The Muslim Religiosity-Personality Measurement Inventory (MRPI)'s

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 13 (2): 131-145 (2005)ISS : 0128-7702

Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

The Muslim Religiosity-Personality Measurement Inventory (MRPI)'sReligiosity Measurement Model:

Towards Filling the Gaps in Religiosity Research on Muslims

ISTEVE ERIC KRAUSS (ABDUL-LATEEF ABDULLAH), 2AZIMI HJ. HAMZAH3TURIMAN SUANDI, 4SIDEK MOHD. NOAH, 5KHAIRUL ANWAR MASTOR,

6RUMAYAJUHARI, '7lfAS AN KASSAN, 8AZMA MAHMOUD & 9JAMIAH MANAPJ,2, 9 Institute for Community and Peace Studies (PEKKA),

Universiti Putra Malaysia,43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor; Malaysia

3,4 Faculty ofEducational Studies,Universiti Putra Malaysia,

43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor; Malaysia5, 7, 8 Centre for General Studies,

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,43600 UKM, Bangi, Selangor; Malaysia

Keywords: Muslim, Islam, religion, religiosity measurement, instrument development, worIdviews,personality, tawhidic paradigm

ABSTRAKSejak bermulanya bidang religiositi sebagai satu bidang inkuiri saintifik, ia telah berada di bawahdomain psikologi religiositi. Pendekatan itu diambil ke arah pengkonsepsian religiositi sebagaimakna bagi keagamaan sejagat. Walau bagaimanapun, majoriti limpahan instrumen religiositijatuh di bawah petunjuk agama Kristian dan kajian terhadap orang Kristian. Bagi mempelajariten tang kehidupan beragama tradisi bukan Kristian, terdapat keperluan untuk konsep daninstrumen religiositi bagi menggambarkan tradisi keagamaan tersebut. Peranan tasawur terhadapreligiositi adalah penting untuk diambil kira sebagai instrumentasi religiositi kerana tasawur inidapat memberi asas falsafah untuk konsep operasional religiositi, pembentukan dan item. Olehsebab pengaruh besar terhadap instrumen religiositi adalah berasaskan tasawur terhadapkeagamaan judea-Christian, instrumen religiositi yang wujud kini pun adalah yangmencerminkannya, dan seterusnya ia tidak menunjukkan kesamarataan keunikan tasawurterhadap pandangan non judea-Christian yang lain seperti tasawur Islam. Oleh yang demikian,kajian ini bertujuan untuk memberikan pandangan umum terhadap konseptualisasi keagamaan,bersama-sama dengan beberapa jurang yang besar dalam kajian religiositi bagi Muslim. Secarakesimpulannya, kertas kerja ini membentangkan satu model asas religiositi yang berasal daripadatasawur dari segi tauhid Islam, di mana MRPI diasaskan.

ABSTRACT

Since the advent of religiosity as a field of scientific inquiry, it has been under the domain ofpsychologists of religion. The approach taken toward conceptualizing religiosity, therefore, hasalways been one purported to be of religious universalism. However, the overwhelming majorityof religiosity instruments to date have fallen under the rubric of Christianity and the study ofChristian people. As the desire to learn more about the religious life of the non-Christian traditionsand people spreads, there is an increasing need for religiosity concepts and instruments to reflect

Steven Eric Krauss et al.

these particular religious traditions. The role of religious worldview, therefore, is a majorconsideration in the instrumentation of religiosity, as worldview provides an underlyingphilosophical foundation for the operationalization of religiosity concepts, constructs and items.As the preponderance of religiosity instrumentation to date has been grounded in the JudeoChristian religious worldview, existing religiosity instrumentation is also reflective of it, and assuch, does not adequately represent the uniqueness of other non:Judeo-Christian worldviewssuch as the Islamic tawhidic worldview. As such, the Current study aimed to provide a generaloverview of religiosity conceptualization in general, along with some ofthe major gaps in religiosityresearch for Muslims. In response, the paper concludes with the presentation of a basic religiositymodel rooted in the tawhidicworldview ofIslam, upon which the Muslim Religiosity-PersonalityInventory (MRPI) was based.

CONCEPTUALIZATION AND OPERA

TIONALIZATION OF RELIGIOSITY:

BACKGROUND AND CONSIDERATIONSFrom the beginning of its advent as a subjectof scientific inquiry, the conceptualization andoperationalization of religiosity has beenprimarily the domain of psychologists andsociologists, who sought to understand the roleof different measurable elements of religionon the intra- and interpersonal worlds ofman.As opposed to scholars and doctors ofreligion,psychologists and sociologists ofreligion aimedto understand the impact or effects of theunique institution of religion in purelysociological and psychological terms.

Those who would become importantfigures in the history of psychology, forexample, focused much of their interest andattention on religion. From the early writingsof William James and G. Stanley Hall at thebeginning of the twentieth century, religiosityas an independent scientific concept has beenan important field of inquiry to social scientists(Spilka et at. 2003). One of the earliest andmost controversial topics in psychology to date,in fact, has been the relationship betweenreligiosity and delinquency, which was a focusof much of the early work on religiosity datingback to the 1930s (Serajzadeh 1998).

The significance of religion to humanbeings in so many dimensions of daily livinghas made it an important area of inquiry toresearchers. Nevertheless, the importance ofreligion as an area of focus has not been auniversal effort. Attempts to study religion asa social scientific phenomenon have beenprimarily a Western, Judeo-Christian

undertaking. Hill and Hood (1999)aggregated and analyzed 126 differentpsychological measurements for religiosity.However, Grace (2000) noted that researchersinterested in finding measures applicable tothe non-Western religions and spiritualitycould not find them in Hill and Hood's work.Grace also argued that those interested infinding instruments applicable to otherreligions would most likely not find themanywhere else, either, since much of theresearch focus had been on the Christianreligion (in particular, AmericanProtestantism). Spilka et at. (2003:3 also notethat "most psychological research has beenconducted within the Judeo-Christianframework." According to Ghorbani et at.(2000:2), studies of English-speakingpopulations have dominated the literature.Though other societies have received recentattention (e.g. Gorsuch et at. 1997; GrzymalaMoszczynska 1991; Hovemyr 1988; Kaldestadand Stifoss-Hanssen 1993) , Judeo-Christiancommitments still remain the most commonobject of investigation. They also add that theneed to empirically study other religioustraditions is obvious.

