The primary reason for this misunderstanding is the modern “scientific” worldview, which is based on the modern scientific approach of restricting existence to its material, visible dimension. As a result, a human being is seen only as a material or biological entity. Such a view ascribes all human intellectual products and spiritual experiences to one’s physical and biological composition, thus reducing a human being to only his or her physique. In addition, since this approach labels as unscientific that which cannot be established in the laboratory, religious facts and beliefs have no scientific truth. This leads to the assertion that religion is a set of dogmas that only demand belief, whether they are scientifically true or not.

This approach has caused knowing and believing to be separated from each other. According to it, something is known when it is established in the laboratory. In other words, knowledge is that which has been established and obtained in the laboratory through experimentation. This scientific attitude limits our ability to research ourselves, and put insurmountable limits to existence. If only it had admitted that there may be truths outside its reach!

By presenting whatever is outside its reach as impossible to establish scientifically and therefore devoid of any truth, science has made the universe the subject matter of, say, physics or chemistry or astronomy, and humanity the subject matter of biology and materialistic psychology.

A human being is no longer a being composed of a body, spirit, and soul. Whatever people conceive of, think and feel, as well as their emotions and beliefs, are products of their biological composition. In addition, the subject matter of psychology is human behavior only, which does not accept any meta-physical dimension of human existence. By doing so, the modern scientific approach has promoted itself to the rank of being the sole criterion of truth, and has reduced existence to the field of its study. It was natural for this approach to see religion as a human product, and so it did.

The second fatal blow was delivered to religion by Darwin’s theory of evolution. When this biological theory was applied to humanity’s history and products-as if there were and could not be an eternal, unchanging dimension of human existence containing certain perennial values and principles that govern human life-religion was subjected to this evolutionist approach.

WESTERN POSITIVISTIC AND MATERIALISTIC VIEWS OF RELIGION

According to modern Western assumptions, which are based on scientism and evolutionism, humanity is in a continuous, irresistible, and irreversible movement toward what is better. During this progress, it has gone through certain stages of intellectual and civilizational development. Many people have studied the origins of religion. Anthropologists have concentrated on the theory of the evolution of religion. For some, such as Sir James Frazer (1854-1941), religion’s origin can be found in magic; others proposed animism or preanimism, totemism, fetishism, or polytheism. Later anthropologists concentrated more on religion’s role in society than its origin. Social anthropologists saw religion as part of society and concentrated on field studies of particular tribes or analyzed myths, rituals, and symbols. Cultural anthropologists saw it as a set of beliefs, rites, and institutions.

To illustrate the differences of opinion that arise among such “experts,” Jalal al-Din al-Rumi, a famous thirteenth-century Muslim Sufi, made this analogy: Some blind persons encounter an elephant and, on touching different parts of its body, offer their partial and contradictory definitions of what an elephant is: one finds it to be a heavy, thick column, while another thinks that it is a hard, flexible pipe, and so on. This is the situation in which Western scholars who study the origin of religion find themselves.

Just as anthropologists drew different conclusions, sociologists also put forward different opinions about the origin of religion.

The sociology of religion found its leading analysts in Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) and Max Weber (1864-1920). The former stressed religion’s social functions by considering it a stabilizing factor created by a given society to express its ideals and unify itself. Weber, more dynamic and positive, saw religion’s prophetic side as an instrument that could shape and change society, and tried to discern what aspect of Western religious attitudes or culture gave birth and then shaped capitalism. Other sociologists focused more on particular religious groups and institutions.

The psychology of religion centers upon the individual and personal religious experience. William James (1842-1910), one of its main exponents, described the “religion” of the healthy-minded and the sick soul, the “religion” of the once-born and the twice-born, and the psychological basis of prayer, meditation, mysticism, and conversion.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), whose research was based on theories of infantile sexuality and opposed by friends, patients, and medical colleagues, emphasized the importance of childhood sexual experiences and regarded religion as necessary illusions (delusions) and projections. He also argued that dreams, like neuroses, were disguised manifestations of repressed sexual desires.

More recent work in the psychology of religion has centered upon such issues as how different religious people or institutions really are, what is mature religious faith, what are the spiritual potentialities of human nature, and what are the stages of religious development in children and adults.

The common denominator in any Western analysis of religion is that religion was invented by people either to project repressed desire or weakness, or to represent an individual or collective effort to systematize a particular community’s beliefs and rites. The corollary is the following: As science develops, humanity’s need for religion will continue to decrease and eventually disappear. According to Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-72), religion is a dogma contradicted by modern society’s fire and life insurance policies, railways and steamships, military forces and industrial schools, theatres and science museums. Karl Marx (1818-83) proclaimed that it is the opiate of the masses and inevitably will become a thing of the past.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) divided human history into three eras. The first era is the period of religion, when primitive people feared natural events and forces, and so needed to believe in a Supreme Being. The second era is the period of metaphysics, when humanity reached a considerable level of intellectual maturity. And the last era is the period of science, in which there is no room (or need) for religion, because reason and science will solve all human problems. Some people may continue to follow a reduced religion, comprising very basic moral and spiritual principles, to satisfy their emotional and spiritual needs and lead an upright life. But religion should not transgress its limits, and must not interfere in society’s collective-especially political-life.

