Chapter 3

[ايم نعبدWe worship Thee alone.]

"2. Help and guidance in the practical management of life.

[واياك نستعينWe seek help from Thee alone.]

"3. Ability and willingness to follow the light withersoever it leads."

[اهدنا الصراط المستقيمGuide us into the right path]

Compare the verses I have placed in brackets with what Sir Oliver says, and you will observe how well he has interpreted the Qur'an. It looks as if he had the Opening Sura سورة فاتحة before him when he wrote. Even the sequence of his ideas correspondspracticallywith the order of the verses. But you may be quite sure that he never thought of the Qur'an at all. He evolved it all from his own inner consciousness well trained by scientific studies.

Maxim of Self-help.

2. There are numerous verses in the Qur'an which enjoin "purification تز كيم of one's self" and prohibit "cruelty ظلم to one's own mind". They obviously imply the rule of conduct which I have called the Maxim of Self-help. No one has expressed it more beautifully and truthfully than Shakespeare in the well-known speech of Polonius.

This above all: to thine own self be true,And it must follow, as the night the day,Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Herbert Spencer, Prof. T.H. Green, Lecky (Historian), Profs. Muirhead, Mackenzie, and Sen.

It is the basis of the ethical system advocated by authors mentioned in the margin. There are at present two contending schools of Morality. Each tries to determine what is 'good' or 'bad', and sets up a 'standard' or test by which men's actions should be judged as 'right' or 'wrong'. The standard according to the one school is Happiness (the surplus of pleasure over pain); according to the other it is Perfection (the fullest development of men as social beings). I think the latter school is more in favour now than it was at the end of the last century. Men of science now-a-days realize with Herbert Spencer that every one ought to develop himself by freely exercising all the powers of his mind and body to the fullest extent consistent with, and limited by, thelikeexerciseby his fellow men.67I cannot expatiate on this subject without entering into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics. I have only to say that the teaching of Islam as regards self-development is in entire accord with the views of latter-day moralists.

If you are a student of Ethics you will observe that the doctrine of "making the most of oneself" (Perfection) is, in accordance with the Islamic principle of Moderation, the mean of two extreme doctrines:—the doctrine of "duty for duty's sake" (Rigourism) on the one hand, and the doctrine of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" (Utilitarianism) on the other.

Duty—Perfection—Utility.

I have to add that "self-perfection" really means "self-help," = due exercise of one's faculties with patience and perseverance. If you have not read Dr. Smiles' book on Self-help, you had better read it at your earliest convenience. I can recommend no better commentary on the saying: "God helps those who help themselves."68

Note 10.

Moderation and Via Media.

Islam69is, so to speak, the youngest of all the great religions that are now professed by millions of people. Like a child who is heir to all the mental and physical tendencies inherited and acquired by his ancestors, Islam inherited all the revelations which "one hundred and eighty thousand" (i.e.innumerable) prophets had communicated to the world before the advent of Muhammad. I have already referred to the injunction, contained in the Qur'an, that we should believe not only what was revealed to Muhammad himself, but also what was revealed to all "Messengers of God" who had come before him; provided always that we have authentic records of those revelations.70(This proviso is very important.) It is therefore no detraction from the merits of Islam that some of its doctrines resemble those of other revealed religions. Parsis say that Islam borrowed: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم "In the name of God the most merciful and most compassionate"71from theirholy scripture, Zendavesta, which begins with the words بنام ايزد بخشا ئنده بخشا يشگر مهربان داد گر. Some Christian writers on Islam seem to take delight in pointing out that the Prophet of Arabia borrowed this, that, and the other doctrine from certain Christians and Jews whom he had met in his earlier life. It is very doubtful whether he had ever met such people. But it is certain that he was too illiterate امى to understand their recondite doctrines if they had condescended to teach him. Even if we admit that he borrowed doctrines from other religions, his own religion is not thereby rendered the less valuable; for there is no religion which isabsolutelyoriginal. He never denounced former religions but only claimed to have confirmed and supplemented them by the religion revealed to him. He always referred to "former revelations" with great respect.

