{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_25254/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_25254","id":"gutenberg_25254","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25254","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Islam"],"text":"Produced by Turgut Dincer, Michael Ciesielski and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n(This file was produced from images generously made\navailable by The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON ISLAM\n\nBY\n\nSIR AHMED HUSSAIN, K.C.I.E., C.S.I.\n\n(NAWAB AMIN JUNG BAHADUR)\n\nCollected and Edited\n\nby\n\nKhan Bahadur Hajee Khaja Muhammad Hussain\n\n\"_The fear of the Lord is the beginning\nof knowledge._\"--_Proverb_\n\nHYDERABAD, DECCAN\nGOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS\n\n1922\n\n_ALL RIGHTS RESERVED_\n\nTO\n\nTHE MEMORY\n\nOF\n\nK. AMJUD HUSSAIN.\n\n_One of the four for whom these Notes\nwere first written,\nin 1917._\n\n  +---------------------------------------------+\n  |           Transcriber's note:               |\n  | Bold characters are shown with \"+\" signs.   |\n  | Arabic names are kept as in the original    |\n  | text. Arabic transliterations are according |\n  | to ISO 233 system in most cases and from the|\n  | version by the CANADIAN SOCIETY OF MUSLIMS  |\n  | with their kind permission.                 |\n  +---------------------------------------------+\n\n[Printer's mark]\n\nFOREWORD\n\n\nThe following Notes were enclosed by the author in his weekly letters to\nhis brother and sons who were students in the Universities of Cambridge,\nEdinburgh and Birmingham. I persuaded him to allow me to have them\nprinted, as I thought they were suggestive and useful. He has however\ndesired me to say that they should not be regarded as anything but\nconcise memoranda jotted down (at short intervals between the busy hours\nof his official life) as general answers to questions put to him. They\ncontain some passages which are too concise or abstract, if not vague or\nenigmatic. But, the author says, he left them designedly so in order to\ninduce his readers to try to understand them or at least to seek\nexplanation and illustration. Numerous foot-notes have been added for\nthe same purpose.\n\nHe frankly admits that his view of Islam is neither quite orthodox nor\nquite heterodox but something midway between the two. It was put forward\nin order to make his boys think for themselves and argue with him. The\nfirst three Notes may be 'skipped' at the first reading.\n\nSincere acknowledgments are due to Nawab Imad-ul-Mulk Bahadur Bilgrami,\nC.S.I., Mr. J.C. Molony, I.C.S., Khan Bahadur Abdur Rahim, B.A., B.L.,\nMr. Syed Ross Masood, M.A., and others who very kindly read the proofs\nand favoured the author with valuable suggestions.\n\nBanganapalle,       }\n_11th August 1922_. }         K.M.H.\n\n\n\nDuty is Deity\nWork is Worship.--_Sanskrit Proverb_\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n\n                                                    PAGE\n\nFOREWORD                                          7\n\nMUSLIM PRAYER                                   9\n\nNOTE 1. INTRODUCTION                                  11\n\n \"  2. THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE QUR'AN                15\n\n \"  3. WHAT IS RELIGION?                              20\n\n \"  4. WHAT IS TRUE ISLAM?                            25\n\n \"  5. WHAT IS NOT ISLAM                              29\n\n \"  6. \"ISLAM\" AND \"NOT-ISLAM\"                        35\n\n \"  7. WHY IS ISLAM THE BEST RELIGION?                43\n\n \"  8. UNITY & UNION                                  49\n\n \"  9. PERFECTION & SELF-HELP                         57\n\n \"  10. MODERATION & VIA MEDIA                        63\n\n \"  11. EVOLUTION & SURVIVAL                          73\n\n \"  12. \"RELIGION BEGINS WITH THE FEAR OF THE LORD\n          AND ENDS IN THE LOVE OF MAN\"                79\n\nAPPENDIX:\n\n  MUSLIM REFORMATION                                  87\n\n  OUR PRAYER                                          97\n\n\n\nWorship Truth\nLove Humanity.--_Islamic Maxim_\n\n\n+THE MUSLIM PRAYER.+[1]\n\n_Surai Fatiha_\n\n\n  Praise be to Thee my God, Lord of the Worlds!\n  O Merciful, Compassionate art Thou!\n  The King of all on Day of Reckoning,\n  Thee only do we worship and adore,\n  To Thee, most merciful, we cry for help;\n  O guide us ever more on the straight path,\n  The path of those to whom Thou gracious art\n  On whom Thine anger falls not then nor now,\n  The path of them that from Thee go not stray.\n\n                                      Amen.\n\n\n  Grant that the knowledge I get may be the\n  knowledge worth having.--_Thomas a Kempis._\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON ISLAM\n\n\n+Note 1.+\n\n_Introduction._\n\n\nTwo of you--Lateef and Altaf--will recollect that more than a year ago\nyou wrote to me saying that you were puzzled by certain questions which\na Missionary had put to you. I remember that Amjud or Mahmood even went\nso far as to ask what was the good of Islam, when countries and people\nprofessing that faith had weak governments and were crumbling to pieces\nunder the influence of Christian Powers.[2] I answered your queries only\nin a general way as your University education had not then advanced far\nenough. But I think the time has now come when I should try to explain\nto you what I conceive to be the true spirit of the religion of our\nfore-fathers.\n\nI firmly believe that Islam is the best[3] religion in the world--I\nmean, Islam rightly understood and interpreted and _not_ the\nMuhammadanism[4] of some of our formularist Maulavies,[5] who say that\na man goes to Hell or Heaven according as he wears his trousers lower or\nhigher than his ankles! They have degraded our religion by paying undue\nattention to formulas and forms to the exclusion and neglect of its\nliving spirit and reality[6]. The poet Hafiz rightly stigmatised their\nvain controversies when he said that [Persian: Chon nadiden haghighat\nafsaneh zadend] \"since they did not see the fact, they ran after\nfiction.\"\n\nI am more than ever convinced of two characteristics of Islam:--\n\n_1st._--It is not inconsistent with _true_ Christianity, or with any\nother _true_ religion[7] of which the fundamental principle is [Arabic:\nTawhid] One God [Arabic: wa\u1e25dah\u016b la \u0161ar\u012bka lah\u016b] \"the Peerless\nOne.\"[8]\n\n_2nd._--It conforms to modern scientific ideas better than any other\nreligion.\n\nI have already explained, in some of my letters[9] to you, why I believe\nthat Islam is but a continuation and consummation of Christianity as\ntaught by Jesus himself in _his own speeches_ which are reported in the\nSynoptic Gospels of the New Testament. We have nothing to do with the\ninterpretation of his words by his Apostles and others after them. If we\ntake the plain words and the plain meaning of those words reported to\nhave proceeded from his own blessed mouth,[10] we clearly see that they\nteach the same sublime truths as our Prophet himself inculcated. Jesus\ndid not live long to complete his mission, Muhammad completed it. Both\nwere God's holy messengers [Arabic: Rusul-u-llah]. Says the Qur'an:\n\"This day I have completed your religion for you.\" [Arabic: l-yawma\n\u02beakmaltu lakum d\u012bnakum]\n\nI need not now go into details, or refer to other religions, to shew\nthat the spirit of Islam is not inconsistent with their true spirit, if\nrightly conceived and interpreted in the light of modern science. I hope\nI shall be able some day to write down the result of my own thought and\ninvestigation in the matter. I content myself at present with drawing\nyour attention to the first characteristic of Islam, and I propose to\nwrite a few Notes to draw your special attention to its second\ncharacteristic which is the more remarkable--the characteristic that it\nis quite consistent with modern ideas of science.\n\nNo scientific idea influenced the thought of the last century more\nprofoundly than the idea of progress or development embodied in what is\ncalled the Law of Evolution. It is now widely accepted. You will be\nsurprised to know that many an Islamic tenet is entirely in accord with\nit. Indeed Maulana Rumi outlined it poetically in his famous _Masnavi_\nin the thirteenth century, in the same manner as Lord Tennyson did in\nhis _Princess_ in the nineteenth. I desire that you should try to\nunderstand it in its modern form. I strongly recommend that you should\nread an admirable book by Edward Clodd called _The Story of\nCreation_[11]. When I first read it, some years ago, I felt it was as\npleasant and interesting as a novel. Its introduction and Part II are\nquite easy to read. They will give you a very good idea of the great\nrevolution which Darwin and Wallace, Huxley and Spencer have wrought in\nthe thought of our own times.\n\n\n\n\n+Note 2.+\n\n_The First Chapter of the Qur'an._\n\n\nThe following is a translation of the \"Opening Chapter\" of our Holy\nQur'an. I have analysed it by placing Roman and Arabic numerals, the\nfirst indicating verses [Arabic: ayyat] and the second indicating\nsub-divisions of verses.\n\n\n   _Opening Chapter._         +[Arabic: Sura al-f\u0101ti\u1e25a]+\n\n  In the Name of God the      [Arabic: bi-smi ll\u0101hi r-ra\u1e25m\u0101ni r-ra\u1e25\u012bm]\n  Compassionate, the\n  Merciful.\n\nI. Praise be to God,          [Arabic: al-\u1e25amdu li-ll\u0101hi]    .I\n\n  (1) Lord (Nourisher)        [Arabic: rabbi l-\u02bf\u0101lam\u012bn (1)]\n      of the Worlds,\n\n  (2) the Compassionate,      [Arabic: ar-ra\u1e25m\u0101ni r-ra\u1e25\u012bm (2)]\n      the Merciful\n\n  (3) King of the Day         [Arabic: m\u0101liki yawmi d-d\u012bn (3)]\n      of Reckoning (= day\n      of judgment.)\n\nII.                                                           .II\n\n  (1) Thee only do we         [Arabic: \u02beiyy\u0101ka na\u02bfbudu (1)]\n      worship,\n\n  (2) and Thee only do        [Arabic: wa-\u02beiyy\u0101ka nasta\u02bf\u012bn (2)]\n      we ask for aid.\n\n  (3) Guide us in the         [Arabic: ihdin\u0101 \u1e63-\u1e63ir\u0101\u1e6da l-mustaq\u012bm (3)]\n      right Path (that is)\n\nIII. the Path of those        [Arabic: \u1e63ir\u0101\u1e6da lla\u1e0f\u012bna]       .III\n\n  (1) to whom Thou            [Arabic: \u02bean\u02bfamta \u02bfalayhim (1)]\n      art gracious,\n\n  (2) who are not objects     [Arabic: \u0121ayri l-ma\u0121\u1e0d\u016bbi \u02bfalayhim (2)]\n      of wrath,\n\n  (3) and who go not          [Arabic: wa-l\u0101 \u1e0d-\u1e0d\u0101ll\u012bn (3)]\n      astray.\n\n      _Amen_[12]              [Arabic: \u0101m\u012bn]\n\n\nThe whole Sura divides itself into three parts and each part into three\ndivisions thus:--\n\nPart I.--_Nature of God_.\n\nThree principal attributes of God:--\n\n  (1) Creator or Nourisher    [Arabic: Rab]\n  (2) Protector               [Arabic: ra\u1e25m\u0101ni wa r-ra\u1e25\u012bm]\n  (3) Adjuster                [Arabic: m\u0101liki yawmi d-d\u012bn]\n\n\nPart II.--_Man's duty to God_ lies in,\n\n  (1) Worship                 [Arabic: \u02bfib\u0101dat]\n  (2) Seeking His Protection  [Arabic: Isti'an\u0101t]\n  (3) Seeking His Guidance    [Arabic: Istihd\u0101]\n\nPart III.--_The Straight Path_ [Arabic: isl\u0101m = madhab] _for Man_\n  being:--\n\n  (1) the path of Grace (= path of those who\n        obtain Grace)\n\n  (2) not the Path of Sin (=path of those\n        who deliberately go wrong).\n\n  (3) nor the Path of Error (=path of those\n        who by mistake go astray).\n\nObserve:--\n\n  (_a_) Each of the three duties in the second part\n  corresponds with the three attributes mentioned in the\n  first part.\n\n  (_b_) The third part, the Path of Grace, _i.e._, the\n  straight path, is _the mean between two extremes_--the\n  path of deliberate sinners on the one hand and the path of\n  unwitting stragglers on the other.\n\n  (_c_) The Islamic prayer is simpler than the Christian\n  prayer. I do not say the one is good and the other is bad.\n  No; _both_ are _very_ good indeed, but the one _seems\n  simpler_ than the other. Compare them.\n\n\n_The Christian Prayer._           _The Muslim Prayer._\n\n THE LORD'S PRAYER.                THE FATIHA.\n\n_Adoration._                      _Adoration._\n\n(_a_) Our Father which art in    (_a_) Praise be to God, Lord\n      heaven, Hallowed be thy          of the worlds, the compassionate,\n      name. Thy Kingdom                the merciful, King of the day\n      come.                            of reckoning.\n\n_Submission._                      _Submission._\n\n(_b_) Thy will be done in earth   (_b_) Thee only do we worship and\n      as it is in heaven.               of Thee only do we ask aid.\n\n_Supplication._                    _Supplication._\n\n(_c_) Give us this day our daily  (_c_) Guide us into the right\n      bread. And forgive us our         path--the path of those\n      debts as we forgive our           to whom Thou hast\n      debtors.                          been gracious,\n      And lead us not into              not the path of those\n      temptation, but deliver           who are the objects\n      us from evil: for Thine           of wrath nor of those\n      is the Kingdom, and the           who have gone astray.\n      power, and the glory for          Amen.\n      ever. Amen.\n\n_St. Matthew_, vi 9-13.               _The Qur'an_, i.\n\n\nIf you will carefully compare the parts of each Prayer which I have\nwritten as separate paragraphs marked (_a_), (_b_) and (_c_), you will\nobserve that there is difference only in the language, but no difference\nwhatever in the real meaning. There is in both Prayers absolutely the\nsame spirit of\n\n  (_a_) Adoration,\n\n  (_b_) Submission, and\n\n  (_c_) Supplication.\n\nBoth begin with the _praise_ of the Lord to whom all praise is due. This\nis followed in both by an expression of our _entire dependence_ on Him\nand submission to His will. Lastly, there is _solicitation for\nguidance_, positive and negative, _viz._, guidance towards right action\nand guidance for avoiding temptation.\n\nThe three parts (_a_), (_b_) and (_c_) of the Christian as well as of\nthe Muslim Prayer are in perfect accord with the results of a\ncomparative study of the religious systems of the world. They correspond\nto three essential elements in _all_ religions, _viz._,\n\n  (_a_) _Belief_ in the existence of a Supreme Power which\n          is Infinite and Absolute,\n\n  (_b_) _Feeling_ of man's entire dependence on that Power,\n           and\n\n  (_c_) _Desire_ to seek or solicit guidance of that Power\n           in the daily life of man.\n\nYou will thus see that both the Lord's Prayer in the Bible and the\nOpening Chapter of the Qur'an go to the roots of all religions ever\nprofessed by man. They are truly Universal Prayers. No man need hesitate\nto join in the solemn recitation of either.\n\nWe ought to view all monotheistic religions--religions which enjoin\nbelief in one God--in the spirit in which St. Peter viewed them when he\nsaid (_Acts_ x. 34-5): \"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter\nof persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh\nrighteousness is accepted with Him.\" The same is the spirit of the\noft-repeated definition of 'Muslims' in the Qur'an: [Arabic: lla\u1e0f\u012bna\n\u02be\u0101man\u016b minkum wa-\u02bfamil\u016b \u1e63-\u1e63\u0101li\u1e25\u0101t] \"those who believe and work\nrighteousness.\" \"Trust in the Lord and do good,\" as the psalm says.\n\n\n\n\n+Note 3.+\n\nI.--_What is Religion?_\n\n\nI have said that _true_ Islam is the _best_ religion in the world. I\nmust prove my assertion. In order to do so I have to explain:--\n\n  I. What do I mean by religion?\n II. What is true Islam?\nIII. Why is it the best religion?\n\nI.--_Religion, God and Nature._\n\n_Religion._--No thinking man can help asking himself the questions:\n\"Whence has this world come? Whither is it bound to go?