Attempts to understand religion andreligiosity from the individual or personalperspective have naturally been the domainof psychologists of religion. Since psychologyhas the overall goal of understanding peopleand their behaviour, psychologists attempt todo this by studying human motivation,cognition and behaviour (Spilka et at. 2003).For those whose domain is to understandreligion psycholo-gically, There is a majordifference between religion per se and

132 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 No.2 2005

The MRPI's Religiosity Measurement Model: Towards Filling the Gaps in Religiosity Research on Muslims

religious behaviour, motivation, perceptionand cognition. We study these humanconsiderations and not religion as such (Spilkaet at. 2003: 3). For psychologists of religion,there is little interest in the content and makeup ofreligion as a body ofknowledge, traditionand practice. Thus, there is little interest inthe religious knowledge, practices andexperiential inputs that dictate how humanbehaviour, motivation, perception andcognition are arrived at.

In religious psychology, the focus is noton the religion itself, but rather thefunctionality or output of religion. In moststudies on religiosity, the assumption is madethat people from all religious traditionsexpress their faith in three ways: throughbehaviour (e.g. rituals), belief (e.g. belief inthe supernatural) and experience (e.g.mystical states) (Spilka et at. 2003). Despitesuch assertions of the universality of religionaccording to these three constructs, a singledefinition of 'religion' itself remains elusivefor psychologists of religion.

PERSONALITY REliGIOSITY

CONCEPTUALIZATION AND ITS ROOTSThese considerations lead to importan tquestions about how religiosity has beenconceptualized, particularly as it pertains toreligious groups outside of theJudeo-Christiantradition. According to Ku(ukcan (2000: 461468) stated that:

"One should bear in mind that almost allof the theoretical frameworks [discussedin this article] were developed afterstudying predominantly Christianbelievers and manifestations of Christianreligious experience. It is thereforequestionable whether these methodological approaches can explain nonChristian religious experience .... "

The confirmations by Spilka et at.,Ku(ukcan and others as to the currentlimitations of religiosity research due to themajority of work having been conductedaccording to the Judeo-Christian perspectiveis an important one. For despite the assertionthat religion - from the perspective ofreligiouspsychology at least - can be approacheduniversally in terms of measuring its impacton human behaviour, the Judeo-Christianinfluence is significant in terms of thefoundational worldview on whichconceptualization efforts are grounded.

According to al-Attas (2001), the role ofassumptions stemming from one's overallreligious worldview is critical in any scientificprocess. Although the measurementtechniques and methodologies (e.g.quantitative/qualitative, sampling, etc.) maybe universally acceptable, the assumptions orassertions made at the fore will unquestionablyshape the conceptualization and operationalization process that follows. This will theninfluence the findings and subsequently theoverall conclusions of the research. Thus,religiosity scales claiming to be universal mayin fact not be. Implicitly, there is a greatlikelihood that they will undoubtedly reflectthe religious worldview of the author(s) andthat of his or her particular religious tradition.Hood and Hill (1999) have echoed thissentiment by claiming that in terms of nonWestern faith traditions, relevant scales arevirtually non-existent as measures of religionare likely to reflect Christian religious biases,even when not explicitly identified as measuresof the Christian religion (Heelas 1985). Hoodand Hill's statement points to the implicit biasof existing religiosity measurements that stemfrom the use of a predominantly JudeoChristian religious worldview as the basis forthe conceptualization and operationalizationof the vast majority of existing religiositystudies and measures.

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 0.22005 133

Steven Eric Krauss et at.

about fundamental aspects of reality thatground and influence all of one's perceiving,thinking, knowing and doing. The elementsof one's worldview, the beliefs about certainaspects ofreality as explained by Funk (2001),are one's:

From Funk's model of worldviewcomposition, a worldview is comprised ofmanyfactors that directly influence and areinfluenced by religion and related beliefsabout God, man, the universe and questionsofultimate reality and existence. A developedworldview supplies answers to the questions oforigin, purpose and destiny among otherthings, or as some put it, the "why, whence,and whither" of things (Orr 1948). The beliefsone carries in each of the above listed items,therefore, is greatly carried out in theirreligious beliefs. Likewise, one's religiousbeliefs are also dramatically shaped by theirbeliefs in each of the above items. Each of thesubsets of worldview cited by Funk is thushighly interrelated with, and directly affectsthe others.

In the conceptualization of religiosity, therole of worldview and its impact on theoperationalization ofmeasures is an importantconsideration due to the influence ofworldview on the philosophical foundation of

THE SIGNIDCANCE OF THE RELIGIOUS

WORLDVIEW IN RELIGIOSTIY CONCEPT

AND INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENTNumerous authors have offered a variety ofdefinitions of 'worldview'. For example,JamesSire (1988: 17) asserts that, "A worldview is aset of presuppositions (or assumptions) whichwe hold (consciously or subconsciously) aboutthe basic makeup of our world." Phillips andBrown (1991: 29) state that "A worldview is,first of all, an explanation and interpretationof the world and second, an application of thisview to life. In simpler terms, our worldview isa view of the world and a view for the world."Walsh and Middleton (1984: 32) provide thefollowing succinct explanation, "A world viewprovides a model of the world which guidesits adherents in the world".

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz, forexample, whose definition of religion as a"system of symbols which acts to establishpowerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moodsand motivations in men by formulatingconceptions of a general order of existenceand clothing these conceptions with such anaura of factuality that the moods andmotivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz1973:78), speaks of conceptions of a generalorder of existence. That is, one of the activitiesof religion is to tell us about the nature of theworld and how it works, also known asmetaphysics (Peterson 2001).

