Quranic Foundations And Structure Of Muslim Society
PART-4
ISLAM: THE RELIGION—IN TERMS OF THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE QUR’ANIC GUIDANCE
Chapter 1
ISLAM AMONG RELIGIONS
The Holy Qur’an claims that all the problems of human life that relate directly or indirectly to the fulfilment of human destiny, in the earthly environment as well as in the next world, have been dealt with therein explicitly or implicitly:
“… And We have revealed unto you (O Muhammad!) the Book (i. e., the Qur’an) as an (explicit and implicit) exposition of everything (requisite in respect of perfect Guidance) …” (16: 89).
That comprehensive guidance has been projected, however, under the name of al-Islam (‘submission to God’) —termed as ‘Islam’ in popular usage—and on the basis of Faith in God and all that it implies. As such, it is theocentric, as distinct from the anthropocentric and the nihilistic.
The terms ‘theocentric’, ‘anthropocentric’ and ‘nihilistic’ refer to three basic attitudes towards Reality that humanity has entertained in history. Among the better-known and representative systems—or, we may call them ‘religions’ in the broadest sense of the word, the broad [1] classification emerges, subject to certain inherent reservations, thus: systems like Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and certain schools of thought in Hinduism, stand in the civilised sector, and systems like Shintoism stand in the primitive sector, of the first category; systems like Buddhism, Jainism and Confucianism relate to the second; and systems like Marxist Dialectical Materialism and Atheistic Existentialism fall under the third.
In the theocentric view at its highest, the Ultimate Reality is supra-cosmic, personal and divine. It is ‘Being’. It is God. It is the fountain-head of the highest values and ideals. It reveals itself in the Cosmic Order, which is its creation. Man is ‘from God and for God’. He is the pilgrim of eternity with his source of existence and capabilities in the Ultimate Reality, whose Grace he should seek. His function is to promote harmony with the Ultimate Reality through worship, in order to acquire perfection adequate to his nature. His ideal is to reflect the Divine Attributes in the mirror of his personality, thereby fulfilling his destiny. His outlook is positive and optimistic, and is grounded in the concept of ‘affirmation of personality’.[2]
In the anthropocentric view at its highest, the Ultimate Reality is intra-cosmic and impersonal. It is ‘Becoming’. It is immanent in the Cosmic Order, which consists of the ‘natural’ and the ‘supra-natural’. Man is the child of the cosmos. The ‘supra-natural’ element in him is the source of his power. His function is to renounce the ‘natural’, which is evil. His ideal is to efface his personality for attaining freedom from the bondage of the ‘natural’. His outlook is negative, because salvation lies through Renunciation. His worship bears reference to ascetic exercises and magical concepts. His ethics is the ethics of asceticism. His goal is the submergence of his personality in that Impersonal Reality.
In the nihilistic view at its highest, the Ultimate Reality is Illusion, and the cosmos is mere accident. Man is an ephemeral speck of mechanical activity in a chance-order. His power lies in the cunningness that he may be able to employ for ‘making the best of a bad bargain’. His ideal is the acquisition of maximum physical happiness, towards which all human struggle is conceived to be directed. The outlook that emerges logically for him is incapable of accommodating any element of hope, because of the notion of double tragedy in terms of the world being a chance-order as well as hostile. His approach to the domain of moral behaviour is possible only through the shifting sands of expediency. His destiny is the annihilation of his personality in the all-consuming Illusion.[3]
We have distinguished the theocentric from the anthropocentric and the nihilistic attitudes to Reality, including not only the first but also the second and the third under the category of ‘religion’. That we have done on the basis that any system of thought which may bind anyone to any specific view of life, together with its emotional and ethical implications, is religion, because the very word ‘religion’ stands etymologically for the idea of being bound or linked to something. This is how the concept of religion is viewed in the wider sense.
Thus, for instance, Ralph Barton Perry says, referring to Marxism and Buddhism, in his Realms of Value:[4] “Whether one says that Communism is atheistic or that it has made a god of Economic Force depends on whether one is thinking in terms of a particular religion or in terms of religion in general. The god which, Communism denies is a particular variety of God—such as the Christian God. The god it affirms is another variety of universal God. Both gods answer the description of God as Cosmic Power viewed from the stand-point of what men take to be their paramount good. It is clear that esoteric Buddhism as well as Marxian Communism recognises no god in the Christian sense. But Buddhism teaches that Nirvana is the supreme good and that the constitution of things—the view of Karma and ultimate illusoriness of existence—permits Nirvana to be attained. Buddhism is thus a religion in its conjoining of a heirarchy of values with a cosmology; and it can even be said to have its god, if by ‘god’ is meant the saving grace of man’s total environment” (p. 464).
However, taking up the theocentric view alone, vital differences exist between the different theocentric systems. In the first instance, these systems are divisible into those which claim to be revealed and those which do not. Thus, for example, Islam and Christianity and Judaism lay claim to Divine Revelation as the source of their guidance, while the theocentric systems of Hinduism make no such claim. Then, as we have already seen, the Divine Revelation which Islam projects is unadulterated and authentic, while in the case of Judaism and Christianity it is adulterated and unauthentic. Again, as regards the ‘unrevealed’ systems, they are divisible into vulgar (or, primitive) and civilised. Hence, going from lower to higher levels, we arrive at four categories: (1) Unrevealed—of the vulgar or primitive level; (2) Unrevealed—of the civilised level; (3) Revealed but adulterated and unauthentic; (4) Revealed and existing in unadulterated and authentic form.
Religions falling under the above categories admit of comparative normative evaluation in seven dimensions, namely: (1) Concept of God; (2) Outlook; (3) Stand-point; (4) Ideal; (5) Standard of Behaviour; (6) Mission; (7) Programme. It is necessary to undertake this study here in order to establish the nature of Qur’anic Guidance in the perspective of theocentric religions. The evaluation of each category emerges as follows:
[1] It should be noted that there is a certain amount of intermixing of concepts and attitudes which damage the logic of structural purity in respect of classification. Therefore, only a broad classification with reservations is possible in a summary appraisal.
[2] This statement of the theocentric view is genuinely and comprehensively correct in respect of Islam alone. Because: For instance, Christianity presents the picture of a mixture of certain elements of the theocentric view with certain elements of the anthropocentric view.
[3] Ref: For instance, Bertrand Russell’s statement in the forthcoming discussion on ‘Life after Death’.
[4] Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1954.
to be continued . . . . .
Quranic Foundation & Structure Of Muslim Society In The End Times