Muslims picture the Supreme Truth as a beautiful citadel built on the top of a steep mountain. Different religions are but so many paths مذا هب leading to it from different directions. In their estimation Islam is the best and the easiest path of all. This fanciful idea implies that some of the paths might cross each other at different parts of their course, and others might run parallel to one another or even run together for a considerable distance. Many religions may therefore have certain doctrines bearing close resemblance to eachother like parallel paths. Some religions may even have certain doctrines in common, like paths running together. All religions are, and purport to be, paths leading to one and the same citadel of Truth.72None the less has each of them an individuality of its own and a claim that it is better and easier than all others.73

III.

Principle of Moderation.

I have prefaced this Note with the above remarks because the Principle of Moderation and the connected Maxim of the Mean, which are indicated in the third and last part of the Sura, were enunciated by Plato فلا طون and his disciple Aristotle ارسطو who lived more than 1,000 years before Muhammad. Some Muslims count those great sages of ancient Greece among the innumerable (1,800,000) Messengers of God who precededour Prophet.74The records75صحايف possess an authority second only to that of the Qur'an itself, being in fact revelations which God vouchsafed from time to time for the benefit and guidance of mankind.

1. I need not repeat what I have already said as to 'the Path of Grace' صراط الذين انعمت عليهم being themeanbetween twoextremes, 'the Path of Sin' غير المغضوب عليهم and 'the Path of Error' و لا الضالين. I may however explain that the pursuit of the Path of Grace implies the Principle of Moderation in the sense that we should fully and freely exercise all our mental and physical powerswith due regard to their respective limitations. For all practical purposes, you may take Reason, Passion and Action as the principal representatives of a man's powers, and view Reason as the guiding force in his constitution,

Passion as the moving force, and Action (voluntary acts and omissions) as the resultant of the guiding and moving forces thus:—

Now, the Principle of Moderation means simply that you should not allow your passions to influence your actions unduly, nor should you allow your reason to control your passions unduly; but you should ever try to hold the balance even between them in order that the resultant action might be quite right—might discharge the three-fold duty of man,—and might thereby tend (be it in ever so small a degree) to the perfection of the individual and the race. If at any time your passion over-rides your reason, you commit Sin; and on the contrary, if you exercise your reason so much as to stifle your passion altogether, you fall into Error. If you permit neither reason, nor passion to discharge their respective functions, you lapse into Inaction which is again an Error. Undue suppression of Passion, and over-exercise of Reason, as well as non-exercise of both—militate against the Principle of Moderation, the essence of which is (as Aristotle pointed out) that no power should tyrannize over any other in our constitution.

What is "due" or "undue" exercise of a power, is a question which your common sense should decide in each case with reference to the person acting and the circumstances under which he acts. The only general rule that can be laid down is implied in the ideal of perfection explained in the previous Notes. Every exercise of any of your mental or bodily power is right or wrong according as it does, or does not, tend to the perfection of yourselves or your offspring, and your community or race.

I have only to add that the Principle of Moderation, in the form in which I have roughly described it, is fully recognized by such up-to-date writers on the Science of Ethics as Sir Leslie Stephen, one of the two talented Editors of the Dictionary of National Biography.

Maxim of the Mean or Average.

2. Addressing Muslims the Qur'an says:—كذا لك جعلناكم امة وسطا لتكونوا شهداء على الناس"We have thus made you a middle nation (= a moderate people) in order that you should be an example to mankind."—i. 137.

One of the ways in which God has made Muslims a moderate people is by enjoining them to avoid extreme courses of action and to adopt the middle or the mean course whenever and wherever it is possible76.