Essentially, a worldview is how we see andjudge the world and its contents. It is ourpersonal vision and understanding of thereality itself. Thus, what that worldview is, whatinfluences it, and how it is constructed is ofthe utmost concern. Behaviours, values andthoughts all flow from that same core ofbeliefsabout the makeup of reality that we call ourworldview. Viewing religion in term of anorienting worldview captures much of what isimportant and one might say, even essentialto understanding religion.

The significance ofworldview in regard tounderstanding the conceptualization andoperationalization ofreligiosity is grounded inthe makeup of what a worldview is. Accordingto Funk (2001), a worldview is a set of beliefs

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

epistemology: beliefs about the natureand sources of knowledge;

metaphysics: beliefs about the ultimatenature of Reality;

cosmology: beliefs about the origins andnature of the universe, life, andespecially Man;

teleology: beliefs about the meaning andpurpose of the universe, its inanimateelements, and its inhabitants;

theology: beliefs about the existence andnature of God;

anthropology: beliefs about the natureand purpose of Man in general and,oneself in particular;

axiology: beliefs about the nature ofvalue, what is good and bad, what isright and wrong.



personal religiosity. As highlighted in theprevious section and noted by religiosityscholars, the majority of existing religiositymeasurements have been developed from theperspective of and according to the JudeoChristian worldview. This implies not only thatthe items used to assess religiosity reflect thetenets and practices of Judaism andChristianity, but often that the items are basedon specific assumptions about each of thecomponents highlighted by Funk (2001) in hismodel of worldview composition. This is notto say that every author from a particulartradition has an identical worldview, however,it implies a similarity of certain philosophicalconsiderations and assumptions with otherstudies from the same perspective UudeoChristian), yet different than those from otherreligious traditions. These considerations,stemming from the differences in religiousworldviews, thus influence how religiosity isconceptualized and subsequentlyoperationalized.

HOW RELIGIOSITY HAS BEEN

OPERATIONAIJZED FOR MUSUMSThe clear differences in worldview highlightedabove raise important questions in term of theoperationalization of religiosity instrumentsfor the Muslim populations. Unlike physicalor material achievement, standards related toreligion are often considered difficult tomeasure (Family Development Foundation2002). One such difficulty relates to thedifferen t perspectives of religiosity of people,since "... individuals differ in their ways ofbeing religious, as one person might expressreligion by meditating regularly, another byattending church, another by reading certainliterature, and another by participating in acivil rights demonstration" (McGuire 1992:102). Thus, it follows that differences inreligious worldview also have importan timplications for understanding how measuresfor the differen t populations have beendeveloped and applied. Most current scales forMuslims, for example, have been adapted fromthe scales that were originally designed for theJudeo-Christian populations.

One of the earliest theorists on thedimension of religiosity proposed a fourdimensional model in approaching religiousorientation and group involvement (Lenski1961: 21-24). These dimensions were: 1'associational' aspect, which includesfrequency of religious involvement in worshipand prayer services; 2-'communal' dimension,which relates to the preference and frequencyof one's primary-type relations; 3-'doctrinalorthodoxy', which refers to the intellectualacceptance of the prescribed doctrines of thechurch; and 4-'devotionalism', which involvesprivate or personal communion with Godthrough prayers, meditation and religiousbehaviour (Kuc;;ukcan 2000). This modelexemplified the Judeo-Christian focus of theconceptualization of religiosity. It is alsomultidimensional, which makes it uniqueamong the early models of religiosity, as mostearly conceptualizations were uni-dimensionalin nature.

Religiosity has often been measured witha single-item, such as church attendance orlevel ofparticipation in various Christian-basedreligious activities. Much of the early researchon religiosity and delinquency, for example,used church attendance as the sole measureof the religious commitment (see Evans et at.1995; Johnson et al. 1987; Tittle and Welch1983). Thus, most research that haveattempted to examine religiosity has done soin a limited way, typically by assessing a singleitem of the religious affiliation (Weaver et al.1998), despite the obvious psychometricshortcomings of the single-item measurements(Emmons 1999).

The ongoing debate among theresearchers deals specifically with the questionofwhether religiosity is best measured as eithera uni-dimensional or multidimensionalconcept. Although single-item measures likechurch attendance remain relevant within theliterature, it is important to acknowledge thattreating religion as multidimensional has beenmore of a methodologically desirable goal(Gorsuch and McFarland 1972) .Johnson et at.(2001) examined 40 published studies onreligiosity to determine the number offactorsused to measure religious commitment. For

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 o. 2 2005 135

Steven Eric Krauss et ai.

instance, they were interested in determiningif the church attendance only was used (onefactor), if salience and prayer were both used(two factors), or ifseveral indicators were usedto develop a multidimensional measure ofreligiosity (i.e. three factors, or four or morefactors) (Johnson et at. 2000). According toJohnson et at. '5 systematic review, salience andattendance were the two most frequently usedvariables to measure religion (85% and 65%,respectively). Prayer was used to measurereligious commitment in 35% of the studies.Participation in religious activities was used in27.5% of the studies to measure religiosity,whereas denomination and Bible study wereused in only 22.5% of the 40 articles.

Although it has been suggested that usingmultiple factors to measure religion ispreferable (Gorsuch and McFarland 1972),most of the studies in Johnson et at. '5 reviewfailed to do so. Less than half of the studies(19 of 40) used more than two factors tomeasure religion. Slightly more than half ofthe articles (21 of 40) reviewed in the studymeasured religiosity with one or two factors(Johnson et al. 2001).

Concerning the literature on religiosityinstruments used with the Muslim populations,several studies made use of a measure ofreligiosity. Among these, two studies(Pouryousefi 1984; Samandari 1982) includedGlock and Stark's model (see below), while inothers an ambiguous, arbitrary or sometimessubjective single-item definition of religiositywas used (see Hassani 1978; Yahya 1988;Jungerand Polder 1993; Mshari 1994) (in Serajzadeh1998).

In Samandari's work (in which the site ofthe study was Babol, a city in the North ofIran), the measure consisted of forty items.According to her report, a long process ofdiscussion and consultation with the religiousleaders and university professors in Iran wasfollowed to check the validity of the scale.Nevertheless, nothing about the internalvalidity and the reliability of the scale, as wellas sub-scales, was reported in her work. Mostsurprisingly, in the data processing stage, onlyfive items of forty were used with this short

explanation:"'due to the extensiveness of thelist ofitems measuring the degree of religiosity,only the responses to a limited number ofitems were utilized for analysis" (Serajzadeh1998).

