Return to Nurelweb or Academic Papers or Evangelical Christianity
THE JOURNAL OF THE CHRISTIAN BRETHREN
RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP
Copyright © May 1972
Guest Editor: Irving Hexham
Preface
Topic of the Issue UNDERSTANDING SOME OTHER RELIGIONS
Introduction: A New Problem
for British Christians
Judaism Today
The Meaning of Hinduism
The Muslim Community: Islam
from Within -
Towards a Theology of Inter-Religious
Encounter
Select Bibliography.
Preface
If God is God of all men, and is and has been concerned with all His creatures alike, then how do we account for the existence, continuance, and perennial vigour, of a multiplicity of different religions? The problem exists for the adherents of every belief: but the more especially for those who ttse the uncompromising words of the apostle Peter concerning the Lord Jesus Christ: ‘There is salvation in no one else’. How do we understand and apply those words? No longer can we Christians, in this secluded island in what the Romans used to call ‘the skirts of the world’, avoid facing that question squarely, for it is thrust in our face in every large city of our land—and in many smaller towns and villages as well.
Mr. Irving Hexham, who is a
graduate of Lancaster and at present a research scholar at Bristol, has collected
together these invaluable papers on the major ‘immigrant religions’ to be
encountered in the British Isles today. They are, however, of much more than
insular interest: and of particular value is the article which Mr. Hexham
has invited from Mr. Muhammad Iqbal. himself a practising Muslim; and which
therefore takes us inside the ideals of Islam as they are seen by one born
and reared in that obedience.
This issue does not answer the question posed here. But for those who are moved to face it, it provides important material—dare we suggest that it is indispensable material?
Sosthenes
INTRODUCTION: A NEW PROBLEM
FOR BRITISH CHRISTIANS
Until fairly recently Hindus
and Moslems were strange creatures who inhabited far away lands and needed missionaries to ‘civilise’ them. This, at
least, is how many Britons viewed members of non-Christian religions. Of course
not all Britons claimed to be Christian, but those who had rejected Christianity
tended to regard it as the best of a number of corrupt and outdated religious
systems. It was also safe to assume that the average British housewife would
never, with the possible exception of the Jews, meet a member ofanon-Christian
religion in all her life. But since 1945 all this has changed.
Today there are flourishing
Hindu and Moslem communities in most of our cities and a growing number of
people are turning to forms of eastern meditation to find spiritual fulfilment.
How is the local church to meet this new situation? This edition of the CBRF
Journal attempts to contribute to a solution
to this problem by attempting to understand the major non- Christian religions
to be found in Britain. The articles presented have been selected with the
intention of challenging members to face up to the claims of other Faiths.
Evangelical Christians often
complain that their beliefs are misunderstood by non-believers and criticise
The Press, Radio and TV for giving biased reports of their activities. Knowing
how easily their own beliefs and actions are distorted, one would expect evangelicals
to be willing to spend time attempting to understand the beliefs and practices
of members of other religious groups. But, unfortunately, this expectation
is often unfulfilled. Many evangelicals show a complete disregard for other
people’s feelings and dearly held beliefs. They have the Truth and everyone else is in error. Yet, this type of attitude, which
is often presented as showing a great concern for the purity of the Gospel,
can very easily lead to misunderstanding and to the preaching of a distorted
Gospel.
Some may be thinking, by now,
that this introduction is a plea to give up the exclusive claims of Christ:
it is not. It is, however, a plea to take other religious beliefs seriously
before trying to evangelise The people who hold them. Only when the Christian
knows the real, and not imagined, need of others can he show them how Christ
can meet that need.
This edition of the Journal, then, is written in the belief
that understanding precedes evangelism. But what does this ‘understanding’
involve? It would seem that for an adequate appreciation of another religion
the Christian must be able to do two things: he must feel the attraction which
that religion holds for its members and not just dismiss it as blind superstition,
and he must be able to begin to think in the way in which members of That
religion think. In short, he must have some idea of what it means to be a
member of that religion.
These requirements are very
exacting but only when they are met can, an adequate programme of evangelism
be devised. Preaching the Gospel in such a way that it is bound to be misunderstood
is tantamount to preaching a false Gospel. It is therefore the duty of the
Church to ensure that hearers understand the Gospel when it is proclaimed
to them. The following articles have been compiled in the hope that such understanding
may. be made possible. It is also hoped that the problems which are raised
by them may prompt assemblies, who have large non-Christian groups in their
areas, to consider the possibility of creating specialist ministries to meet
this need.
The first article, by Mr. H.
L. Eltison, reminds us that the most entrenched non-Christian group in Britain
is the Jews and that in the past Christians have very often shown a total
lack of concern for them. He argues that Judaism is a religion in its own
right and not just a stunted form of Christianity, and shows how popular Christian
terminology can very easily confuse Jewish hearers.
The second article, by Professor
Ninian Smart, explains something of the great complexity of the Hindu religion.
After describing beliefs and practices which often confuse Christians he goes
on to draw attention to some things which ‘puzzle the Hindu’ about Christianity.
In conclusion, Professor Smart points to the difference in outlook between
Hindus and Christians regarding the historicity of Christ’s actions and His
exclusive claims.
The third article, by Muhammad
Iqbal, is unusual in being written by a practising Moslem. For such an article
to appear in a Christian magazine may seem strange. But, if we are to understand
what Islam means to an adherent, what better than to have a believer to explain
it to us? This article is very stimulating, and questions many commonly held
beliefs about the backwardness and social ‘evils’ of Islam. It presents a
dynamic account of a dynamic religion which is one of the greatest rivals
to Christianity. All members will agree that by breaking new ground in this
way CBRF has done a great service to the Christian community and that Mr.
Iqbal has given us a unique insight into Islam.
Finally Dr. Eric Sharpe writes
a controversial article on the theology of mission. Not everyone will agree
with his conclusions but he does present some interesting ideas not usually
expressed by evangelical Christians.
In conclusion, a short bibliography
of useful books is included to enable readers to follow up these articles
and think further about the issues raised.
H.
L. ELLISON
There are certain ambiguities
in the use of the term Judaism. It is best reserved for that system of religion
that became dominant among Jews after the destruction of the Temple in A.D.
70 and virtually undisputed after the failure of Bar Kochba’s revolt in A.D.
135. It must be remembered however, that this particular interpretation of
the Old Testament revelation took its rise in the time of Ezra, if not earlier.
For the correct understanding
of Judaism it must be grasped that it is less a theological system and more
a manner of life. It is overwhelmingly concerned with what a man does, not
with what he thinks, i.e. with orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. It is tacitly
assumed that one who does the right things believes the correct doctrines.
Down to the French revolution,
and even later in many countries, the best a Jew could normally hope for both
in Christian and Muslim countries was that he should be treated as a second-class
citizen. He was encouraged and often forced to live in a compact Jewish district
(ghetto) of the town; this enabled the Jewish community to exercise an irresistible
pressure for conformity. The only major schism, made possible by a period
of more tolerant Muslim rule, was even more rigid in its interpretation of
the demands of the Law than we associate with Orthodox Judaism.
Since a Jew could always become
a Christian or a Muslim, according to where he lived, there had to be certain
basic beliefs which kept a man a Jew, when family and national loyalty threatened
to give way. One is that that there is one God and one only. This is expressed
by the recitation of the Shema, the
only binding creed that Judaism has ever known, ‘Bear Israel, the LORD our
God is one LORD’ (Deut. 6: 4). This
is interpreted in opposition to Christianity as an affirmation of God’s absolute
unity, and it separated him effectively from the Christian. The second is
that this God chose Israel, i.e. the Jew, as His inalienable possession—this
separated him from the Muslim. A corollary of this is that God gave Israel
a binding and unchangeable torah at
Mt. Sinai.
Though Torah has traditionally
been translated Law even in the Septuagint, it means Instruction. Judaism
affirms that not merely the 613 commandments, whether positive or negative,
of the written Torah are binding, but also that all the deductions made by
the rabbis from these basic commandments are equally so. While in theory these
deductions are capable of being changed, in practice this is virtually impossible.
They have been carried so far, that virtually every aspect of life, even the
most private and intimate, are covered by them. Should changing social circumstances
seem to free some areas of life from them, they are soon brought under rule
by the same inexorable system of deduction and extension.
While Judaism has always had
its rabbis, i.e. experts to whom one can turn to discover what the Torah is
in any given circumstances—orthodox rabbis are not ministers of religion in
the Protestant sense and still less priests—the study of Torah, in practice
the study of the Pentateuch and of the Talmud, is the highest duty of the
Jewish man. The Talmud consists of the Mishnah, a commentary on the legal
portions of the Pentateuch, and of the Gemara, a commentary on the Mishnah.
