A Comparative Analysis of Hinduism and Islam

[Guest guest]

Expansion and Contraction: A Comparative Analysis of Hinduism and

Islam from a Religious Studies Perspective

 

Dr. Frank Gaetano Morales (Madison, Wisconsin)

 

 

In its relatively short - and decidedly Western-centric - history, a

wide variety of academic terms have arisen from within the discipline

known as Religious Studies in the expressed order of assisting the

field's specialists to more ably grasp the structure and outlook of

religious sects and institutions. One pair of such terms that we

encounter are the concepts of "Expansive" versus "Contractive". It is

important to note that these two words are used, not with the intent

of ascribing a superiority status to any one particular sect over

another, or of denigrating any particular religious belief system,

but with the aim of rationally understanding the functional and

attitudinal aspects of differing religious institutions. In the

following, I will illustrate the meaning of the terms Expansive and

Contractive by examining two very different faiths: Hinduism and

Islam.

 

Before we begin, however, it is important to first explain the

difference between these two academic terms. An expansive religion is

one which tends towards social and philosophical inclusiveness.

Overall, such faiths tend to be both tolerant of internal differences

of opinion, as well as open to positive contributions from outside

the institutional bounds of the faith. Generally, they seek to

embrace the social, political and philosophical realities that exist

outside the sectarian confines of the religion. Expansive religions

are inherently open, liberal, progressive and accepting.

 

By marked contrast, a contractive religion is exclusivistic in

nature. Members of contractive sects tend to view themselves as being

thoroughly separated from non-believers by virtue of their own

espousal of the one and only true faith. Unlike expansive faiths,

contractive religions tend to be highly suspicious of both internal

dissent, as well as of perceived external challenges. Consequently,

such faiths will often suppress any attempts at reform, change and

renewal from within, and will repeatedly wage both ideological and

martial war against other faiths whom they consider to be at odds

with their own rigidly cherished notions of truth.

 

It has been argued by numerous scholars and practitioners that the

religion of Hinduism is radically expansive by nature. This

expansiveness can be seen, first, in the realm of traditional Hindu

philosophical and theological thought. The six schools of Hindu

philosophy (Shad-Darshanas), while completely united in their

assessment and acceptance of the basic philosophical foundations of

Hinduism, are quite diverse in their respective approaches to moksha,

or the ultimate spiritual attainment of liberation. For example,

while the Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy posits a dualistic

ontology, juxtaposing the two distinct elements of purusha (spirit)

and prakriti (matter), the school of Advaita Vedanta sees reality in

purely monistic terms. For Shankara's Advaita, there is only one

substance in reality: Brahman, or unbounded consciousness.

 

For Vedanta, on the other hand, ritual is generally viewed as being

merely a collection of symbolic rites, the efficacy of which is

negligible in contrast with the attainment of brahma-vidya, or the

knowing of Brahman; but for the Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy,

ritual in accordance with Vedic injunction is the highest religio-

philosophical activity that can be performed by human beings. Despite

the diversity and freedom of opinion that has existed both within and

between these many schools of Hindu thought, these schools have all

peacefully co-existed in India for thousands of years, preferring to

do battle in the realm of civil academic debate rather than on the

bloody battlefields of supposed holy wars.

 

In keeping with this respect for diversity of opinion and thought,

hundreds of various sects, traditions and schools of thought have

arisen within the tolerant framework of Hindu culture. So open-minded

has the Hindu outlook traditionally been that it has been said by

many Western academic observers of Hinduism that whatever your

individual belief, concern or practice may be, there is (or at least

has at one time been) a sect of Hinduism that embraces it. While this

claim is certainly somewhat of an exaggeration, it does point to the

fact that Hinduism is, indeed, a religion of tolerance, diversity and

expansion.

 

The atmosphere of tolerance traditionally encouraged by Hinduism is

dramatically seen in how Hinduism has historically dealt with

heterodox religious and philosophical movements. The religions of

Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are three religions that originated as

offshoots from Hinduism. Both Buddhism and Jainism began as

ascetically oriented movements within mainstream Hinduism in the

fifth century B.C.E. Sikhism, which was founded by the great Guru

Nanak in the fifteenth century C.E., was an attempt to synthesize the

profound philosophical insights of Hinduism with the zealous martial

spirit of Islam. While all three movements were founded as schools of

thought within the greater rubric of Hindu culture, in time, all

three began to view themselves as religions distinct from the

Vedic/Hindu world-view.

 

Despite several major philosophical and religious differences between

these three sects and Hinduism, however, most of the contention

between these religions have remained on a purely philosophical

level. At no time in Indian history did there occur such instances of

persecution and bigotry between these religions as was witnessed in

the Inquisition, Crusades or witch-hunts so well known in the sad

history of Western religious expression. Consequently, while it is

certainly true that no religion falls perfectly into either the

expansive or the contractive category, it is probably rather safe to

say that Hinduism does display more expansive characteristics than

not.