In Pouryoussefi's work, a 3l-item Likertscale of Glock and Stark's model of religiosity,excluding the intellectual dimension, wasconstructed to measure the religiosity ofMuslim students studying in the United States.Administering a pre-test, he seemed to haveconstructed and used the scale more precisely.However, in his work the statistical results ofthe internal validity and reliability of the scalewere not reported either (Serajzadeh 1998).

Wilde and Joseph (1997) devised, inEnglish, a 14-item 'Muslim Attitudes TowardsReligion Scale' or in short MARS. The scalecontained items adapted from the FrancisAttitudes Toward Christianity scale (Francis1978; Francis and Stubbs 1987). According toHill and Hood (1999), the Attitude TowardChristianity Scale focuses solely on the people'sperception of the Christian religion. TheMARS, therefore, is an adapted scale for theIslamic faith. Items were developed"'under theguidance and supervision of the University ofEssex Moslem society" (Wilde and Joseph1997: 899).

Glock and Stark's discussion (1965) on thedimensionality of religion turned scholars'attention towards a multidimensionaldefinition of religiosity. This issue has beenconsistently associated with their name(Dejong et at. 1976; Himmelfarb' 1975; Roof1979; Spilka et at. 1985). Glock and Stark'smodel of religiosity, in spite of some criticism,has been predominantly employed, eitherpartly or completely, in different fields. Thus,in order to measure the religiosity of theMuslim respondents, Glock and Stark's modelwas also adapted to the religion of Islam inWilde and Joseph's study (Serajzadeh 1998).

Glock and Stark (1965: 19-20) argue thatin all religions of the world, in spite of theirgreat variation in details, there are generalareas in which religiosity is manifested. Theseareas, considered by Glock and Stark as thecore dimensions of religiosity, are the

136 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 0.22005


'Ideological', the 'Ritualistic', the'Experiential', the 'Intellectual' and the'Consequential'dimensions.

• The 'Ideological' dimension or religiousbelief, encompasses beliefs that areexpected to be held by the followers.

• The 'Ritualistic' dimension or religiouspractice, includes the specific religiouspractices, such as worship, prayer,participation in special sacraments, fastingand so on, which are expected to beperformed by the believers.

• The 'Experiential' dimension or religiousfeeling, refers to feelings, perceptions andsensations of having communication witha divine essence (i.e. with God) ultimatereality or transcendental authority.

• The 'Intellectual' dimension or religiousknowledge encompasses the basicinformation and knowledge about thetenets of the faith and its sacred scripturesthat are expected to be known by thebelievers.

• The 'Consequential' dimension orreligious effects, includes the effects ofreligious belief, practice, experience andknowledge on the believer's everyday life(Glock and Stark 1965: 20-21).

Serajzadeh (1998), in his study on theIranian Muslim youth and crime, developedan adapted measure for religiosity based onthe Glock and Stark's model. The assumptionfor using the model was "since the threemonotheistic religions (namely Judaism,Christianity and Islam) seem to share similarelements in their structural tenets, some itemsdeveloped by researchers for Christianity andJudaism seem to be applicable to Islam too"(1998: 138-139). For each ofGlock and Stark'sfive dimensions, Serajzadeh included orapplied the aspects of the Islamic faith. Forexample, for the"Ideological , dimension, theIslamic 'articles of faith' or the 'five pillars'were used. For the 'Ritualistic' dimension,Serajzadeh included daily prayer (salat) andfasting during the month ofRamadan (as partof the "Pillars of Islam"), reading the Holy

Book, the "Koran", attending public prayer(both daily and during the Friday prayer),taking part in ceremonies held on holy daysin mosques and others.

The adaptation of the Glock and Stark'smodel to an Islamic religious con text,although more comprehensive than mostmultidimensional models measuring theMuslim populations, has importantshortcomings that must be highlighted. Glockand Stark's model is an attempt to universalizea set of primary religiosity dimensions, basedon commonalties in "general areas in whichreligiosity is manifested" (Glock and Stark1965: 19-20). This model, although perhapsachieving its general goal, neglects theuniqueness and spirit of the individualreligious tradition, however, including eachtradition's unique understanding of whatreligion is and is meant to be in the life of itsfollowers. This stems ultimately from a faith'sparticular worldview. Accordingly, Glock andStark's model is suitable for a generalreligiosity, in that it was developed by lookingat commonalities across the religioustraditions. However, for measuring Islamicreligiosity specifically, the Glock and Stark'smodel may be inadequate for generalizabilityand commonalities with other traditions is ofless concern. Rather, what is desired is tocapture the unique qualities and the mostrelevant dimensions of religiosity from theperspective oflslam alone.

Thus, the dimensions ofGlock and Stark'smodel, although they can be shown to existwithin Islamic religiosity, may not be the mostappropriate given the makeup of the Islamicreligious worldview and how the worldview ismanifested in the daily lives of Muslims. Thishas been highlighted by Shamsuddin (1992:105) who indicated that Muslims, in particular,need a relatively different scale to measurereligiosity because" ... the Islamic concept ofreligion is fundamentally different from the[above mentioned] concept of religion." Inresponse, Shamsuddin proposed a model ofIslamic religiosity"represented by the conceptof taqwa (God-consciousness) - a multidimensional variable ofreligiosity that includes

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 No.2 2005 137

Steven Eric Krauss et ai.

knowledge (' ilm/ ma 'rifah), belief (iman),practice (' amal), consequen~es (nata!ah) andrealization of excellence (zhsan). Smce thescope of religion, i.e. its dimensions, aredefined by the very concept of religion, "...the content dimensions of the Muslimreligiosity vary considerably with the JudeoChristian religious tradition" (Shamsuddin1992: 105).