\" in other words,\n\"What was the _origin_ ([Arabic: mabd\u0101]) and what will be the _end_\n([Arabic: ma'\u0101d]) of the world of men, animals, plants and things that I\nperceive?\" The answers which each man gives to these questions\nconstitute his _religion_. A few earnest persons (poets, philosophers\nand theologians) try to answer these questions for themselves by patient\nstudy and earnest thought[13]. But a large majority of men and women\nmerely take the answers taught them by their parents, teachers or\npriests. There may possibly be a small number of men who do not trouble\nthemselves about these questions. These are not \"thinking men\" and may\ntherefore be left out of account.\n\nReligion is a silent and subtle power that works in the heart of man and\nmakes for righteousness. It is generated by his conviction as to the\nbeginning and end of himself and the world in which he lives and\nmoves[14].\n\n_God._--No intelligent and intelligible answers can be given to\nquestions as to the origin and the end or the government of _Nature_[15]\nwithout assuming the existence of the _One and only one God_ who is\n_Infinite_ and _Absolute_, _i.e._, One who hath neither beginning nor\nend and who is not conditioned or limited by anything whatever[16]. The\nInfinite and Absolute One has been called by different names by\ndifferent people at different times[17]. Yezdan, Ishwara, Jehovah, God,\nand Allah are the names, in different languages, of the same _Infinite\nand Absolute God_.\n\n  God of the Granite and the Rose\n    Soul of the Sparrow and the Bee!\n  The mighty tide of being flows\n    Through countless channels, Lord, from Thee.\n\n*_Conceptions of God, His attributes, and His relation to\nNature._--These have been and will ever be many and various. But I\nsummarise three principal conceptions under each head, for I believe\nthat other ideas, notions or conceptions are but combinations of two or\nmore of these:--\n\n\nI. Conceptions of God:--\n\n  1. God as the Ultimate _Law_.\n  2. God as the Omnipotent Energy or _Power_.\n  3. God as the Supreme Being or _Person[18]_.\n\nII. Notions of God's principal attributes:--\n\n  1. God as Creator or Nourisher.\n  2. God as Preserver or Protector.\n  3. God as Adjuster or Judge[18].\n\n[*] _Paragraphs marked with asterisks and their footnotes may be\n       omitted at the first reading._\n\n\nIII. Ideas of God's relation with Nature[20] (_i.e._, with the world of\nmen, animals, plants and other objects, and their inter-relations, of\nwhich men are aware):--\n\n  1. All is _from_ God = God is _above_ Nature\n                         which He created and\n                         governs (Theism).\n\n  2. God is _in_ All   = God is _in_ Nature although\n                         Nature is not\n                         God (Panentheism).\n\n  3. God _is_ All      = God _is_ Nature and\n                         Nature is God (Pantheism)[21].\n\n* The above is but a rough summary. I have neither time nor space to\nexplain and illustrate it. I have ventured to give some hints--imperfect\nhints, I fear--in the footnotes. I may however state here that, of the\nabove three conceptions, notions or ideas Islam accepts the medium or\nthe middle one which, as a little thought will show, includes the other\ntwo conceptions also. You need not at present try to understand the\nsummary or the words given in brackets. My subsequent Notes will explain\nit to some extent. Please remember that there are many men and many\nminds, and that there are likely to be as many religions, as many\nconceptions of God, as many notions of His attributes, and as many ideas\nof the beginning or end of things, ([Arabic: mabd\u0101' wa ma'\u0101d]) as there\nare _thinking_ minds[22].\n\n\nLet me conclude this Note with a short answer to the question why\nreligion is necessary to Man[23]. No society is possible without\nreligion, because of the dual nature of Man. As our poet says, [Persian:\nba bahaa'm bahra dari ba malaa'ik neez ham] and as all modern men of\nscience (such as Sir Oliver Lodge and others) admit, there is a higher\nand a lower in every man's nature, the one lifts him up and the other\npulls him down in the scale of animal and social existence. Religion is\nnecessary in order that every man's higher nature may conquer his lower\nnature in order that he may become a social being who is virtuous and\ndoes good of his own accord, and may not remain a mere beast whom the\nwhip alone prevents from doing mischief. It is religion that fosters\nhigh-thinking and holy-living, so necessary for the advancement of the\nhuman race.\n\n\n\n\n+Note 4.+\n\nII.--_What is true Islam?_\n\n\nThe answer to this question is contained within the four corners, as\nit were, of the Opening Sura[24] [Arabic: Sura al-f\u0101ti\u1e25a] which is a\ngeneral summary of the whole Qur'an. I have already analysed it and\nasked you to compare it with the Christian prayer called the Lord's\nprayer. I am sure you have noted and admired its simplicity and\nclearness and its almost scientific precision and comprehensiveness. I\nam only amplifying what I have already said when I say that the Sura\nteaches three cardinal and eternal truths:--\n\n_1st._--There is but One God who has created the worlds, maintains them,\nand rules them. In the inimitable words of the Sura of Purity.\n\n\n                                      [Arabic: Sura al-\u02bei\u1e2bl\u0101\u1e63]\n\n[Arabic: qul huwa ll\u0101hu \u02bea\u1e25ad] Say, God is one. }       = One.\n\n[Arabic: all\u0101hu \u1e63-\u1e63amad] God is Eternal.        }       = Infinite.\n\n[Arabic: lam yalid] He does not beget           }\n[Arabic: wa-lam y\u016blad] nor is He begotten.      }       = Absolute.[25]\n[Arabic: wa-lam yakun lah\u016b kufuwan a\u1e25ad]        }\n  and He hath no kith or kin.                   }\n\n_2ndly._--(_a_) God being our Creator, we have to _worship_, adore and\nlove Him and Him alone. This is the duty we owe to God. (_b_) Again, God\nbeing our merciful Preserver, we have to seek the protection of Him and\nHim alone. This is the duty we owe to ourselves. (_c_) Finally, God\nbeing our Judge or Ruler, we have to solicit guidance of Him and Him\nalone. This is the duty we owe to our fellow-creatures (including lower\nanimals) in the world we live in.\n\nYou must not fall into the error of believing that God is Creator at one\ntime or place, that He is Maintainer or Preserver at another time or\nplace, and that He is Judge or Ruler at a third time or place. No, no;\nHe, being the One and only God, is all the three together, Creator,\nPreserver and Ruler, at all times and in all places. It is we who, in\norder to understand Him properly and adore Him rightly, separate in our\nminds His three principal attributes, and think of Him as our Creator\n_when_ we worship Him, think of Him as our Preserver _when_ we seek His\nprotection, and think of Him as our Ruler or Judge _when_ we solicit His\nguidance. It is only we, finite and conditioned creatures, that are tied\ndown to and limited by time, place and circumstances. To God there are\nnone such. He is the One Infinite and Absolute, the One who hath neither\nbeginning nor end--the One who is absolutely unlimited and unconditioned\nby time, place, circumstances, or anything else. This is the Islamic\nconception or idea of God.\n\n_3rdly_.--What does the Sura teach us as to the guidance which we have\nto ask of God in our dealings with our fellow-creatures? It is guidance\ninto the straight path. What is the straight path? It is the path of\nrighteousness or the path of _Grace_ which is between two extremes, the\npath of _Sin_ and the path of _Error_. A Muslim's right path, _i.e._,\nhis right course of conduct, lies between two extreme paths or courses\nof conduct, _viz._, on the one hand, the path of those who sin, who\nknowingly and deliberately go against the will of God, which is manifest\nin Nature, and on the other hand, the path of those who unwittingly,\nthrough ignorance, go against His will. The right path lies thus:--\n\n\n_Path of Sin_ }  _Path of Grace_  {  _Path of Error_\n              }                   {\nwhich leads   }  which leads to   {   which leads to\nto ruin or    }  eternal bliss.   {   confusion worse\ndestruction.  }                   {   confounded.\n\nYou thus see that _true_ Islam consists in a threefold duty to God, to\noneself, and to others, and this duty is to be discharged by simply\nadopting, under God's guidance, _the mean between two extremes_. As our\nProphet has pithily expressed it [Arabic: khair ul umoor-e ausatiha],\n\"the best of things is the medium thing.\" This is the fundamental\nprinciple which underlies everything which is Islamic or Muslim.[26]\nPlease remember it, as also the three-fold Islamic Duty:--\n\n  (_a_) Duty to God, which is Worship or Adoration implying,\n          as it does, complete submission to His will = [Arabic:\n          isl\u0101m]\n\n  (_b_) Duty to yourself, which is self-preservation or\n          self-perfection = [Arabic: Asl\u0101m]\n\n  (_c_) Duty to others, which is peace and good will towards\n          them = [Arabic: isl\u0101m]\n\n\"Islam\"[27] as a religion means nothing more nor less than those three\nduties.\n\nIslam is not Philosophy, much less is it Science. It is but a Religion,\n_an attitude of man's mind towards his environment_--the attitude of\nself towards others and God. Both Philosophy and Science influence one's\nattitude of mind. To that extent Islam has to reckon with both. It is\ntherefore that Sufis and other philosophic sects have risen in Islam\nfrom time to time. The sphere of Islam is Faith manifesting itself in\ngood works; and the spheres of Science and Philosophy are Knowledge and\nReason. The latter often come into contact with the former, but can\nnever be identified with it.\n\n\n\n\n+Note 5.+\n\n_What is not Islam._\n\n\nIn my previous Note I tried to sketch briefly what is true Islam. I now\noffer a few observations on, or illustrations of, what is _not_ Islam.\nIn order to know anything quite well, it is desirable not only to know\n_what it is_ but also to know _what it is not_.\n\n1. The religion taught by the Qur'an and the Traditions [Arabic:\nah\u0101dith] of our Prophet is _Islam_ and not \"Muhammadanism,\" as it is\noften named. Those who profess Islam are _Muslims_ and not\n\"Muhammadans,\" as they are called. The word \"Musalman\" is but a\ncorruption of the Arabic plural [Arabic: muslim\u016bn/muslim\u012bn] of the\nsingular [Arabic: Muslim]. We and our religion have been called[28]\nafter the name of Muhammad just as the terms Christians and Christianity\nhave been derived from the name Christ. But \"Muhammadanism\" and\n\"Muhammadans\" are not at all the correct names of \"Islam\" and \"Muslims\"\nas you will presently see.[29]\n\n\n2. From the point of view of Islam, all religions may be divided thus:\n\n\n                   Religions are either,\n                              |\n              |---------------|---------------|\n              |                               |\n_False_: being beliefs}          {_True_: being beliefs\nin more gods than     } or       {in one and only God;\none,                  }          {and True Religions\n(Paths of Sin)        }          {are either,\n                                      |\n                           +----------|----------+\n                           |                     |\n                 _Pure_, such as    }    {_Mixed_, such as\n                  true Islam        }    {religions which\n                  unmixed with any  }    {mix up inconsistent\n                  inconsistent      } or {ideas with\n                  ideas.            }    {the idea of\n                                    }    {one God.\n                  (Paths of Grace)  }    {(Paths of Error)\n\nObserve that a pure Religion, such as true Islam, comes in between false\nReligions and mistaken or mixed Religions, just as the Quranic Path of\nGrace lies between the Path of Sin and the Path of Error. It is the mean\nbetween two extremes.\n\n3. It is not Islam to believe that there has been no true religion\nbesides Islam.[30] Such an erroneous belief leads to intolerance,\nthereby begetting bigotry and fanaticism [Arabic: taa'ssub]. It is\ncontrary to the teaching of the Qur'an and the Prophet. The first verse\nof the second Sura [Arabic: Baqrah = \u02be-l-m] commands us to\nbelieve in not only what was revealed to Muhammad but also in what was\nrevealed to those who went before him. It clearly indicates that there\nare, and will ever be, many true religions of which Islam is one. Almost\nthe first saying of our Prophet reported in collections of his\ntraditions [Arabic: ahaadith] is \"whoever says 'there is no god but\nGod,' will attain Salvation\" _i.e._, will obtain eternal bliss. This\nshews clearly that all religions which inculcate belief in one God are\ntrue religions--are right Paths of Grace which lead to eternal bliss.\nObserve that most Muhammadans (not Muslims) of to-day have\nforgotten this principle and have therefore become\nintolerant fanatics,[31] which accounts largely for the loss of\npolitical power of most Muhammadan Governments of modern times.\n\n4. Neither is it Islam to believe that all religions are true. Such an\nerroneous belief leads to indifference, thereby begetting caprice and\nimpiety. It is obviously contrary to the teaching of the Qur'an and the\nProphet, for they both denounce many a false religion. If everybody\nthinks that every religion is true, there will be no two men professing\nthe same religion, and there will be no real agreement between their\nthoughts and actions. Co-operation[32] [Arabic: ittif\u0101q wa ittih\u0101d]\namong men (which is the root of Family, Society and State) would tend to\nbecome impossible. Note that it is the indifference to religion and the\nconsequent impiety of some of the Muhammadans of to-day that accounts\nmostly for their lack of co-operation, and for their loss of political\npower in modern times. Degradation is the lot of _faithless_ Muslims,\nfor as the Qur'an says, \"Ye will be exalted only if ye be faithful\nMuslims.\"\n\nFrom what has been said you can easily infer that we should adopt the\nmean between two extremes and must therefore believe that neither are\nall religions true nor are they all false, but that _some religions_ are\ntrue and that Islam is one of them. The characteristic mark of true\nreligions is belief in one God; and this indeed is the reason why\nMuslims are permitted to eat and live with, and even marry, Jewesses,\nChristians and others who believe in one God and possess sacred\nScriptures.\n\n5. I, for one, would not hesitate to call all Monotheists (Jews,\nChristians, and other Unitarians [Arabic: muwahiddin]) _Muslims_,\nbecause they believe in one God: but I would not call them _Momins_\n[Arabic: Momins,], because they do not believe in one God in accordance\nwith the teaching of our Prophet. You know that our Creed [Arabic:\nkalimah] consists of two parts:--\n\n   (i) There is no god but God,\n  (ii) And Muhammad is His Messenger.\n\nThose who believe in the first part are Muslims ([Arabic: Muslim ] = the\npeaceful)[33] and those who believe in the first as well as the second\npart of the Creed are Momins ([Arabic: Mumins ] = the faithful). Both\nMuslims and Momins are believers in one God; the only difference between\nthem is that Muslims may not (like Momins) accept Muhammad as their\nguide in the belief. The Qur'an (iii. 83) defines Islam thus:--\n\n  Say ye; We believe in God, and that which hath been sent\n  down (revealed) to us, and that which hath been sent down\n  to Abraham and Ismail and Issac and Jacob and the tribes;\n  and that which hath been given to Moses and to Jesus and\n  that which was given to the Prophets from their Lord. No\n  difference do we make between them--and to God we are\n  resigned (Muslims).\n\n6. \"There is no deity but God.\" Since God is One, His Revelation to Man\ncannot be other than one and the same for all time. There has therefore\nbeen and will ever be but one true religion. That religion is Islam.