obstacle to progress down here is the fact that people imagine it
is sufficient to follow in a mechanical unintelligent way the
letter, while totally disregarding the spirit, of some old and
after all not very import95ant rules. Ireland is said to have been
an “Isle of Saints”, I have my doubts on the subject, but suppose
it so. It is now full of fine churches and religious
establishments; no people in the world go to church with greater
regularity, abstain more thoroughly from meat on Fridays, etc. etc.
But with the mechanical observances they are, I fear, too well
satisfied. Drunkenness, idleness, utter disregard for truth, are
rampant in Southern Ireland, and therefore Southern Ireland is what
it is. Formal devotion is no substitute whether in the daily battle
of the world, or (I believe) in the ultimate judgment of God, for
the proper ordering of one’s every day actions.
If Muhammadans breathe the breath of life on the dry bones of
their religion I see no reason why the temporal power of Islamic
countries and the spiritual strength of the Muhammadan Church
should not revive. Something of the kind has happened in France.
Zola cried out against “the nightmare of Catholicism”; antagonism
to the Catholic Church had been growing up long before M. Combes
started to “strafe” the religious establishments of the country.
The orthodox imagined that France was losing all religion: Auguste
Comte, an unbeliever, proclaimed that France was daily becoming
more religious. Rènè Bazin, a Catholic writer,
implicitly admits that Comte was right. The people were sick of the
dry, lifeless, formal rules that were offered to96 them; the
priesthood have had this truth hammered into them, and they are
quickening their formulæ with life to fit the life of the
people, not striving to dessicate the people’s life to fit their
formulæ.
As a socio-political institution Islam is, in the middle
of its fourteenth century (1340 A.H.), in the same vicissitudes of
development, as Christianity was in the middle of its
fourteenth century (1350 A.D.)—an institution weakened by
contending sects and rendered stagnant by rigid formalism. “It is a
dispensation of providence”, says Syed Ameer Ali, “that whenever a
religion becomes reduced to formalism cross-currents set in to
restore spiritual vitality.” As in Christianity in its fourteenth
century, so in Islam of our own times, the vitalising
cross-currents have set in and we are now witnessing a Muslim
Renaissance all over the world. Its pioneers in India were Sir Syed
Ahmad, Mowlana Shibli, and the poet Hali. The Rt. Hon. Ameer Ali,
Dr. Iqbal and a host of others bear aloft the New Light. The Muslim
Reformation is coming on as surely as the Christian Reformation
came in the wake of Patristicism and Formalism. It need not
necessarily mean Political Revolutions as in Europe.
All praise is due to Thee, O God! None other than Thee we adore. Thou art the Master of the Worlds, Thine aid alone do we implore. |
Thou art Compassion; lead Thou on To Thy right path our human race. Thy Mercy floweth evermore, Do guide us to the path of Grace. |
Thou art the Lord of Judgment-day, For sure shall all be judged by Thee, O keep us off the path of Sin And Error’s way. So mote it be! |
1 Translated by
Mushtari Begum of Bejnor and published in the Islamic Review
April 1916.
2 This was written
in 1917.
3 By the word “best”
I mean “the most suitable for both the spiritual and material needs
of man.” I do not wish to cast any reflection on any other
religion. See Note 7.
4 I make a
difference between Islam and Muhammadanism. The latter is not pure
Islam. It has forgotten the spirit of Islam and remembers
only the letter of its law. “The dry bones of a religion are
nothing; the spirit that quickens the bones is all.” See Note
5.
5 There is no place
in Islam for either priests or monks. Yet the Muhammadanism of
to-day has both. There are Tartuffes and Pecksniffs in this
religion as well as in any other religion.
6 This is the real
reason of the political and social weakness of most Islamic
countries of our own times.
7 The teaching of
Muhammad has been admirably summarised by a Christian writer as
follows:—
“There is no deity but God. He created the Universe and rules it
with love and mercy. He alone is to be worshipped; in Him
confidence is to be placed in time of adversity. There must be no
murmurings at His decrees; life—your own and others dearer
than your own—must be placed in His hands in trust and
love.”
I do not believe that there is any monotheistic religion in the
world which will dissent from this teaching. The writer (in the
Harmsworth Encyclopedia) goes on to say:—
“The fatalism which has come to be regarded as part of the
Moslem creed had no place in the system established by Muhammad who
again and again distinctly and emphatically repudiated the idea.
Muhammad taught reform, not revolution.”
In these days of political unrest I cannot impress on you too
strongly the meaning of the last sentence in which I have
italicised two words.
8 See p. 33 para. 6.
9 The Author has
not kept copies of these letters.—Ed.