In adapted measurements such as theGlock and Stark model, therefore, thereremain a lack of integration between theunique religious elements that comprise theIslamic tawhidic worldview. The Glock andStark's model does not reflect the Islamicreligiosity elements such as.the role of the s~lf

in religious practice, the dIfferent categorIesof knowledge that comprise religiousworldview, e.g., worldly and other-worldlydimensions of knowledge and others that areinherent within the tawhidic worldview ofIslam.

GAPS IN THE liTERATURE:

ISLAMIC REliGIOSITYThe gap in the religiosity literature in the ~eaof instrumentation reflective of the tawhzdzcworldview of Islam was identified byShamsuddin (1992) who indicated thatMuslims, in particular, are in need of arelatively different scale to measure religiositybecause"... the Islamic concept of religion isfundamentally different from other conceptsof religion." Since the scope of religion, i.e.its dimensions are defined by the very conceptof religion, "... the content ~imension~of theMuslim religiosity vary consIderably WIth theJudeo-Christian religious tradition"(Shamsuddin 1992: 105). Western scholarsalso raise "the need to empirically study otherreligious traditions is obvious. Success inmeeting that need clearly rests upon theavailability of the relevant psychological scales"(Ghorbani et al. 2000: 2).

BElWEEN THE EXTREMES: THETAWHIDICWORLDVIEW OF ISlAM

Islam claims to represent the middle orbalanced way as the path between the extremesofworldliness and other-worldliness. Althoughit posits a God-eentred reality, it essentiallycombines the two attitudes. There are nodichotomies between the spiritual and thematerial as well as between the religious andsecular life, between thought and action,values and facts, theory and practice, ethicsand economics, science and arts, knowledgeand life, the individual and the community.The tawhidic worldview, with its focus on theunity of the Creator, includes the element ofwhat Emmons (2003) calls the 'ultimateconcerns', which serve as focal points aroundwhich people organize their lives, views ofthemselves, goals, and activities. He writes,

''With the divine incorporated into one'sworldview, a person is able to see variousmidlevel tasks, plans, and purposes asrelated to, and perhaps part of, a largerultimate concern. Theoretically, thiswould enable the person to organize thevarious aspects of his or her life in relationto the larger framework. This would alsoserve as the basis for seeing life in the longview, for long-term motivation andsustained performance of even mundanebehaviours as part ofa set ofspiritual goalsor strivings. Imbuing a goal with a senseof the divine is likely to decrease any priorambivalence in commitment to thatgoaJ.Does one need a greaterjustification thanthe perception that one's goals arepleasing to God?" (Emmons 2003: 23).

Emmons' 'ultimate concerns' are anintegral element of the Islamic worldview andits approach to the world. Ultimate concernsrepresent the terminal values or end goals forboth individuals and societies, and act to theshape worldview (Family DevelopmentFoundation 2002). Abul Hasan Ali adwi(1983) , speaking from the Islamic perspective,claims that true civilization, a stable and justhuman society, can only be built on thefoundation of a right concept of God and hisattributes, a recognition of the necessity of

138 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 o. 2 2005


divine revelation, and a worldviewwhich placesman in his rightful place in the total system ofthe Theo-centric creation. Thus, as a way oflife and religion, Islam has its own distinctworldview that is unique from others (Aziz2000).

According to al-Attas (2001), a worldviewis not merely the mind's view of the physicalworld and of man's historical, but also thesocial political and cultural involvement in it.This is because the worldview of Islam is notbased upon philosophical speculationformulated mainly through observation of thesensible world or the world of created things.The worldview oflslam is therefore not limi tedto the existence of this world alone, butencompasses both the"sacred' andthe"profane"- this world (al-dunya) and theworld hereafter (al-akhira). Furthermore,these are not two separate, unrelated entitiesor concepts but are directly related,continuous and inseparable to one another.Thus, the worldview of Islam is the vision ofreality and truth that reveals what all ofexistence is about; for it is the world ofexistence in its totality, which includes boththe seen worlds and those unseen (al-Attas2001).

In the Islamic worldview, this totality is theeternal Divine principle of unity that pervadesand rules all things. It is expressed in themetaphysical world of the hereafter and theDay ofJ udgment, in the external world of thecosmos and nature and in the inner world ofthe mind and spirit. Underlying this universalorder and totality is a living unity, which is allpervading and everlasting. Everything has apurpose, which is the realization of the essenceof the Divine nature developing within it. Tobe able to realize and reveal the essence ofone's being and of existence in general, Islampoints its adherents to the path for realizingthe essence of life. The path is tawhid, whichreveals the unity of God. Tawhid comes fromthe Arabic verb wahhad, which literally means'to unite'. In the Islamic terminology, it meansto realize and maintain the unity of God inone's actions (both inwardly and outwardly)(Crane 2004).

It is tawhid that comprises the essence andspirit of Islam. It is through the dialectic oftawhid, and the worldview that flows from it,that allows Muslims to accept contradiction intheir beings, nature and the universe aroundthem. Tawhid keeps the balance among diversemultiplicities and contradictions. Tawhid givesIslam its spirituality by reminding its followersof the ultimate goal as the testification to andmanifestation of the oneness of God (al-Zeera2001).

The tawhidic worldview of Islam is thus ametaphysical one that puts God not only at thecentre, but upholds Him as the UltimateReality and makes return to Him the inevitableresult for everything in creation. The Islamicworldview defines God as not only the Creatorand lawgiver, but also worship and service inHis way as the very object of life itself.According to the Qur'an, God says, "I have onlycreated the Jinn and Man that they may serveMe" (Qur'an: 51:56). And, "Do they seek otherthan the religion of God? While all creaturesin the heavens and on earth have, willing orunwilling, submitted to His will and to Himshall they all be returned" "(Qur'an: 3:83).Thus, from the Holy book oflslam we can seethat the tawhidicworldview presupposes a wayof life that requires constant and ongoingconsciousness of not only the present, earthlyworld (al-dunya), but that of the life-to-come(al-akhira). In so much as Islam purports thatGod is the One from which man came and willreturn to upon death, the One to whom allare accountable and the One who sustains alllife at every moment, the Islamic worldview isthus God-centered.