The Maxim of the Mean is the objective counter-part of the subjective Principle of Moderation. The latter says: Don't over-, or under-exercise any of your faculties; and the former says: Don't have too much or too little of any thing. Too much of any thing is good for nothing. Too little of it is worse than nothing. "Too much" and "too little" are relative terms and signify nothing by themselves. It is only with reference to oneself and one's environment at any particular time and place that they acquire a meaning as "excess" and "defect" respectively. I cannot explain it better than give a few instances in a tabular form where the "mean" comes between the "excess" and the "defect" of a quality of the head or heart, or a course of action.

(1) Qualities of the Head (Reason):—

(2) Qualities of the Heart (Passions):—

(3) Courses of Action:—

You will find out for yourself what are the appropriate qualities or courses of conduct, of which the excess, mean and defect are expressed by the words given above. Fear, for example, is the feeling of which excess is Cowardice and defect is Rashness, while the mean is Courage. Similarly as regards one's own opinion of one's powers, excess is Conceit and defect is Diffidence, while the mean is Modesty. Again too much or too little restraint on action is Restriction or Licence while the mean is Liberty.

It will be a useful exercise to make a long list of such words as express the difference ofdegreesof the various qualities or functions of Reason, Passion and Action (= Knowledge, Feeling and Will.) But it willnotalways be possible to find three contrasted words, like those in the table, for every quality or action; because no language is so perfect as to have separate and single words to express the immense number and manifold shades of ideas which our mind is capable of entertaining. Still the fact is duly recognized by modern Science that there are differences not only of kind but also of degree in everything—ideas, feelings, desires, actions, objects and attributes of objects—with which we are concerned. Although you may not have a word expressive of degree in every case, yet you canpracticallyascertain the extremes and the mean in all cases without exception, and can so orderyour conduct as to avoid the one and adopt the other in all cases. I may point out here that "the Mean" is not the "arithmetical mean" (like 6½ which is the arithmetical mean of 5 and 8) but onlyan approximately medium or middle course of conduct—via media.77خيرا لا مو ر ا و سطا

You may object that, since the ascertainment of the mean in each case requires calm thought with reference to yourself and your environment, the rule is too difficult to follow in these days of quick communication, speedy locomotion, and urgent action. I answer that it is but anidealrule of conduct. Like all rules of Logic (Thought), Æsthetics (Beauty), or Ethics (Conduct), it sets before you an ideal which you should ever strive to attain though you may not attain it fully at any time. No thinker may have been absolutely logical, no Artist may have wrought a perfect work of beauty, and no man may have ever been quite moral. But that is no reason why thinkers, artists, and men generally, should not endeavour to attain perfection in their respective spheres of thought and action.

There is a further and greater objection to the rule of the middle course,viz., that, if followed strictly, it will reduce all men to a dead level of mediocrity, and will not foster the development of men of genius. I have to admit regretfullythat such will be the case, and, as my next Note will show, it will be in accordance with a Law of Nature recently discovered. Some writers have even attempted to prove thatgeniusor excessive intelligence is a form of madness as bad as its opposite form,imbecilityor defective intelligence. They seem to believe that only the men of average intelligence are quite sane.

Great wits are sure to madness near alliedAnd thin partitions do their bounds divide.—Dryden.

The late Sir John Gorst created a sensation when he declared in the House of Commons that great countries were governed by mediocrities only.

The world knows nothing of its greatest men.—Sir H. Taylor.

Note 11.

Evolution and Survival.

IT was Adolphe Quetelet, Astronomer-Royal of Belgium, who in the seventies of the last century attempted to prove that "the average man is to a nation what the centre of gravity is to a body." A similar, if not quite the same, conclusion has since been reached by Sir Francis Galton and Professor Karl Pearson in their researches into men's physical and intellectual qualities in the light of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest. This theory which, in its more extended form, is called the Law of Evolution, has profoundly influenced, if not entirely revolutionized, the Science and Philosophy of our own times. It hasnothowever succeeded, as was at first feared, in destroying men's belief in God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. For it has done no more than disclose but a few of the numerous ways in which He creates and rules.

