Quranic Foundations And Structure Of Muslim Society
1. UNREVEALED: PRIMITIVE (SHINTO-ISM, ETC.)
:
1.Concept
of God: Fetish-worship and Nature-worship, representing the quest for the
metaphysical Reality at a superstitious level.
2.Outlook:
Superstitious, rather than rational.
3.Standpoint:
Magical, rather than ethical.
4.Ideal:
Satisfaction of immediate wants.
5.Standard
of Behaviour: Acquisition of immediate gains.
6.Mission:
None.
7.Programme:
Performance of rituals.
Japanese Scholars’ Verdicts:
The eminent Japanese scholar, Dr. Genchi Kate, who taught the Shinto
religion for many years at the Imperial University of Tokyo, evaluates
Shintoism in the historical perspective thus:
“Considered in the broadest
historical sweep there are three maincultural stages in the evolution of Shinto. There is, in the first
place, the stage of primitive nature-worship or polydemonism; secondly, the
stage of higher nature worship or sheer polytheism; and thirdly, Shinto as an
advanced cultural religion wherein beliefs and practices relating to
Kami-objects have come under the influence of ethical and intellectual
influences of a high order. It is at this last named stage that Shinto shows its most definite political pattern.”[1]
As regards Kami, the key-term of Shintoism, Motoori, another eminent
Japanese scholar, expounds its implications as follows:
“Speaking in general, Kami signifies,
in the first place, thedeities of
heaven and earth that appear in the ancient records and also the spirits
worshipped in the shrines.
“It seems hardly necessary to add
that it also includes human beings. It also includes such objects as birds,
beasts, trees, plants, seas, mountains, and so forth. In ancient usage,
anything whatsoever, which was outside the ordinary, which possessed superior
power, or which was awe-inspiring, was called Kami. Eminence here does not
refer to the superiority of nobility, goodness or meritorious deeds. Evil and
meritorious things, if they are extra-ordinary and dreadful, are called Kami.
“It is also evident that among human
beings who are called Kami the successive generations of sacred emperors are
all included. The fact that emperors are called ‘distant Kami’ is because from
the point of view of common people they are far separated, majestic and worthy
of reverence. In a lesser degree we also find, in the present as well as in
ancient times, human beings who are Kami… Furthermore, among things which are
not human, the thunder is always called ‘sounding-Kami’. Such things as
dragons, the echo, and foxes, in as much as they attract attention and are
wonderful and awe-inspiring, are also Kami …”[2]
[1] Cited in John Clark
Archer’s: The Great Religions of the Modern World, p. 153.
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.