\n[Arabic: \u02beinna d-d\u012bna \u02bfinda ll\u0101hi l-\u02beisl\u0101m] \"Verily the (only) religion\nwith God is Islam\" (Q. iii 19). All the prophets from Adam to Muhammad\nreceived but one and the same Revelation and therefore preached Islam\nand Islam only. [Arabic: \u1e0f\u0101lika d-d\u012bnu l-qayyim] \"It was (and is) the\nstandard religion\"--Q. xii. 40.[34]\n\nWhenever any people went astray and deserted Islam for idolatry a\nprophet arose among them to preach Islam and bring them back to\nrighteousness.[35] Each prophet or messenger of God did nothing but try\nto restore the universal religion to its pristine simplicity and purity.\n\nIt was only in interpreting the Revelation and applying it to the\npractical needs of their age, that successive prophets and their\nfollowers differed; and the differences gave rise to the so-called\n_religions_ and religious systems of the world.\n\n\n\n\n+Note 6.+\n\n_\"Islam\" and \"not-Islam\"._\n\n\nI must devote this Note also to my observations on \"Islam\" and\n\"not-Islam\" in order to prepare you for a just appreciation of my\ncontention that there are many good religions in the world but Islam is\nthe best of them[36].\n\n1. The Prophet Muhammad lived and died more than thirteen hundred years\nago. There are now on the face of the earth no less than 250 millions (=\n25 crores) of human beings who profess his religion, and who love and\nrespect him just as his own immediate followers loved and respected him.\nThese two simple facts are enough to prove--\n\n  (1) that there must be something real and\n      true in the religion professed by so many\n      people, and\n\n  (2) that the man who preached and established\n      it must have been both great and\n      good to an extraordinary degree;\n\nfor common experience leads us to conclude (_a_) that nothing which is\nfalse or unreal can survive centuries of change and (_b_) that none who\nis not good and great can be loved and respected by millions of men. No\nMuslim or Momin need therefore believe in any thing more than:--\n\n  (i) that Islam is a real and true religion, and\n\n  (ii) that Muhammad was a very great and good man.[37]\n\nThus, your belief in one God [Arabic: l\u0101 \u02beil\u0101ha \u02beill\u0101l\u0101h] makes you a\nMuslim[38] (= _peaceful_), no matter by what other name you call\nyourself; and your belief in the goodness and greatness[39] of Muhammad\n[Arabic: Muhammad ras\u016blullah] makes you a Mumin (= _faithful_), no\nmatter by what name others may call you. Let me quote here a passage\nfrom Sir Edwin Arnold's Preface to his beautiful poem \"The Pearls of\nFaith: the Ninety-Nine Names of Allah:\" [Arabic: asm\u0101\u02beu l-\u1e25usn\u0101]\n\n\"The soul of Islam is its declaration of the _unity_ of God: its heart\nis the inculcation of an absolute _resignation_ to His will. Not more\nsublime, in religious history appears the figure of Paul the tent-maker,\nproclaiming 'the Unknown God' at Athens, than that of the camel-driver\nMuhammad, son of Abdullah and Amina, abolishing all the idols of the\nArabian Pantheon, except their chief--Allahu ta 'Ala, God the Most\nHigh--and under that ancient and well-received appellation establishing\n_the one-ness of the origin, government, and life of the Universe_.\nThereby that marvellous and gifted Teacher created a vast empire of new\nbelief and new civilization, and prepared a sixth part of humanity for\nthe _developments and reconciliations_ which later times will bring. For\nIslam must be conciliated; it cannot be thrust scornfully aside or\nrooted out. It shares the task of the education of the world with its\nsister religions, and it will contribute its eventual portion to\n\n  --\"that far-off divine event\n  Towards which the whole creation moves.\"\n\nThe _italics_ are mine. I shall have to refer to them in my subsequent\nNotes. Observe, the cosmopolitan poet uses only the word \"Islam\" and not\n\"Muhammadanism\".\n\n2. It is not Islam or Eman [Arabic: \u012bm\u0101n] to deify Muhammad or to\nrepresent him to be akin to God, as sometimes some Moulvies represent\nhim and call him \"the One (Ahad) in the guise of Ahmad[40].\" Our Prophet\nhimself never claimed that he was anything more than a mere man. Indeed,\nhe taught us all to say [Arabic: Ash-hadu all\u0101 il\u0101ha illall\u0101h, wa\nAsh-hadu anna Muhammadan ras\u016blull\u0101h] that he was but \"a servant and\nmessenger of God.\" The only thing he ever claimed for himself was that\nGod had chosen him to be a messenger [Arabic: ras\u016bl = payghambar] to\nconvey His messages to men. \"That an immense mass of fable and silly\nlegend,\" says Rodwell, \"has been built up upon the basis of the Qur'an,\nis beyond a doubt; but for this Muhammad is not answerable,[41] any more\nthan he is for the wild and bloodthirsty excesses of his followers in\nafter ages.\"\n\n3. God's messages which Muhammad delivered to men were all collected\nsoon after his death and are preserved intact in a remarkable book\ncalled the QUR'AN--a book which has lived through no less than thirteen\ncenturies without undergoing the least alteration in a single word or\neven a dot! The difference in the messages contained in the Qur'an and\nthe ordinary sayings of the Prophet reported in books on Hadis [Arabic:\nhadith] is simply this:--that when delivering God's messages Muhammad\nhimself felt, and those who were in his company witnessed, that he was\ninspired by some divine energy or power which impelled him to say what\nhe said; whereas at other times, when he was talking like an ordinary\nman, no signs of divine energy or inspiration were visible. It will\ncarry me too far if I endeavour to explain here the real nature of \"the\ndivine inspiration\" under which he delivered what he and others believed\nto be \"divine messages\". You will understand it if you read such books\nas Professor James's _Varieties of Religious Experience_. Let us, like\ngood Momins, take it as a _fact_, what our Prophet's intimate companions\n[Arabic: \u1e63\u1e25\u0101bah] vouched, that he appeared to be quite a different man\nwhen he uttered such messages. Their style or matter itself even to this\nday proves to all unbiassed minds that they are no ordinary sayings of\nan ordinary man. There is something unique in them which we can only\nfeel but cannot define or express in words. Even historians and\nbiographers like Gibbon and Muir and translators like Rodwell, Palmer\nand Lane-Poole are obliged, in spite of themselves, to admit and admire,\nwhat some of them call, the rugged grandeur and eloquence of the Qur'an.\nEven Sale says that some passages are really sublime.\n\n4. We call the Qur'an _the word of God_, chiefly because it contains\nmessages of high spiritual value delivered by _an illiterate man_ like\nMuhammad. It is neither a history like some of the books of the Old\nTestament, nor a biography like the four Gospels of the Bible. It is\nonly a collection of sermons, commands, and instructions delivered and\nissued from time to time as occasions required. It contains, indeed,\nreferences to stories of older Prophets and previous events well known\nto the people of Arabia. But they are less by way of narration than by\nway of illustration. They are parables more or less ([Arabic: tilka\nl-\u02beam\u1e6f\u0101lu na\u1e0dribuh\u0101 li-n-n\u0101s])[42]. Commentators like Zamakh-shari\n([Arabic: tafs\u012br-e-kashsh\u0101f]) and Imam Razi ([Arabic: tafs\u012br-e-kab\u012br])\nwhose learning and authority cannot be questioned, have clearly proved\nthat there is nothing in the Qur'an which is improbable or cannot be\nrationally explained to be quite in accordance with the laws of Nature\n[Arabic: qanun-u qadat]. If you read Sir Syed Ahmad's Commentary\n[Arabic: tafsir ahmadi] or his Essays [Arabic: khutb\u0101t] you will find\nrational explanations of the ideas of Paradise and Hell, the Day of\nJudgment,[43] etc. I need not dwell on them here. I would however draw\nyour attention to what is called the rule of \"Parsimony in Thought\"\nwhich is in vogue among men of Science. It is that if and when you can\nexplain anything by what is well-known and understood by every one, you\nshould not believe in the existence of \"supermen\" or assume the\noccurrence of supernatural events. When, for example, we can explain any\naction of Muhammad as an ordinary action of a reasonable man, we should\nnot assume or believe that he performed a miracle. If we can explain the\ndefeat and discomfiture of Abraham's Army by natural causes, such as an\nepidemic, we ought not to assume the occurrence of any supernatural\nevent[44].\n\n5. The Qur'an does not favour any particular system of Philosophy. It\nleaves Muslims free to adopt any system of thought that commends itself\nto them, provided that it is not inconsistent with the ([Arabic:\ntawh\u012bd]) idea of the one eternal and absolute God. Thus the Qur'an\nconfines itself to the sphere of religion--the sphere where man is\nbrought face to face with his God.\n\n  (a) _What, then, is the object or aim of the Qur'an?_\n\nTo reveal a man unto himself. [Arabic: mun arafa nafsa hu arafa rabba\nhu] (He who has understood himself has understood his God.)\n\n  (b) _Why should a man be revealed unto himself?_\n\nIn order that he might know his true relation with the rest of the world\nso that he might shape his conduct accordingly _i.e._, be true to\nhimself, true to others, and true to his God in thoughts, words, and\ndeeds.\n\n  (c) _How does the Qur'an reveal a man unto himself?_\n\nBy showing him:--\n\n  (1) God in History[45] ([Arabic: huwa l-\u02beawwalu wa-l-\u02be\u0101\u1e2bir]\n  He is the First and the Last.)\n\n  (2) God in Nature[46] ([Arabic: wa-\u1e93-\u1e93\u0101hir] He is the\n  Manifest.)\n\n  (3) God in Man's Conscience[47] ([Arabic: wa-l-b\u0101\u1e6din] and\n  He is the Hidden--Qur'an lvii. 3.)\n\nIn this sense the Qur'an is truly a revelation!\n\n  His sign is in all things, | * [Arabic: fa fi kulli \u0161ay\u02bein lah\u016b]\n                             |\n  Indicating that He is One. | * [Arabic: aayah naral anna hu w\u0101\u1e25id]\n\n\n\n\n+Note 7.+\n\n_III.--Why is Islam the best religion?_\n\n\nMy real task begins with this Note. I have to explain to you why I\nconsider Islam[48] the best of the religions that are now professed by\nmen all over the world. Mark, I do not say that other religions are not\ngood, but I only say that Islam is the best religion of all those I\nknow. Why do I say so? Because no other religion accords so well as\nIslam with the modern ideas of Science.\n\nBy applying the adjectives \"good,\" \"better\" and \"best\" to religions, I\nindicate the _degree_ to which each religion, by its tenets and\nteaching, induces men to seek their welfare [Arabic: fal\u0101h]: and by the\nword \"Science\" [Arabic: ilm] I mean simply the systematised knowledge of\nthings known and knowable.\n\n_Science_ discovers things that are necessary or desirable for human\nwelfare. _Arts_ generally show the way in which those things can be\nobtained or manufactured. _Governments_ provide, or ought to provide,\nfacilities for scientific investigation and for improvement in arts. And\nit is _Religion_ that should move men to take the fullest advantage of\nthe science and arts of the time. You may take a horse to a river but\nyou cannot make him drink unless he is thirsty. If he is thirsty he will\ndrink of his own accord; but if he is not, neither the appearance of\nclear water, nor the easy way to get at it, nor indeed your whip or\ncoaxing can ever induce him to drink. In the same way Science may show\nyou water or anything that is useful, Arts may show you different ways\nof getting it, the Government of your State may offer rewards or even\nthreaten punishment; but you will not drink, that is to say, you will\nnot take advantage of the good things shown you and placed at your\ndisposal, unless you are thirsty, unless there is something in you which\nimpels you to it. This thirst, this something that is the moving force\nor _motive_, is created or furnished by Religion.\n\nThe chief use of religion lies in the desire that it fosters in men to\nlive well, and virtuously.[49] It is true that for most men the fear of\npunishment and the hope of reward, either here or hereafter, are motives\nfor right conduct: and some religions (and even Islam as taught by some\nMoulvies) give glowing pictures of Heaven and Hell awaiting good and\nbad people after death.[50] But these motives are unworthy of the higher\nnature [Arabic: qu wa ye malak\u016bti] of man. They are like the crack of a\nwhip or the show of green grass to a horse that will not run. They are\nnot so effective and lasting as the high spiritual motive for a virtuous\nlife furnished by true religion. I cannot dwell further on this point\nwithout entering upon a philosophical or metaphysical discussion which\nis foreign to the purpose of these Notes. Suffice it to say that the\nspiritual or religious motive for virtuous conduct is the best of all\nmotives, as it conforms to the higher or angelic [Arabic: malak\u016bti]\nnature of man and assists him in subduing his lower or animal [Arabic:\nba ha'i mi] nature.[51]\n\n\n\"The son of man is a unique      |\nand complex product (of          |\nEvolution) which has combined    |\nin him the natures of            | [Persian: Aadmi zada turfah m'a\nboth the angel and the beast.    | joo ne ast za fa-rish-ta sa-rish-ta\nIf he leans towards the latter,  | hay wan gar kunad mayl een shuwad\nhis animal nature, he            | wa kum azeen dar kunad qasn\nfalls lower than the beast       | aanshuwad beh azaan.]\nitself, but if he turns his      |\nattention to the former, his     |\nangelic nature, he rises higher  |\nthan the angel himself.\"         |\n\n\nIt is but religion, true Religion, that enables the \"son of man\" _i.e._,\nmankind to surpass angels in godliness. Note, this is exactly what Sir\nOliver Lodge says in his book, _The Substance of Faith allied with\nScience_.\n\nThere is another use of Religion to which I should refer briefly before\nI pass on to the main argument. You always intend doing many things but\nnever succeed in doing them _all_, either because you change your mind\nor because somebody or something prevents you from carrying them out. It\nis nevertheless important to yourself and society that your wishes,\nwhich are naturally more numerous than your actions, should be as good\nas the actions themselves. Laws and social conventions cannot adequately\ncontrol them, for they take account of only outward manifestations, that\nis, actions which flow or result from your inward desires, passions and\nprejudices. These are controlled by such religions as true Christianity\nand true Islam which take that as done which was merely intended to be\ndone, and inhibit bad intentions even before they appear in action.\n\nNow, whatever religion supplies the best motives for virtuous conduct\nand most effectively prevents mischievous intentions, must necessarily\nbe one which conforms best with the most approved ideas of the science\nand arts of the time. I hold that Islam is such a religion.[52]\n\nLet me begin by showing a conformity of Islam to a modern idea, that\nthere are more worlds than one.[53] There are still some religions\nwhich assume that there is no other world than the world we live in, and\nthat God created and maintains it for men only. Science has proved that\nsuch assumptions are unwarranted, and has even suggested grounds for\nbelieving that there are beings in the innumerable worlds of stars. This\nworld of ours with its inhabitants has therefore no right to monopolise\nGod to itself. Nor indeed have we, human beings, any right to consider\nourselves as its superior inhabitants. Science is now-a-days on the\ntrack of finding out beings who are or who may be superior to man. Note\nthat all this is implied in the expression [Arabic: rabbi l-\u02bf\u0101lam\u012bn]\n\"the Lord of the _worlds_\" contained in the Sura and other parts of the\nQur'an. It does not say \"the king of the _world_\" ([Arabic: rabbi l-\n\u02bf\u0101lam]) or of _men_ [Arabic: rabbi l- \u02beins\u0101n] but says generally and\ntruly that God is the King or Lord of great or grand _worlds_: [Arabic:\nrabbi l-\u02bf\u0101lam\u012bn], the definite article [Arabic: al] in Arabic is often\nused to express greatness or grandeur as in the word [Arabic: Allah]\nwhich means the Most High God.