 

With the above caveat about the dangers of generalizing in mind, we

will now explore a more contractive religion. Unlike the tolerance

observed throughout the long and very illustrative history of

Hinduism, Islam demands that its adherents follow a very rigidified

code of beliefs, attitudes and practices. Every Muslim, for example,

is required to uphold six sacred religious beliefs. Muslims must

believe: a) that there is only one true god, whose name is Allah, b)

in the existence of a vast repertoire of semi-divine beings called

angels, c) in a specific number of recognized prophets (ranging from

Abraham to Muhammad, and including Jesus and Moses) who were sent by

Allah to reveal his commandments upon humanity, d) in the revelations

given by Allah to these specific prophets, e) in a final Day of

Judgment in which all beings will either join Allah in paradise or

perish eternally in hell, and f) in the doctrine of predestination

(the idea that Allah has already preordained who will be saved and

who will perish).

 

In addition to these six obligatory beliefs, it is required that each

Muslim perform five practical religious duties, known as the Five

Pillars of Islam. These are: 1) Confession of the faith ("There is no

god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet"), 2) prayers five times

daily, 3) fasting during the month of Ramadan, 4) Almsgiving, and 5)

the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. All people who do not follow these

commands of Allah are considered by Muslims to be unbelievers, and

are subsequently subject to conversion to the one true faith of Islam.

 

In Islamic theo-political theory, the non-Muslim world is divided

into two broad categories: a) Dhimmis, or people of "the book", and

b) Heathens, or subhuman non-believers. The Dhimmis - Jews and

Christians - are considered to be people of the Covenant because they

are followers of the earlier revelations of the prophets Moses and

Jesus, respectively. Dhimmis were therefore historically given

special protective status in the Islamic world. Despite this special

treatment by Islamic rulers, however, Judaism and Christianity are

still considered by Muslims to be religions that fall short of being

true religion.

 

Followers of all other religions that lie outside of the Judeo-

Christian-Islamic world-view, however, are looked upon as "heathens"

by the Islamic religious law. Such "Heathens" include Buddhists,

Taoists, Hindus, and the followers of all earth-centered indigenous

religions. "Heathens", up until the last few hundred years, were

considered third class citizens in Islamic societies, and were

subject to forced conversion, special taxation and persecution. The

temples and sacred relics of such "heathens" were systematically

destroyed, their priests, saints and sages were killed and their

histories rewritten by Islamic scholars. Islam is considered by more

liberal Muslims as being the most legitimate of all religions, and by

its conservative elements as being the only true religion , all other

forms of religious expression being but pale imitations of the glory

of Islam.

 

Not only are non-Muslim religions looked upon with a very high degree

of suspicion by Muslims, but internal dissent is also rarely

tolerated in Islam. Heterodox movements within Islam, such as the

Shias, Druze and Alawites, are considered heretical and their

respective followers have historically been persecuted and killed by

the majority Sunnis. In addition, strict Islamic societies are

usually guided by the Sharia, the rigid code of law and rules which

governs the life and behavior of all Muslims. The strict demands

placed upon believers, coupled with a lessor degree of tolerance than

is exhibited in more expansive religions, make for a convincing

argument that Islam would be considered a contractive religion by

most objective observers.

 

It is crucial that the many varied and diverse religions of the world

be studied, as much as is feasible, on their own terms, and from an

objectively sympathetic perspective. Like all the many attempts to

analyze and categorize faith systems that have arisen from the field

of Religious Studies, the Expansive/Contractive definition is but an

attempt to better understand the differences between the many diverse

religions of the world. These terms are certainly helpful pointers to

a general understanding of the specific religions under observation,

but they not wholely perfect instruments in making such assessments.

It is my hope that these two terms have assisted the reader somewhat

in gaining a more objectively focused glimpse into the psychological,

philosophical and social distinctions that exist between two very

different world-view.

 

Bibliography

 

Andrae, Tor. Mohammed: The Man and His Faith. New York:

Schribners, 1936.

 

Avdich, Kamil Y. Survey of Islamic Doctrine. Cedar Rapids,

Iowa: privately printed, 1979.

 

Cane, P. V. A Brief Sketch of the Purva-Mimamsa System.

Poona: Aryabhushan Press, 1924.

 

Chaudhuri, Roma. Ten Schools of the Vedanta. 3 vols.

Calcutta: Rabindra Bharati University, 1981.

 

Deutsch, Eliot. Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical

Reconstruction. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1969.

 

Espisito, John, ed. Islam and Development. Syracuse, New

York: Syracuse University Press, 1980.

 

Galwash, Ahmad. The Religion of Islam. Cairo, Dar al-Shaab,

1952.

 

Klostermaier, Klaus K. A Survey of Hinduism. New York: SUNY

Press, 1994.

 

Lacombe, Olivier. Indianite: Etudes Historiques et

Comparatives sur la Pensee Indienne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1979.

 

Lapidus, Ira M. A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1988.

 

Radhakrishnan, S. Indian Philosophy. 2 Vols. Delhi: Oxford

University Press, 1996.

 

Rahman, Fazlur. Islam. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1979.

 

Rust, Eric C. Religion, Revelation & Reason. Macon, Georgia:

Mercer University Press, 1981.