In being God-centred, however, Islam doesnot discard or discount the life of this worldin the same way as the Traditional or Religiousworldview as described by Aziz (2000). As manis told in the Qur'an, "And there are men whosay: "Our Lord! Give us good in this world andgood in the Hereafter, and defend us from thetorment of the Fire" (Qur'an: 2:201) while, 'Tothe righteous (when) it is said, "What is it thatyour Lord has revealed?" they say, "All that isgood." To those who do good, there is goodin this world and the Home of the Hereafter


Steven Eric Krauss el at.

is even better and excellent indeed is theHome of the righteous" (Qur'an: 16:30).

The concept ofcontinuity oflife put forthin the Qur'an offers that the tawhidic worldviewofIslam is not 'worldly' nor is it 'other-worldly.'Rather, Islam includes the entire spectrum oflife, even including the pre-creation stagewhere the Qur'an claims that the souls ofmanwere made to testify to God's Lordship (seeQur'an 7: 172). According to the eighteenthcentury Muslim scholar Shah Waliullah, thepurpose of Islam is to purify the inner life ofman and to make him realize the Divine Willby creating a society wherein man is able todevelop his potential to the fullest ( ikMustapah Hj. Nik Hassan 2000). Islamicsources of knowledge therefore posit thatIslam cannot be understood except as an allencompassing way of life that defines realityin both worldly and spiritual terms.

TOWARD FllLING THE GAP - THE

MUSLIM REliGIOSITY-PERSONALITY

INVENTORY (MRPI)

To address this need in religiosityinstrumentation, one that is reflective of thetawhidic (divine unity) worldview of the Islamicfaith in particular, a multi-disciplinary researchteam in Malaysia created the MuslimReligiosity-Personality Inventory (MRPI). Thisreligiosity model purports that religiosity fromthe Islamic perspective can be understoodaccording to two main constructs. The first iscalled the 'Islamic Worldview'. The IslamicWorldview construct reflects the Islamicdoctrine of the divine unity/oneness of God.It is measured or assessed primarily throughthe Islamic creed (aqidah), which details aMuslim should know, believe and inwardlycomprehend about God and religion. Thus theIslamic creed is laid down by the Qy.r'an andSunnah (way) of the Prophet Muhammad,which represent the two primary sources ofthe Islamic religious law, belief and practicewithin (Sunnz) Islam. Thus, the MRPI surveyitems developed for the 'Islamic Worldview'construct aimed to ascertain one's level ofagreement with statements relating to theIslamic pillars of faith (i.e. belief in: God,

Angels, Messengers and Prophets of God,Books of Revelation, The Day of Judgment,and the Divine Decree).

The second major construct of the Islamicreligiosity concept is called the 'ReligiousPersonality'. The Religious Personalityrepresents the manifestation ofone's religiousworldview in worship (ibadah), in the greatersense meaning righteous works (amalan saleh),or the particular ways a person expresses hisor her traits or adapts to diverse situations inthe world - manifested aspects of a personalidentity, life definition and worldview - thatare guided by the Islamic religious teachingsand motivated by God-eonsciousness. It flowsfrom the relationship with the Master (HablunMin 'Allah), which determines the mode ofrelationship with fellow servants (HablunMin 'An-Nas) (Hassan 1995).

The 'Religious Personality' includes avariety of everyday behaviours to assess theextent to which they reflect Islamic teachingsand commands. This construct is representedby item statements relating to the formal ritualworship or 'special ibadat', that reflect one'sdirect relationship with God; and dailymu 'amalat, or religiously-guided behaviourstowards one's family, fellow human beings andthe rest of creation, i.e., animals, the naturalenvironment, etc., which are known as thegeneral worship or 'general 'ibadah'. 'Ibadat'is often translated as 'worship' but is inactuality much broader in meaning. 'Ibadat'comes from the Arabic word' abd or slave. 'Abdhas the connotation of 'being owned' by HimWhom he serves, rather than simply being a'servant', which is known in Arabic as khadim(al-Attas 2001). The' abid is thus one who "isindebted absolutely to God, abases himself inservice to Him; and hence the act of serviceappropriate for him is called ibadah and theservice is ibadat, which refers to all consciousand willing acts of service for the sake of Godalone and approved by Him, including suchas are prescribed worship" (al-Attas 2001: 5051).

A key underlying aspect of the ReligiousPersonality construct in sum is akhlaqIslamiyyah, or the Islamic notion of refinedcharacter that underpins a religious

140 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 0.22005


personali ty. Akhlaq Islamiyyah is themanifestation of the tawhidic worldview inone's everyday actions, which presupposes away oflife that requires constant and ongoingconsciousness of not only the present, earthlyworld (al-dunya) , but that of the life-to-eome(al-akhira) .

The tawhimc worldview of Islam is thus ametaphysical one that puts God at the centre,

and upholds Him as the Ultimate Reality,making return to Him the inevitable result foreverything in creation. The Islamic worldviewthus defines God as not only the Creator andlaw-giver, but also worship and service in Hisway as the very object of life itself (Al-Attas2001). These concepts are illustrated in Fig. 1.

Islamic Worldview - Tawhidic Paradigm Fundamental Elements Characterized by:

The ature of God; Revelation; His Creation; Man;Knowledge; and Others

Knowledge of the Above Rooted in:

Islamic Creed (Aqidah)

and

Islamic Pillars of Faith (Arkan al-Iman)

Islamic WorldviewManifested In:

Religious Personality - WorshipManifested in Amalan Saleh

(Special) Ibadat(Direct) Relationshipwith Allah

Pillars of Islam:1. Testification of Fai th2. Prayer3. Fasting4. Alms

(General) IbadahRelationship with Selfand Others

Islamic Character(Akhlaq Islamiyyah):1. State and

knowledge of Self2. Daily mu'amalat

Everydaytransactions

Figure 1: MRPI muslim religiosity measurement model

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 No.2 2005 141

Steven Eric Krauss et al.

CONCLUSIONThis article aimed to provide a philosophicalbackground and justification for thedevelopment of a Muslim religiositymeasurement model given existing gaps in theliterature in the area of Muslim religiositymeasurement. From a review of the religiosityliterature, it was determined that existingreligiosity instrumentation reflective of atawhidic worldview model of Islam is scant atbest.