10 The Qur’an
speaks very highly of Jesus:—
اسمه مسيح
عيسى بن
مريم
وجيهاً فى
الدنيا و
الا خره و من
المقربين
“His name is Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, illustrious both in
this and in the next world. He is one of those who have near access
to God.”—iii. 40.
11 Published and
sold by the Rationalistic Press, London for 6d.
12 The translation
of the Sura in this analysis is slightly different from that given
in the succeeding page.—Ed.
13 “It is
strange”: says Havelock Ellis, “men seek to be, or to seem,
atheists, agnostics, cynics, pessimists; at the core of all these
things lurks religion…. The men who have most finely felt the
pulse of the world and have, in their turn, most effectively
stirred its pulse, are religious men.”—New Spirit,
228.
14 The word
“religion” also means a system of beliefs and rites pertaining to
them. I do not use the word in that sense here.
15 i.e.,
the world such as we perceive and conceive it.
16 “I know that
even the unaided reason, when correctly exercised, leads to a
belief in God, in the immortality of the soul, and in a future
retribution”—Cardinal Newman.
17 Prof. Scott
Elliot at the end of his book, Prehistoric Man (p. 381)
writes thus: “It seems true that almost every race of man is not
only capable of believing in a Supreme God but, so far as the
evidence goes, did reverence one God who was often also thought of
as the Creator of the Sky or of the World…. There is a very
strong body of evidence showing that every race of mankind
possessed quite early in its development a feeling of awe and
reverence towards an Unknown God.”
18 There are at
present three missionary religions in the world—religions
which were intended and designed by their respective founders to
unite all men without any distinction into a Universal
Brotherhood.
(1) Buddhism asserts that God is Law or Wisdom.
(2) Islam teaches that God is Energy or Power.
(3) Christianity says that God is Father or Love.
But all these religions inculcate in fact one and the same Truth
in its three aspects, as Muslim Sufis would say. I believe the gist
of doctrines held by them is that God is Omnipotent Energy
manifesting itself uniformly as Law and operating
benevolently as Love.
You should try to solve the equation for yourself. You will not
fail to understand it if you think hard.
19 Here again
taking the three missionary religions mentioned above, the Identity
is:—
God said unto Moses, I am that I am—Exodus, iii,
14.
20 Some Sufis
define Nature as Individual plus his Environment. By
individual they mean any one capable of thinking of himself
as “I” or “Me” and every thing else as “not I” or “not me” which is
his environment.
21 It may be said
that all the three ideas of God’s relation with Nature (the three
“isms” I have mentioned in brackets) are but different
degrees of a man’s desire for communion with his God. Says
Rumi in his celebrated Masnavi: “All religions are in
substance one and the same”—Bk. iii, story 12 (St.
Daqúqi).
22 See last para.
of Note 4 and also Note
10. الطرق الى
الله بحسب
الانفس There are as many ways
leading to God as thereThere are as many ways leading to God as
there are minds.
23 “Religion
places the human soul in the presence of its highest ideal (=God),
it lifts it above the level of ordinary goodness, and produces at
least a yearning after a higher and better life in the light of
God.”—Max Muller.
24 Sura =
Chapter.
25 Absolute = not
conditioned by place time measure or circumstances. Infinite =
without beginning or end.
The word “Islam” means literally (1) resignation (2)
preservation and (3) peace. Lord Tennyson has most admirably
expressed the Islamic ideal of self-surrender to the will of God
and has incidentally decided the vexed question of free-will in a
single line:—
Thine.“
I use the word in the restricted sense of “Islam as taught by
Muhammad.” If you take Islam to mean belief in one God and virtuous
conduct in life, you may say that there has not been and will never
be any true religion besides Islam. In this sense Islam is the only
true religion. See p. 27, last para. of Note 2 p. 19, and of this
Note pp. 33, 34.
“A man must not do reverence to his own sect or disparage that
of another man without reason. Deprecation should be for specific
reasons only, because the sects of other people all deserve
reverence for one reason or other. By thus acting, a man exalts his
own sect, and at the same time does service to the sects of other
people. By acting contrariwise, a man hurts his own sect and does
disservice to the sects of other people.”—King Asoka’s
Edict XII.
“Every sect favourably regards him who is faithful to its
precepts, and, in truth, he is to be commended.”—Akbar, (Ain
Akbari III).
Compare the Bhagvat Gita, iv. 7-8:—
“Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O Bharata, and there
is exaltation of unrighteousness, then I myself come
forth;
For the protection of the good, for the destruction of
evil-doers, for the sake of firmly establishing righteousness, I
am born from age to age.”
The words italicised suggest the Hindu doctrine of
Incarnation and Metempsychosis. Orthodox Muslims do not believe in
any such doctrine (حلول و
اتحاد) but would substitute for the
italics the words: I send a messenger or reformer. See,
e.g., Quran, xvi. 36.
