In The Name of God, the Merciful, the Beneficent
One of the main reasons of mistrust and prejudice in society has always been misunderstanding. When one side is unaware or misinformed as to the reality of the others beliefs, values, and way of life, they are much more susceptible to developing a misplaced attitude. Albeit, when discussing ethical values between two cultures, irreconcilable differences will unavoidably arise, sometimes resulting in tense relations and in extreme cases (that occur far too often it seems) in outright hatred, bigotry and jingoism. In fact it may even be suggested that the rising trend of moral relativism and sympathy for alien cultures can be directly linked to the growing feeling of ‘anti-interventionism’, something most popular amongst today’s youth that has gradually taken root since the post-colonial period. The dislike for malicious attitudes and inter-cultural/inter-religious hatred has led many to adopt the attitude that morality is something very much subjective to each culture and condemnation of such values is hypocrisy at best.
In the light of this attitude it is difficult to understand the relations between the West and Islam. Nonetheless, a quick glance at the different conventional media sources available will assure even the most misinformed of observers as to the deep underlying tension that is, sad to say, leading to deteriorating relations and an ever increasing drift away from each other, which, if left unchecked, can lead to two highly polarized societies with little hope of reconciliation.
These are however political issues and are not the purpose of this essay, rather its goal is to try and understand the underlying concepts that modern European ethical values are built upon and how these influence relations between the “West” and Islam. Due to the more dynamic nature of European ethical values, in the recent centuries, they will have to be discussed at greater length in order to understand these changes and how they compare to Islamic ones, which have remained largely static for the past millennia.
For millennia the majority of Europeans have professed the Christian faith and the publicly accepted moral values have long been Judeo-Christian ones. Moral principals such as the Ten Commandments have provided basic guidelines of moral conduct, and the structure of European morality has largely been a theocentric one. However, after the French revolution there has been a steady drive towards secularization and the abolishment of organized religion and its institutes. A skim through the writings of 19th and 20th century philosophers will show how deep a change has occurred. Philosophical arguments can no longer rely on the existence of God, rather they must be based on pure a priori knowledge to hold water; when discussing abstract ideas: a famous example being Meditations (2002) by Descartes, where his postulation about the existence of the world relies on God being no deceiver[1], and as he could not prove the existence of God his work ended unsatisfactorily. Descartes was amongst the earlier age of the new generation of philosophers and as such had to be more careful with his ideas.[2]
Further steps were taken by Kant in his essay What is Enlightenment? where he argued the following:
"Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause lies not in the lack of understanding, but in the lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] Have courage to use your own understanding! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."[3]
Kant rejects knowledge as coming from Biblical teachings (the essay was written in a response to Reverend Zöllner) but rather from reason and rationality. Kant is following the tradition of the Enlightenment period, which formed as a reaction to the Dark Ages of Europe. Reason; was sought as the key to understanding the universe, and a release was sought from old traditions that were now being viewed as being tyrannical. Many began to vocally criticize the Church; which, losing power, could no longer silence this opposition as it had done with previous thinkers such as Galileo. Empirical knowledge was now hailed as the unshakeable path to truth, and theology which used to be considered the queen of the sciences now took to the side-lines.
Building on these thoughts came thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, who in his Genealogy of Morals (2003) attempted to trace back the origins of morality, in order to show that they had no ‘higher value’. His contempt for Christian values is manifest as he describes it as being a slave morality rising from powerlessness. He condemns Judeo-Christian values as being a reversal of true morality and denounces priests as being the first men to be truly evil. Nietzschean thought is crystallized in the phrase “God is dead”[4]. By this Nietzsche means that God can no longer provide the basis for moral value, and that man must now himself build up a moral groundwork.
This ethical void is what many later philosophers tried to fill. Because of comprehensive rejection of Judeo-Christian values the need now arose to introduce new categorical ethical values, since society could not be expected to be run without an ethical code, the philosophers who rejected these values now faced the challenge of proposing new ones. This is exactly what Kant tried to achieve with his ‘Categorical Imperative’ in which he argued that: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.”[5] And: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."[6] In essence he’s arguments are very similar to traditional teachings, such as those of the Prophet Muhammad (saw):
“An Arab came to the Holy Prophet (saw) and said: ‘O Messenger of God! Teach me a practice that I may use to win my way into
In essence Kant proposed a single categorical moral law that could be applied to all situations in life to solve moral dilemmas, there were valid criticisms of this imperative, however that is a different topic altogether. Kant was not the only philosopher to have such aspirations, for example Mill tried to provide another such categorical moral rule, in his Utilitarianism, in which he argued for a sort of consequential hedonism. These sort of meta-ethical proposals and discussions were avidly discussed in prominent philosophical circles of the time, and all of it goes to show that there was indeed a desire to shift the base of morality from divine command, to one of pure reason.
