MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF
RELIGION
Asghar Ali Engineer
(Islam and Modern Age Sept, 2005)
Since rationalist and
secularist movements became a dominant discourse in
The rationalist demand proof
for everything and refuse to admit anything higher and beyond the realm of
visible and verifiable evidence. They feel dogmas exist only in the field of
religion and nowhere else. They totally rely on human reason and for them
reason is supreme and anything beyond it untenable. On the other hand, those
who believe in religion maintain that reason is too fragile to rely on and has
obvious limitations. What is divine is incomprehensible by reason. They rely on
revelation, intuition and faith and in extreme cases faith turns into blind
faith.
Thus reason and religion
become mutually exclusive and irreconcilable. Both tend to reject each other.
In these rational and religious discourses truth is lost irretrievably. The
rationalists consider religion, as a major culprit and feel most of human
problems can be solved only after getting rid of religion. The believers, on
the other hand, tend to think that if religion is lost, world will turn into an
evil place to live in and it will invite major disaster. The irony of this
debate is that while rationalists put faith in reason the believers use reason
to refute rationalist arguments.
Thus it will be seen that a
human person can neither do without faith nor without reason. Also, one has to
precisely define what is meant by ‘religion’ ‘religious faith’ and what would
be implications of leaving reason or human intellect free of all other
constraints. Also the important question is: can faith be free of all rational
inquiries and reason be free of faith? This is very
vital question and has to be answered with all sense of responsibility.
In my opinion reason needs
faith in values and faith needs to be controlled by critical inquiry. Reason
without faith and faith without reason can turn into major problem for human
beings. We should also understand that
religion and faith are inseparable but religion is much more than faith. It is
true religion revolves around axis of faith but religion in itself includes
elements of social customs, traditions and institutions. Thus one has to
distinguish between faith and religion too.
One can thus say that every
faith finds expression in concrete historical and social conditions and one
cannot appreciate religious institutions and beliefs without appreciating
social and historical conditions. Even divinity can be expressed only through
given social conditions and no divine thought can do without socially
conditioned institutions. It is also important to note that any divine
revelation is both response to social and historical
conditions as well as provision for transcendent norms.
However, often the initial
divine response to given socio-historical situation acquires permanency and
eternal sanctity and its transcendent dimension is completely lost. First of
all let us understand that religion has four important aspects: 1)
institutional system; 2) thought system; 3) ritual system and 4) value-system.
Institutional system and thought system are historically conditioned and
represent divine response to the given historical situation.
Let us understand that the
institutional and thought systems are important but one must take their
historicity into account. To consider any religion lock, stock and barrel
permanent is to misunderstand the divine response itself. Thought and
institution systems are as much human as divine and must admit of change with
changing conditions. Value system, being transcendent, is only of permanent
nature and value system is common to all religions.
Ritual system, on the other
hand, is means to attain the values and is thus means rather than the goal.
However, given human nature, rituals often become goal and are performed for
its own sake. Thus with the passage of time they loose all meaning and get delinked with values they are supposed to represent. It is
also important to note that though values are common to all religions, rituals
are not.
Rituals are also cultural
expression of the given values. Each religion is borne in a given culture with
its own customs and traditions. Every culture is unique so is the ritual system
in every religion. Thus ritual system, though unique as it develops in
different cultures, is not necessarily contradictory in its goal. Different
ritual systems developed in different religions through the medium of given
cultures, tend to emphasise the same goal.
However, followers of
different religions develop prejudice towards ritual system of other religions
and even tend to denounce it. This is because they fail to appreciate role of
culture in shaping the ritual system. We will also throw light on the role of
priesthood in every religion in causing conflict. Suffice here to say that it
plays important role in promoting conflict with other religious communities.
The Qur’an, has expressed the
futility of such conflict in number of ways. Thus in 2:148 it emphasises varied
nature of way and direction in which one turns to worship Him. One should not
fight about these different ways but to worship Him sincerely. Also, in 6:109
it requires Muslims not to abuse others’ gods as they can abuse Allah without
knowledge. And in
The Sufis understood this much
better than the ‘Ulama who tended to be indifferent
or in worst cases even hostile to other religions’ ritual systems. Here it
would be important to throw light on the role of priesthood in different
religions. In fact much of the conflict between religions has been due to the
role of priesthood. It is part of institutional system in every religion.
Religion per se does not need priesthood. Islam in particular is supposed to be
totally free of this institution of priesthood as far as the Qur’anic teachings go. Every believer is not only
responsible for all religious rituals but is also directly answerable to Allah
for his/her deeds. No intervener or intercessor is needed. However, as common
believers do not fulfil their responsibility those who acquire expertise
develops and acquire monopoly over understanding of religious thought and
doctrines.