To students of Islam and its history I cannot recommend better
and more useful books than the Rt. Hon. Dr. Syed Ameer Ali’s
Spirit of Islam and History of the Saracens. New and
revised editions have been recently published. They present the
various aspects of Islam in their proper perspective. They are
classics for English readers.
“Grant the existence of God and it is impossible to deny that
Muhammad was His Messenger. A man does not change the belief of
half the world by chance.” So wrote a Christian friend of mine.
I mean “goodness and greatness” as a human being, for
Muhammad never said or did anything to show that he was not a human
being. The Qur’an commanded him, “Say I am a man like yourself.”
قل انا بشر
مثلكم He therefore insisted that men
should attach greater importance to the nature of the message than
to the character of the messenger himself. “I am,” said he “no more
than a man: when I order you anything with respect to religion,
receive it, and when I order you about the affairs of the world
then I am nothing more than a man.”
“Ahmad” is another name of Muhammad. I have nothing to say to
those mystics, who, by a reasoning peculiar to their doctrines,
identify the Messenger (Prophet) with the Master (God).
يوم الدين = the
day of the Faith = the time of Dissolution predicted by Islam as
well as by Science. Sir Syed Ahmad fully explains the meaning of
يوم الدين =
Universal Destruction and of قيامت
صغرى = individual destruction,
(i.e., death) from the viewpoint of modern Science.
As regards miracles, the beliefs that are held do not matter so
much as the spirit in which they are held. If the spirit is right
and leads to virtuous conduct in life, any reasonable belief will
quite do. Here comes in the Pragmatism of Islam. It does not object
to anything which has a practical value unless it is
unreasonable, immoral, or inconsistent with the Islamic ideas of
the unity of God and the brotherhood of man.
“We will soon show them our sign in all horizons (= regions) and
in their own souls, until it shall become quite clear to them that
it is the Truth—Qur’an xli 53.
سنريهم آيا
تنا فى الا
فاق و فى
انفسهم
حتىا يتبين
لهم انه
الحق
God’s is the East and the West, therefore whichever side you
turn, you will see the face (= presence) of
God—Qur’an i. 115.
ولله المشر
و المغرب فا
ينما تولو
فثم و جه
الله
And He is within you (= in your mind), why don’t you see
Him?—Qur’an li. 21. و فى
انفسهم
افلا
تبصرون
Islam must not be confounded with what is called “Muhammadanism”
which is but an ossified form of Islam, clothed in Mediæval
beliefs and disfigured by pagan practices. See Mr. J.C. Molony’s
admirable report of the Census of the Madras Presidency for 1911,
where, quoting from the poet Hali’s famous Musaddas, he
describes how far Muhammadanism in Southern India has been
influenced by Hinduism. Read also Hali’s excellent pamphlet called
الدين يسر “the
Simplest Religion” which describes how Islam has been “ossified,”
i.e., rendered rigid and unprogressive.
I know of no religion which does not say, “Do good and avoid
evil” and I consider it no religion which does not say, “Live well
and happily.”
It supplies the best motive for overcoming the perversity of
human nature to which St. Paul directs our attention in these
beautiful words: “The good that I would, I do not: and the evil
which I would not, I do.”—Rom. vii. 19.
Read Draper’s “Conflict between Science and Religion” which is a
historical account of how some scientific ideas had to contend with
religious prejudices—a book which, by the way, disproves the
charge that Caliph Omar destroyed the great Library at
Alexandria.
God reveals Himself to everybody at every instant of his life.
It depends entirely on the spirituality or spiritual capacity of
each individual to what extent he knows God and God’s ways. The
“spiritual capacity” is partly inherited from one’s ancestors and
partly acquired by faith and devotion, as well as by right conduct
and good works.
برلوح دلم
جز الف قا
متيار * چكنم
حرف دگرياد
نداد
استادم The Alif of the Loved One’s form is engraven on my
heart, No other letter did my Shaikh ever
to me impart—Hafiz.
I have neither time nor space to explain the full significance
of the Qur’anic verses I have quoted here.
Some would call this Reality, God; but others would say that God
is greater and higher than the Reality which manifests itself in
different forms. He is above all that any man can think of or
imagine. اے برتراز
خيل وقياس
وگمان
ووهم
Vol. ii. 748. You have to read the book itself to understand
this. I cannot explain it in a short note.
I have neither time nor space to explain the full significance
of the Qur’anic phrases I have mentioned here.
“In the world there is nothing so great as man. In man there is
nothing so great as mind”—Sir William Hamilton.