The influences of these philosophers can be seen in modern day society and thinking. For example utilitarianism can be seen as a direct cause of instrumental reason, in which all choices, whether moral or otherwise are based on cost-effect analysis. This sort of thinking can have dangerous consequences and Charles Taylor brands it as one of the ‘malaises’ of modern society in his book Ethics of Authenticity (2005); where he traces back the roots of modern western moral trends to thinkers such as Rousseau. In his book he defends ‘authenticity’, a term which he uses in the stead of the more widespread individualism, saying that in its original form it was a viable philosophical stance, but through the years it has become meaningless as society has become increasingly anthropocentric.
Moral relativism is another ethical trend that
The combination of these three moral outlooks: individualism, moral relativism, and instrumental reason are what shape modern moral opinion. They are evident in day to day moral deliberation and are most often employed by their subjects unwittingly, in other words the person engaging in this kind of moral deliberation will not know the actual principles upon which he is deliberating but will do so more unconsciously. The reason why this thinking can be dangerous is that it results in anthropocentric thinking, where the human being is seen as the highest end in itself, whereby nothing supersedes in value a human being. It is easy to notice the influences of Kant and Mill in these thoughts.
Valuing human life above all else seems like a kindly notion in theory, but as Taylor argues it is easily degraded in modern society and used to justify self-centered modes of behavior. This sort of narcissism quickly degenerates societal structure as mistreatment and abuse of others are become easily justifiable to ones self. When ‘I’ become the most important it becomes easy to ignore the suffering of others, as a natural urge we are all upset by suffering of others, yet the great injustices[8] caused directly by the ‘democratic west’ are left unpunished[9].
This is why Islamic ethics models a theocentric society, that holds no one above the law and unaccountable. Many thinkers are slowly accepting that the ‘freedoms’ offered by western society are not the best way after all. Alcoholism[10], broken homes[11], rampant sexuality[12], just to name a few prime examples, are all direct results of liberal, unrestricted freedom. Morality that is not based on firm, unchanging values is easily degraded. There are already numerous organizations in various countries that wish to legalize pedophilia[13]. A frightening thought; and even more frightening when one remembers how people used to think about homosexuality fifty years ago, and how people feel about it now. With no firm foundation all values can slowly be degraded and lost.
A sick man who is prescribed a treatment by a doctor is naturally curious as to the why this was prescribed. However, even after being given an explanation by the doctor, not everyone will understand the logic behind treatment or some might think that they understood it better. This does not justify them to change it; as such ignorance and arrogance can only lead to folly. The same way when God prescribes moral laws to us we cannot presume that we understand such things better than God.[14] One must trust one’s Creator in that he has laid down the best way of life for us and deviating from this can only result in calamity. Morality appeals to reason because God gave us this reason, however morality is not something independent of God’s say so, as he says in the Qur’an: “There is no changing the words of God”[15]. Justice means what it means because God made it so.
It is this uncompromising and powerful stance of Islamic ethics, with the unshakeable core of moral values provided by the unchanging Qur’an that has allowed it to remain effective throughout the ages. Perhaps this is what prompted Shaw to his statement on Islam more than a century ago.[16]
“It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. […] I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”
[1] Descartes, Teokset II
[2] Some have suggested that Descartes may even have been an atheist although admitting to this would have lead to him being severely ostracized. See: http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DA026SECT6 for more information.
[3] Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, p.119
[4] Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125
[5] Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, p. 22
[6] Kant, Moral Law: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, p.32
[7] Aamili, Wasaailu Shia, p. 170
[8] For the situation in
[9]The age of double-speak has brought around a whole new era of hypocrisy, when leaders speak of the ‘need to democratize’ and their duty to act as ‘world police’ and spread justice and equality. Yet in a blatant display of double standards President of the
[10]For a list of related articles see: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=alcoholism+societal+problems&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N
[11]For related statistics see: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/MapOfTheFamilyCharts.cfm?chartid=185
[12]For research done on pedophilia and the attempts to legalize it see: http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf
[13] Ibid.
[14] Leaman, A Brief Introduction to Islamic Philosophy
[15] Qur’an, 10:64
[16] From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Islamic_views_of_Muhammad
References:
- Leaman, Oliver, 1999, A Brief Introduction to Islamic Philosophy, Polity Press
- Taylor, Charles, 2005, Ethics of Authenticity,
- Sheikh Aamili, Hurr, 2005, Wasaailu Shiaa: Baabe Jihad ba Nafs, Intishaarate Nahavandi
- Kant, Immanuel, trans, H. J. Patton, 1992, Moral Law: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Routledge
- Kant, Immanuel, trans. Lara Denis, 2005, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Broadview Press
- Nietzsche, W. Friedrich, 2003, The Genealogy of Morals, Courier
- Nietzsche, W. Friedrich, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, 1969, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A book for everyone and no one, Penguin Classics
- Descartes, René, 2002, Teokset II: Mietiskelyjä ensimmäisestä filosofiasta Kirjeitä 1640-1641, Gaudeamus
No comments:
Post a Comment