\n\nAccording to Islam there are two sources of knowledge, _Science_ and\n_Revelation_: the one represents man's effort to learn God's ways, and\nthe other represents God's grace to discover His ways to man.[54] I for\none believe that the difference between the two sources of knowledge\ncorresponds to the difference between \"Experience\" and \"Intuition,\"\nbetween Acquired Ideas and Innate Ideas--a difference which modern\nphilosophers (Spencer and Bergson) consider to be one of degree only and\nnot of kind.\n\n\n\n\n+Note 8.+\n\n_Unity[55] and Union._\n\n\nI cannot go over the whole field of Muslim theology to show how its\nideas are in accord with the scientific thought of our days. I will\nconfine myself to three principles and three maxims implied in the\nanalysis of the Opening Sura [Arabic: Sura al-f\u0101ti\u1e25a] given in one of my\nprevious Notes[56].\n\nI. The verse [Arabic: al-\u1e25amdu li-ll\u0101hi rabbi l-\u02bf\u0101lam\u012bn; ar-ra\u1e25m\u0101ni\nr-ra\u1e25\u012bm] points to _the Principle of Unity_:\n\n  There is but one God who created the worlds,\n  maintains and rules them.\n\nFrom this results the _Maxim of Union & Loyalty_:\n\n  Union is strength = Be loyal to your King.\n\nII. The verse [Arabic: \u02beiyy\u0101ka na\u02bfbudu wa-\u02beiyy\u0101ka nasta\u02bf\u012bn] points to\n_the Principle of Perfection_:\n\n  Worship of God, His protection, and guidance\n  are necessary for the perfection of our\n  mind and body.\n\nFrom this results the _Maxim of Self-help_:\n\n  God helps those who help themselves = Be\n  true to yourself.\n\nIII. The verse [Arabic: \u1e63ir\u0101\u1e6da lla\u1e0f\u012bna \u02bean\u02bfamta \u02bfalayhim \u0121ayri l-ma\u0121\u1e0d\u016bbi\n\u02bfalayhim wa-l\u0101 \u1e0d-\u1e0d\u0101ll\u012bn] points to _the Principle of Moderation_:\n\n  It is the straight path of righteousness that\n  enables you to avoid crooked paths of sin\n  and error and leads you to happiness.\n\nFrom this results the _Maxim of the Average_:\n\n  Adopt the mean of two extremes = Be moderate\n  in everything.\n\nI will now endeavour to shew, as briefly and as simply as possible, how\nthe principles and maxims I have stated correspond with the best\nscientific ideas of the present age. By \"the best scientific ideas,\" I\nmean nothing more than _conclusions_ arrived at by eminent men of\nscience after severe study and prolonged investigation. I can only refer\nto the conclusions as such without attempting to summarise the\nreasoning, etc. by which they have been reached. You may read the works\nof authors I shall name, if you wish to learn more of their thoughts.\n\nI.\n\n_Principle of Unity._\n\n1. The first Principle of Unity [Arabic: tawh\u012bd] implies that there is\nbut one Energy or Force whose different transformations we call\n_forces_, but one Life whose appearance in different shapes we call\n_lives_, and but one Mind whose different manifestations we call\n_minds_. But the universal Energy, the\n\n[Sidenote:\n1. Herbert Spencer.\n2. Dr. A.R. Wallace.\n3. Prof. James.\n4. Sir Oliver Lodge.\n5. Dr. Theodore Merz.]\n\nuniversal Life, and the universal Mind[57] [Arabic: rabbi l-\u02bf\u0101lam\u012bn,\nar-ra\u1e25m\u0101ni r-ra\u1e25\u012bm, m\u0101liki yawmi d-d\u012bn] are themselves but so many\nforms, appearances or manifestations of the one Being [Arabic: Allah]\nwho is Infinite [Arabic: \u1e63-\u1e63amad] and Absolute [Arabic: lam yalid,\nwa-lam y\u016blad]. This is exactly what scientific men and philosophers have\nsaid and are saying to-day. Read the works of any of the eminent men\nmentioned in the margin, and you will find that the conclusion they have\nreached after life-long investigations, tallies remarkably with the\nconception of God which Islam formulated centuries ago.\n\nEvery child begins with the experience of 'This is _mine_' and 'That is\n_not mine_.' This experience matures in the adult into \"I\" and\n\"not-I\"--the _subject_ that knows and the _object_ that is known. We\ncall the _knower_ or subject, Mind; and the _known_ or object, Matter.\nMost modern Philosophers agree in believing that Mind and Matter are but\ntwo aspects of One Reality underlying All. Just as a big building like\nthe Falaknuma Palace presents different aspects when viewed from\ndifferent directions, and yet is one and the same building; so the\nReality of Existence _appears to us_ in different aspects as Mind and\nMatter, and yet is one and the same Reality[58].\n\nDr. Theodore Merz of the Durham University, at the end of his grand\nsurvey of the Scientific Thought of Europe in the 19th Century,[59]\nsays: \"The scientific mind advances from the idea of Order or\narrangement to that of Unity through the idea of Continuity.\"\n\nThe process adopted by Science of arriving at Unity is only the reverse\nof what Islam adopted: the former begins _a posteriori_ with Order finds\nContinuity and arrives at Unity, but the latter started _a priori_ with\nUnity, passed over Continuity, and found Order, thus:--\n\n_Science._        _Islam._\n\n1. Order        1. Unity = [Arabic: rabbi l-\u02bf\u0101lam\u012bn] = [Arabic: Allah]\n                           = The Reality[50]\n                           of which both Mind and Matter\n                           are different aspects.\n\n2. Continuity   2. Continuity = [Arabic: ra\u1e25m\u0101ni wa r-ra\u1e25\u012bm] = Force\n                           or Energy.\n\n3. Unity        3. Order[60] = [Arabic: m\u0101liki yawmi d-d\u012bn] = Order\n                           or Process.\n\nWhat Sir Edwin Arnold calls the soul of Islam, _i.e._, the Principle of\nUnity, so patently corresponds with the ultimate results of modern\nScience and Philosophy, that I need not dwell on it at any great length.\nIt is sufficient to point out that Science has now proved three Unities,\nthe Unity of _Substance_, the Unity of _Force_, and the Unity of\n_Process_; and Philosophy has shown that the three Unities resolve\nthemselves into One Infinite Power.[61]\n\n  \"There is no strength (to avoid }\n  evil) nor ability (to do good)  } [Arabic: La hawla wa la quwwata\n  great and supreme.\"             } \u02beill\u0101 bi-ll\u0101hi alee-eil a\u1e93\u012bm.]\n\n  _Maxim of Union and Loyalty._\n\n2. How is the Maxim of Union and Loyalty inferred from the principle of\nUnity? Man, being a creature of God, should try to be godly and godlike,\ntry to imitate God in actions, try to co-operate with his fellow\ncreatures for the good of all, and should thus attain the ideal: \"Union\nis Strength.\" This is the Islamic doctrine of Atonement[62] (=\nat-one-ment [Arabic: fana fil-lah]): to be _at one_ with God by _union_\nand _co-operation_ with God's creatures so far as your and their\nconstitutions and environments allow. But you need not bother yourself\nwith theories at present. It will be enough if you remember that the\nultimate aim or the sole object of the Prophet's mission was to\nestablish the universal union and brotherhood of mankind by means of a\nfirm belief in the eternal truth of God's unity. He preached the Unity\nof God and worked all his life for the union of men into a universal\nBrotherhood.\n\nIn order that you should _co-operate_, _i.e._, work together with your\nfellow-men for the good of all, your work must needs be _co-ordinated_.\nIt must be guided and directed so that it tallies with the work of\nothers. This guidance and direction comes from your leader, whom you and\nyour fellow-workers must obey, in order to attain the best results.\nCo-operation thus implies Co-ordination which requires a leader--Caliph\nor King--whom you ought to follow loyally. _Loyalty to your leader_ is\ntherefore the gist of co-operation. The Qur'an and the Traditions are\nfull of injunctions for obedience to \"those in authority among you\"\n[Arabic: \u02beul\u012b l-\u02beamri minkum][63] \"The surest way of pleasing God is to\nobey the King.\"\n\nModern Science teaches exactly the same thing. I have a series of little\nbooks in my Library called \"People's Books\" published at 6d. each by\nMessrs. Jack, London. One of them on \"Zoology\" is written by Professor\nMacBride, F.R.S. He traces the development of Man from Protozoa,--little\nspecks of animalcul\u00e6--and points out how each species of animals has\nrisen higher than another by (i) greater \"inventive capacity\", the\ncapacity of adopting new means to an old end and old means to a new end:\nand (ii) higher \"tribal morality\" implied in co-operation and loyalty to\nleaders. He says: \"Mankind progresses by the appearance of individuals\nin whom (besides the inventive genius) the instincts of co-operation and\nloyalty are more strongly developed\". It is precisely those instincts\nthat Islam fosters by its doctrine of the universal brotherhood of\nMuslims--a doctrine which implies primarily loyalty to your King. Just\nas the affairs of a family like yours, consisting of a dozen members,\ncannot prosper unless each follows loyally the lead of the eldest, or\nthe wisest among you; so the affairs of a nation can never be in a\nsatisfactory condition unless each individual is loyal to his King and\ncountry, and co-operates with his Government by willingly doing what is\nrequired of him.\n\nMuhammad enjoined [Arabic: utlibul ilm wa lov kaana bis seen] \"Seek\nknowledge even if thou hast to go for it to China\"--(the farthest\ncountry known in his days).\n\n  Delve gems of Science divine\n  Ev'n unto Cathay's mine.\n\nHe said that wisdom was the birthright of every Muslim who should seize\nit wherever he found it. He thus encouraged the learning of Science and\nthe consequent acquirement of inventive capacity which is biologically\nas essential for human progress as co-operation and loyalty.\n\nA study of animal life from the lowest animalcule to the highly\ncivilized man, teaches us to know, feel and act, in a particular manner,\n_viz._,\n\n(_a_) to _know_ our environment, _i.e._, to know the\n      Laws of Nature in order to improve our\n      general capacity for invention, manufacture\n      and commerce, (Knowledge)\n\n(_b_) to _feel_ for our fellow-men in order to increase\n      mutual good-will so necessary for co-operation, (Sympathy)\n\n(_c_) and to _act_ for the general good of our race\n      under the guidance of our political and social\n      leaders, (Loyalty).\n\n\"Knowledge, Sympathy and Loyalty\" are thus the watchwords of the Science\nof to-day no less than of the Islam of our ancestors.[64]\n\n\n\n\n+Note 9.+\n\n_Perfection and Self-help._\n\n\nAllow me to explain here that my object is not to persuade you to\nbelieve what I say but only to make you think for yourself. I will\ntherefore avoid arguments and discussions as much as possible and\ncontent myself with bare outlines of certain Islamic doctrines and brief\nreferences to the corresponding ideas of modern Science. I shall be very\npleased if they serve to excite your curiosity and stimulate your\nthought.\n\n\nII.\n\n_Principle of Perfection._\n\n1. The second Muslim doctrine which I have called the Principle of\nPerfection may be inferred from the second part of the Sura:--It is\nessential for our perfect development that we should worship God and\nimplore Him for help and guidance in the discharge of the three-fold\nduty of our life.\n\nNo sane man thinks that he is perfect as he is. There is always a\nfeeling of some sort in our mind that somehow, and in some respect or\nother, we are not as perfect as we should be. It is to remove this\nfeeling of imperfection inherent in us that we have to worship God and\nsupplicate His help and guidance. If you ask: \"Why should I worship\nGod?\" Islam answers your question by asking another: \"Why should you\nadmire beauty in Nature and Art?\" You can answer only: \"Because it is\nbeautiful. I am so constituted that I cannot do otherwise than admire a\nbeautiful object when I see it\". You are unable to give any other reason\nsatisfactorily accounting for your admiration of the beautiful. Islam\nreturns a similar answer to your question: _\"You should worship God\nbecause He is God\"._ You, as one of His creatures, cannot help\nworshipping or reverently adoring Him when you see, at every instant of\nyour life, manifold manifestations of His divine Goodness and Beauty.\nSome Sufis[55] even go to the extent of identifying God with \"Infinite\nBeauty\" [Arabic: husn-e azlee] which is the object of their love\n[Arabic: ishq] and ecstasy [Arabic: wajd].\n\nYou remember the verse which every devout Muslim recites when he hears\nthe news of the death of any one: [Arabic: inna lil lahi wa inna ilaihi\nraji-\u016bn]\n\n  \"Verily we are God's and to Him we shall return\".\n\nThis as well as some other verses support the Islamic belief in the\nre-union of a man's soul with God. As I have mentioned in my previous\nNote, Islam conceives that there is but one Universal Soul. Small\nparts--infinitesimal fractions--of the Universal Soul are confined in\nmen's bodies and break free at death to re-join the Whole[56]. This\nbelief is in entire accord with Sir Oliver Lodge's theory (or\n\"speculation\", as he calls it) put forward in his book, _Faith allied to\nScience_. Without stopping to enquire how far the belief indicated by\nQur'anic verses, or the theory advanced by a man of science, is\nsupported by scientific facts, I would only point out that it gives a\nclear and intelligible meaning to the word \"worship\" [Arabic: ibad\u0101t].\nIt is the communion of the fractional soul, which is somehow confined in\na man's living body, with the Whole Soul, the Soul of the Universe, to\nwhich it--the fractional soul--shall return some day freed from the\ntrammels of the flesh. This \"communion\" [Arabic: ibad\u0101t] includes\nAdoration [Arabic: tasb\u012bh wa tahl\u012bl] and Prayer [Arabic: du'\u0101].\n\nI cannot do better than quote Sir Oliver Lodge's admirable description\nof the meaning and object of Prayer:--\n\n  \"In prayer we come into close communion with a Higher than\n  we know, and seek to contemplate Divine perfection. Its\n  climax and consummation is attained when we realize the\n  universal Permeance, the entire Goodness and the Fatherly\n  Love of the Divine Being.\"\n\n  [[Arabic: al-\u1e25amdu li-ll\u0101hi rabbi l-\u02bf\u0101lam\u012bn, ar-ra\u1e25m\u0101ni\n  r-ra\u1e25\u012bm.]\n\n  Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds, compassionate and\n  merciful, King of the day of Reckoning.]\n\n  \"Through prayer we admit our dependence on a Higher Power,\n  for existence and health and everything we possess; we are\n  encouraged to ask for whatever we need as children ask\n  parents;\n\n  [[Arabic: adnee istajib lakum] Call upon me--I will\n  hearken unto you]\n\n  and we inevitably cry for mercy and comfort in times of\n  tribulation and anguish.\"\n\n  \"The spirit of simple supplication may desire chiefly:--\n\n  \"1. Insight and receptiveness to truth and knowledge.\n\n  [[Arabic: iyyaka na'budu] We worship Thee alone.]\n\n  \"2. Help and guidance in the practical management of life.\n\n  [[Arabic: iyyaka nasta'een] We seek help from Thee alone.]\n\n  \"3. Ability and willingness to follow the light\n  withersoever it leads.\"\n\n  [[Arabic: ihdinas sir\u0101tal musta-q\u012bm] Guide us into the\n  right path]\n\nCompare the verses I have placed in brackets with what Sir Oliver says,\nand you will observe how well he has interpreted the Qur'an. It looks as\nif he had the Opening Sura [Arabic: Sura al-f\u0101ti\u1e25a] before him when he\nwrote. Even the sequence of his ideas corresponds _practically_ with the\norder of the verses. But you may be quite sure that he never thought of\nthe Qur'an at all. He evolved it all from his own inner consciousness\nwell trained by scientific studies.