(The alleged Jewish predeliction for money-making is mainly the result of
the position into which the Jew was repeatedly forced by the surrounding Gentile
world.) This stress on the study of the Torah shows that something much higher
than mere legalism is involved. The keeping of the Torah is conforming to
God’s highest will. The reward is that which such conformity must bring with
it. It must be stressed that in Judaism all Jewish men stand equal. There
is no priestly caste. It is only study of the Torah which in theory gives
anyone a higher standing.
This system created a community
where a very much higher level of morality, social righteousness and general
humanity has normally been maintained over the centuries than can be claimed
for any so-called Christian society. It has been only when the rabbinical
system has been faced by the exceptional and unexpected that its results have
been inhumane or grotesque. No orthodox Jew would subscribe to the popular
view that Judaism has created a system of unmitigated and intolerable legalism.
In addition to the honour given
to God’s revelation there have been two other factors which have prevented
this. On the one hand, on the basis of Lev. 18: 5, the rabbis insisted that
since the commandments were given that a man should live by them, in case of a threat to life
all but three, murder, idolatry and adultery, could be ignored. This principle
has also operated against all extremer interpretations of the Law in ordinary
life.
The other factor has been that
of mysticism. In many different ways~ both the sage and the ordinary man have
found themselves in living touch with God. Sometimes they have followed the
classical roads of mysticism, sometimes lines of speculation in the Kabbalah
[i.e. Tradition, was the name given to the mystic doctrines and systems that
grew up in the 12th and 13th centuries claiming to be based on much older
mystic tradition. Since it remained standard for most later mystic thought,
the term is used to represent traditional, ‘main-line’ Jewish mysticism. Its
chief literary expression is the Zohar, c. A.D. 1300] that have fascinated Christian thinkers. Perhaps mysticism’s
greatest contribution was in the mass movement of Hasidism, which began in
the 18th century and gave a new vitality to Orthodox Judaism, when it was
most expected to collapse in the modern world. In addition Judaism has always
been a community religion. Even in its mysticism it has found no place for
the individualism so often found in Protestantism.
We should never forget, when
we consider Orthodox Judaism, that it has to a great extent been moulded by
the unrelenting pressure of Christianity. This has shown itself especially
in four directions. The unity and•nature of God have been so exaggerated that
most Jews can express them only by negatives, i.e. they can say only what
God is not. The Torah has been magnified until the language used of it is
comparable to the Christian’s language about Christ. The tendency to underrate
the reality and universality of sin has been greatly increased; one result
is that there is very little desire for the reintroduction of sacrifice. Finally,
probably the majority of the orthodox now look for a Messianic period rather
than for a personal Messiah.
The critical test for Orthodox
Judaism came with the freeing of the Jew from his ghettoes and the granting
to him of full citizen rights. For some this began with the Enlightenment
and the French Revolution; for others especially for some from parts of North
Africa and the Yemen, it came only with their transportation to the State
of Israel. In the vast majority of cases this meant that orthodox Jews had
to face in the span of a single life the stresses and strains Christianity
was able to adapt itself to through a number of centuries. The main modern
enemy of Orthodoxy, however, has been persecution. The pogroms under the Czars,
from 1880 onwards uprooted well over a million Russian Jews to throw them
into the American melting pot. The highest proportion of the victims in the
Nazi extermination camps were orthodox Jews.
Orthodox Judaism still exists.
It can be found in the Williamsburg district of New York, in a part of Detroit
and a few other American cities, in the Stamford Hill area of London and Cheetham
Hill in Manchester, and above all in Mea Shearim and surrounding districts
of Jerusalem and in Bnei Braq in Greater Tel-Aviv as well as in the many yeshivas
that have sprung up in Jerusalem. But even in Israel Orthodoxy persists mainly
by withdrawing itself from the world of reality, by opting out from modern
values.
Already very many of those
who fled from Russia under the Czars to North America, Britain and Palestine
had abandoned their orthodoxy, and, it may be, their religion, because they
had found that it offered no answer to the material need and anguish through
which they were passing. In exactly the same way the survivors of Hitler’s
concentration camps found for the most part that the God of tradition was
meaningless in the setting of Auschwitz and Buchenwald. For at least ninety
per cent of Israel’s youth rabbinic rules and regulations seem irrelevant
to the needs of the young state. It should not be forgotten that the official
motivation for the maintenance by law of various traditional Jewish practices
in Israel is merely that they are national customs.
That which commonly calls itself
Orthodoxy today is essentially a compromise, which appears on two levels.
In Britain the more rigid one is represented mainly by the Federation of Synagogues,
mostly smaller and less fashionable, the laxer by the United Synagogue, which
appoints the Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, and embraces much of
the wealth and prestige of the Jewish community. In the United States the
distinction is made more explicit, for the name Orthodox is reserved for the
former group, while the latter is called Conservative. The use of this latter
term does in fact make it easier for those using it to go. further in their
compromise.
It is insufficiently realized
that the corrosion of Orthodoxy has gone much further in the realm of the
spirit than in that of practice. The true Orthodox may be compared with the
extreme Christian Fundamentalists. They not only accept the literal truth
of the Bible but also its traditional interpretation. They believe not only
that the Law of Moses was given in its present form at Sinai, but also that
its rabbinic interpretation, i.e. the oral law, in essence at least, started
there also.
The bitter controversy in the
United Synagogue a few years ago that centred round Rabbi Louis Jacobs had
nothing to do with his orthodoxy, so far as his practice was concerned. He
accepted the rabbinic law as binding and carried it out in a way that gave
scandal to none. But he maintained that not all the written Law and certainly
most of the traditional interpretation of it did not go back to Moses. As
a result of the controversy he became a rabbi of an independent synagogue,
the orthodoxy of which cannot be impugned, yet he is regarded by the majority
of his fellow rabbis as holding views subversive of true Judaism. For all
that, his views are held by ninety per cent of educated orthodox Jews everywhere,
even by a majority of the rabbis among them, though they will not acknowledge
the fact. This is another way of saying that for most of the orthodox the
Divine imperative in the Torah has been undermined. Instead it is becoming
something which belongs to the essence of being a Jew.
This element of compromise
created by the modern world has triumphed openly in the movement known normally
as Liberal Judaism in Britain and as Reform Judaism in America. Here the Torah,
though respected, has been replaced by the teaching of the Prophets. In other
words the movement can legitimately be compared with Liberal Christianity.
Like the latter it cannot easily be described and is capable of taking on
a wide variety of expressions. Generally speaking any traditional observance
to which no valid ethical meaning can be attached is abandoned, unless, indeed,
it is retained as a national custom. Here the concept of a Messiah as a person
yet to come has teen completely dropped, while it has only been dimmed in
the orthodox camp. Probably over half America’s Jewry belongs to the Reform
movement, though a number will attend more liberal Conservative synagogues
as a matter of convenience. Indeed, the frontier between Reform and Conservative
and Conservative and Orthodox is very blurred. In Britain the Liberal movement
has made much less progress.
In Israel the Reform Synagogue
is regarded as public enemy No. 1 by Orthodoxy. It knows that the small number
of Hebrew Christians presents no great danger at the moment, but it realizes
that Reform could conceivably capture the uncommitted majority of the people.
The plain fact is that the majority there have no definable religious faith,
as is also the case elsewhere.
The proportion of avowed Jewish
atheists, Marxists, secularists and humanists is probably everywhere lower
than in the comparable Gentile society. Even where there is no faith at all,
a Jew is likely to be a synagogue member, for it serves as a form of club
and is a help to maintaining his Jewish identity. In Israel, where these motives
play no part, synagogue membership is very low. Religious faith has in fact
been in large measure replaced by the sense of peoplehood. Especially since
the Six-Day War of 1967 the State of Israel has become an emotional and almost
mystical necessity for the majority of Jews living outside it. It would be
only a minor exaggeration to suggest that the concept of peoplehood is the
main feature of Judaism today. Certainly it is the only bond that links the
hundred per cent observers of the Torah, its compromising adherents of all
grades, and the nationalists, humanists and Marxists that form the other fringe
of Jewry.
We need not be surprised at
this. Only the way that Christendom and Islam treated Jewry down the centuries
has obscured from us that this sense of peoplehood has always been an essential
element in Judaism. Because for so long the Jew was allowed to exist as Jew
only on the basis of his religion, it was assumed that it was merely religion
that made a Jew. In fact the election of Israel as a people has been at all
times the basic fact in the religious self-consciousness of most Jews. When
the Zionist movement began, it was attacked with equal bitterness by the Liberals
and the Orthodox. The former rejected it, because it introduced nationalistic
particularism into what they proclaimed as a purely spiritual religion. The
latter would have nothing to do with it, because its leaders either rejected
the demands of the Torah or let them sit very lightly on them. There were
also those who insisted that a return to the Land of Israel depended on a
Divine action through the Messiah. Today it is only a very small section on
either wing that maintains its old antagonism.
