Chapter V: Part III: The Straight Path Arabic: islām = madhab for Man (2)

Islam[59] 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.[60] (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: [Arabic: bi-smi llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm] "In the name of God the most merciful and most compassionate"[61] from their holy scripture, Zendavesta, which begins with the words [Persian: ba nam eezad ba bakh sha-inda bakhs ha bikasr meher ban gar.] 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 [Arabic: ummī] 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 [Arabic: madhāhib] 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 each 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]

III.

_Principle of Moderation._

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 [Arabic: Flatun] and his disciple Aristotle [Arabic: Aristo] who lived more than 1,000 years before Muhammad. Some Muslims count those great sages of ancient Greece among the innumerable (180,000) Messengers of God who preceded our Prophet.[74] The records[75] [Arabic: sahaif] of their sayings 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' [Arabic: ihdinā ṣ-ṣirāṭa l-mustaqīma] being the _mean_ between two _extremes_, 'the Path of Sin' [Arabic: ġayri l-maġḍūbi ʿalayhim] and 'the Path of Error' [Arabic: wa-lā ḍ-ḍāllīn]. 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:--

Y ------------------------------------ P
/ _.-' /
. / ary) _.-' /
n / unt _.-' /
o / ^ (Guide) (Vol _.-' /
s / / ion _.-' /
a / / Act _.-' /
e / / _.-' ant) /
R / / _.-' ult /
/ _.-' (Res /
/ _.-' /
/_.-' ---> Passion. /
O------------------------------------ X
(Mover)

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.

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.

_Maxim of the Mean or Average._

2. Addressing Muslims the Qur'an says:--

[Arabic: wa-ka-ḏālika ǧaʿalnākum ʾummatan wasaṭan li-takūnū
šuhadāʾa ʿalā n-nās]

"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 possible[76].

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
Flattery Courtesy Rudeness
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 order 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] [Arabic: khair ul umūr ausatuha]

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 that 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.

Great wits are sure to madness 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._

+Note 11.+

_Evolution and Survival._

It 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 rather strengthened it. I entirely agree with a popular writer[78] 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 objects[79].

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 respects 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_ dies[81]. As the Qur'an expresses it [Arabic: ʾanna l-ʾarḍa yariṯuhā ʿibādiya ṣ-ṣālihūn] "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 society 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 [Arabic: salih]) 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 Pearson[83] 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 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.

+Note 12.+

_Religion begins with the fear of the Lord and ends in the love of Man.[84]_

Let 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.

I.

(_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 there 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 clearly 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]

II.

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 which 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.

III.

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.

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'an[86] 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.

IV.

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:

O wad some power the giftie 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 | [Arabic: La yu'minu ahdakum hatta
neighbour as he loves himself. | yuhibbu li ma yajib nafsahu]

For this reason, I believe that there is no difference between the two religions _if_ the metaphysical 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.