It is also to be noted that
since priesthood acquires vested interest in controlling thought system, ritual
system and institutional system in religion, it looses its true spirit in the
form of value system. Value system becomes least important to them. The
centrality of value system has to be marginalized to serve their
own interests. The priesthood can maintain its control over its
followers only by asserting superiority of its religion over the other. This is
the only way it can keep its flock of followers together.
However, a close examination
of fundamental scriptures of different religions would clearly reveal that they
do not assert superiority over other religious scriptures. They assert
universality rather than specificity. Specificity often emerges in religious
thought system developed later in the given historical and cultural situation.
The Qur’an asserts the concept of wahdat-i-Deen
(unity of religions). Two major Islamic thinkers from Indian sub-continent
Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi (of
18th century) and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
of twentieth century both have thrown detailed light on this concept in their
magnum opuses Hujjat Allahi
al-Balighah and Tarjuman
al-Qur’an.
Those who maintain centrality
of the value system over historically and culturally conditioned thought and
ritual system will never develop attitude of hostility towards other religions.
The irony of the situation is that those associated with the religious
communities be they priests or be they community leaders acquire vested
interest in maintaining control over the community and then they marginalize
its value system or spirituality and promote status quo, opposing any change or
co-operational efforts with other communities.
It would be quite interesting
to note yet two other aspects of religions i.e. religion as a moral guide and
religion as an identity. Te basic role of every religion is to provide guidance
for morally and spiritually healthy life on earth so as to continuously enrich
our existence and make it more meaningful. However, every religious community,
i.e. community of believers, need an identity, a community to belong to and
this identity plays an important role in psychological sense.
While religion as a moral
guide brings closer cooperation between different religious communities,
religion as an identity tends to create conflict. Identity is not only a
psychological need but also draws walls of separation and results in clashes of
worldly interests between members of different religious communities. Prof.
Huntington of clash of civilization fame misconceives this clash of interests
as clash of civilizations.
It will help lessen tensions
between different communities (religious, national or civilizational),
if we can understand this difference between the two roles i.e. that of moral
guide and that of identity. If we use religion as moral guide alone it will
cause no problems but if it is linked to our identity it becomes easy tool for
politicians and other vested interests to exploit. However, it is very
difficult to de-link religion with identity as a community of believers sharing
common religion does get linked up with common identity and this common
identity has its own dynamics.
The feeling of ‘we’ and ‘they’
is the result of this feeling of identity. Our common humanity is thus becomes
secondary to our separate religious identities. In fact it is not possible to
completely do away with commonly shared identity but it should not be
over-emphasised either at the cost of our common human identity. More emphasis
should be laid on moral aspects so as to de-emphasise to an extent, separate
religious identity.
The value system in any
religion is its soul whereas institutions, rituals etc. represent its body. As
every living body has soul, every living religion has value system, which gives
it life. The believers are unfortunately more focussed on the body than on the
soul. While we create grand institutions, we neglect the most essential values.
The most fundamental values common to all religions are as follows: 1) Love; 2)
non-violence; 3) compassion; 4) equality; 5) justice; 6) human dignity and 7)
truth.
These seven values are common
to all religions some value being emphasised more than the other in another
religion. Love for example is more emphasised in
Seen in this light all
religions, looked from this perspective, compliment each other rather than
conflict with each other. Thus one must re-emphasise the value system to reduce
inter-religious conflict. The founders of these religions, it is important to
note, began by emphasising these core values. The founders did not engage
themselves in building grand institutions. They did not even engage in
developing the thought system. They struggled hard to improve the moral health
of their followers.
The followers of these
religions, however, soon built grand laces of worship and other institutions. And
soon huge establishments came into existence to be controlled by few leaders
who then control the community also. The Buddha never constructed temples. He
never stayed at one place and went round preaching his doctrines, which were
quite rational. Jesus lived in the company of the poor and served them and laid
down his life for the noble cause.
The Prophet of Islam led very
simple life and constantly struggled for the cause of the poor, the needy, the
orphans and the widows and was strongly committed to the cause of human
equality, dignity and justice. He built very simple mosque where he and his
followers not only prayed but he also used it as a community place where he met
delegations and dispensed justice. He had to go hungry for days at times.