The response of the Jewish
masses to the call of Zionism has always been one of its most striking features.
At the same time the reaction of the typical modern Jew to the call of Zionism
has been, like his response to the claims of the Torah, ambivalent. He has
been prepared to make very great sacrifices for the cause, but where he has
not been driven to Israel by persecution, he has shrunk from the irrevocable
step of settling in the land. His sense of peoplehood, of chosenness, has
never conflicted with his knowledge of his essential oneness with his fellow
men.
Judaism looks for a new earth
in which righteousness will dwell. Hence, both at Qumran and among the Pharisees
and the Zealots, and equally today with both Orthodox and Liberal, the person
of the Messiah has always taken second place to the new age he was to introduce.
This helps to explain why many of the Messianic pretenders were able to gain
massive support. After the debacle of the last major Messianic claimant in
the middle of the seventeenth century, Sabbatai Zvi, the average Jew has either
grown dubious about the possibility of a personal Messiah or has grown indifferent
to the whole subject. But that has not meant any diminution in the hope for
a Messianic age, even where the term is not used.
At all times Judaism has seen
man co-operating in the coming of this age; this is one of the marked features
of the Qumran writings. Hence a man’s keeping of the Law is never a purely
individual matter. The large- scale benefactions by well-to-do Jews, not merely
to Jewish but also to general charities and even to organisations like the
Salvation Army, are made with the hope of raising the well-being of men in
general. One of the great forces behind Zionism has been its vision of creating
a new type of society spear-headed by the kibbutz, the communal colony. Though
the kibbutz is primarily a child of Marxist theory, the fact that there is
a small but growing number of Orthodox ones shows that it involves ideals
that are entirely compatible with true religion. This preoccupation with a
practical building up of the kingdom of God—perhaps Utopia is a better word,
for religion need not feature in it—explains why the majority of Jews are
on the left in politics, but very few •support the Communist regimes of today,
even though many have been influenced by Marxism.
This cutting down of the stature
of the Messiah, even where he is expected, and the stress on human activity
help to explain why the concept of the resurrection of the dead plays little
real role in Judaism. Though it finds its place in the daily services of the
Synagogue and in Mainionides’ Thirteen Articles of Faith, it plays a vital
role only for a few—hence the impact of the gas-chambers on world Jewry has
been the greater. Another reason for this is the lack of integrated theology
in Jerusalem. The religious know that the Bible knows nothing of the immortal
soul that fares very well when it is freed from the fetters of the body. At
the same time that knowledge has been made virtually valueless by the general
Jewish acceptance of Christian concepts of the soul, which the Church early
accepted from Greek philosophy.[*Traditional Christian theology regards man
as composed of body and soul, the latter being immortal and capable of adequate
existence on its own. Whether it should be distinguished from spirit is a
matter of controversy. The Old Testament doctrine is that man is nep/zesh, i.e. soul, which comes into being by the meeting of body
and spirit (the breath of life’, Gen. 2: 7). When spirit and body separate
at death, the soul, though apparently retaining its identity, becomes unable
to function in any way, until a body is restored to it in resurrection. There
is nothing in the New Testament which is a denial of the Old Testament concept,
though the redeemed are conscious of Christ’s presence.]
From all that has been said
it should be easy to recognize that Judaism in all its forms tends to put
its stress quite otherwise than does New Testament Christianity. The difference
becomes even more obvious when the comparison is made with traditional orthodox
Church development, with its strong infusion of Greek thought. Hence it is
not surprising that the traditional lines of Christian approach to the Jew
have been far from effective, and where they have succeeded, it has been mainly
among those Jews who had become more or less assimilated to their Gentile
surroundings, or who, for one reason or another, had become dissatisfied with
Judaism.
The almost intuitive expectation
of the average Christian and church that the convert will simply assimilate
completely and disappear in his new surroundings offends the strong feeling
of peoplehood that dominates a majority of Jews. In many cases it renders
him incapable of even listening intelligently to the would-be missionary.
The over-stress in conservative
Protestantism on the individual and on individual salvation has a similar
effect. The would-be convert expects to find a far more real community life
in the church than he had in the synagogue, and its lack can have a seriously
discouraging effect.
Our concept of Christendom,
with the use of infant baptism just as the Jew practises circumcision, makes
it very difficult for the Jew in non- Muslim lands not to equate Gentile and
Christian. He is therefore strongly repelled by the wide spread of antisemitism,
even among many church members, and by so many forms of racial discrimination,
especially in South Africa and the United States. The same effect is also
achieved by the attitude of many conservative Christians who consider that
since the solution of the world’s social problems must await the return of
Christ, there is nothing they can or should do about them.
When it comes to Jewish worship
or charity, normally all that matters is whether a man is a Jew or not. No
further questions need be asked. Hence the bitter denominational differences
between Christians form a major stumbling-block. The Jew’s lack of theological
interests makes it the harder for him to understand the underlying reasons.
Very often a Jew has turned from the decisive step of committal to Christ,
when he discovered that he was expected to make a denominational decision
as well. It may be added that the frequently met idea that the Jew, once he
has become interested in Jesus, is ‘naturally’ drawn to some particular theology
and church system is not borne out by statistics.
The undeniably tritheistic,
not trinitarian, language of much popular worship, hymnody and preaching is
also a great obstacle, which many Jews have never been able to surmount. The
accepted method of approaching a Jew with stress on the Messianic prophecies
and the need for sacrifice for sins is normally fated to be abortive. Even
if the hearer is interested in prophecy, and the normal Jew is not, the Messianic
concept is for him something widely different; the concept of Jesus as Messiah
appeals to him as little as it did to the majority of His contemporaries.
As for the forgiveness of sins, the Synagogue has so played down the whole
concept of sin over the centuries that only in rare cases does one find the
soul longing to know that it can find complete forgiveness.
If the Church is to make a
real impact on the Synagogue, the Christian on the Jew, there must be the
willingness to recognise certain unpalatable truths. The Synagogue has sometimes
had a truer understanding of the Biblical revelation than has the Gentile
Church, especially in its more popular manifestations. The official Church
has consistently libelled and calumniated the Jew and Judaism, and has then
acted as though the calumnies were true. In its own life the Church has all
too seldom demonstrated to the Jew what the life of the people of God should
be. On the positive side the Jew must be faced with all the possibilities
of the Holy Spirit’s working through individuals and the local church. Nothing
short of this will move the Jew to jealousy (Rom. 11:11, 14).
Further information on the
subject and bibliographies will be found in the articles on Judaism in The
New Bible Dictionary and in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology. See also
Mr. Ellison’s longer works on this subject: Christian
Approach to the Jew (United. Society. for Christian Literature or Lutterworth)
and Understanding a Jew (Olive Press,
16 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, WC2)
THE MEANING OF HINDUISM
NINIAN
SMART
Professor
Ninian Smart is Professor of Religious Studies in the University of Lancaster.
Basically, Hinduism is the
major traditional religion of the Indian subcontinent. But it may be somewhat
misleading to use the word ‘religion’ here in the singular: for Hinduism comprises
such a variety of cults, beliefs and institutions that it can equally well
be looked on as a network of interlocking religions, and not a single system.
For example, many Hindus believe in a personal Creator and Lord; but others
believe in an impersonal Absolute. Some worship God in the guise of Shiva,
others in the guise of Vishnu. Some believe in the efficacy of sacrificial
ritual, others do not. Some aspects of Hindu life are extremely ascetic, as
witness the sannyasin or holy man
who has given up all worldly ties; other aspects are world-affirming, even
pleasure-seeking. Some Hindus believe in abstention from meat and alcohol;
others do not. Some Hindus practice the veneration of trees and snakes; for
others these cults are primitive. It is thus not surprising that many Westerners,
conceiving of religion in terms of a unified set of beliefs and loyalties,
have been rather baffled by Hinduism.
One main secret of understanding
Hinduism is to see it as the result of an interplay of diverse cultural groups,
living together over a long period in the Indian sub-continent. In these latter
days it is natural to look on the Republic of India as a single nation, and
to remember the days of the Raj in which most of the sub-continent was brought
together under a single rule. But however natural it may be to look on India
as a political entity, in fact the sub-continent is much more like Europe
than it is like (say) Britain. That is, just as Europe in the Middle Ages
consisted of a variety of emerging nations of differing languages and customs,
loosely knit together by the use of Latin as the language of the Church, so
India has mainly been a network of regional and tribal groups, with differing
languages, only loosely unified by the use of Sanskrit as a sacred and literary
language, whose main exponents were the Brahmins. The latter’s social prestige
enabled a theory of a unified religion to be maintained: provided people recognised
the authority of the Vedas as revelatory, they counted as orthodox, however
varying théit interpretations of the scriptures might be.