\n\n_Maxim of Self-help._\n\n2. There are numerous verses in the Qur'an which enjoin \"purification\n[Arabic: tazk\u012bm] of one's self\" and prohibit \"cruelty [Arabic: Tazk\u012bya]\nto one's own mind\". They obviously imply the rule of conduct which I\nhave called the Maxim of Self-help. No one has expressed it more\nbeautifully and truthfully than Shakespeare in the well-known speech of\nPolonius.\n\n  This above all: to thine own self be true,\n  And it must follow, as the night the day,\n  Thou canst not then be false to any man.\n\n[Sidenote: Herbert Spencer, Prof.\nT.H. Green, Lecky (Historian),\nProfs. Muirhead,\nMackenzie, and Sen.]\n\nIt is the basis of the ethical system advocated by authors mentioned in\nthe margin. There are at present two contending schools of Morality.\nEach tries to determine what is 'good' or 'bad', and sets up a\n'standard' or test by which men's actions should be judged as 'right' or\n'wrong'. The standard according to the one school is Happiness (the\nsurplus of pleasure over pain); according to the other it is Perfection\n(the fullest development of men as social beings). I think the latter\nschool is more in favour now than it was at the end of the last century.\nMen of science now-a-days realize with Herbert Spencer that every one\nought to develop himself by freely exercising all the powers of his mind\nand body to the fullest extent consistent with, and limited by, the\n_like_ exercise by his fellow men.[57] I cannot expatiate on this\nsubject without entering into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics.\nI have only to say that the teaching of Islam as regards\nself-development is in entire accord with the views of latter-day\nmoralists.\n\nIf you are a student of Ethics you will observe that the doctrine of\n\"making the most of oneself\" (Perfection) is, in accordance with the\nIslamic principle of Moderation, the mean of two extreme doctrines:--the\ndoctrine of \"duty for duty's sake\" (Rigourism) on the one hand, and the\ndoctrine of \"the greatest happiness of the greatest number\"\n(Utilitarianism) on the other.\n\n\n+Duty--Perfection--Utility.+\n\nI have to add that \"self-perfection\" really means \"self-help,\" = due\nexercise of one's faculties with patience and perseverance. If you have\nnot read Dr. Smiles' book on Self-help, you had better read it at your\nearliest convenience. I can recommend no better commentary on the\nsaying: \"God helps those who help themselves.\"[58]\n\n\n\n\n+Note 10.+\n\n_Moderation and Via Media._\n\n\nIslam[59] is, so to speak, the youngest of all the great religions that\nare now professed by millions of people. Like a child who is heir to all\nthe mental and physical tendencies inherited and acquired by his\nancestors, Islam inherited all the revelations which \"one hundred and\neighty thousand\" (_i.e._ innumerable) prophets had communicated to the\nworld before the advent of Muhammad. I have already referred to the\ninjunction, contained in the Qur'an, that we should believe not only\nwhat was revealed to Muhammad himself, but also what was revealed to all\n\"Messengers of God\" who had come before him; provided always that we\nhave authentic records of those revelations.[60] (This proviso is very\nimportant.) It is therefore no detraction from the merits of Islam that\nsome of its doctrines resemble those of other revealed religions. Parsis\nsay that Islam borrowed: [Arabic: bi-smi ll\u0101hi r-ra\u1e25m\u0101ni r-ra\u1e25\u012bm] \"In\nthe name of God the most merciful and most compassionate\"[61] from their\nholy scripture, Zendavesta, which begins with the words [Persian: ba nam\neezad ba bakh sha-inda bakhs ha bikasr meher ban gar.] Some Christian\nwriters on Islam seem to take delight in pointing out that the Prophet\nof Arabia borrowed this, that, and the other doctrine from certain\nChristians and Jews whom he had met in his earlier life. It is very\ndoubtful whether he had ever met such people. But it is certain that he\nwas too illiterate [Arabic: umm\u012b] to understand their recondite\ndoctrines if they had condescended to teach him. Even if we admit that\nhe borrowed doctrines from other religions, his own religion is not\nthereby rendered the less valuable; for there is no religion which is\n_absolutely_ original. He never denounced former religions but only\nclaimed to have confirmed and supplemented them by the religion revealed\nto him. He always referred to \"former revelations\" with great respect.\n\nMuslims picture the Supreme Truth as a beautiful citadel built on the\ntop of a steep mountain. Different religions are but so many paths\n[Arabic: madh\u0101hib] leading to it from different directions. In their\nestimation Islam is the best and the easiest path of all. This fanciful\nidea implies that some of the paths might cross each other at different\nparts of their course, and others might run parallel to one another or\neven run together for a considerable distance. Many religions may\ntherefore have certain doctrines bearing close resemblance to each other\nlike parallel paths. Some religions may even have certain doctrines in\ncommon, like paths running together. All religions are, and purport to\nbe, paths leading to one and the same citadel of Truth.[72] None the\nless has each of them an individuality of its own and a claim that it is\nbetter and easier than all others.[73]\n\n\nIII.\n\n_Principle of Moderation._\n\nI have prefaced this Note with the above remarks because the Principle\nof Moderation and the connected Maxim of the Mean, which are indicated\nin the third and last part of the Sura, were enunciated by Plato\n[Arabic: Flatun] and his disciple Aristotle [Arabic: Aristo] who lived\nmore than 1,000 years before Muhammad. Some Muslims count those great\nsages of ancient Greece among the innumerable (180,000) Messengers of\nGod who preceded our Prophet.[74] The records[75] [Arabic: sahaif] of\ntheir sayings possess an authority second only to that of the Qur'an\nitself, being in fact revelations which God vouchsafed from time to time\nfor the benefit and guidance of mankind.\n\n1. I need not repeat what I have already said as to 'the Path of Grace'\n[Arabic: ihdin\u0101 \u1e63-\u1e63ir\u0101\u1e6da l-mustaq\u012bma] being the _mean_ between two\n_extremes_, 'the Path of Sin' [Arabic: \u0121ayri l-ma\u0121\u1e0d\u016bbi \u02bfalayhim] and\n'the Path of Error' [Arabic: wa-l\u0101 \u1e0d-\u1e0d\u0101ll\u012bn]. I may however explain that\nthe pursuit of the Path of Grace implies the Principle of Moderation in\nthe sense that we should fully and freely exercise all our mental and\nphysical powers _with due regard to their respective limitations_. For\nall practical purposes, you may take Reason, Passion and Action as the\nprincipal representatives of a man's powers, and view Reason as the\nguiding force in his constitution, Passion as the moving force, and\nAction (voluntary acts and omissions) as the resultant of the guiding\nand moving forces thus:--\n\n           Y ------------------------------------ P\n            /                              _.-' /\n         . /                   ary)    _.-'    /\n        n /                 unt    _.-'       /\n       o / ^ (Guide)    (Vol   _.-'          /\n      s / /         ion    _.-'             /\n     a / /       Act   _.-'                /\n    e / /          _.-'  ant)             /\n   R / /       _.-'   ult                /\n    /      _.-'   (Res                  /\n   /   _.-'                            /\n  /_.-'        ---> Passion.          /\n O------------------------------------ X\n                   (Mover)\n\nNow, the Principle of Moderation means simply that you should not allow\nyour passions to influence your actions unduly, nor should you allow\nyour reason to control your passions unduly; but you should ever try to\nhold the balance even between them in order that the resultant action\nmight be quite right--might discharge the three-fold duty of man,--and\nmight thereby tend (be it in ever so small a degree) to the perfection\nof the individual and the race. If at any time your passion over-rides\nyour reason, you commit Sin; and on the contrary, if you exercise your\nreason so much as to stifle your passion altogether, you fall into\nError. If you permit neither reason, nor passion to discharge their\nrespective functions, you lapse into Inaction which is again an Error.\nUndue suppression of Passion, and over-exercise of Reason, as well as\nnon-exercise of both--militate against the Principle of Moderation, the\nessence of which is (as Aristotle pointed out) that no power should\ntyrannize over any other in our constitution.\n\nWhat is \"due\" or \"undue\" exercise of a power, is a question which your\ncommon sense should decide in each case with reference to the person\nacting and the circumstances under which he acts. The only general rule\nthat can be laid down is implied in the ideal of perfection explained in\nthe previous Notes. Every exercise of any of your mental or bodily power\nis right or wrong according as it does, or does not, tend to the\nperfection of yourselves or your offspring, and your community or race.\n\nI have only to add that the Principle of Moderation, in the form in\nwhich I have roughly described it, is fully recognized by such\nup-to-date writers on the Science of Ethics as Sir Leslie Stephen, one\nof the two talented Editors of the Dictionary of National Biography.\n\n\n_Maxim of the Mean or Average._\n\n2. Addressing Muslims the Qur'an says:--\n\n  [Arabic: wa-ka-\u1e0f\u0101lika \u01e7a\u02bfaln\u0101kum \u02beummatan wasa\u1e6dan li-tak\u016bn\u016b\n  \u0161uhad\u0101\u02bea \u02bfal\u0101 n-n\u0101s]\n\n  \"We have thus made you a middle nation (= a moderate\n  people) in order that you should be an example to\n  mankind.\"--i. 137.\n\nOne of the ways in which God has made Muslims a moderate people is by\nenjoining them to avoid extreme courses of action and to adopt the\nmiddle or the mean course whenever and wherever it is possible[76].\n\nThe Maxim of the Mean is the objective counter-part of the subjective\nPrinciple of Moderation. The latter says: Don't over--, or\nunder-exercise any of your faculties; and the former says: Don't have\ntoo much or too little of any thing. Too much of any thing is good for\nnothing. Too little of it is worse than nothing. \"Too much\" and \"too\nlittle\" are relative terms and signify nothing by themselves. It is only\nwith reference to oneself and one's environment at any particular time\nand place that they acquire a meaning as \"excess\" and \"defect\"\nrespectively. I cannot explain it better than give a few instances in a\ntabular form where the \"mean\" comes between the \"excess\" and the\n\"defect\" of a quality of the head or heart, or a course of action.\n\n(1) Qualities of the Head (Reason):--\n\n  _Excess.        Mean.            Defect._\n\n  Caution         Prudence         Neglect\n  Doubt           Conviction       Uncertainty\n  Conceit         Modesty          Diffidence\n  Sensitive       Attentive        Indifferent\n\n(2) Qualities of the Heart (Passions):--\n\n  Cowardice       Courage          Rashness\n  Sensuality      Temperance       Abstinence\n  Bigot           Enthusiastic     Lukewarm\n\n(3) Courses of Action:--\n\n  Restriction     Liberty          Licence\n  Flattery        Courtesy         Rudeness\n  Favouritism     Justice          Injustice\n  Prodigal        Generous         Miserly\n\nYou will find out for yourself what are the appropriate qualities or\ncourses of conduct, of which the excess, mean and defect are expressed\nby the words given above. Fear, for example, is the feeling of which\nexcess is Cowardice and defect is Rashness, while the mean is Courage.\nSimilarly as regards one's own opinion of one's powers, excess is\nConceit and defect is Diffidence, while the mean is Modesty. Again too\nmuch or too little restraint on action is Restriction or Licence while\nthe mean is Liberty.\n\nIt will be a useful exercise to make a long list of such words as\nexpress the difference of _degrees_ of the various qualities or\nfunctions of Reason, Passion and Action (= Knowledge, Feeling and Will.)\nBut it will _not_ always be possible to find three contrasted words,\nlike those in the table, for every quality or action; because no\nlanguage is so perfect as to have separate and single words to express\nthe immense number and manifold shades of ideas which our mind is\ncapable of entertaining. Still the fact is duly recognized by modern\nScience that there are differences not only of kind but also of degree\nin everything--ideas, feelings, desires, actions, objects and attributes\nof objects--with which we are concerned. Although you may not have a\nword expressive of degree in every case, yet you can _practically_\nascertain the extremes and the mean in all cases without exception, and\ncan so order your conduct as to avoid the one and adopt the other in\nall cases. I may point out here that \"_the Mean_\" is not the\n\"arithmetical mean\" (like 6\u00bd which is the arithmetical mean of 5 and\n8) but only _an approximately medium or middle course of conduct--via\nmedia_.[77] [Arabic: khair ul um\u016br ausatuha]\n\nYou may object that, since the ascertainment of the mean in each case\nrequires calm thought with reference to yourself and your environment,\nthe rule is too difficult to follow in these days of quick\ncommunication, speedy locomotion, and urgent action. I answer that it is\nbut an _ideal_ rule of conduct. Like all rules of Logic (Thought),\n\u00c6sthetics (Beauty), or Ethics (Conduct), it sets before you an ideal\nwhich you should ever strive to attain though you may not attain it\nfully at any time. No thinker may have been absolutely logical, no\nArtist may have wrought a perfect work of beauty, and no man may have\never been quite moral. But that is no reason why thinkers, artists, and\nmen generally, should not endeavour to attain perfection in their\nrespective spheres of thought and action.\n\nThere is a further and greater objection to the rule of the middle\ncourse, _viz._, that, if followed strictly, it will reduce all men to a\ndead level of mediocrity, and will not foster the development of men of\ngenius. I have to admit regretfully that such will be the case, and, as\nmy next Note will show, it will be in accordance with a Law of Nature\nrecently discovered. Some writers have even attempted to prove that\n_genius_ or excessive intelligence is a form of madness as bad as its\nopposite form, _imbecility_ or defective intelligence. They seem to\nbelieve that only the men of average intelligence are quite sane.\n\n  Great wits are sure to madness near allied\n  And thin partitions do their bounds divide.--_Dryden_.\n\nThe late Sir John Gorst created a sensation when he declared in the\nHouse of Commons that great countries were governed by mediocrities\nonly.\n\n  The world knows nothing of its greatest men.--_Sir H.\n  Taylor._\n\n\n\n\n+Note 11.+\n\n_Evolution and Survival._\n\n\nIt was Adolphe Quetelet, Astronomer-Royal of Belgium, who in the\nseventies of the last century attempted to prove that \"_the average man\nis to a nation what the centre of gravity is to a body_.\" A similar, if\nnot quite the same, conclusion has since been reached by Sir Francis\nGalton and Professor Karl Pearson in their researches into men's\nphysical and intellectual qualities in the light of Darwin's theory of\nNatural Selection or Survival of the Fittest. This theory which, in its\nmore extended form, is called the Law of Evolution, has profoundly\ninfluenced, if not entirely revolutionized, the Science and Philosophy\nof our own times. It has _not_ however succeeded, as was at first\nfeared, in destroying men's belief in God, the Creator and Ruler of the\nUniverse. For it has done no more than disclose but a few of the\nnumerous ways in which He creates and rules.\n\nI have been a student of Evolution Literature ever since I left College.