Religious worldview is a key element toreligiosity conceptualization and operationalization, as worldview represents one'sfundamental understanding of reality and iscomprised of many dimensions as espousedby Funk (2001). One's fundamental worldviewthus includes considerations and assumptionsthat influence and inform one's beliefs andapproach to religious knowledge and practice.This, in turn, impacts religiosity conceptualization and instrument development.

In response, the current study outlined ameasurement model for the Muslim religiosityreflective of the tawhidic worldview of Islamthat included two main religiosity dimensions,Islamic Worldview and Religious Personality.The two dimensions reflect the religiousbelief/understanding and religious practice ormanifestation of one's religious worldview.

Of the two sub-dimensions of the MRPI,one pertains to the specific theological pillarsof Islam, while the other is representative ofthe general religious behaviour that sharesmany similarities with other revealed faiths.The former, the Islamic Worldview subscale,is unique to the Islamic faith alone in that itaims to measure the levels of understandingofcertain key theological tenets of the Islamicbelief. The latter, the Religious Personalitysubscale, though containing several itemsspecific to the Islamic religious practice andritual behaviour, is predominantly comprisedof items of a universal nature not exclusive toIslam alone but a key aspect of the Islamicreligiosity. This construct is represented byitems relating to ritual worship, which reflectone's direct relationship with God; andmu 'amaiat, or religiously-guided behaviours

towards one's family, fellow human beings andthe rest of creation, i.e. animals, and thenatural environment (Krauss et ai. 2006). Asecondary version of the latter scale iscurrently being developed at UPM to be usedas a universal religious personality scale for usewith other faith communities in Malaysia andbeyond.

REFERENCESAL-A"rrAS, S.M.N. 2001. Prolegomena to the Metaphysics

ofIslam Kuala Lumpur: International InstituteofIslamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC).

AL-ZEERA, Z. 2001. Wholeness and Holiness inEducation: An Islamic Perspective. Herndon:International Institute ofIslamic Thought.

ABRAHAMSON, B. and F. SMITH. 1998. Thinking aboutreligion from a global perspective. TeachingAnthropology Newslette 33(7).

AZIZ, H.S. 2000. Views of Islam. Online book.Retrieved September 5, 2002 from: http://www.altway·freeuk.com/Views/View-13.htm.

CRANE, R.D. 2004. Shaping a future for Muslims inAmerica. The American Muslim (online),March-April. Retrieved April 18, 2005 from:http://www. theamericanmuslim. org/2004march_comments.php?id=P400_0_26_0

DEJO G, C.F., J.E. FAULKNER and R.H. WARLAND.

1976. Dimensions of religiosity reconsidered:Evidence from a cross-cultural study. SocialForces 54(4): 866-887.

EMMO s, R.A. 1999. Religion in the psychology ofpersonality: An introduction. Journal ofPersonality 67(6): 873-889.

EMMO s, R.A. 2003. Spiritual striving and theunification of personality. Streams of WilliamJames 5(1): 21-24.

EVANS, T.D., F. CULLEN, R.C. DUNAWAY and V. BURTON,Jr. 1995. Religion and crime reexamined: Theimpact of religion, secular controls, and socialecology on adult criminality. Criminology 33:195-217.



FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Fou DATION. 2002. An analysisof values and their effects on social problems.Report - Yayasan Pembagunan Keluarga DarulTa'zim (Family Development Foundation Johor State) website. Retrieved March 19,2003from: http://www.ypkdt.org.my/ypk/default2.htm.

FRANCIS, L.J. 1978. Attitude and longitude: A studyin measurement. CharacterPotential8: 119-130.

FRANCIS, L. J. and M. T. STUBBS. 1987. Measuringattitudes towards Christianity: From childhoodto adulthood. Personality and IndividualDifferences 8: 741-743.

FUNK, K. 2001. What is a worldview? Industrial andManufacturing Engineering Faculty, OregonState University. Homepage. Retrieved

ovember 6, 2003 from: http://web. engr. oregons tate. edu/-funkk/Personal/worldview. html.

FUTRELL, M. 2001. Religious worldview. Teachingabout religion website. Retrieved January 19,2004 from: http://www. teachingaboutreligion. org/WorldviewDiversity/religious_ worldview. htm.

GEERTZ, C. 1973. Religion as a cultural system. InReader in Comparative Religion, ed. William A.Lessa and Evon Z. Vogt, p. 78-89. New York:HarperCollins. Originally published inAnthropological Approaches to the Study ofReligion,ed. Michael Banton. London: TavistockPublications.

GHORBANI, N., OJ. WATSO ,A.F. GHRAMALEKI, RJ.MORRIS and R.W. HOOD, JR. 2000. Muslimattitudes towards religion scale: Factors, validityand complexity of relationships with mentalhealth in Iran. MentalHealth, Religion & Culture3(2): 125-133.

GLOCK, C. and R STARK. 1965. Religion and Society inTension. Chicago: Rand Mc ally.

GoRSUCH, RL. and S. McFARLAND. 1972. Single vs.multiple-item scales for measuring religiousvalues. journal for the Scientific Study of Religion11: 53-64.

GORSUCH, RL., G. MYLVAGANAM and K. GORSUCH.1997. Perceived religious motivation,International journal for the Psychology ofReligion7: 253-261.

GRACE, C. 2000. A copious aggregation of religiousscales (book review). journal of Psychology &Theology 28: 71-73.

GRZYMALA- MoszcczyDsKA, H. 1991. The psychologyof religion in Poland. International journal forthe Psychology ofReligion 1: 243-247.

HAMID S. AzIZ. 2000. Views of Islam. Online book.Retrieved September 5, 2002 from: http://www.altway·freeuk.com/Views/View-13.htm.

HASSAN, M.K. 1995. Worldview orientation andethics: A Muslim perspective. IKIMjournal 3(1):1-24.

