Notes on Islam Part 6

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.

[Sidenote: 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, the _like_ exercise by his fellow men.[57] I cannot expatiate on this subject without entering into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics.

I have only to say that the teaching of Islam as regards self-development is in entire accord with the views of latter-day moralists.

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

(Utilitarianism) on the other.

+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: "G.o.d helps those who help themselves."[58]

+Note 10.+

_Moderation and Via Media._

Islam[59] is, so to speak, the youngest of all the great religions that are now professed by millions of people. Like a child who is heir to all the mental and physical tendencies inherited and acquired by his ancestors, Islam inherited all the revelations which "one hundred and eighty thousand" (_i.e._ innumerable) prophets had communicated to the world before the advent of Muhammad. I have already referred to the injunction, contained in the Qur'an, that we should believe not only what was revealed to Muhammad himself, but also what was revealed to all "Messengers of G.o.d" who had come before him; provided always that we have authentic records of those revelations.[60] (This proviso is very important.) It is therefore no detraction from the merits of Islam that some of its doctrines resemble those of other revealed religions. Parsis say that Islam borrowed: [Arabic: bi-smi llahi r-ra?mani r-ra?im] "In the name of G.o.d the most merciful and most compa.s.sionate"[61] from their holy scripture, Zendavesta, which begins with the words [Persian: ba nam eezad ba bakh sha-inda bakhs ha bikasr meher ban gar.] Some Christian writers on Islam seem to take delight in pointing out that the Prophet of Arabia borrowed this, that, and the other doctrine from certain Christians and Jews whom he had met in his earlier life. It is very doubtful whether he had ever met such people. But it is certain that he was too illiterate [Arabic: ummi] to understand their recondite doctrines if they had condescended to teach him. Even if we admit that he borrowed doctrines from other religions, his own religion is not thereby rendered the less valuable; for there is no religion which is _absolutely_ original. He never denounced former religions but only claimed to have confirmed and supplemented them by the religion revealed to him. He always referred to "former revelations" with great respect.

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

III.

_Principle of Moderation._

I have prefaced this Note with the above remarks because the Principle of Moderation and the connected Maxim of the Mean, which are indicated in the third and last part of the Sura, were enunciated by Plato [Arabic: Flatun] and his disciple Aristotle [Arabic: Aristo] who lived more than 1,000 years before Muhammad. Some Muslims count those great sages of ancient Greece among the innumerable (180,000) Messengers of G.o.d who preceded our Prophet.[74] The records[75] [Arabic: sahaif] of their sayings possess an authority second only to that of the Qur'an itself, being in fact revelations which G.o.d vouchsafed from time to time for the benefit and guidance of mankind.

1. I need not repeat what I have already said as to 'the Path of Grace'

[Arabic: ihdina ?-?ira?a l-mustaqima] being the _mean_ between two _extremes_, 'the Path of Sin' [Arabic: gayri l-mag?ubi ?alayhim] and 'the Path of Error' [Arabic: wa-la ?-?allin]. I may however explain that the pursuit of the Path of Grace implies the Principle of Moderation in the sense that we should fully and freely exercise all our mental and physical powers _with due regard to their respective limitations_. For all practical purposes, you may take Reason, Pa.s.sion and Action as the princ.i.p.al representatives of a man's powers, and view Reason as the guiding force in his const.i.tution, Pa.s.sion as the moving force, and Action (voluntary acts and omissions) as the resultant of the guiding and moving forces thus:--

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

Now, the Principle of Moderation means simply that you should not allow your pa.s.sions to influence your actions unduly, nor should you allow your reason to control your pa.s.sions 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 pa.s.sion over-rides your reason, you commit Sin; and on the contrary, if you exercise your reason so much as to stifle your pa.s.sion altogether, you fall into Error. If you permit neither reason, nor pa.s.sion to discharge their respective functions, you lapse into Inaction which is again an Error.

Undue suppression of Pa.s.sion, 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 const.i.tution.

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 circ.u.mstances under which he acts. The only general rule that can be laid down is implied in the ideal of perfection explained in the previous Notes. Every exercise of any of your mental or bodily power is right or wrong according as it does, or does not, tend to the perfection of yourselves or your offspring, and your community or race.

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

_Maxim of the Mean or Average._

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

[Arabic: wa-ka-?alika ga?alnak.u.m ?ummatan wasa?an li-takunu uhada?a ?ala n-nas]

"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 G.o.d has made Muslims a moderate people is by enjoining them to avoid extreme courses of action and to adopt the middle or the mean course whenever and wherever it is possible[76].

The Maxim of the Mean is the objective counter-part of the subjective Principle of Moderation. The latter says: Don't over--, or under-exercise any of your faculties; and the former says: Don't have too much or too little of any thing. Too much of any thing is good for nothing. Too little of it is worse than nothing. "Too much" and "too little" are relative terms and signify nothing by themselves. It is only with reference to oneself and one's environment at any particular time and place that they acquire a meaning as "excess" and "defect"

respectively. I cannot explain it better than give a few instances in a tabular form where the "mean" comes between the "excess" and the "defect" of a quality of the head or heart, or a course of action.

(1) Qualities of the Head (Reason):--

_Excess. Mean. Defect._

Caution Prudence Neglect Doubt Conviction Uncertainty Conceit Modesty Diffidence Sensitive Attentive Indifferent

(2) Qualities of the Heart (Pa.s.sions):--

Cowardice Courage Rashness Sensuality Temperance Abstinence Bigot Enthusiastic Lukewarm

(3) Courses of Action:--

Restriction Liberty Licence Flattery Courtesy Rudeness Favouritism Justice Injustice Prodigal Generous Miserly

You will find out for yourself what are the appropriate qualities or courses of conduct, of which the excess, mean and defect are expressed by the words given above. Fear, for example, is the feeling of which excess is Cowardice and defect is Rashness, while the mean is Courage.

Similarly as regards one's own opinion of one's powers, excess is Conceit and defect is Diffidence, while the mean is Modesty. Again too much or too little restraint on action is Restriction or Licence while the mean is Liberty.

It will be a useful exercise to make a long list of such words as express the difference of _degrees_ of the various qualities or functions of Reason, Pa.s.sion and Action (= Knowledge, Feeling and Will.) But it will _not_ always be possible to find three contrasted words, like those in the table, for every quality or action; because no language is so perfect as to have separate and single words to express the immense number and manifold shades of ideas which our mind is capable of entertaining. Still the fact is duly recognized by modern Science that there are differences not only of kind but also of degree in everything--ideas, feelings, desires, actions, objects and attributes of objects--with which we are concerned. Although you may not have a word expressive of degree in every case, yet you can _practically_ ascertain the extremes and the mean in all cases without exception, and can so order your conduct as to avoid the one and adopt the other in all cases. I may point out here that "_the Mean_" is not the "arithmetical mean" (like 6 which is the arithmetical mean of 5 and 8) but only _an approximately medium or middle course of conduct--via media_.[77] [Arabic: khair ul umur ausatuha]

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

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

Great wits are sure to madness near allied And thin part.i.tions 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.+