Nanak and Kabir
also led exemplary life of utter simplicity and devoted themselves to the cause
of truth. However the followers of all these great founders of religions
developed huge institutions, built empires and began
to control huge assets. The very spirit of core values was soon lost and
conflict between different religious communities developed. The inter-religious
conflict is not religious conflict indeed but conflict between the secular
interests of its followers or between their leaders. If we understand this it
will greatly help us understand the nature of inter-religious conflict.
For all such theological
differences the key phrase in the Qur’an is fastabiqu al-khayrat
i.e. excel each with the other in good deeds, leaving all other differences to
Allah. Thus the Qur’anic doctrine is that human
differences will be finally settled by Allah. So let not human beings fight
over these but excel each other in good deeds. However, ignoring this important
doctrine we engage ourselves in fighting with each other on petty differences
both within the community and between the communities.
Also, to de-emphasise values
the leaders of various religious communities over-emphasise ritual system which
helps them preserve their control as well as the social status quo. It is
important to note that founders of various religions from Buddha to Christ to
Muhammad to Nanak, never approved of status quo. In
fact all of them were seriously disturbed, even anguished, by the prevailing
conditions, deeply reflected over the malaise and set about to change them.
They deeply loved humanity and
their main concern was to restore social and moral health often by striking at
the vested interests of all kinds, ‘religious’, political as well as economic.
The Buddha was disturbed by ritualistic sacrifices of his time while neglecting
suffering humanity. He reflected over this social and moral sickness and
concluded that compassion for suffering humanity was the only remedy. Buddha’s
eightfold truth talks about right thought, right action so as to restore moral
health of the society and to reduce human suffering. But again rituals took
over soon and all values were sidelined. Buddhism today no more engages with
human suffering but gives priority to building monasteries and grand temples
and huge establishments.
The Prophet of Islam himself
an orphan knew what suffering is and he saw accumulation of wealth in
The Qur’an thus emphasised truth of all religions on one hand,
and, equality, human dignity and social justice, on the other. It exhorted its
followers to take care of the weaker sections of society (mustad’ifin)
and denounced the powerful and exploiters (mustakbirin).
According to the Qur’an Allah is on the side of
weaker sections and will severely punish the powerful and the arrogant (see
28:5 and
However, his
followers soon forgot these moral values of equality, human dignity, compassion
for the suffering humanity and justice. Soon civil war broke out among Muslims
within a couple of decades of the death of the prophet and thousands were killed, all believers and followers of Islam. Religion
looses its spirit when it becomes huge establishment. Unfortunately many
religious leaders began to justify violence in the form of jihad for their own
interests. The true meaning of jihad – to make utmost efforts for spreading
good and fighting evil – was lost. The Prophet had said that the best form of
jihad was to tell truth on the face of a tyrant. This requires tremendous
courage and spirit of sacrifice to go for such jihad.
From above
discussion it would be seen that a truly religious person should be strongly
committed to the core values, which are almost common in all religions. A truly
religious person would never emphasise differences (which are there due to
culture, social traditions and historical situation) but commonality between
religions. A truly religious person would never accept status quo but would be
committed to change it for better.
A truly religious
person should be sincerely committed to human freedom, freedom of conscience.
Only a free person can act morally without any pressure from any quarter. One
who is not free has no choice and one who has no choice cannot be morally
responsible. Thus a religious person should be passionately committed to human
freedom and human dignity. No one should be enslaved if moral health of the
society is to be upheld. Subjugation to authority robs a person of freedom of
choice.
A religious person
should incessantly strive for truth. A quest for truth is an act of true
worship. Quest for truth is also the quest for inner peace and spiritual
richness. The quest for truth leads to inner certitude and inner certitude
leads to freedom from all forms of ignorance and the Qur’anic
term iman means inner conviction and inner
certitude. Thus true believer (mu’min) is one
who has deep conviction in revelation from high on which exhorts them to excel
in morality and human perfection.
It is for this that
the Sufis emphasised the doctrine of what they called insan-e-kamil
(perfect human being) who is totally free, who is not slave of is own lust, who
does not worship idols of his desires and bows down only to Allah who
represents perfect knowledge and is Just.
A truly religious
person has no trace of arrogance and is model of humility. Arrogance is borne
of ignorance and unjust power. Also, a truly religious person commits himself
to leave the world better than he found it after his birth. Only one who is
desirous of power and pelf would leave it worse than when he was borne. A
religious person freely and fearlessly chooses what is good as against what is
evil, raises his voice against all forms of injustices in the world and works
passionately for liberation of entire humanity irrespective of caste, colour
and creed.
It is such
religious person that can bring peace to the world.
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
E-mail : csss@vsnl.com