HEELAS, P. 1985. Social anthropology and thepsychology of religion. In Advances in thePsychology ofReligion, ed. L.B. Brown, p. 34-51.Oxford: Pergamon Press.

HILL, P. C. and RW. HOOD, Jr. 1999. Measures ofReligiosity. Birmingham, AL.: ReligiousEducation Press.

HIMMELFARB, H. S. 1979. Agents of religioussocialization among AmericanJews. SociologicalQuarterly 20.

HOOD, R.W., Jr., B. SPILKA, B. HUNSBERGER and RL.GORSUCH. 1996. The Psychology of Religion: AnEmpirical Approach. 2nd ed. New York: GuilfordPress.

HOVEMYR, M. 1998. The attribution of success andfailure as related to different patterns ofreligious orientation. Internationaljournalfor thePsychology ofReligion 8(2): 107-124.

JOHNSON, B.R, D.B. LARso and T.C. PITTS. 1987.Religious programs, institutional adjustment,and recidivism among former inmates in prisonfellowship programs. justice Quarterly, 14(1).Retrieved December 2, 2003 from: http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/johnson. html.

JOHNSON, B. R., S. D. LI, D.B. LARSO and M.MCCULLOUGH. 2000. A systematic review of thereligiosity and delinquency literature: Aresearch note. journal of Contemporary Criminaljusticel6(1): 32-53.

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 0.22005 143

Steven Eric Krauss el at.

KALDESTAD, E. and H. STIFoss-HA SSEN. 1993.Standardizing measures of religiosity for

orwegians. International Journal for thePsychology ofReligion 3: 111-124.

KRAuss, STEVEN E., HAMZAH, AZIMI H., SUANDI,TURIMAN, NOAH, SlDEKM.,JuHARI, RUMAYA, MANAP,JAMIAH H., MAsTOR, KHAiRUL A., KAsSAN, HAsNANand MAHMOOD, AzMA. 2006. Exploring regionaldifferences in religiosity among Muslim youthin Malaysia. Review of Religious Research 47(3):238-252.

KucuKCAN, T. 2000. Can religiosity be measured:dimensions of religious commitment. SpecialIssue ofAnnual Review of the Faculty ofDivinity,

University of Uludag 9(9): 461-468.

LENSKI, G. 1961. The Religious Factor, A SociologicalStudy of Religion's Impact on Politics, Economics,and Family Life. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

MCGUIRE, M. 1992. Religion: The Social Context. 3'ded. Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth Inc.

NADWI, S.A.H.A. 1983. Muslims in the West: TheMessage and Mission. Khurram Murad (ed.).Leicester: Islamic Foundation.

NIK MUSTAPHA HJ. NIK HASSAN. 2000. Towardsdeveloping quality and productive personality.Al-Nahdah: A Journal of the Regional IslamicDa 'wah Council of Southeast Asia and the Pacific18(3): 52-55.

ORR,J. 1948. The Christian View ofGod and the World.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

PETERSON, G. 2001. Religion as orienting worldview.Zygone:Joumal of Religion and Science 36(1): 520.

PHILLIPS, W.G. and W.E. BROWN. 1991. Making Senseof Your World. Chicago: Moody Press.

POURYOUSSEFI, H. 1984. College impact on religiosityof Muslim students studying in the UnitedStates. PhD Dissertation, Kalamazoo, Michigan.

ROOF, W.C. 1979. Content and indicators ofreligious commitment: a critical review. In TheReligious Dimension: New Directions in Quantitative

Research, ed. Robert Wuthnow. New York:Academic Press.

SAMANDARI,J.M. 1982. The impact of religion, socioeconomic status, and degree of religiosity onfamily planning among Moslems and Bahais inIran. PhD Thesis, University ofNorth Colorado.

SERAJZADEH, S.H. 1998. Muslim religiosity anddelinquency: an examination ofIranian youth.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.

SHAMSUDDIN, Q.M.I. 1992. Dimensions of Muslimreligiosity: Measurement considerations. InQur'anic Concepts of Human Psyche, ed. ZafarMaq Ansari. Islamabad: Institute of IslamicCulture.

SIRE, J.W. 1988. The Universe Next Door. DownersGrove, Ill.: InterVarsity.

SOLOMO ,J. 1994. Worldviews. Probe Ministrieswebsite. Retrieved January 16, 2004 from:

http://www.probe. org/docs/w-views.html.

SPILKA, B., R. HooD and R. GORSUCH. 1985. ThePsychology of Religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

SPILKA, B., R.W. HooD, Jr., B. HUNSBERGER and R.GORSUCH. 2003. The Psychology of Religion: AnEmpirical Approach. 3'd edition. London: TheGuilford Press.

SYED MUHAMMAD NAQUlB AL-ATTAS. 2001. Prolegomenato the Metaphysics of Islam. Kuala Lumpur:International Institute ofIslamic Thought andCivilization (ISTAC).

TITTLE, C. R. and M.R. WELCH. 1983. Religiosity anddeviance: Toward a contingency theory ofconstraining effects. Social Forces 61: 653-682.

WALSH, B.J. and J. R. MIDDLETON. 1984. TheTransforming Vision: Shaping a ChristianWorldview. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity.

WEAVER, AJ., A.F. Ku E, J.A. SAMFORD, LA. LUCAS,D.B. LARSON and R.L. GoRSUCH. 1998. Is religiontaboo in psychology: a systematic analysis of

144 PertanikaJ. Soc. &i. & Hum. Vol. 13 0.22005


religion in seven major AmericanPsychological Association journals: 1991-1994.Journal ofPsychology and Christianity 17: 220-232.

WILDE, A. and S. JOSEPH. 1997. Religiosity andpersonality in a Moslem context. Personalityand Individual Differences 23: 899-900.

ZAHRA AL-ZEERA. 2001. Wholeness and Holiness inEducation: An Islamic Perspective. Herndon, VA:International Institute oflslamic Thought:

ZELDEN, D. 2002. Typical elements of fundamentalistIslamic and Christian theocentric worldviews.Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 13(2).

(Received: 29 August 2005)


Documents

The Muslim Religiosity-Personality Measurement Inventory (MRPI)'s