According to Ferdinand Buisson (1841-1932), the secular approach to life will not wipe out religion altogether, but will diminish it considerably and destroy the force of its dogmas and the basis of its doctrines.

Before proceeding to criticize Western (materialistic and evolutionist) views of religion, we should summarize other definitions of religion by various Western thinkers or philosophers.

Georg Hegel (1770-1831) maintained that religion is a certain view of the universe. Benedetto Croce (1866-1952), an Italian follower of Hegel, defines religion as a philosophy that is incomplete. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) deals with religion from the viewpoint of social morality, and thinks that religion means considering all of our responsibilities as Divine ordinances. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) sees religion as no more than a feeling or excitement, an emotion or noble sentiment, felt for eternity. According to Ralph Otto, a contemporary theologian, religion is a mysterious fear combined with awe that causes people to tremble and yet attracts them to itself.

CRITICS OF THE WESTERN VIEWS OF RELIGION

The positivistic and materialistic view of religion, promoted by modern Western attitudes and directed by the dogmas of science and technology, is highly questionable. The positivist line, which regards the West’s sociological and economic, as well as its military and political, levels as the ultimate human achievement, has been criticized severely even by Western thinkers. Such a view engenders existential tension and anxiety. Toward the end of his life and despite his view of religion as a mode of thinking or being belonging to the second (long past) era of human history, Comte tried to establish a humanistic religion. This shows that religion is not something to be denied or dismissed as belonging to some long past phase of human development.

Also, despite the huge recent advances in science and technology, extreme sexual freedom, high living standards and education levels, there is a growing global interest in and turning to religion. We have seen the emergence of new, primitive religions such as devil worship, as well as the quest for contentment through certain authentic or such false supernormal phenomena as telepathy, necromancy, sorcery, and fortune-telling.

Moreover, as Erich Fromm puts it, we still see the pursuit of security and guarantees for the future through increased association with insurance companies and trade unions, mighty governments, and holdings and pacts. We have seen the almost-global collapse of communism and a return to religion in those countries.

All of this shows that the scientific theories of Western researchers in the field of religion have proven to be false. These events and trends also demonstrate that, whether sociological or anthropological or psychological, Western studies of religion are based on wrong premises.

Whereas religion is a rising global value and more and more people are turning to it, modern Western civilization is being questioned severely and shows signs of inward decay while outwardly it is at the peak of its dominion. Like many others, Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), a famous German sociologist, prophesied the collapse of this civilization with all its skyscrapers, huge metropolises and railways, and foretold that it would be an ethnographic museum.

Such “refined” Western intellectuals and scientists as Rene Guenon, Alexis Carrel, Max Planck, Boris Pasternak, and James Jeans (1887-1946) have argued that religion would allow humanity to live in another era of happiness.

Also, the ongoing re-emergence of missionary churches in increasing numbers in Christendom and the return to Islamic values all over the Muslim world, despite the stern measures taken against Islam by native governments for several decades, demonstrate that it is almost impossible to defeat religion.

REFERENCES

• Adivar, A. Adnan. Ilim ve Din (Science and Religion). Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1983. Carrel, Alexis. Insan Denen Mechul. Trans. R. Ozdek. Istanbul: n.d.
• Dawson, Christopher. Batinin Olusumu. Trans. Istanbul: 1970.
• Fromm, Erich. Psikanaliz ve Din. Trans. Istanbul: n.d.
• Guenon, Rene. Dogu ve Bati. Trans. Yeryuzu yay. Istanbul: 1979.
• Hume, David. Din Ustune. Trans. Mete Tuncay. Istanbul: 1983.
• Mardin, Serif. Din ve Ideoloji (Religion and Ideology). Istanbul: Iletisim yay, 1983.
• Nisset, Robert. History of the Idea of Progress. London: 1993.
• Scognamillo, Giovanni. Batinin Inanc Temelleri. Trans. Istanbul: n.d.
• Spengler, Oswald. Batinin Cokusu. Trans. Istanbul: Dergah yay: n.d.