I have been a student of Evolution Literature ever since I left College. Speaking for myself I can say that my study of it has not in the least shaken my belief in God, but has ratherstrengthened it. I entirely agree with a popular writer78on "the Scientific Ideas of To-day," who says:

"True Science does not seek to deprive man of his Soul or to drive the Creator from his Universe, but it honestly endeavours to study His marvellous works ... to see the manner in which He has caused Nature to work out His design."

The Law of Evolution or the Development Hypothesis, as it has been called, is in fact a clever guess at truth—very valuable as a formula which enables us not only to remember the result of numerous observations and experiments, but also to predict certain events to be verified by subsequent observations and experiments. It is impossible to convey a clear idea of it in a few sentences. A great man like Herbert Spencer spent 50 years of his life in explaining and illustrating it in no less than ten stout volumes of his "Synthetic Philosophy." The central idea may however be expressed in the following propositions, using the word "thing" in its widest sense as any object of perception, or knowable objects79.

1. Nothing exists absolutely by itself; everything exists in relation with something else which is its "environment."

2. A thing and its environment cannot exist side by side for any considerable time without each affecting or influencing the other in somerespects at least: a thing A and its environment B, which cannot but exist together, must needs act and re-act on each other.

3. The action and re-action of the thing A and its environment B on each other, brings about mutual adjustment, the fitting of each into the other.

4. According as this mutual adjustment or fitting is relativelycompleteorincomplete, there is Evolution or Dissolution, survival or extinction, of the thing (A) itself.80

5. The process of Evolution or Survival is characterized by:—

(a)Integration: grouping together of certainlikeunits (such as atoms or molecules, living cells or individuals) into a whole,

(b)Differentiation: certain parts (or functions) of the aggregated whole becomingunlikeeach other or specialized, and

(c)Adjustment: fitting of the aggregated and differentiated whole into its environment.

6. In the opposite process of Dissolution or Extinction the thing undergoes the same changes in the reverse order before it disappears as such.

In other words, given a thing and its environment, the one has to adapt and adjust itself to the other, or cease to exist. Nothing survives, as an individual, which does not change. Like a picture in its setting, a thing has tofititself to its environment in order that it might survive for the best advantage of itself and its kind. Thus, thefitlives and theunfitdies81. As the Qur'an expresses it ان الارض ير "the Earth is inherited by only the fit among My creatures."82This applies not only to plants and animals, man and society, but also to inanimate or inorganic things, as the President of the British Association announced some years ago.

A man, for example, has for his environment, the atmosphere of the place he inhabits, thesociety he lives in, the occupation he follows, the laws he obeys, etc. He can live long and happily only when the qualities of his body and mind befit him to that environment,i.e., when they enable him (to become صا لح) to adapt himself continuously to the circumstances of his position. What, then, is the general nature of such qualities?

You know that one of the best methods of Science is Measurement. No scientific knowledge is exact unless it enables you not only to distinguish one quality from another, but also to measure each quality or determine its degrees in some way or other. It is not sufficient to know hot from cold but the degrees of temperature must be measured by a thermometer.

The new methods of Statistics and graphic representation have been applied to a large number of men and women for the purpose of finding "the fittest" qualities or "characters" as they are technically called. Professor Karl Pearson83and others have thus found that among a large number of men and women in a given community any physical or mental character which deviates largely, by excess or defect, from the mean or average, renders them the less fit to survive the struggle for existence.Individuals possessingany character which deviates extremely from the mean tend to disappear. For example, the average height of men has been found by measurement of a large number of people to be (say) 5ft. 6in. and it has also been found by statistical methods that men who are 7ft. or men who are only 3ft. are very rare. It is therefore concluded that men who are too tall or too shorti.e., who deviate extremely from the mean, tend to disappear and are thereforeunfitto survive.

This is only a rough and ready example of what is called the Law of Periodic Selection which has now superseded the Belgian philosopher's Law of the Average (or "the Mean"). It applies to human conduct as well as to human qualities. That conduct alone (i.e., only that particular course of deliberate action) befits a man to his environment, which deviates the least from a standard or average of such conduct. It is the indispensable condition of his happiness and longevity.