It is however only in the relatively
recent past, in the 19th and 20th centuries, that Hindus have made a strong
conscious attempt to present a unified ideology to the world. Indeed, the
very word ~Hinduism’, Western in form and tone, implies a conscious unity
which is new—being a product of the interplay between Western culture and
Christian missions on the one hand and the Hindu tradition on the other. The
latter, faced with the challenge, responded by taking over some features of
Christian methods and of Western assumptions. Thus in the last century and
a half the attempt has been made to present a systematic scheme of Hindu belief,
to which the label ‘Hinduism’ could attach. The predominant motif in this
scheme has been as follows.
First, Hinduism with its wide
variety of cults and standpoints can serve as an example of unity in pluralism,
namely the idea that behind religious differences there lies an essential
unity. Modern Hinduism has tended to stress this, because of its perception
that in a plural world of major faiths some judgment about them has to be
made—and the judgment• that they are all in some sense true is congenial to
the Indian spirit. Thus an old Indian story tells of a number of blind men
holding different parts of an elephant—one the trunk, another a hind leg and
so on. The blind men give differing reports of what they are in contact with,
but really it is a single thing. Likewise with religions.
Second, modern Hinduism has
drawn heavily upon the influential teachings of Shankara (8th century AD.),
probably the greatest exegete and metaphysician of the Hindu tradition. It
so happens that his exposition of the central meaning of the Vedic scriptures
(above all the Upanishads) can fit into the scheme of unity in pluralism and
that it chimed in also with the dominant philosophy of late 19th century Britain,
available to India through the spread of English-style higher education on
the sub-continent. Briefly, Shankara’s position is that the eternal soul or
Self within man is identical with Brahman, ultimate reality. Thus there is
but one eternal Self, for there is but one ultimate reality. The realization
of this in one’s spiritual experience brings about liberation. It followed
from Shankara’s position that the world of ordinary experience, which we perceive
as being plural, containing many things and persons, is an illusion screening
us from the perception of the one Brahman. Likewise God, conceived as personal
Creator of the world, shares in the essentially illusory character of the
creation. Thus at a lower (the ordinary) level of experience men worship God
as personal, but at the higher level of realization they pass beyond worship,
and realize the identity of the Self (Atman) and Brahman. Naturally, such
a brief account can scarcely do justice to the subtlety and power of Shankara’s
system. The idea of differing levels of truth has been taken up vigorously
in modern Hinduism to resolve differences between religious attitudes. Some
are at a lower level, ultimately to be transcended. It is on this basis that
Hinduism tries to say that all religions which believe in a personal God or
gods point beyond to the higher level of awareness of the Self.
Third, though modern Hinduism
has incorporated much of Shankara’s ideas it has tended to play down the idea
of illusion (maya). Modern social
concerns do not allow of such a world-negating idea, and maya is often interpreted to mean simply
that this world, as ordinarily experienced, is impermanent: abiding, eternal
satisfaction lies at the higher level. Thus existence as we ordinarily know
it is not unreal so much as non-eternal.
But although modern Hinduism
has stressed the impersonal, ultimate reality lying beyond the concept of
a personal God, it is fair to say that a major portion of the Hindu tradition
has emphasized the worship of a supreme Lord. Devotion to Him brings salvation,
through His grace. Thus a major medieval Hindu school could debate as to whether
salvation comes on the so-called cat-principle or on the so-called monkey-principle.
The mother cat transports her kitten from A to B by the scruff of the neck.
The kitten does nothing. Likewise salvation is totally wrought by God. On
the other hand, the little monkey has to cling to the mother’s waist when being
carried. Likewise, clinging to God is necessary for men’s salvation—a kind
of ‘works’, to put the matter into Christian terminology. The ideas of devotion
(bhakti), grace, personal Creation and
so forth are reminiscent of much in the Christian tradition.
However, in order not to mislead
it is necessary for me to enter a qualification here. It must be remembered
that the Lord is figured very differently—e.g. as Vishnu—in Hindu myth. And
indeed there are usually thought to be a whole host of lesser deities who
are, as it were, offshoots of the one divine Being. Thus the observer of the
Indian scene is immediately struck by the variety of cults and gods and goddesses—Vishnu
and his incarnations such as Rama and Krishna, his consort Lakshmi, Ganesha
the elephant-headed god, Hanuman the monkey god, Kali the consort of Shiva,
breathing destruction as well as creative power; and so on. India is a land
not just of villages but also of temples, and there are many gods inhabiting
the temples. Regional differences, the mixing of traditions, the weaving of
myths—these are factors contributing to the galaxy of gods and spirits. Yet
it would be misleading to look on India as polytheistic, even if it superficially
seems so. For many Hindus, even the unsophisticated, the many gods are all
somehow subsumed under the supreme Lord. Local cults are in this way unified
and given a common ultimate focus. (There is here some analogy to the cult
of saints in some Catholic countries, such as Mexico.)
A contributory cause of the
complexity of Hindu cults is the caste system. This elaborate social framework
has evolved over a very long period. It implies that different groups may
have their own special cults— so that whom you worship depends to some extent
on the social pigeonhole in which you were born. Crudely, caste has two marks:
first that members of the same caste do not marry outside the caste (endogamy)
and second that they do not eat with members of another caste (commensality).
The situation is often more fluid than these two points suggest, and modern
conditions have tended to modify caste, especially in relation to the second
mark. The caste groups tend to be arranged for practical purposes in an elaborate
hierarchy, and strong disadvantages can accrue to members of the lowest groups,
especially to the ‘untouchables’ (whom Gandhi called Harijans or sons of God).
However, class and caste do not always coincide: a government minister can
be an untouchable, and Brahmins can have menial jobs. Much modern reform by
Hindus, however, has endeavoured to raise the status of the lowest groups,
e.g. by increased educational opportunity and by getting temples opened to
Harijans.
The social framework of Hinduism
has a remarkable tenacity, and despite its often manifest injustices, has
served to integrate differing groups with varying customs into a cohesive
pattern. Theoretically, the social framework has a religious basis—it is part
of the ‘order’ or dharma to which
men and gods conform and which is periodically restored by God for the welfare
of all. Thus it is not easy to separate Hinduism from the fabric of Indian
society. It is only recently that (say) Westerners could become Hindus in
a sense (such men as Aldous Huxley): typically Hinduism is for Indians: Thus
it scarcely exists outside the Indian sub-continent except in places where
there has been a heavy migration of Indians—for instance, Guyana, Kenya, Fiji,
South Africa and so on.
All this has meant that there
has been strong stress on the necessity of fulfilling one’s particular social
duties. Thus in the Bhagavadgita (the
‘Song of the Lord’), the single most popular scripture in modern India, the
hero Arjuna is exhorted by Krishna to do battle, for that is his metier as
a warrior, even though Arjuna is wavering because the battle about to be joined
is against his own kith and kin. The emphasis on social obligations should
be remembered, as a corrective to the common picture of Hinduism as world-negating.
However, there has also always been a recognized way of transcending social
obligations, by becoming a sannyasin—one who leaves the world in search of spiritual truth. India
has always had a tradition of holy men, often committed to considerable austerities
in the quest for realization. An important aspect of the search has been the
practice of meditation or contemplation, helped by the techniques of yoga.
Very often this seeking for inner illumination, in which one realizes the
eternal Self, contrasts with the other-directed character of bhakti or devotion, which conceives of
the worshipper and the object of worship as essentially distinct. The tension
was relieved in one way by Shankara, for the higher truth belongs to contemplation,
and the lower truth to bhakti.
The social structure and ideas
of God or Absolute have to be placed in another context too if we are properly
to understand the Hindu world. This other context consists in the belief in
rebirth or reincarnation (or transmigration, to use another term again). Though
not widely accepted in the earliest period of the Hindu scriptures, belief
in rebirth has come to typify nearly all forms of Indian religion. The belief
implies that on death one is reborn in another form, maybe animal or divine
or in a purgatory. The world of living forms from the high heavens to infernal
hellish regions beneath the earth is a continuum, and one can ascend and descend
in the scale of life. The virtuous untouchable may be reborn in a high caste:
the murderous Brahmin may be reborn in a purgatory. The angry man may be reborn
as a fierce animal. And so on. Liberation or salvation is usually conceived
as an exit from the cycle of existence, samsara—either through one’s own actions
in purifying oneself or through faith in a merciful Lord who brings the faithful
into communion with Himself beyond the realm of samsara.
Belief in rebirth gives a very
different perspective on life from that which has been most common in the
West. Men and animals and other living creatures are not sharply separated,
and man is not therefore seen as lord of creation’. The problem of life is
not death, but rather life itself, for one goes on living in one form or another
until one attains liberation. Morality is seen in the framework of karma—every
deed attracts its reward in this life or the next. The class structure is
modified by rebirth, for one is not, on this view, condemned forever to inferiority.