Another approach to mannerliness is dealing with it under the categories of ‘mannerliness in Sharia’, ‘mannerliness in tariqa (the spiritual order), ‘mannerliness in knowledge of God’, and ‘mannerliness in attainment of truth’. The first means practising the Sunna (the way) of God’s Messenger upon him be peace and blessings, in all his acts saying and all that he approved, whether general or particular. The second means, together with utter submission to and perfect love of, the guide serving him, attending his discourses and refraining from objection to him. The third consists in preserving the balance between nearness to God and self-possession, between fear and hope, and awareness of self-poverty and impotence in the face of the Divine favours coming directly from God. As far the fourth, it is perfect attachment to God in complete detachment from everything other than Him, without any material or spiritual expectation and anxieties worldly or other-worldly.

In fact, Sufism means ‘mannerliness’; it consists in expressing the good manners proper to each occasion, each spiritual state, and each rank or station. However, only if a believer has been able to realize all of these good manners in his own self will he really he well-mannered in his attitudes and ways of behaviour. Apparent and superficial manners, such as have not been ingrained in his self and become an essential part of his nature, will mean no more than an outward show become permanent as habits. Nor is it worth anything in the sight of God, who judges a man by his inner world. With his expressive style, Mawlana Jalal al-Din describes mannerliness with its true and artificial aspects as follows:

For the people of the heart, mannerliness originates in a man’s inner world, for they are aware of secrets. As for the people of the flesh, they see mannerliness in the apparent behaviour of man, for God has hidden the secrets from them. We always ask God to enable us to be mannerly, because one who is unmannerly is deprived of Divine favours.

According to Abu Nasr al-Tusi, mannerliness could be summarized in the following three paragraphs.

1. The mannerliness of literary men who seek beauty and virtue in writing and speech, which is regarded as ‘gossip’ by the Sufis for it does not originate in the heart.

2. The mannerliness of those who represent the religion of Islam at the level of a pure spiritual life, which is regarded as consisting in refining the selfhood through disciplines, and the feelings through love and fear of God, and in meticulously following the religious commandments.

3. The mannerliness of those who through continuous self-control and introspection maintain purity at the level of neither imagining or conceiving of anything contrary to the awareness of always being in the presence of God and overseen by Him.

Those who have been able to attain to the truth have attached much importance to all kinds of mannerliness and tried their hardest to make it as an essential, ingrained part of their human nature. They have many wise sayings uttered in this respect, of which they have themselves striven to be the embodiments ill utmost sincerity. To cite a few examples:

Everything has an aspect of beauty and ornament, The beauty of man lies in mannerliness. There are men who, albeit of ignoble descent, are most noble due to their mannerliness.

The following is a jewel-like saying quoted from Imam ‘Ali, the cousin of the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings:

Nowadays misfortunes are common, which is not to be wondered at. What is to he wondered at is how one could remain upright and maintain one’s integrity among so many misfortunes. Beauty is not that which the garment one wears add to him. Rather, it is the beauty of knowledge and mannerliness.

The following is from Awarif al-Ma’arif by Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi:

Belief requires absolute affirmation of Divine Unity, without which a man is not regarded as having a sound belief. This affirmation requires mannerliness without which one cannot be pious.

Truly, one without good manners cannot be pious, for the Prophets travelled their ways through mannerliness, and became each an elect in the Court of God.

In addition to what we have already said concerning the practical aspect of mannerliness or being well-mannered in behaviour, the following reflections are worth recalling:

It is mannerliness which a man should always wear: without good manners, one is as if naked.

Mannerliness is to be found in people through mannerliness. A student without good manners cannot be a learned one.

The order of the world is through mannerliness; again, through mannerliness is human perfection.

Expressive of purity in thought, uprightness in the heart, and a deep relationship with God, mannerliness in speech has been stressed for centuries in all schools which concern themselves with moral and religious education or with spiritual training.

Wahbi says:

Don’t open your mouth for idle talk, be well-mannered in your speech. Take care of what you may say so that afterwards you do not become uneasy.

Another voices his thought about mannerliness as follows:

Mannerliness is a crown from the light of God: wear that crown and he safe from every misfortune.

The words of Mawlana Jalal al-Din in praise of mannerliness are beyond compare:

Know that the soul in man’s body is mannerliness; the light of man’s heart and eyes is mannerliness. Man is from an elevated world, not from a loose one. This dome [meaning the world rotates on the axis of mannerliness, which is also its beauty and adornment. If you prepare your food on the head of Satan, know that it is mannerliness which will kill Satan. One who is deprived of good manners is not truly human, for the difference between men and animals lies in mannerliness. Open your eyes and see that the Qur’an, the Word of God, consists in mannerliness. I asked the intellect what belief was. It whispered to the ear of the heart that it was mannerliness.

Mannerliness with respect to good morals described as words and behaviour approved by Islam, and as expressed in the words, actions, and acts of approval of the Holy Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, is beyond the scope of the present answer.

O God! Lead us to what You like and approve.

May God’s blessings he on our master Muhammad and all of his family and his Companions.