You thus see that the Islamic Maxim of the Mean is justified by Science.

Note 12.

Religion begins with the fear of the Lord and ends in the love of Man.84

LET me devote this concluding Note to a few general remarks. The meanings and definitions of certain words given below are somewhat arbitrary, but I trust they will enable you to understand and remember certain abstruse matters.

(a) Take the word "thing" to mean any object of thought, such as, for example, a house, a labourer, redness, distance, home, charity, eloquence, or the British Constitution. All these arethingswhich you can think of.

(b) You may then define a "fact" as a known or knowable thing or relation between things; in other words, afactis any thing or relation, which you know or can know if you take the necessary trouble.

(c) The word "Nature", with a capital N, is but a name for the sum-total of all facts known and knowable. Poets, philosophers, and even some men of Science, personify this sum-total of facts known and knowable,i.e.,Natureand refer to it as "she" or "her". It is but a convenient way of saying, by implication, thatthere is the same uniformity, continuity and unity in Nature as in our idea of a person.

Now, all thinking men of all ages of history have ever tried to understand Nature as a whole and to answer regarding her three important questions represented by three interrogatives, what? how? and why?

(1)Whatis Nature? = What are the facts which constitute Nature. (Knowledge of Nature).

(2)Howhas Nature come to be what she is? = How is it that facts constituting Nature have become as we perceive them? (Explanation of Nature).

(3)Whyis Nature as she is and not otherwise? = Why is it that facts constituting Nature have a certain uniformity (order) continuity and unity in spite of changes that take place continuously? (Reason of Nature).

Broadly speaking, I may say that Science (with its various departments called "Sciences") tries to answer the first questionwhat, the question as tofactsof Nature. Philosophy tries to answer the second questionhow, the question as to theexplanationof Nature. Religion or Theology (which includes highest Poetry) tries to answer the third and last questionwhy, the question as to thereasonof Nature. You may thus clearlyremember the respective provinces of Science, Philosophy and Religion by remembering three words What, How and Why. When you read a book which treats of facts or thewhatof Nature; or of the explanation or thehowof her; or of the reason or thewhyof her; you may be sure it is Science, Philosophy or Religion respectively that you are reading, whatever be the name of the book itself.

I have said that Science, Philosophy or Religion "triesto answer" and not "answers", because the answer of any of them can never be final or immutable. None of them can ever reach finality. As the experience of mankind grows continuously, new facts or new phases of old facts are discovered in the course of time. Just as men have to adapt or adjust themselves to new facts (or to changes in old facts) or else die; so men's Science, Philosophy and Theology have to adjust themselves to new facts or else become empty nothings.85

II.

I have often said that I believe Islam to be the best religion because (so far as I know) it accords best with the current ideas of Science. If you accept my view of the respective provinces of Science, Philosophy, and Religion, you can easily comprehend that a Religion like Islamwhich purports to expound the reasonwhyof Nature must needs correspond with thewhat(Science) as well as with thehow(Philosophy) of Nature. The three great divisions of Human Thought—I mean, Science, Philosophy and Religion—are necessarily connected with one another, as otherwise they cannot make upthe whole Universe of Human Thoughtand cannot satisfy men's craving for complete and consistent knowledge.

III.

The Law of Evolution which I mentioned in the previous Note is but a Theory of Creation, an explanation ofhowNature has come to be what she is. New facts which future ages may discover may prove the theory to be either right or wrong. At present it is the best hypothesis—the best guess—because it accords best with known facts. It acts as a guide to knowable facts as well. It has shown that men cannot progress, indeed cannot long survive, if they fail to adapt themselves to the circumstances of their position, if they fail to fit into their environment which surrounds them like an envelope. Ceaseless change is the order of Nature. Continuous adaptation is the law of life.Adaptabilityis therefore thesine qua nonof men's life and existence. The religion which suits them must also have the quality of adaptability. I hold Islam has this quality in an eminent degree and is therefore the most suitable religion.