And if some teachers say that liberation is hard, only for the few, the ordinary
man can still reckon that he may be one of the elite in some future existence.
For those who believe in a
single supreme Creator, karma is
seen as an expression of his will. For those who do not, karma is seen as
an independent force built into the workings of the world, and to this force
the wise man conforms his conduct.
We can now sum up the typical
features of Hinduism, as consisting in a particular social fabric (the caste
system), determining one’s religious and social duties, within the framework
of the doctrines of rebirth and karma.
Though the scriptures have traditionally been the preserve of the upper
three classes of traditional Indian society, the so-called ‘twice-born’ (born
twice because of initiation into society as a second birth), the orthodox
Hindu recognizes their universal validity. This is one condition of being
a Hindu. But as I have already pointed out there are varied interpretations
of scripture, ranging from theism to atheism. Predominant, however, have been
two theologies—non-dualistic Vedanta as expounded by Shankara and devotional
theism.
In view of the complexities
of Hinduism, is it possible to make a judgment abouts its relationship to
the Christian tradition? Christians have certainly taken up a number of differing
stances—some finding little but idolatry in Hinduism, others seeing profundity
in much of India’s religion. Leaving aside the ultimate question of truth,
it is perhaps useful to see something of typical Hindu attitudes to Christianity,
for these necessarily pose questions to us in the understanding of our own
tradition.
Most Hindus I have talked to
have a strong respect for Christ, and indeed are willing to accept his divinity
(that is, within the Hindu understanding of that term). Two things about Christian
faith in Christ tend to puzzle the Hindu—first, the claim that Christ is uniquely
God incarnate (Ghandi once remarked that he would have become a Christian
but for this claim—the Hindu is used to the idea of many incarnations); second,
the doctrine of atonement: the Hindu sees our problems as less to do with
sin than to do with spiritual ignorance clouding our perception of reality.
Where Hindus stress faith in a personal God, they do not typically think that
a mediator between God and man is needed.
Another question posed by the
Hindu relates to the meaning of history. The Christian emphasis on the historical
actions of Christ implies a particularity in God’s dealings with men which
does not accord too well with the Hindu picture of a world constantly being
destroyed and recreated.
Also very strongly planted
in the attitudes of modern Hindus is the belief that somehow differences between
religions can be reconciled. In this respect they react strongly against the
exclusive claims of Christianity, especially evangelical Christianity. I remember
talking to a south Indian Brahmin who used to attend Christian missionary
meetings, though he never stayed for the discussion. He told me that he did
not want to get converted, and there was really no point in it, seeing that
all faiths point to the same goal—all he wanted to hear was Christ’s teachings.
These are some of the reactions
of modern Hinduism. They may help to explain the way in which Hindus see their
own great diversity as a merit, as a way pointing to the unity-in-plurality
which they feel the world needs. How long their position can be sustained
is a further question.
MUHAMMAD
IQBAL
Mr.
Muhammad Iqbal holds the degrees of Master of Science and Master of Philosophy
and is currently a Research Scholar at Huddersfleld Polytechnic.
The massive movement of people of different nations, races, and
religions to Europe has given rise to both economic and moral problems. ‘Not
least amongst these concerns is that which derives from the creation of substantial
enclaves of Muslims in what were hitherto predominantly Christian societies.
In most cases there is not only a difference of faith but there is, combined
with it, a difference of race, often accompanied by colour’, writes Edwin
Barker.1 This could be the reason that many and various studies
on the religion of Islam and the Muslims are under way for better understanding
of varying human experience. No matter where Muslims reside, the basic principles
of Islam remain unchanged and the Muslim way of life soon becomes obvious.
Here are some basic characteristics of the Muslim community, which may be
of some use before embarking on a detailed study.
Belief Islam2 meaning literally
‘submission to the Will of Allah’ (the personal name for God) is, to Muslims3
(the followers of Islam), the sum total of certain beliefs and duties. As
to the beliefs the Prophet Muhammad4 (may Allah bless him), the
founder of Islam, himself explained to a questioner: ‘Thou shalt believe in
the one God,5 in His angelic messengers, in His revealed Books,6
in His Prophets,7 in the Day of Judgment, and discrimination of
good and evil by God’. Duties are of three kinds; duties towards (a) Allah,
(1,) Self, and (c) Others, and are explained in the very
opening verses of the Holy Qur’an (the Muslim’s religious Book—the collection
of Allah’s revelations upon the Prophet Muhammad). ‘This is the Scripture
where there is no doubt, it is a guide to those who ward off (evil), who believe
in the unseen, and establish worship and spend of that we have bestowed upon
them’.8
What are we to say of Allah
Who created us and bestowed the blessings of the world upon us? It is commonly
acknowledged that we feel obliged to people who show any gesture of goodwill.
To the Creator we must show our incessant gratitude and love by worshipping
Him.
Salat, Zakat, and Hajj. Salat (prayers) are made obligatory9 for His remembrances10
and peace of one’s soul from indecencies and evil.11 Sharing of
one’s wealth with the poor is essentially a practical demonstration of love
for His creatures and takes the form of Zakat, ‘poor tax’— another obligatory
duty of a Muslim. Similar obligation is Hap—the pilgrimage to the Holy Places
in Saudi Arabia. This divests the man of money and fosters better human relations.
Saum. Another of the duties is Saum, fasting, for the full lunar month
of Ramadhan whereby the piety of soul is replaced by physical weakening of
one’s body.12
The Prophet Muhammad spoke of Islam thus: ‘Islam is founded on five things: To bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; to establish prayer; to pay the prescribed Charity; to fast during Ramadhan; and to perform the Pilgrimage to the Ka’aba, the House of Allah in Mecca, if one has means of doing so’. The details regarding the discharging of the purely devotional and religious duties of a Muslim to Allah referred to as the fundamental principles of Islam have been discussed elsewhere.13
The details about the duties
towards ‘Self’ and ‘Others’ are mutually dependent, contained in the Holy
Qur’an and explained in the Hadith,
the collection of the temporal sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. Ijrna (agreement) of the Muslim community
as the basis of the discharging of minute aspects of duties is the next guide
to Islamic activities. Failing to find the direct example in the Qur’an or
the Hadith, the Qiyas (analogy) is applied to solve all new problems.
Islam it Jurisprudence. The interpretation of the Qur’an and the Hadith by
different schools of thought culminated into Islamic Jurisprudence. Four teachings
Hanifi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali named after the founder jurists are acceptable
to all Muslims throughout the world (1/7 to 1/6 of the world population). The schools of law do
differ from one another on certain issues but it is based purely on the degree
of devotion to the Islamic doctrines. Naturally enough this has given rise
to different sects in Islam. Basically they all believe in the unity of Godhead,5
Allah the Rabb-alAlameen14 (the Nourisher of the worlds), finality
of the Prophethood15 on Muhammad and Allah’s revelations16
upon mankind.
Developing of Unima. Besides the devotional teaching of Islam, the Qur’an
has laid down in unambiguous terms that which is good and bad. Every human
being is responsible for his or her actions alone.17 A Muslim believes
in predestination but he does not divorce his free will in his actions either.
For to lead a successful pious life the guidelines are there preserved in
their original form in the Qur’an—the guidelines which the followers of the
previous Prophets expected constantly. And excluding the first four rightly
guided Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Iithman, and Au who ruled the Umma (the Muslim Community) for thirty years after the death of the
Prophet Muhammad (632 A.D.) religiously, the Islamic traditions and brotherhood
were looked after better by the Saints of Islam like Abu Hamid Muhammad Al-Ghazali18
(lraq—d. 1111 AD.), Syed Abdul Qadir Jilani (Persia—i. 561 AD.), and Sheikh Ahmad Sarhindi (India—d.
1590 AD.) than most of the political
leaders. Haroon-al-Rashid ~d. 809
A.D.), Umarbin-Abdul Aziz (ci. 720
A.D.), and Aurangzeb Alamgir (ci. 1707
AD.), and others were, of course, true Muslim rulers equipped with Islamic
characteristics of courage, truthfulness, and kindness.
As a multi-religious society
such as that seen in the U.K. (l.5 million Muslims, C.O.I. 1968) it is useful
to know about the Mosques, the Victorian terrace houses converted into institutes
of worship where regular prayers are said, but it is better still to find
out more about Muslims as a social and cultural community. The upholding of
the duties is obligatory. Failing to do so amounts to committing a sin which
is forgiveable by Allah only if the offended individual concerned pardons
the offender—such a great stress is laid on honest social intercourse in Islam.
Man and woman relations. Unless one is invalid, marriage is obligatory to all
Muslim men and women. Poverty and celibacy19,20are no
excuse. A woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. A man may marry a Christian or
Jew but no one else.21 The careful selection of a would-be-wife
is essential for further growth and building up of the character of the offspring.22
Polygamy23 is allowed but the terms are so difficult24
to maintain fairly that the jurists recommend only monogamy.
