Part 6 (1/2)

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.