\nSpeaking for myself I can say that my study of it has not in the least\nshaken my belief in God, but has rather strengthened it. I entirely\nagree with a popular writer[78] on \"the Scientific Ideas of To-day,\" who\nsays:\n\n  \"True Science does not seek to deprive man of his Soul or\n  to drive the Creator from his Universe, but it honestly\n  endeavours to study His marvellous works ... to see the\n  manner in which He has caused Nature to work out His\n  design.\"\n\nThe Law of Evolution or the Development Hypothesis, as it has been\ncalled, is in fact a clever guess at truth--very valuable as a formula\nwhich enables us not only to remember the result of numerous\nobservations and experiments, but also to predict certain events to be\nverified by subsequent observations and experiments. It is impossible to\nconvey a clear idea of it in a few sentences. A great man like Herbert\nSpencer spent 50 years of his life in explaining and illustrating it in\nno less than ten stout volumes of his \"Synthetic Philosophy.\" The\ncentral idea may however be expressed in the following propositions,\nusing the word \"_thing_\" in its widest sense as any object of\nperception, or knowable objects[79].\n\n1. Nothing exists absolutely by itself; everything exists in relation\nwith something else which is its \"environment.\"\n\n2. A thing and its environment cannot exist side by side for any\nconsiderable time without each affecting or influencing the other in\nsome respects at least: a thing A and its environment B, which cannot\nbut exist together, must needs act and re-act on each other.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n3. The action and re-action of the thing A and its environment B on each\nother, brings about mutual adjustment, the fitting of each into the\nother.\n\n4. According as this mutual adjustment or fitting is relatively\n_complete_ or _incomplete_, there is Evolution or Dissolution, survival\nor extinction, of the thing (A) itself.[80]\n\n5. The process of Evolution or Survival is characterized by:--\n\n\n  (_a_) _Integration_: grouping together of certain\n        _like_ units (such as atoms or molecules,\n        living cells or individuals) into\n        a whole,\n\n  (_b_) _Differentiation_: certain parts (or functions)\n        of the aggregated whole becoming\n        _unlike_ each other or specialized,\n        and\n\n  (_c_) _Adjustment_: fitting of the aggregated\n        and differentiated whole into its environment.\n\n6. In the opposite process of Dissolution or Extinction the thing\nundergoes the same changes in the reverse order before it disappears as\nsuch.\n\nIn other words, given a thing and its environment, the one has to adapt\nand adjust itself to the other, or cease to exist. Nothing survives, as\nan individual, which does not change. Like a picture in its setting, a\nthing has to _fit_ itself to its environment in order that it might\nsurvive for the best advantage of itself and its kind. Thus, the _fit_\nlives and the _unfit_ dies[81]. As the Qur'an expresses it [Arabic:\n\u02beanna l-\u02bear\u1e0da yari\u1e6fuh\u0101 \u02bfib\u0101diya \u1e63-\u1e63\u0101lih\u016bn] \"the Earth is inherited by\nonly the fit among My creatures.\"[82] This applies not only to plants\nand animals, man and society, but also to inanimate or inorganic things,\nas the President of the British Association announced some years ago.\n\nA man, for example, has for his environment, the atmosphere of the place\nhe inhabits, the society he lives in, the occupation he follows, the\nlaws he obeys, etc. He can live long and happily only when the qualities\nof his body and mind befit him to that environment, _i.e._, when they\nenable him (to become [Arabic: salih]) to adapt himself continuously to\nthe circumstances of his position. What, then, is the general nature of\nsuch qualities?\n\nYou know that one of the best methods of Science is Measurement. No\nscientific knowledge is exact unless it enables you not only to\ndistinguish one quality from another, but also to measure each quality\nor determine its degrees in some way or other. It is not sufficient to\nknow hot from cold but the degrees of temperature must be measured by a\nthermometer.\n\nThe new methods of Statistics and graphic representation have been\napplied to a large number of men and women for the purpose of finding\n\"the fittest\" qualities or \"characters\" as they are technically called.\nProfessor Karl Pearson[83] and others have thus found that among a large\nnumber of men and women in a given community any physical or mental\ncharacter which deviates largely, by excess or defect, from the mean or\naverage, renders them the less fit to survive the struggle for\nexistence. _Individuals possessing any character which deviates\nextremely from the mean tend to disappear_. For example, the average\nheight of men has been found by measurement of a large number of people\nto be (say) 5ft. 6in. and it has also been found by statistical methods\nthat men who are 7ft. or men who are only 3ft. are very rare. It is\ntherefore concluded that men who are too tall or too short _i.e._, who\ndeviate extremely from the mean, tend to disappear and are therefore\n_unfit_ to survive.\n\nThis is only a rough and ready example of what is called the Law of\nPeriodic Selection which has now superseded the Belgian philosopher's\nLaw of the Average (or \"the Mean\"). It applies to human conduct as well\nas to human qualities. That conduct alone (_i.e._, only that particular\ncourse of deliberate action) befits a man to his environment, which\ndeviates the least from a standard or average of such conduct. It is the\nindispensable condition of his happiness and longevity.\n\nYou thus see that the Islamic Maxim of the Mean is justified by\nScience.\n\n\n\n\n+Note 12.+\n\n_Religion begins with the fear of the Lord and\nends in the love of Man.[84]_\n\n\nLet me devote this concluding Note to a few general remarks. The\nmeanings and definitions of certain words given below are somewhat\narbitrary, but I trust they will enable you to understand and remember\ncertain abstruse matters.\n\n\nI.\n\n(_a_) Take the word \"thing\" to mean any object of thought, such as, for\nexample, a house, a labourer, redness, distance, home, charity,\neloquence, or the British Constitution. All these are _things_ which you\ncan think of.\n\n(_b_) You may then define a \"fact\" as a known or knowable thing or\nrelation between things; in other words, a _fact_ is any thing or\nrelation, which you know or can know if you take the necessary trouble.\n\n(_c_) The word \"Nature\", with a capital N, is but a name for the\nsum-total of all facts known and knowable. Poets, philosophers, and even\nsome men of Science, personify this sum-total of facts known and\nknowable, _i.e._, _Nature_ and refer to it as \"she\" or \"her\". It is but\na convenient way of saying, by implication, that there is the same\nuniformity, continuity and unity in Nature as in our idea of a person.\n\nNow, all thinking men of all ages of history have ever tried to\nunderstand Nature as a whole and to answer regarding her three important\nquestions represented by three interrogatives, what? how? and why?\n\n  (1) _What_ is Nature? = What are the facts\n      which constitute Nature. (Knowledge\n      of Nature).\n\n  (2) _How_ has Nature come to be what she is?\n      = How is it that facts constituting\n      Nature have become as we perceive\n      them? (Explanation of Nature).\n\n  (3) _Why_ is Nature as she is and not otherwise?\n      = Why is it that facts constituting\n      Nature have a certain uniformity\n      (order) continuity and unity in spite of\n      changes that take place continuously?\n      (Reason of Nature).\n\nBroadly speaking, I may say that Science (with its various departments\ncalled \"Sciences\") tries to answer the first question _what_, the\nquestion as to _facts_ of Nature. Philosophy tries to answer the second\nquestion _how_, the question as to the _explanation_ of Nature. Religion\nor Theology (which includes highest Poetry) tries to answer the third\nand last question _why_, the question as to the _reason_ of Nature. You\nmay thus clearly remember the respective provinces of Science,\nPhilosophy and Religion by remembering three words What, How and Why.\nWhen you read a book which treats of facts or the _what_ of Nature; or\nof the explanation or the _how_ of her; or of the reason or the _why_ of\nher; you may be sure it is Science, Philosophy or Religion respectively\nthat you are reading, whatever be the name of the book itself.\n\nI have said that Science, Philosophy or Religion \"_tries_ to answer\" and\nnot \"answers\", because the answer of any of them can never be final or\nimmutable. None of them can ever reach finality. As the experience of\nmankind grows continuously, new facts or new phases of old facts are\ndiscovered in the course of time. Just as men have to adapt or adjust\nthemselves to new facts (or to changes in old facts) or else die; so\nmen's Science, Philosophy and Theology have to adjust themselves to new\nfacts or else become empty nothings.[85]\n\n\nII.\n\nI have often said that I believe Islam to be the best religion because\n(so far as I know) it accords best with the current ideas of Science. If\nyou accept my view of the respective provinces of Science, Philosophy,\nand Religion, you can easily comprehend that a Religion like Islam\nwhich purports to expound the reason _why_ of Nature must needs\ncorrespond with the _what_ (Science) as well as with the _how_\n(Philosophy) of Nature. The three great divisions of Human Thought--I\nmean, Science, Philosophy and Religion--are necessarily connected with\none another, as otherwise they cannot make up _the whole Universe of\nHuman Thought_ and cannot satisfy men's craving for complete and\nconsistent knowledge.\n\n\nIII.\n\nThe Law of Evolution which I mentioned in the previous Note is but a\nTheory of Creation, an explanation of _how_ Nature has come to be what\nshe is. New facts which future ages may discover may prove the theory to\nbe either right or wrong. At present it is the best hypothesis--the best\nguess--because it accords best with known facts. It acts as a guide to\nknowable facts as well. It has shown that men cannot progress, indeed\ncannot long survive, if they fail to adapt themselves to the\ncircumstances of their position, if they fail to fit into their\nenvironment which surrounds them like an envelope. Ceaseless change is\nthe order of Nature. Continuous adaptation is the law of life.\n_Adaptability_ is therefore the _sine qua non_ of men's life and\nexistence. The religion which suits them must also have the quality of\nadaptability. I hold Islam has this quality in an eminent degree and is\ntherefore the most suitable religion.\n\nPlease remember that I speak of Islam as taught by the Qur'an itself and\nnot \"Muhammadanism\" as professed by _some_ so-called followers of the\nProphet. You have to interpret the Qur'an[86] quite naturally as any\nother book or historic document, but not in the way in which _some_\nMuhammadans do it with the aid of marvellous fictions and miraculous\ntraditions. Islam has to resist (to use a big word) the\n_anthropomorphic_ tendency of the human mind, _viz._, the tendency to\nview abstract _qualities_ or agencies as persons having a separate\nexistence as individual beings.\n\n\nIV.\n\nI have said that there is no inherent antagonism between Christianity\nand Islam _if_ and _when_ the sayings and doings of the founders of each\nare rightly viewed and understood in a simple and natural manner.\nMuhammad never ceased saying that he had come to attest and complete the\nmission of Jesus and his predecessors, who were God's messengers like\nhimself.[87] The greatest and the best rule of human conduct which Jesus\nlaid down was: \"Love thy neighbour as thyself\".\n\n\nYou remember the well-known lines of Burns:\n\n  O wad some power the giftie gie us\n  To see oursels as others see us.\n\nThe gift which the poet prays for is vouchsafed to very few mortals.\nAlmost all of us have naturally, and often unconsciously, such a high\nopinion of ourselves that, even if we would, we could not see ourselves\nas others see us. The next best thing that we can do is, therefore, _to\nsee others as we see ourselves_, to cherish the same regard for others\nas we instinctively cherish for ourselves. If (to take an extreme case\nfor example) we cannot detest ourselves as others sometimes detest or\nhate us, we can at least try to love others as we love ourselves, \"try\nto do unto others as we wish that others should do unto us\". Thus the\nrule: \"Love thy neighbour as thyself\", is quite consistent with human\nnature and is the most comprehensive rule of conduct which has ever been\nlaid down for the guidance of mankind. To my mind there is no better\nproof of the identity in spirit of Christianity and Islam than the\nconfirmation of Christ's command by Muhammad himself.\n\n  No-one will be a faithful          |\n  Muslim until he loves his          | [Arabic: La yu'minu ahdakum hatta\n  neighbour as he loves himself.     |  yuhibbu li ma yajib nafsahu]\n\nFor this reason, I believe that there is no difference between the two\nreligions _if_ the metaphysical doctrines engrafted on both be\neliminated. _True Islam is but true Christianity writ short._[88] Both\nrecognize that the source of virtue is love,\n\n  For love is Heaven and Heaven is love.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n_We are indebted to Mr. J.C. Molony for the following illuminating\ncriticism which affords food for serious thought--Editor._\n\nIf we assume the existence of a God, interested in the governance of\nthis world, it becomes impossible to deny that Muhammad was God's\nmessenger, or, at least, God's prophet. It seems to me unlikely that a\nman could change the belief of nations by chance, incredible that he\nshould do so were he an impostor. Muhammad was certainly honest; the\npersistence of the faith called after him leads me to consider him as\ninspired. Or, if \"inspired\" be objected to as a general religious term\nof very indefinite meaning, let us say that he saw into the heart and\nreality of life further and more clearly than any man has done since his\nday. How then comes the fact, noted by Amjad and Mahmood and admitted by\nyou, that Islamic countries in the main have wretched governments, and\nare crumbling away before Christian Powers? I do not think that you have\nanswered this question[89]. You have merely pointed out that Islam, if\nrightly understood, is an excellent religion.\n\nThe boys, I think, have stated their dilemma too sharply; the contrast\nis not entirely between Islam and Christianity. India is for all\npractical purposes a \"Hindu\" country, and the power of the old Indian\nKingdoms has faded before Christian invaders. In that section of the\nworld in which Christianity is the prevailing and accepted form of\nreligious belief, the temporal might of those nations professing one\ngreat form of the Christian creed, the Roman Catholic, has undoubtedly\nwaned in comparison with that of the nations professing what is\ngenerally called the Protestant faith. There are many varieties of\nnon-Roman Catholic Christianity, but Protestantism is a label\nsufficiently comprehensive and sufficiently well understood for our\npurposes. I speak without sectarian bitterness; I am not, I fear, a\nconvinced adherent of any particular form of religious faith. I have met\nmany good men, and have many friends, among Muhammadans, Hindus, and\nRoman Catholics. But I think that the objective truth of what I say,\nparticularly in the Christian sphere, is indubitable. Compare for\ninstance the decay of Spain with the grandeur of England, the feebleness\nof Austria with the strength and order (turned to ill uses though they\nmay be) of Germany.[90] The question at once arises whether religion\nhas anything to say to the matter. I think that it has.