Marriage is regarded as a social
contract between a man and a woman. The latter is fully entitled to fix the
terms of the marriage and above all the dowry25 which remains her
sole possession. Marriage may be annulled26 at the request of either
party although divorce is not encouraged.
The parents hold a unique and
superior position in the family. They must be respected (unless they profess
polytheism27--a sickness in Islam). The idea of birth control on
grounds of poverty is denounced and much stress is laid on chastity. Free
mixing28 of men and women (except near relations) is not allowed,
to lessen the risk of promiscuity. In ladies’ dress habits they should disguise
their bodies rather than emphasise them, and the same goes for the menfolk.
When death approaches, it is
insisted that a will should be made in the presence of witnesses. Something
must be bequeathed to parents and near relations.29 Female children
receive half the male’s share, a fact which has received much criticism. Economic
opportunities for women as daughters, sisters, wives, and mothers are immense
and social protections numerous. In the final analysis women are, in fact,
better off financially than men. To maintain the family is the sole responsibility
of the man. ‘For women have rights over men similar to those of men over women’,
says the Qur’an.30 Muslim women had the right to their own property
ever since the birth of Islam.
Universal Brotherhood. Whatever the sociologist’s definition of the term race
may be, in very easy language it is taken to mean a group of individuals with
the same blood, language, living in the same geographical conditions and inter
related. Division into races as mentioned in the Qur’an31 has been
for no other reason than to reveal the diversified nature of God’s creation
and make us see that despite all our differences, in the eyes of God we are
equal. Only in goodness, piety, and generosity may we rise in supremacy. Islam
offers equal opportunity to acquire all these character traits without any
regard for colour, race, sex or inheritance. The Prophet Muhammad’s famous
Farewell Address is still preserved as the best fourteen centuries old human
rights code for modern man. In the Address it was mentioned that no Arab was
superior to a non-Arab except on the grounds of piety, thus obliterating distinction
on the basis of race.
The narrations on racial equality
were not just words with little action. They were, in fact, often put into
practice in the form of five fundamental principles of Islam. Muslims pray
together in the Mosque five times a day, gather in thousands at Mecca every
year, utter the common formula, give away Zakat,
and stop idle talk, slandering, and backbiting whilst fasting in order
to maintain a common bondage to God and a brotherhood between people of all
races.
Charity. Charity, other than the regular Zakat,
i.e., almsgiving to the needy, poor, debtors, and wayfarers,32
is considered to have the same status as the saying of prayers. Charities,
however small, like the feeding of the hungry, or digging a well for the poor,
if given generously and anonymously, can win the friendship of God. Charity
not given freely or given in order to enhance one’s own prestige may earn
God’s displeasure. ‘Charity begins at home’ is very applicable to Islamic
principles but a Muslim does not forget that a needful neighbour may deserve
more than close relatives. Borrowing and lending of money without interest
is recommended in the Qur’an. Relaxation of the time limit on a debt owed
by a poor debtor or even forgiveness33 of debt is regarded with
great affection by God. Contentment over whatever materials one has and cutting
short of one’s ambitions is common practice among devoted Muslims. Mutual
business transactions must be conducted under officially witnessed contracts.
Gambling34 is strictly forbidden, as it is the art of getting something
without having worked for it and often depriving those who legally possess
it.
Salutations. A Muslim greets his friends with the words: Assalam-oAlaikum (peace be
on you) which brings the response Wa-Alaikum-Salam (and peace be on you) without
exception. When paying a visit to someone’s house one should knock at the
door first. If the door is open a coughing noise should bring someone to the
door. Invitations to meals from relations, friends, even Christians35
and Jews are always to be accepted. But what is forbidden is idle gossip and
staying too long after the meals. Visiting the sick, offering condolences
to bereaved families, showing affection to orphans are actions which are highly
rewarded. The duties we owe to orphans are discussed in the Qur’an at great
length.
Attitude to the Holy Prophet. The Prophet Muhammed was a perfect example of human
behaviour, an exalted standard of character of mercy,36 kindness,
forgiveness,37 and love. The Qur’an lays down for us rules of behaviour38
such as respect, obedience, blessing, and love in the remembrance of him.
No Muslim will tolerate anybody uttering words of disgrace,39 doubt,
and ambiguity as to the character of the Prophet or his teaching. The stories
about the Prophet’s companions tell of their sacrifice and love for their
illustrious leader. This he deserved for he had delivered the barbaric Arabs
from their sinful lives and left the universal teachings of the Qur’an for
future generations.
Crimes and Punishment. Just as in the Mosaic law life was to be taken for
life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds
equal for equal so also the Qur’an enacts. Recompense for an injury is an
injury equal thereto in degree. But whoever exceeds the limits shall be in
great trouble, for God does not love transgressors nor does He love the unjust40
Moreover, God loves those who forgive and forgives those who repent of evil
which was done in ignorance.
Murder is, in fact, the greatest
heinous crime41 and is subject to the law of equality. However,
the brother of the murdered person may remit42 the murder providing
reasonable compensation is made to the bereaved family, Killing by mistake
demands compensation, but this is subject to the wishes of the family of the
deceased who may freely forgive the offender. Theft, highway robbery, adultery,
and slander43 are controlled by grave punishment.
Jihad. Jihad, meaning contending,44 and striving against Satanic forces whether
within or without oneself, is a holy war to combat hypocrisy. Fighting the
enemies of Islam in the battlefield is recommended only if Muslims feel they
are oppressed45 or their religious freedom46 is endangered.
Those who succumb to double dealing should also be treated as enemies. However,
there is no compulsion to accept Islam after defeat.47 Non- Muslims
should be treated as friends. Judicious division of war booty, good treatment
to prisoners of war, and respect for treaties are ordered.48
Jihad also appertains when one fights against the bad habits of drinking and other
admonitions such as the eating of pork, uncleanliness, and hatred.
Islam insists on the leading
of a practical well-balanced life showing no oppression to anyone and no cowardice
when oppressed. The Prophet Muhammad took to the sword only when he and his
followers had no other option but to fight to uphold their beliefs. This resulted
in their great political achievements. When towards the end of his life Mecca
was conquered, he broke the idols in the Kaaba but did not sack a single employee
and forgave them all. Many a story of his humility and love for mankind are
on record.
Education in Islam. Amidst the Muslim community one’s educational fulfillment,
it is believed, means the merging of one’s will, with the Divine Will. Religion
is very much an intrinsic part of the Muslim approach to life. The impact
of industry is already helping to change some of their attitudes but Muslim
educationists believe that religious ideals must still be sought. Children
must, therefore, be equipped with the rudiments of religion for spiritual
contentment and the reconciliation of inner conflict between material, political
and moral values. This, in fact, is being done in the Mosque and at home.
With regard to religious or cultural education in State schools Professor
Kenneth Little of Edinburgh University says, ‘There should be taught something
about other peoples and the way they live but it would be dangerous to show
them only the bizarre and the picturesque aspect of other cultures. These
more obvious aspects of other cultures must be related to the total culture,
and this cannot be done except with students of 5th and 6th form level’.
It is already a fact that many
Muslim children in British State schools, especially gills, have been known
to ask for exclusion from the Christianity- centred assembly, hesitate to
change for P.E., and are reluctant to take part in swimming and music and
movement. They pay regular visits to the Mosque, abstain from eating pork,
and unritually killed meat, and absent themselves from school when they celebrate
their festive days (Eid-al-Fitr which marks the end of the month of Ramadhan
and Eid-al-Dha which remembers the near sacrifice of Ishmael). English children
are quite unaware of these events.
Such are the traditions founded
by the Prophet Muhammad and upheld by his followers throughout the ages, which
have characterised uniformity of the Muslim Community. Islamic brotherhood
between people of different races developed a uniform Muslim culture. The
serious view of life which follows from strict religious practices and the
ideals of moral and physical courage is another characteristic of the Muslim
community. These characteristics make the Muslim community distinct from all
other communities. The effective assimilation of the surrounding culture by
the community will take place only gradually and in the light of Islamic observances.
(Acknowledgments are due to
Mr. Barkat Ali, Chief Organiser, Dar-at-Ihsan, West Pakistan for his kind
guidance and to Dr. J. Dickie of Lancaster University for checking the facts.)
Except where noted, all references
are to the Qur’an, translated by Muhammad marmaduke Pickthal-Allan
and Unwin.
1. A Muslim Community—a publication
of the Church Information Office.
2. 3:19.
3. 22: 78.
4. The Benefactor by Syed Faqir
Waheedad-Din—Lion Art Press, Karachi.
5. 112: 1-4.
6. 3:84.
7. 35:24.
8. 2: 2-3.
9. 4:103.
10. 13: 28.
11. 29: 45.
12. 2:183.