“In the mind of man there is nothing so great as the idea of
God”—Islam.
It was the spirit of co-operation which Islam engendered among
wild and unruly Arabs, that enabled them to put aside their tribal
feuds, to unite and conquer more than half the known world in the
first century of the Hijri era (= the 7th century of the Christian
era). It was the lack of that spirit in the next two centuries that
dismembered the Muslim Empire.
I say “the Islam of our ancestors”, because the Islam of
some of our contemporaries, called Muhammadanism, is not
quite the same.
Read Prof. Gregory’s Discovery or the Spirit and Service of
Science.
“Sufis” are those Muslims who claim with Mowlana Rumi
ماز قرآن
مغزرابرد
اشتيم *
استخوان
پيش سگان
انادا
ختيم
“We have taken the marrow out of the Qur’an and thrown the bones
to dogs,” meaning by “dogs” those who quarrel over words
(متكلمين) of the sacred
texts.
This proviso defines also the Liberty of Subjects in a State.
Every man should be free to do whatever he wishes provided that he
does not thereby prevent others from enjoying the like
liberty of action. It is the basis of all good Laws which should
provide equal opportunities to all subjects without
distinction.
Muhammadans generally misunderstand and misapply the doctrine of
“Qismat” or Fate. The Prophet distinctly taught that we should
first of all do whatever lies in our power and then leave the rest
to God. We are apt to forget the first part of his precept and
cling to its second part only which accords with our tropical
laziness. See footnote 7 on page
12.
Islam rejects some “previous revelations” not because they are
untrue but because their records that have come down to us are not
quite genuine and trustworthy.
“Mankind comes to Me along many roads; and on whatever road a
man approaches Me on that road do I welcome him, for all roads are
Mine.”—Bhagawat Gita.
الطرق الى
الله بحسب
الانفس See p. 24.
See Note 2 (concluding part) which mentions three common factors
in all religious systems of the world.
“The city of the Hindu God is Benares and the city of the Muslim
God is Mecca. But search your hearts and there you will find the
God both of Hindus and Muslims. If the Creator dwells in
tabernacles only, whose dwelling is the
Universe?”—Kabir.
Some Muslims believe that Zoraster, Krishna, Buddha, and
Confucius were also prophets or messengers of God but that they
were no more than good and great men. They do not attribute any
divinity to them.
“Religion”, said Hitchcock, “implies Revelation”. By
“Revelation” is meant a set of sublime (and therefore, divine)
truths revealed, i.e. communicated from time to time to
chosen men (= Prophets) who had the necessary spirituality to
comprehend them and to convey them, as God’s messages, to their
fellow-men in the human language of themselves. The defects
(if any) found in the authoritative records (= Scriptures
صحف) are the defects in the human language and
not certainly in the sacred and sublime truths revealed to the
chosen men, the Messengers of God. It is the defect of human
understanding, no less than the poverty of human language,
that has often prevented the full comprehension of the divine
dispensation and the sublime truths in the messages of Prophets. It
is our comprehension of the truth itself that has given rise
to diversity in religious beliefs and practices.
Neither the Bible nor the Qur’an is responsible for the cruel
excesses committed by Christians or Muhammadans in the name of
Religion.
For the purpose of this Note it will be enough if you understand
the first four propositions. I am afraid you will find some
difficulty in understanding the remaining two propositions without
illustrative examples, for which I have no space here.
“For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth,
and they that be cursed of him shall be cut
off.”—Psalm 37th, 22.
Qur’an, xxi. 105. Following the late Mr. Justice Karamat Hussain
of Allahabad, I take the word صا لح to mean
“fit” in the evolutionary sense. See his book عام
الاخلاق.
He edits a journal called “Biometrika” which is devoted to the
statistical study of biological problems.
Prof. Muirhead of the University of Burmingham, in his kind
letter to the author on these “Notes.”
Hence Formalism creeps into every Religion and renders it
lifeless when its doctrines fail to adjust themselves to new facts
or to changes in old facts. See Appendix.
It should be construed and applied to new ideas and changed
circumstances of each age in quite the same manner as Judges in a
Court of Law construe and apply old Statutes to facts of cases that
come before them. See Hali’s الدين
يسر
Or say: True Christianity is but true Islam writ large. “On the
whole this religion of Mahomet’s is a kind of
Christianity.”—Thomas Carlyle.
See hints:—Para 3 of Note 5 pp. 31,
32; Footnote (48) p. 43;
Footnotes (4) and (5) page 12; Footnote (85) p. 81.
Transcriber’s note: Arabic names are kept as in the original text. Arabic transliterations are according to ISO 233 system in most cases and from the version by the CANADIAN SOCIETY OF MUSLIMS with their kind permission. |