Please remember that I speak of Islam as taught by the Qur'an itself and not "Muhammadanism" as professed bysomeso-called followers of the Prophet. You have to interpret the Qur'an86quite naturally as any other book or historic document, but not in the way in whichsomeMuhammadans do it with the aid of marvellous fictions and miraculous traditions. Islam has to resist (to use a big word) theanthropomorphictendency of the human mind,viz., the tendency to view abstractqualitiesor agencies as persons having a separate existence as individual beings.

IV.

I have said that there is no inherent antagonism between Christianity and Islamifandwhenthe sayings and doings of the founders of each are rightly viewed and understood in a simple and natural manner. Muhammad never ceased saying that he had come to attest and complete the mission of Jesus and his predecessors, who were God's messengers like himself.87The greatest and the best rule of human conduct which Jesus laid down was: "Love thy neighbour as thyself".

You remember the well-known lines of Burns:

O wad some power the giftie gie usTo see oursels as others see us.

The gift which the poet prays for is vouchsafed to very few mortals. Almost all of us have naturally, and often unconsciously, such a high opinion of ourselves that, even if we would, we could not see ourselves as others see us. The next best thing that we can do is, therefore,to see others as we see ourselves, to cherish the same regard for others as we instinctively cherish for ourselves. If (to take an extreme case for example) we cannot detest ourselves as others sometimes detest or hate us, we can at least try to love others as we love ourselves, "try to do unto others as we wish that others should do unto us". Thus the rule: "Love thy neighbour as thyself", is quite consistent with human nature and is the most comprehensive rule of conduct which has ever been laid down for the guidance of mankind. To my mind there is no better proof of the identity in spirit of Christianity and Islam than the confirmation of Christ's command by Muhammad himself.

For this reason, I believe that there is no difference between the two religionsifthe metaphysicaldoctrines engrafted on both be eliminated.True Islam is but true Christianity writ short.88Both recognize that the source of virtue is love,

For love is Heaven and Heaven is love.

APPENDIX.

We are indebted to Mr. J.C. Molony for the following illuminating criticism which affords food for serious thought—Editor.

If we assume the existence of a God, interested in the governance of this world, it becomes impossible to deny that Muhammad was God's messenger, or, at least, God's prophet. It seems to me unlikely that a man could change the belief of nations by chance, incredible that he should do so were he an impostor. Muhammad was certainly honest; the persistence of the faith called after him leads me to consider him as inspired. Or, if "inspired" be objected to as a general religious term of very indefinite meaning, let us say that he saw into the heart and reality of life further and more clearly than any man has done since his day. How then comes the fact, noted by Amjad and Mahmood and admitted by you, that Islamic countries in the main have wretched governments, and are crumbling away before Christian Powers? I do not think that you have answered this question89. Youhave merely pointed out that Islam, if rightly understood, is an excellent religion.

The boys, I think, have stated their dilemma too sharply; the contrast is not entirely between Islam and Christianity. India is for all practical purposes a "Hindu" country, and the power of the old Indian Kingdoms has faded before Christian invaders. In that section of the world in which Christianity is the prevailing and accepted form of religious belief, the temporal might of those nations professing one great form of the Christian creed, the Roman Catholic, has undoubtedly waned in comparison with that of the nations professing what is generally called the Protestant faith. There are many varieties of non-Roman Catholic Christianity, but Protestantism is a label sufficiently comprehensive and sufficiently well understood for our purposes. I speak without sectarian bitterness; I am not, I fear, a convinced adherent of any particular form of religious faith. I have met many good men, and have many friends, among Muhammadans, Hindus, and Roman Catholics. But I think that the objective truth of what I say, particularly in the Christian sphere, is indubitable. Compare for instance the decay of Spain with the grandeur of England, the feebleness of Austria with the strength and order (turned to ill uses though they may be) of Germany.90The question at oncearises whether religion has anything to say to the matter. I think that it has.