13. East comes West—a publication of the Community Relations Commission
(London).
14.1:1.
15. 5:3.
16. 5:3.
17. 6:165.
18. The Saint of JUan publication, Lahore.
19. 24: 32.
20. 24: 32.
21.
5:5.
22.2:2
23. 4.3
24. 4: 28 and 129.
25. 4: 4 and 20.
26. 2:230.
27. 29:8 and 3l: 15.
28. 24: 31.
29. 2:180.
30. 2:228.
31. 49: 13.
32. 2:215.
33. 2:280.
34. 5:93.
35. 5:4
36. 28:46
37. 9:80
38. 3:159
39. 2:104 and 4:46
40. 42:40
41. 6:151 and 27:33
42. 2:178
43. 4:16
44. 29:1-90
45. 22:39
46. 22:40
47. 2:256
48. 26:115.
OF INTER-RELIGIOUS ENCOUNTER
ERIC
J. SHARPE
Dr.
Eric J. Sharpe is Lecturer in Comparative Religion in the University of Manchester.
(The substance of this paper was delivered as part of a series of lectures on ‘Comparative Religion and the Communication of the Gospel’ at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, in February, 1969.)
Some months ago I was talking
to some research students in the United Theological College in Bangalore,
India, and one of them (a German) asked me whether I thought that it was possible
for one and the same person to be both a theologian and a close student of
‘comparative religion’, particularly within the framework of Evangelical commitment.
He could see that a liberal (using that much-abused word in its widest sense)
would find no difficulty in holding both positions simultaneously; but he
was not so sure about the Evangelical—the term he used was post-Barthian,
but his meaning was clear.
Perhaps without realising it,
he had put his finger on one of the sorest spots in present-day Evangelical
theology: the problem of how the Evangelical Christian is to interpret his
fundamental faith in Christ in the context of other religions, other answers
to those basic problems of human nature to which we claim that Christ has
provided the all-sufficient answer. It would not be too much of an exaggeration
to claim that the last truly magisterial work on this subject written by an
Evangelical was Hendrik Kraemer’s The
Christian Message in a Non-Christian World, and that book appeared over
thirty years ago, in 1938.
My
answer to the student’s question, incidentally, was that I believed that such
a combination of theology and sound study of world religions was entirely
possible. To pass judgment oil anything is always possible, provided that
one nails one’s colours to the mast and makes it entirely clear exactly what
is the basis of one’s judgment, and exactly what one’s criteria are. It is
perhaps unfortunate that in this case almost all scholars are, as one humorist
put it, apt to nail their colours to the fence, conscientiously refusing to
take sides or to say anything with which another scholar might conceivably
disagree. The days of the great missionary scholars are now, it seems, past
and gone; few missionaries have the time or the leisure to write the comprehensive
studies that were so typical of former generations, not least in India. Of
course, in the case of the Christian missionary, neutrality in these matters
is neither desirable nor ultimately possible. If, in the sincerity of his
desire to be all things to all men, he is prepared for the time being to suspend
judgment, at least until he is able to feel firm ground beneath his feet,
all well and good; but unwillingness to witness to the faith that is in him,
in the mistaken belief that he is thereby forwarding some obscure process
of dialogue, is not only mistaken: it smells of common dishonesty.
But at the same time there
are a good many Christians in the World today who are seriously and sincerely
puzzled as to the attitude that they ought to adopt towards people confessing
a faith other than their own. Once the problem was noticeable only when the
Christian travelled to a non-Christian country; but today, the rapidity of
communications which all take so much for granted, and the increasingly mobile
character of the population of the world, are bringing all of us into contact
with non- Christians—Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs and all the others—on
a scale which would have been unthinkable only a couple of d2cades ago. The
problem is a global one. And to the Christian who takes seriously that dimension
of his faith which involves the proclamation of the Gospel to all men everywhere,
it is a problem which simply cannot be solved merely by a precipitate retreat
into obscurantism. There are cultural and racial factors involved, as well
as religious factors; there is national and community pride, political aspiration,
often a passionate rejection of what tends to be interpreted, rightly or wrongly,
as a century of Western imperialism; the problem, in short, involves the whole
of man in a vast multitude of separate human situations. We cannot go on pretending
that it does not exist.
The need to evangelize the
world has never been greater. The problems that face the evangelist have never
been greater, either. The need for qualified guidance—and I stress the word
‘qualified’—into the problems attending the communication of the Gospel to
the non-Christian and post- Christian world has never been more pressing.
But who is to provide that guidance? Who is to tell the Christian in the situation
of encounter whether what he is saying makes sense? Who is to stop him charging
blindly into a morass of misunderstanding when he attempts to proclaim the
Gospel?
What is needed is, I believe,
an entirely new effort on the part of Evangelicals to formulate a theology
of encounter. Research students need to be directed more and more into this
vital area of theological study. To be sure, all those thousands of dissertations
produced each session on various aspects of Biblical studies and church history
are valuable (or at least many of them are), at least for the student whose
time has been spent preparing them; but for the Christian missionary effort
as a whole, it would be far more valuable to have intensive work directed
towards the area of encounter between the Gospel and the religions of the
world. This is no easy option. Sound theology must be allied to close and
detailed study of at least one, and preferably more, of the world religions,
great and small. Such a student must be a man (or woman) of many parts:
widely read, sensitive and
experienced, committed and sympathetic. Here, too, the historian may play
his part. You are perhaps not aware of those great treasure-stores of information
which the missionary societies have hidden away in their basements: the mission
archives, in which the experience of decades, and in some cases, centuries,
has been gathered up and stored away, waiting for the right person to come
and unlock them. It is impossible to stress too highly the service which enlightened
historical research into the history of the Christian missionary enterprise
can render the Church—not merely from the point of view of dispersing the
mists which have gathered around seminal figures of the past, but also from
the point of view of helping to clear the ground for a correct estimate of
the present situation. We can move ahead far more confidently if we can see
where we have been.
While Jam on the subject of
research projects, it may be as well to put on record that we still do not
have, as far as am aware, the exhaustive study of the Biblical attitudes to
other religions that we all so much need. Again it is a matter of the laying
of solid foundations on which others may build.
Ihave spoken of an Evangelical
theology of encounter, and I must give some closer indication of the lines
on which I think such a theology might be constructed. But first I should
like to outline the reasons why I think that this is a necessity.
The Christian missionary enters
on his task because he is convinced that he is called by God to proclaim the
unsearchable riches of Christ to those who have known neither the name of
Christ nor the power of salvation. In some cases he may find that his message
is easily understood, and that its reception is uncomplicated by what we might
call non- theological factors. Still he must know what is the total attitude
to reality which motivates those to whom he is sent. He must understand the
meanings—all the possible meanings—of the words he uses, and all the unconscious
as well as the conscious factors which affect the reception of the Gospel
message, and the desire or lack of desire on the part of his people to take
the decisive step of giving their allegiance to the King of kin~ and Lord
of lords. In the case of the so-called higher religions, he has to reckon
with a multitude of complicating factors, many of them not immediately recognizable
as religious, which may hold up almost indefinitely the reception of the Gospel
as good news. Common to all these situations is the fundamental need to know
his people and to sympathize with them on the purely human level. But over
and above all this is the need within him to give concrete expression to the
faith which is in him, whether it be to the primitive and fear-ridden ‘animist’
or to the sophisticated and highly intellectual Hindu or Buddhist. He must
have knowledge; he must have sympathy; he must be faithful to Christ. The
first two of these requirements are directly affected by that scholarly discipline
which we call comparative religion’. The connection may not be so clear in
the case of the third; but remember that the Christian, whether missionary
or not, must not be a divided personality, retaining a measure of scholarly
concern and sympathy ‘out of hours’, and yet when it comes to thinking in
theological terms, abruptly forgetting all this. If his knowledge and his
sympathy are not a genuine part of his total Christian personality, then it
would be better not to worry about them at all.
Theology for the Christian
begins, not with the notion of man seeking God, but with a stance of faith:
the conviction that God has been constantly seeking man, and that the absolutely
decisive meeting between God and man took place in the life, death, resurrection
and ascension of Jesus Christ: ‘He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated
in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in
the world, taken up in glory’ (1 Tim. 3:16, which Paul calls ‘the mystery
of our religion’). So if I might be so bold as to offer a provisional definition
of theology, it would be as follows: ‘An attempt to say something intelligible
about God, on the basis of the prior conviction, in faith, that Cod has said
something intelligible about Himself’. Theology, in other words, is the systematization
of the encounter of man and God, in which God speaks and man responds—or not,
as the case may be.