\n\nMuhammadanism, Hinduism, and Catholicism (I omit the prefix Roman) have\nconcerned themselves too much with Heaven and Hell, with the avoidance\nof future damnation and the obtaining of future bliss. These religions\nhave afforded some justification for the gibe that Auguste Comte\nlevelled at Christianity; he said that it sprang from \"a servile terror\nand an immense cupidity.\" Religion should be rather _a guide of life\nhere_ than _a guide to a life to come_. Kant would have curtailed the\nbeatitude \"blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God\" into\n\"blessed are the pure in heart\". It is good to be good; it is not good\nto be good in the hope of some ultimate gain thereby.[91] The great\nCatholic Bishop of Pondicherry, Monseigneur Bonnand, wrote to one of his\ndesponding priests: \"Continue a missionary to the end, and you will\nassuredly be saved\". In my opinion he was wrong; I should think little\nof a missionary, whether Christian or Muhammadan, who endured the trials\nof a missionary life (and some of those old French priests did endure\nabundantly) solely in the hope of making a personal, albeit spiritual\nand eternal, profit at the end of it all.\n\nNow, \"Bishop Blougram\", a character created by the poet Browning, though\nsupposedly inspired by the personality of Cardinal Wiseman, says in his\n\"_Apology_\":\n\n  There's one great form of Christian faith\n  I happened to be born in--which to teach\n  Was given me as I grew up, on all hands\n  As best and readiest means of living by.\n\nThe same, I fear, might now be said of Muhammadanism. But to my mind\nthere is no fixity, no absolute truth in any form of religious dogma.\nReligion is a thing that must grow with man's intelligence; it is not a\nbox of spiritual truths packed once and for ever, and unpacked for the\ngaze of successive generations. It is not enough to believe in certain\nfacts that happened long ago, or to obey certain injunctions given long\nago in a particular country; we must apply the spirit of a religion to\nthe circumstances in which we live. We shall never attain to final\nabsolute truth, \"the end is not yet, and the purposes of God to man are\nbut half revealed\" (Jowett).\n\nUnfortunately when any religion has taken itself as final it has\ndeveloped a priesthood, and that priesthood has been apt to lay down a\ncode of fixed rules wherewith alone compliance is required. It is a\nfatally easy thing to live in conformity with any definite code of\nrules. Muhammad himself, I imagine, was a singularly liberal\ntheologian. He laid down certain regulations for the conduct of life,\nexcellent considering his place and time; the modern Muhammadan has\naccepted these as a maximum spiritual demand, ignoring the fact that\nthey probably represented the minimum demands of common sense in\nMuhammad's time and country.\n\nMuhammad directed that a Muhammadan should not drink alcohol. This is a\nmaxim of excellent sense in Arabia; Haji Burton, who much appreciated\ngood wine, has told us that in the Arabian deserts wine is positively\ndistasteful as well as unwholesome. I have not the least desire that\nMuhammadans should drink wine. I merely say that there is no _merit_,\nother than that of common sense, in obeying this excellent instruction\nin countries wherein circumstances render it excellent. I do not believe\nthat Muhammad would find the least fault with disregard of his maxim in\ncountries where the climate makes the _moderate_ drinking of wine both\npleasant and beneficial.\n\nMuhammad instituted the Ramzan fast, mainly, I am told, to harden his\nsoldiers. But the Muhammadan of to-day finds a positive merit in\nfasting. There is none; else the jockey's profession comprises the most\nvirtuous men in the world.\n\nMuhammad permitted polygamy, and enjoined the practical seclusion of\nwomen. This, as Sir Syed Ahmad has pointed out, was the counsel of\ncommon sense in Arabia at the time of the Prophet. Apparently there were\nmore women than men, and if a woman was not under the protection of some\nman, and was not under guard, she was very likely to come to harm. But I\ndo not think that this counsel holds good for all time. Polygamy among\nIndian Muhammadans is dying out, but the general Muhammadan here still\nimprisons his womankind in the comfortable assurance that he is thereby\npaving his own way to salvation. I do not see much hope for the physical\nand mental development of Muhammadans so long as one half of the people\nremains in seclusion and ignorance, in a habit of life necessarily\nunhealthy. If you observe that you thereby escape the evils that are\npublished to the world in European divorce courts, I would answer that\nin the first place I doubt the completeness of your escape, (it is a\nmatter on which I have heard much sardonic comment from Muslim friends),\nand that in the second place, even granting what you say, 80% of women\nfree, educated, virtuous and healthy, is a far better result than 100%\nmerely virtuous, and that by constraint.\n\nMuhammad laid down that a man should pray five times a day. To my mind\nthis was merely the Prophet's way of saying that man's whole life should\nbe a prayer: the modern Muhammadan too often \"repeats prayers\" five\ntimes a day and is satisfied. He might as well repeat the multiplication\ntable five times a day. \"Words without thoughts to Heaven never go\" said\nthe king in _Hamlet_. I do not know if our friend D.B. prays ten times a\nday, or five times, or not at all, and (candidly) I do not care. All I\nknow is that in his responsible position he would die rather than take a\nbribe, tell a lie, intrigue against his master. And I fancy that the\nProphet, could he return to earth, would find this abundantly\nsufficient.\n\nYou mention a few other points of orthodoxy; the cut of one's hair, the\nlength of one's trousers. Dr. Khaja Hussain told me that he once saw a\nMuhammadan Street aroused to frenzy and riot by the appearance of a true\nbeliever in Feringhi (or Kafir) boots. It is all of a piece. Muhammadans\nhave concentrated their attention on these ready-made rules for getting\nto heaven; their prophet found no such easy road to bliss. I do not\nimagine that it would ever have occurred to his great soul to claim any\nparticular merit in that he did not drink wine, in that he repeated\nprayers (he at least understood these prayers) five times a day, in that\nhe did not let his wives roam the country a prey to any marauder of\nthose wild times. After all any one can obey these regulations with very\nlittle trouble to himself; it is not quite so easy to adopt the spirit\nthat guided Muhammad's life. Sir Afsur, I do not doubt, will tell you\nthat it is an advisable thing for a soldier to drill smartly, to keep\nhis arms and accoutrements clean, and that with a little trouble it is\nnot difficult for a soldier to do all this. But he will tell you, I feel\nsure, that this is far from being all; the supreme duty of a soldier is\nto be brave in battle--an affair of much more difficulty. A soldier may\nbe smart and clean, but if he fails in battle his smartness and\ncleanness are worth nothing--he is a bad soldier.\n\nMuhammadanism has lost touch with life; it contents itself with the\nletter of the Prophet's teaching and shuts its eyes to, does not search\nfor, the indwelling spirit. It is a small kernel rattling in a very big\nshell, as Charles Kingsley said in \"Yeast\" of the Church service at St.\nPaul's in the fifties of the last century. _Religion has been divorced\nfrom life, and so the followers of Islam as nations have decayed._\n\nIt is the same with the other religions that I have mentioned. The old\ntime Brahmin called himself such because he was educated, intelligent,\nsanitary in his habits, upright; he did not claim to be all this simply\nbecause he was the son of his father. The great obstacle to progress\ndown here is the fact that people imagine it is sufficient to follow in\na mechanical unintelligent way the letter, while totally disregarding\nthe spirit, of some old and after all not very important rules. Ireland\nis said to have been an \"Isle of Saints\", I have my doubts on the\nsubject, but suppose it so. It is now full of fine churches and\nreligious establishments; no people in the world go to church with\ngreater regularity, abstain more thoroughly from meat on Fridays, etc.\netc. But with the mechanical observances they are, I fear, too well\nsatisfied. Drunkenness, idleness, utter disregard for truth, are rampant\nin Southern Ireland, and therefore Southern Ireland is what it is.\nFormal devotion is no substitute whether in the daily battle of the\nworld, or (I believe) in the ultimate judgment of God, for the proper\nordering of one's every day actions.\n\nIf Muhammadans breathe the breath of life on the dry bones of their\nreligion I see no reason why the temporal power of Islamic countries and\nthe spiritual strength of the Muhammadan Church should not revive.\nSomething of the kind has happened in France. Zola cried out against\n\"the nightmare of Catholicism\"; antagonism to the Catholic Church had\nbeen growing up long before M. Combes started to \"strafe\" the religious\nestablishments of the country. The orthodox imagined that France was\nlosing all religion: Auguste Comte, an unbeliever, proclaimed that\nFrance was daily becoming more religious. R\u00e8n\u00e8 Bazin, a Catholic writer,\nimplicitly admits that Comte was right. The people were sick of the dry,\nlifeless, formal rules that were offered to them; the priesthood have\nhad this truth hammered into them, and they are quickening their formul\u00e6\nwith life to fit the life of the people, not striving to dessicate the\npeople's life to fit their formul\u00e6.\n\nJ.C.M.\n\n\nAs a _socio-political institution_ Islam is, in the middle of its\nfourteenth century (1340 A.H.), in the same vicissitudes of development,\nas Christianity was in the middle of _its_ fourteenth century (1350\nA.D.)--an institution weakened by contending sects and rendered stagnant\nby rigid formalism. \"It is a dispensation of providence\", says Syed\nAmeer Ali, \"that whenever a religion becomes reduced to formalism\ncross-currents set in to restore spiritual vitality.\" As in Christianity\nin its fourteenth century, so in Islam of our own times, the vitalising\ncross-currents have set in and we are now witnessing a Muslim\nRenaissance all over the world. Its pioneers in India were Sir Syed\nAhmad, Mowlana Shibli, and the poet Hali. The Rt. Hon. Ameer Ali, Dr.\nIqbal and a host of others bear aloft the New Light. The Muslim\nReformation is coming on as surely as the Christian Reformation came in\nthe wake of Patristicism and Formalism. It need not necessarily mean\nPolitical Revolutions as in Europe.\n\nA.H.\n\n\n\n\n            OUR PRAYER.\n\n                1.\n\n  All praise is due to Thee, O God!\n  None other than Thee we adore.\n  Thou art the Master of the Worlds,\n  Thine aid alone do we implore.\n\n\n                2.\n\n  Thou art Compassion; lead Thou on\n  To Thy right path our human race.\n  Thy Mercy floweth evermore,\n  Do guide us to the path of Grace.\n\n\n                3.\n\n  Thou art the Lord of Judgment-day,\n  For sure shall all be judged by Thee,\n  O keep us off the path of Sin\n  And Error's way. So mote it be!\n\n  _Abdur Rahim._\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n  [1] Translated by Mushtari Begum of Bejnor and\n  published in the _Islamic Review_ April 1916.\n\n  [2] This was written in 1917.\n\n  [3] By the word \"best\" I mean \"the most suitable\n  for both the spiritual and material needs of man.\" I do\n  not wish to cast any reflection on any other religion. See\n  Note 7.\n\n  [4] I make a difference between Islam and Muhammadanism.\n  The latter is not pure Islam. It has forgotten the\n  _spirit_ of Islam and remembers only the _letter_ of its\n  law. \"The dry bones of a religion are nothing; the spirit\n  that quickens the bones is all.\" See Note 5.\n\n  [5] There is no place in Islam for either priests\n  or monks. Yet the Muhammadanism of to-day has both. There\n  are Tartuffes and Pecksniffs in this religion as well as\n  in any other religion.\n\n  [6] This is the real reason of the political and\n  social weakness of most Islamic countries of our own\n  times.\n\n  [7] The teaching of Muhammad has been admirably\n  summarised by a Christian writer as follows:--\n\n    \"There is no deity but God. He created the Universe and\n    rules it with love and mercy. He alone is to be\n    worshipped; in Him confidence is to be placed in time of\n    adversity. There must be no murmurings at His decrees;\n    life--your own and others dearer than your own--must be\n    placed in His hands in trust and love.\"\n\n  I do not believe that there is any monotheistic religion\n  in the world which will dissent from this teaching. The\n  writer (in the _Harmsworth Encyclopedia_) goes on to\n  say:--\n\n    \"The fatalism which has come to be regarded as part of the\n    Moslem creed had no place in the system established by\n    Muhammad who again and again distinctly and emphatically\n    repudiated the idea. Muhammad taught _reform_, not\n    _revolution_.\"\n\n  In these days of political unrest I cannot impress on you\n  too strongly the meaning of the last sentence in which I\n  have italicised two words.\n\n  [8] See p. 33 para. 6.\n\n  [9] The Author has not kept copies of these\n  letters.--_Ed._\n\n  [10] The Qur'an speaks very highly of Jesus:--\n\n  [Arabic: smuhu lmas\u012b\u1e25u \u02be\u012bs\u0101 bnu maryama wa\u01e7\u012bhan f\u012b d-duny\u0101\n  wa-l-\u02be\u0101\u1e2birati wa-mina l-muqarrab\u012bn]\n\n  \"His name is Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, illustrious\n  both in this and in the next world. He is one of those who\n  have near access to God.\"--iii. 40.\n\n  [11] Published and sold by the Rationalistic Press, London\n  for 6d.\n\n  [12] The translation of the Sura in this analysis is\n  slightly different from that given in the succeeding\n  page.--_Ed._\n\n  [13] \"It is strange\": says Havelock Ellis, \"men seek to\n  be, or to seem, atheists, agnostics, cynics, pessimists;\n  at the core of all these things lurks religion.... The men\n  who have most finely felt the pulse of the world and have,\n  in their turn, most effectively stirred its pulse, are\n  religious men.\"--_New Spirit, 228._\n\n  [14] The word \"religion\" also means a system of beliefs\n  and rites pertaining to them. I do not use the word in\n  that sense here.\n\n  [15] _i.e._, the world such as we perceive and conceive\n  it.\n\n  [16] \"I know that even the unaided reason, when correctly\n  exercised, leads to a belief in God, in the immortality of\n  the soul, and in a future retribution\"--_Cardinal Newman._\n\n  [17] Prof. Scott Elliot at the end of his book,\n  _Prehistoric Man_ (p. 381) writes thus: \"It seems true\n  that almost every race of man is not only capable of\n  believing in a Supreme God but, so far as the evidence\n  goes, did reverence one God who was often also thought of\n  as the Creator of the Sky or of the World.... There is a\n  very strong body of evidence showing that every race of\n  mankind possessed quite early in its development a feeling\n  of awe and reverence towards an Unknown God.\"\n\n  [18] There are at present three missionary religions in\n  the world--religions which were intended and designed by\n  their respective founders to unite all men without any\n  distinction into a Universal Brotherhood.\n\n    (1) Buddhism asserts that God is Law or Wisdom.\n\n    (2) Islam teaches that God is Energy or Power.\n\n    (3) Christianity says that God is Father or Love.\n\n  But all these religions inculcate in fact one and the same\n  Truth in its three aspects, as Muslim Sufis would say. I\n  believe the gist of doctrines held by them is that God is\n  Omnipotent _Energy_ manifesting itself uniformly as _Law_\n  and operating benevolently as _Love_.\n\n    Wisdom = Power = Love.\n\n  You should try to solve the equation for yourself. You\n  will not fail to understand it if you think hard.