Muhammadanism, Hinduism, and Catholicism (I omit the prefix Roman) have concerned themselves too much with Heaven and Hell, with the avoidance of future damnation and the obtaining of future bliss. These religions have afforded some justification for the gibe that Auguste Comte levelled at Christianity; he said that it sprang from "a servile terror and an immense cupidity." Religion should be rathera guide of life herethana guide to a life to come. Kant would have curtailed the beatitude "blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" into "blessed are the pure in heart". It is good to be good; it is not good to be good in the hope of some ultimate gain thereby.91The great Catholic Bishop of Pondicherry, Monseigneur Bonnand, wrote to one of his desponding priests: "Continue a missionary to the end, and you will assuredly be saved". In my opinion he was wrong; I should think little of a missionary, whether Christian or Muhammadan, who endured the trials of a missionary life (and some of those old French priests did endure abundantly) solely in the hope of making a personal, albeit spiritual and eternal, profit at the end of it all.

Now, "Bishop Blougram", a character created by the poet Browning, though supposedlyinspired by the personality of Cardinal Wiseman, says in his "Apology":

There's one great form of Christian faithI happened to be born in—which to teachWas given me as I grew up, on all handsAs best and readiest means of living by.

The same, I fear, might now be said of Muhammadanism. But to my mind there is no fixity, no absolute truth in any form of religious dogma. Religion is a thing that must grow with man's intelligence; it is not a box of spiritual truths packed once and for ever, and unpacked for the gaze of successive generations. It is not enough to believe in certain facts that happened long ago, or to obey certain injunctions given long ago in a particular country; we must apply the spirit of a religion to the circumstances in which we live. We shall never attain to final absolute truth, "the end is not yet, and the purposes of God to man are but half revealed" (Jowett).

Unfortunately when any religion has taken itself as final it has developed a priesthood, and that priesthood has been apt to lay down a code of fixed rules wherewith alone compliance is required. It is a fatally easy thing to live in conformity with any definite code of rules. Muhammad himself, I imagine, was a singularlyliberal theologian. He laid down certain regulations for the conduct of life, excellent considering his place and time; the modern Muhammadan has accepted these as a maximum spiritual demand, ignoring the fact that they probably represented the minimum demands of common sense in Muhammad's time and country.

Muhammad directed that a Muhammadan should not drink alcohol. This is a maxim of excellent sense in Arabia; Haji Burton, who much appreciated good wine, has told us that in the Arabian deserts wine is positively distasteful as well as unwholesome. I have not the least desire that Muhammadans should drink wine. I merely say that there is nomerit, other than that of common sense, in obeying this excellent instruction in countries wherein circumstances render it excellent. I do not believe that Muhammad would find the least fault with disregard of his maxim in countries where the climate makes themoderatedrinking of wine both pleasant and beneficial.

Muhammad instituted the Ramzan fast, mainly, I am told, to harden his soldiers. But the Muhammadan of to-day finds a positive merit in fasting. There is none; else the jockey's profession comprises the most virtuous men in the world.

Muhammad permitted polygamy, and enjoined the practical seclusion of women. This, asSir Syed Ahmad has pointed out, was the counsel of common sense in Arabia at the time of the Prophet. Apparently there were more women than men, and if a woman was not under the protection of some man, and was not under guard, she was very likely to come to harm. But I do not think that this counsel holds good for all time. Polygamy among Indian Muhammadans is dying out, but the general Muhammadan here still imprisons his womankind in the comfortable assurance that he is thereby paving his own way to salvation. I do not see much hope for the physical and mental development of Muhammadans so long as one half of the people remains in seclusion and ignorance, in a habit of life necessarily unhealthy. If you observe that you thereby escape the evils that are published to the world in European divorce courts, I would answer that in the first place I doubt the completeness of your escape, (it is a matter on which I have heard much sardonic comment from Muslim friends), and that in the second place, even granting what you say, 80% of women free, educated, virtuous and healthy, is a far better result than 100% merely virtuous, and that by constraint.