It seems to me important to
stress that the divine-human encounter does not, scripturally speaking, begin
with the work of redemption. There are two prior stages involved: creation
and fall, in both of which the whole of mankind is concerned. In creation,
man as man is given the image of God; in the fall, that image is distorted—not,
however, entirely obliterated. Before the coming of Christ, man might affirm
the image of God in him, so the Old Testament tells us, by radical obedience
to the Law. And even before the formulation of the Law, there were those in
whom faith—as we know, a total attitude of radical trust and obedience—was
operative.
Here I believe the eleventh
chapter of the Letter to the Hebrews is of great importance. Of the primacy
of faith in the New Testament scheme of salvation there can be no doubt; but
in Hebrews the scope of faith is widened to embrace all those ‘holy pagans’
of the past who have stood in a right relationship to God. Faith always involved
a choice between the reality of the invisible world and the present order
of things, and those who have faith have chosen God’s world. Noah and Abraham
are advanced as examples of those who have so chosen: Noah by recognizing
that this present world is in the wrong, Abraham by abandoning home and country
and accepting the lot of a homeless wanderer. Other examples are Isaac, Joseph,
Moses and many more—all models of faith who were ‘well attested by their faith’
(11: 39).
But this chapter does not say
that they, their faith notwithstanding, necessarily possessed the fullness
of God. On the contrary, they ‘did not receive what was promised, since God
had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be
made perfect’ (v. 39f). Although they had so much: although within the framework
of reality as they knew and understood it, they were able to show faith, they
did not live to experience the breaking in of the new age which came with
Christ—the eschatological reality in which God finally reconciled the world
to Himself It is Jesus who is ‘the pioneer and perfector of our faith’—the
consummator, the fulfiller, the one who takes what is incomplete (though good)
and makes of it what in the providence of God it was intended to be. The Letter
to the Hebrews does not claim that the Old Covenant was perfect of itself:
indeed, ‘the law made nothing perfect’ (7:19);’. . . . if that first covenant
had been faultless, then there would have been no occasion for a second’ (8:
7). But what it certainly does is to attest to the genuineness and provisional
validity of the relationship to God which is entered into prior to the breaking
in of the eschaton.
Now I think that it is possible
to argue that the eschatological reality of Christ is known only when the
Gospel message has been both proclaimed
and understood. I emphasize both
elements, because both together complete, as it were, the circuit of revelation
as it applies to the concrete situation of individuals and communities. Until
the message has been made plain, and either accepted or rejected, there is
no justification in speaking of Christ as being an option; the situation is
in the fullest sense preChristian, and the judgment of Hebrews applies. Faith
is possible in the pre-Christian situation,
just as some degree of knowledge of God is possible. This is not to say that
the possibility is always realized; only that it may be. The unknown God worshipped
in the ‘times of ignorance’ (Acts 17: 30) is indeed ‘the God who made the
world and everything in it’ (v. 24), the God who ‘made from one every nation
of men to live on all the face of the earth’ (v. 26).
Prior to the making explicit
of the Christian message, there is in all men a hunger for God, implanted
by God Himself in the human heart. I cannot think that this is an illegitimate
quest, merely proof of man’s overweening pride and sin, for in Acts 17 Paul
speaks entirely positively of man’s quest:
‘that they should seek God,
in the hope that they might feel after him and find him’ (v. 27). Clearly
this is not a vain quest. It is worth hoping for— and in the New Testament,
‘hope’ is never a negatively coloured word. But now the Christ has come, the
‘times of ignorance’ are over, and the quest is ended.
Obviously, then, there is every
Biblical justification for looking upon the religious quest of mankind in
a positive sense, as a quest for a God who is willing to be found. And were
man perfect and unfallen, then the finding would be as full as the seeking
is passionate. But this is not so: between the seeking and the finding there
falls a shadow—a net of distorted communication, made up of pride, self-will
and all the other ingredients that we know so well as belonging to human sin.
Let us not be so foolish as to assert that God has deliberately hidden Himself
from the greater part of mankind, even though there may be one or two places
in the Old Testament which might seem to give that impression. It is not too much to claim that the quest is, however,
in very many cases an unsuccessful one, not because of any inherent unwillingness
on God’s part to be found, but because of the terrible self-centredness of
man, from which he cannot escape except by the grace of God.
A ‘religion’ is the name we
give (perhaps not altogether happily) to the quest for God which man undertakes
in the company of his fellow men or in solitude. Some of these we dignify
as ‘-isms’ and call ‘religious systems’; others we cannot classify so easily,
and so we generalize about them as though they were systems (‘animism’ is
a case in point). The student knows that this quest for God, which is (or
appears to be) a fundamental part of human nature, expresses itself differently
in different parts of the world. Each so-called religion has its own proper
doctrine of man, of God (or the gods) and of the world; and can only be understood
on its own terms. It is equally true that each religion has its own dimensions
of success and failure in what it sets out to do. In Hinduism, for instance,
the quest of the Self is set up as a goal, and attained; the failure perhaps
lies in the assumption that this can ever be an ultimate goal. Judaism sets
up the goal of obedience to the Torah, and in some rare cases may achieve
that obedience; but is it ultimate?
What I am trying to say is
that while we might, on Biblical grounds, find adequate reasons for taking
seriously the human preoccupation with the beyond, and for abandoning the
hoary condemnation of all non- Christian religions alike as ‘heathen darkness’,
yet when we come to try and formulate a theology of confrontation, blanket
judgments will not carry us very far. They may perhaps provide us with some
measure of conceptual foundation on which to build, and this may be very necessary
as a first step. But there comes a time when we have to get down to the concrete
dimension of ambiguity, not in ‘religion’, but in the actual religious aspirations
and quests and failures of real men and women.
The Christian faith is exclusive,
in the sense of our Lord’s words, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life;
no one comes to the Father, but by me’ (Jn. 14: 6). It will not do, I am afraid,
to look at the non-Christian religions and see in them evidences of anonymous
Christianity, faith in an amorphous cosmic Christ—at least not if these words
are understood as fully the equivalent of saving faith and incorporation into
the body of Christ. Such attempts may be well meaning, but they betray a lack
of acquaintance, not only with the message of the Bible, but also with the
actual reality of the religions of the world. Saving faith is never divorced
from repentance and incorporation into the fellowship of the Church. Belief
implies belonging; and unless there is the desire to belong, one may question
the validity of the faith.
But awareness of these issues—knowledge
that there is a core of exclusiveness which the Christian may not relinquish—does
not mean that the theologian should be harsh or unfeeling in his judgments.
Once more we are referred back to the conditions of scholarship and sympathy,
of knowledge as a prerequisite of love. If love is present, allied to a lively
awareness of the grounds of the Christian’s own faith, then the Christian
as a missionary may with confidence rely on the Holy Spirit to supply the
deficiencies in his own interpretation and attempts to communicate the Gospel.
For the Holy Spirit builds bridges of understanding and communication, even
out of unpromising materials and in unlikely situations. I am not saying that
He will make a theology of confrontation for us, if we are too lazy to make
one for ourselves; merely that when we have done all that we can do, He will
take what is God’s and declare it, not only to us, but to those to whom the
message is directed (Jn. 16: l3fj.
Judaism:
Please
see Mr. Ellison’s article for this.
Hinduism:
Basham, The Wonder That Was India.
Fontana,
1970
Good general background material on all Indian
religons. Boquet, A. C., Hinduism.
Hutchinson,
1966.
Dry
and factual.
Smart, N., Doctrine and Argument
in Indian Phi/crop/vp.
George Allen and Unwin, 1964.
For the intellectual aspects of Indian religions.
Zaehner,
R. C., Hinduism.
Opus Books, 1966.
A good introduction by a Roman Catholic scholar,
Zaehner
R. C., Hindu Scriptures.
Everyman, 1968.
An introductory selection from popular works.
Islam:
Abd-al-Rahman Azzam, The Eternal
Message of Muhammad. Mentor Books, 1965.
Very readable Islamic apologetics.
Pickthall, M. M., The Meaning of
the Glorious Koran.
Mentor Books.
The best English rendering of the
“untranslatable” Koran. Smith, W. C., Is/am
in Modern History.
Mentor Books, 1957.
For those who think Islam is a. “dead” religion.
General Works:
Eliade, M., Myth and Reality.
George, Allen and Unwin, 1964.
Introducing the notion of “myth”.
Eliade,
M., The Quest.
Avery readable account of modern approaches to the study of “religion”.
Eliade, M., Yoga, Immortality and Freedom.
Pantheon Books, 1958.
The classic study of yoga.
Ling,
T., A History of Religion: East and
West.
MacMillan, 1968.
Agood general reader.
Smart, N., The Religious Experience
of Mankind.
Fontana, 1971.
An entertaining and useful general introduction.
Zaehner, R. C., The Concise Encyclopaedia
of Living Faiths. Hutchinsons 1964.
Contains some very good articles.
For Christian approaches to
non-Christian religions see the bibliography of the ‘Missions’ edition of
the CBRF Journal (No. 13).