\n\n  [19] Here again taking the three missionary religions\n  mentioned above, the Identity is:--\n\n    Creator = Preserver = Adjuster.\n\n  God said unto Moses, _I am that I am_--_Exodus, iii, 14._\n\n  [20] Some Sufis define Nature as Individual _plus_ his\n  Environment. By _individual_ they mean any one capable of\n  thinking of himself as \"I\" or \"Me\" and every thing else as\n  \"not I\" or \"not me\" which is his _environment_.\n\n  [21] It may be said that all the three ideas of God's\n  relation with Nature (the three \"isms\" I have mentioned in\n  brackets) are but different _degrees_ of a man's desire\n  for communion with his God. Says Rumi in his celebrated\n  _Masnavi_: \"All religions are in substance one and the\n  same\"--Bk. iii, story 12 (St. Daq\u00faqi).\n\n  [22] See last para. of Note 4 and also Note 10. [Arabic:\n  at \u1e6duruq li-llah-i bi \u1e25is-bil anfus] There are as many\n  ways leading to God as there are minds.\n\n  [23] \"Religion places the human soul in the presence of\n  its highest ideal (=God), it lifts it above the level of\n  ordinary goodness, and produces at least a yearning after\n  a higher and better life in the light of God.\"--_Max\n  Muller_.\n\n  [24] Sura = Chapter.\n\n  [25] Absolute = not conditioned by place time measure or\n  circumstances. Infinite = without beginning or end.\n\n   [26] \"The proper name of the religion preached by Muhammad\n  is Islam.\"--Sale\n\n  [27] The word \"Islam\" means literally (1) resignation (2)\n  preservation and (3) peace. Lord Tennyson has most\n  admirably expressed the Islamic ideal of self-surrender to\n  the will of God and has incidentally decided the vexed\n  question of free-will in a single line:--\n\n    \"_Our wills are ours to make them Thine._\"\n\n  [28] By Christians in European countries.\n\n  [29] \"The proper name of the religion preached by Muhammad\n  is Islam\"--_Sale_. See p. 37.\n\n  [30] I use the word in the restricted sense of \"Islam as\n  taught by Muhammad.\" If you take Islam to mean belief in\n  one God and virtuous conduct in life, you may say that\n  there has not been and will never be any true religion\n  besides Islam. In this sense Islam is the only true\n  religion. See p. 27, last para. of Note 2 p. 19, and of\n  this Note pp. 33, 34.\n\n  [31] \"A man must not do reverence to his own sect or\n  disparage that of another man without reason. Deprecation\n  should be for specific reasons only, because the sects of\n  other people all deserve reverence for one reason or\n  other. By thus acting, a man exalts his own sect, and at\n  the same time does service to the sects of other people.\n  By acting contrariwise, a man hurts his own sect and does\n  disservice to the sects of other people.\"--King Asoka's\n  _Edict XII_.\n\n  \"Every sect favourably regards him who is faithful to its\n  precepts, and, in truth, he is to be commended.\"--Akbar,\n  (Ain Akbari III).\n\n  [32] See p. 55.\n\n  [33] Muslim = resigned and submissive, therefore,\n  _peaceful_.\n\n  [34] See Foot note [30].\n\n  [35] Compare _the Bhagvat Gita_, iv. 7-8:--\n\n    \"Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O Bharata,\n    and there is exaltation of unrighteousness, then\n    _I myself come forth_;\n\n    For the protection of the good, for the destruction of\n    evil-doers, for the sake of firmly establishing\n    righteousness, _I am born_ from age to age.\"\n\n  The words _italicised_ suggest the Hindu doctrine of\n  Incarnation and Metempsychosis. Orthodox Muslims do not\n  believe in any such doctrine ([Arabic: hulool wa\n  it-ti-had]) but would substitute for the italics the\n  words: _I send a messenger or reformer._ See, _e.g._,\n  Quran, xvi. 36.\n\n  [36] To students of Islam and its history I cannot\n  recommend better and more useful books than the Rt. Hon.\n  Dr. Syed Ameer Ali's _Spirit of Islam_ and _History of the\n  Saracens_. New and revised editions have been recently\n  published. They present the various aspects of Islam in\n  their proper perspective. They are classics for English\n  readers.\n\n  [37] \"Grant the existence of God and it is impossible to\n  deny that Muhammad was His Messenger. A man does not\n  change the belief of half the world by chance.\" So wrote a\n  Christian friend of mine.\n\n  [38] Muslim = resigned or submissive, therefore, peaceful.\n\n  [39] I mean \"goodness and greatness\" as a _human being_, for\n  Muhammad never said or did anything to show that he was not\n  a human being. The Qur'an commanded him, \"Say I am a man\n  like yourself.\" [Arabic: qul \u02beana ba\u0161arun mi\u1e6flukum] He\n  therefore insisted that men should attach greater importance\n  to the nature of the message than to the character of the\n  messenger himself. \"I am,\" said he \"no more than a man: when\n  I order you anything with respect to religion, receive it,\n  and when I order you about the affairs of the world then I\n  am nothing more than a man.\"\n\n  [40] \"Ahmad\" is another name of Muhammad. I have nothing\n  to say to those mystics, who, by a reasoning peculiar to\n  their doctrines, identify the Messenger (Prophet) with the\n  Master (God).\n\n  [41] Nor indeed is Jesus answerable for the Inquisition\n  and _autos-da-fe_.\n\n  [42] \"These are parables which we have set forth for\n  men--Q. xxix. 43.\n\n  [43] [Arabic: yow-mud-d\u012bn] = the day of the Faith = the\n  time of Dissolution predicted by Islam as well as by\n  Science. Sir Syed Ahmad fully explains the meaning of\n  [Arabic: qiya mat-e-kubr\u0101] = Universal Destruction and of\n  [Arabic: qiya mat-e-sughr\u0101] = individual destruction,\n  (_i.e._, death) from the viewpoint of modern Science.\n\n  [44] As regards miracles, the beliefs that are held do not\n  matter so much as the spirit in which they are held. If\n  the spirit is right and leads to virtuous conduct in life,\n  any reasonable belief will quite do. Here comes in the\n  Pragmatism of Islam. It does not object to anything which\n  has a _practical value_ unless it is unreasonable,\n  immoral, or inconsistent with the Islamic ideas of the\n  unity of God and the brotherhood of man.\n\n  [45] \"We will soon show them our sign in all horizons (=\n  regions) and in their own souls, until it shall become\n  quite clear to them that it is the Truth--Qur'an xli 53.\n\n  [Arabic: sa-nur\u012bhim \u02be\u0101y\u0101tin\u0101 f\u012b l-\u02be\u0101f\u0101qi wa-f\u012b \u02beanfusihim\n  \u1e25att\u0101 yatabayyana lahum \u02beannahu l-\u1e25aqqu]\n\n  [46] God's is the East and the West, therefore whichever\n  side you turn, you will see the face (= presence) of\n  God--Qur'an i. 115.\n\n  [Arabic: wa-li-ll\u0101hi l-ma\u0161riqu wa-l-ma\u0121ribu fa-\u02beaynam\u0101\n  tuwall\u016b fa-\u1e6famma wa\u01e7hu ll\u0101hi]\n\n  [47] And He is within you (= in your mind), why don't you\n  see Him?--Qur'an li. 21. [Arabic: wa-f\u012b \u02beanfusikum \u02bea-fa-l\u0101\n  tub\u1e63ir\u016bna]\n\n  [48] Islam must not be confounded with what is called\n  \"Muhammadanism\" which is but an ossified form of Islam,\n  clothed in Medi\u00e6val beliefs and disfigured by pagan\n  practices. See Mr. J.C. Molony's admirable report of the\n  Census of the Madras Presidency for 1911, where, quoting\n  from the poet Hali's famous _Musaddas_, he describes how\n  far Muhammadanism in Southern India has been influenced by\n  Hinduism. Read also Hali's excellent pamphlet called\n  [Arabic: al-d\u012bnu sarih] \"the Simplest Religion\" which describes how\n  Islam has been \"ossified,\" _i.e._, rendered rigid and\n  unprogressive.\n\n  [49] I know of no religion which does not say, \"Do good\n  and avoid evil\" and I consider it no religion which does\n  not say, \"Live well and happily.\"\n\n  [50] Ghalib:\n\n       [Urdu: * Hum ko ma'loom hai jannat ki haqiqat laikin\n              * dil kay khoosh rakhnay ko ghalib ye khiyal\n                  achcha.]\n\n  [51] See p. 24 above.\n\n  [52] It supplies the best motive for overcoming the\n  perversity of human nature to which St. Paul directs our\n  attention in these beautiful words: \"The good that I\n  would, I do not: and the evil which I would not, I\n  do.\"--Rom. vii. 19.\n\n  [53] Read Draper's \"Conflict between Science and Religion\"\n  which is a historical account of how some scientific ideas\n  had to contend with religious prejudices--a book which, by\n  the way, disproves the charge that Caliph Omar destroyed\n  the great Library at Alexandria.\n\n  [54] God reveals Himself to everybody at every instant of\n  his life. It depends entirely on the spirituality or\n  spiritual capacity of each individual to what extent he\n  knows God and God's ways. The \"spiritual capacity\" is\n  partly inherited from one's ancestors and partly acquired\n  by faith and devotion, as well as by right conduct and\n  good works.\n\n  [55] [Persian: Neest bar lohe delam joz alefe ghamat yar\n  * che konam harf degar yaad nadad ostadam] The _Alif_ of\n  the Loved One's form is   engraven on my heart, No other\n  letter did my Shaikh ever to me impart--_Hafiz_.\n\n  [56] See Note 2.\n\n  [57] I have neither time nor space to explain the full\n  significance of the Qur'anic verses I have quoted here.\n\n  [58] Some would call this Reality, God; but others would\n  say that God is greater and higher than the Reality which\n  manifests itself in different forms. He is above all that\n  any man can think of or imagine. [Arabic: Au bar taraz\n  khiyal wa qiyas guman wo waham.]\n\n  [59] Vol. ii. 748. You have to read the book itself to\n  understand this. I cannot explain it in a short note.\n\n  [60] I have neither time nor space to explain the full\n  significance of the Qur'anic phrases I have mentioned\n  here.\n\n  [61] \"In the world there is nothing so great as man. In\n  man there is nothing so great as mind\"--_Sir William\n  Hamilton_.\n\n  \"In the mind of man there is nothing so great as the idea\n  of God\"--_Islam_.\n\n  [62] This is quite different from the Christian doctrine\n  of Atonement.\n\n  [63] It was the spirit of co-operation which Islam\n  engendered among wild and unruly Arabs, that enabled them\n  to put aside their tribal feuds, to unite and conquer more\n  than half the known world in the first century of the\n  Hijri era (= the 7th century of the Christian era). It was\n  the lack of that spirit in the next two centuries that\n  dismembered the Muslim Empire.\n\n  [64] I say \"_the_ Islam of our ancestors\", because the\n  Islam of _some_ of our contemporaries, called\n  Muhammadanism, is not quite the same.\n\n  Read Prof. Gregory's _Discovery or the Spirit and Service\n  of Science_.\n\n  [65] \"Sufis\" are those Muslims who claim with Mowlana Rumi\n\n  [Persian: maazey quraan ra badashtaim istekhwan beish\n  sagaan andakhtum]\n\n  \"We have taken the marrow out of the Qur'an and thrown the\n  bones to dogs,\" meaning by \"dogs\" those who quarrel over\n  words ([Arabic: mutakallimin]) of the sacred texts.\n\n  [66] \"Man\" says Carlyle, \"is a symbol of Eternity\n  imprisoned into Time.\"\n\n  [67] This proviso defines also the Liberty of Subjects in\n  a State. Every man should be free to do whatever he wishes\n  provided that he does not thereby prevent others from\n  enjoying the _like_ liberty of action. It is the basis of\n  all good Laws which should provide _equal opportunities_\n  to all subjects without distinction.\n\n  [68] Muhammadans generally misunderstand and misapply the\n  doctrine of \"Qismat\" or Fate. The Prophet distinctly\n  taught that we should first of all do whatever lies in our\n  power and then leave the rest to God. We are apt to forget\n  the first part of his precept and cling to its second part\n  only which accords with our tropical laziness. See\n  footnote (7) on page 12.\n\n  [69] [Arabic: \u1e0f\u0101lika d-d\u012bnu l-qayyim] = It (Islam) is the\n  standard religion.--Q. xii. 41.\n\n  [70] Islam rejects some \"previous revelations\" not because\n  they are untrue but because their records that have come\n  down to us are not quite genuine and trustworthy.\n\n  [71] The heading of all chapters except one of the Qur'an.\n\n  [72] \"Mankind comes to Me along many roads; and on\n  whatever road a man approaches Me on that road do I\n  welcome him, for all roads are Mine.\"--_Bhagawat Gita_.\n  [al turuk ila-allah bihasbi anf] See p. 24.\n\n  [73] See Note 2 (concluding part) which mentions three\n  common factors in all religious systems of the world.\n\n  \"The city of the Hindu God is Benares and the city of the\n  Muslim God is Mecca. But search your hearts and there you\n  will find the God both of Hindus and Muslims. If the\n  Creator dwells in tabernacles only, whose dwelling is the\n  Universe?\"--_Kabir_.\n\n  [74] Some Muslims believe that Zoraster, Krishna, Buddha,\n  and Confucius were also prophets or messengers of God but\n  that they were no more than good and great men. They do\n  not attribute any divinity to them.\n\n  \"Religion\", said Hitchcock, \"implies Revelation\". By\n  \"Revelation\" is meant a set of sublime (and therefore,\n  divine) truths revealed, _i.e._ communicated from time to\n  time to chosen men (= Prophets) who had the necessary\n  spirituality to comprehend them and to convey them, as\n  God's messages, to their fellow-men in the _human_\n  language of themselves. The defects (if any) found in the\n  authoritative records (= Scriptures [Arabic: \u1e63a\u1e25if]) are the\n  defects in the human language and not certainly in the\n  sacred and sublime truths revealed to the chosen men, the\n  Messengers of God. It is the defect of _human_\n  understanding, no less than the poverty of _human_\n  language, that has often prevented the full comprehension\n  of the divine dispensation and the sublime truths in the\n  messages of Prophets. It is _our_ comprehension of the\n  truth itself that has given rise to diversity in religious\n  beliefs and practices.\n\n  [75] Provided they are authentic and genuine and not\n  altered by interpolations and omissions.\n\n  [76] Neither the Bible nor the Qur'an is responsible for\n  the cruel excesses committed by Christians or Muhammadans\n  in the name of Religion.\n\n  [77] \"The best of things is the medium thing\"--_Muhammad_.\n\n  [78] Charles R. Gibson.\n\n  [79] _Vide_ Note 12 para. marked (a) p. 79.\n\n  [80] For the purpose of this Note it will be enough if you\n  understand the first four propositions. I am afraid you\n  will find some difficulty in understanding the remaining\n  two propositions without illustrative examples, for which\n  I have no space here.\n\n  [81] \"For _such as be_ blessed of him shall inherit the\n  earth, and _they that be_ cursed of him shall be cut\n  off.\"--Psalm 37th, 22.\n\n  [82] Qur'an, xxi. 105. Following the late Mr. Justice\n  Karamat Hussain of Allahabad, I take the word [Arabic:\n  saleh] to mean \"fit\" in the evolutionary sense. See his\n  book [Arabic: ilm-ul-akhlakh].\n\n  [83] He edits a journal called \"Biometrika\" which is\n  devoted to the statistical study of biological problems.\n\n  [84] Prof. Muirhead of the University of Burmingham, in\n  his kind letter to the author on these \"Notes.\"\n\n  [85] Hence Formalism creeps into every Religion and\n  renders it lifeless when its doctrines fail to adjust\n  themselves to new facts or to changes in old facts. See\n  _Appendix_.\n\n  [86] It should be construed and applied to new ideas and\n  changed circumstances of each age in quite the same manner\n  as Judges in a Court of Law construe and apply old\n  Statutes to facts of cases that come before them. See\n  Hali's [Arabic: al-din yassin]\n\n  [87] See the verse of the Qur'an quoted on p. 33.\n\n  [88] Or say: True Christianity is but true Islam writ\n  large. \"On the whole this religion of Mahomet's is a kind\n  of Christianity.\"--_Thomas Carlyle._\n\n  [89] See hints:--Para 3 of Note 5 pp. 31, 32; Footnote\n  (48) p. 43; Footnotes (4) and (5) page 12; Footnote\n  (85) p. 81.\n\n  [90] Written in 1917.\n\n  [91] Cp. Note 7.","title":"Notes on Islam","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":20360}