Muhammad laid down that a man should pray five times a day. To my mind this was merely the Prophet's way of saying that man's whole life should be a prayer: the modernMuhammadan too often "repeats prayers" five times a day and is satisfied. He might as well repeat the multiplication table five times a day. "Words without thoughts to Heaven never go" said the king inHamlet. I do not know if our friend D.B. prays ten times a day, or five times, or not at all, and (candidly) I do not care. All I know is that in his responsible position he would die rather than take a bribe, tell a lie, intrigue against his master. And I fancy that the Prophet, could he return to earth, would find this abundantly sufficient.

You mention a few other points of orthodoxy; the cut of one's hair, the length of one's trousers. Dr. Khaja Hussain told me that he once saw a Muhammadan Street aroused to frenzy and riot by the appearance of a true believer in Feringhi (or Kafir) boots. It is all of a piece. Muhammadans have concentrated their attention on these ready-made rules for getting to heaven; their prophet found no such easy road to bliss. I do not imagine that it would ever have occurred to his great soul to claim any particular merit in that he did not drink wine, in that he repeated prayers (he at least understood these prayers) five times a day, in that he did not let his wives roam the country a prey to any marauder of those wild times. After all any one can obey these regulations with very little trouble to himself; it is not quite so easy to adopt the spirit that guidedMuhammad's life. Sir Afsur, I do not doubt, will tell you that it is an advisable thing for a soldier to drill smartly, to keep his arms and accoutrements clean, and that with a little trouble it is not difficult for a soldier to do all this. But he will tell you, I feel sure, that this is far from being all; the supreme duty of a soldier is to be brave in battle—an affair of much more difficulty. A soldier may be smart and clean, but if he fails in battle his smartness and cleanness are worth nothing—he is a bad soldier.

Muhammadanism has lost touch with life; it contents itself with the letter of the Prophet's teaching and shuts its eyes to, does not search for, the indwelling spirit. It is a small kernel rattling in a very big shell, as Charles Kingsley said in "Yeast" of the Church service at St. Paul's in the fifties of the last century.Religion has been divorced from life, and so the followers of Islam as nations have decayed.

It is the same with the other religions that I have mentioned. The old time Brahmin called himself such because he was educated, intelligent, sanitary in his habits, upright; he did not claim to be all this simply because he was the son of his father. The great obstacle to progress down here is the fact that people imagine it is sufficient to follow in a mechanical unintelligent way the letter, while totally disregarding the spirit, of some old and after all not very important rules. Ireland is said to have been an "Isle of Saints", I have my doubts on the subject, but suppose it so. It is now full of fine churches and religious establishments; no people in the world go to church with greater regularity, abstain more thoroughly from meat on Fridays, etc. etc. But with the mechanical observances they are, I fear, too well satisfied. Drunkenness, idleness, utter disregard for truth, are rampant in Southern Ireland, and therefore Southern Ireland is what it is. Formal devotion is no substitute whether in the daily battle of the world, or (I believe) in the ultimate judgment of God, for the proper ordering of one's every day actions.

If Muhammadans breathe the breath of life on the dry bones of their religion I see no reason why the temporal power of Islamic countries and the spiritual strength of the Muhammadan Church should not revive. Something of the kind has happened in France. Zola cried out against "the nightmare of Catholicism"; antagonism to the Catholic Church had been growing up long before M. Combes started to "strafe" the religious establishments of the country. The orthodox imagined that France was losing all religion: Auguste Comte, an unbeliever, proclaimed that France was daily becoming more religious. Rènè Bazin, a Catholic writer, implicitly admits that Comte was right. The people were sick of the dry, lifeless, formal rules that were offered tothem; the priesthood have had this truth hammered into them, and they are quickening their formulæ with life to fit the life of the people, not striving to dessicate the people's life to fit their formulæ.

Back to Index Next