Re: Islamic Law - Part 1

 

A Christian Critic:-

I understand that Islam does not deal only with spiritual matters, but also with community affairs and establishes a State. This makes Islamic ethics inferior to the Christian Ethics. In my opinion, based naturally enough on Christian experience, is that the State is not intended by God to lead anyone to correct behaviour. I would say that the government and ethics have nothing to do with each other. Ethics, as I use the term, means one's personal standards of behaviour.

Comment:-

That is a very narrow idea of Ethics. You are mistaken. It is an unfounded speculation. Moses and other Hebrew Prophets were certainly guided by God and the Hebrews were most certainly required to set up a self-governing community complete with Laws. Jesus was required to confirm the Hebrew Prophets and add a higher law. There is no question that Jesus did not flout the Hebrew Law.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-18

The Islamic view is that the Law of the Community (I do not use the word State because neither Hebrewism nor Islam set up a State in the Western sense of a Machine)is meant to facilitate behaviour such as people would live by had they been spiritually regenerated so that this would also transform them inwardly in time and to create a threshold to prevent slippage to more primitive levels. The Law is to be obeyed outwardly as well as inwardly. This is most certainly part of ethics.

Critic:-

In my mind the biggest single defect in Islamic ethics is the idea that ethics can be reduced to a set of rules about what is haram and what is halal (with an ever decreasing grey space in between).

Comment:-

Sorry, the "defect" is in your mind, you are making a subjective judgement. What you are saying sounds to me like you are presuming to judge God.

Islam provides clear guidelines. The Quran does not only tell us what is haram and halal (what is forbidden and what is permitted), but there are 5 distinction - the others are that which is obligatory, that which is recommended and that which is disapproved of. This clarification makes Islam superior.

The Muslim obeys the Law because it is from God. It is an act of piety, of surrender.

But you are confusing "Islamic Ethics" (where Islam means surrender to God) with the practices of some Muslim rulers or jurists. The Quran is Guidance as it constantly reminds us. But the codification of the Law was done by human beings and is carried out by human beings and it will be as enlightened as these human beings. This is as it should be - the nature and level of development of the people determines what is suitable for them. As the Quran also reminds us:-

"Allah changes not the condition of a people until they change what is in their hearts." 13:11

Religion was sent to facilitate this development. But development is usually gradual and takes time (though it may be shorter for some than for others and perhaps even instantaneous.)

Critic:-

Once the idea is accepted that there are rules of ethics, the government immediately tries enforcing them with the apparently inevitable result - tyranny and oppression.

Comment:-

There is no Community or State that does not have Laws. Without it we have chaos. Law is certainly part of Ethics.

Critic:-

I do not wish to give the idea that no ethical guidance is possible. The Sermon on the Mount is, in my opinion, the best ethical summary that organised religion has ever produced.

Comment:-

The teachings in the Sermon on the Mount are also found in the Quran. I think the better summary is:-

"Jesus said unto him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matthew 22:37-40.

This is also found in the Old Testament. It is also incorporated in the very name of Islam - Surrender to God and in verses such as:-

"We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks." 76:9

"And if they dispute with thee, then say: I have surrendered my whole self unto Allah, and so have those who follows me." 3:20

"Say: Verily, my worship and my sacrifice, and my living and my dying belong to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. He has no partner. This I am commanded, and I am foremost of those who surrender (unto Him)" 6:163-164

I have admiration for the Sermon on the Mount and I do by no means consider the Islamic ethics inferior to it. In fact, I consider it superior to it. However, I recognise that God sent instructions according to what was suitable for the times.

The reason I believe it superior is that few Christians can live up to the sermon on the mount and Christian communities abandoned the Jewish Law and adopted the Roman Law instead which was designed mainly to control slaves and citizens and ignored the notions of Justice, Truth and Compassion. It is likely that because they thought Jesus was God, therefore they could not hope to imitate him and this led them to the comforting idea that they would be forgiven just for believing that Jesus atoned for them.

Islam amended the Law so that people could actually apply it. The purpose of the Law is to facilitate spiritual development. In Islam it is the Attributes of God that provide the Ideals and to Surrender to Allah is to internalise these Divine Attributes. This I believe to be the highest form of Ethics. Surrender requires the complete removal of the ego that led to the expulsion from Perfection and Paradise.

Critic:-

A better and shorter guidance than the Sermon on the Mount was formulated by the Philosopher Kant. This is simply an improved version of an observation that Paul made. Paul said: Imitate me as I imitate Christ. Kant explained how "imitate" needs to be understood. In Islamic terms: Always act as the Messenger of Allah would have acted. While this is excellent advice, is not the best possible one. It would be better to always act as though you WERE the messenger of Allah. The difference is subtle - but there is a difference.

Comment:-

In matters of values and Ethics Muslims do not accept the guidance of Philosophers - they speculate - but only of Messengers from God.

I must point out that to imitate the Messenger of God is an attempt to be like the Messenger of God, i.e. one in Surrender to Allah. And as I indicated above following the Law is to act as if one was spiritually regenerated, i.e. to have the Spirit of God active in oneself, and that obedience to the Law is an act of Surrender to God. And as I also mentioned Islamic Ethics requires us to acquire the Attributes of Allah such as Justice, Compassion, Benevolence, Truth etc.

Critic:-

Let me be absolutely clear. I do not consider the Sermon on the Mount as a set of commands. I consider it a summary of good advice. I read the Quran the same way. It contains a great deal of good advice. In my theology Allah never gives commands, excepting possibly to prophets, and always gives good advice.

Comment:-

That is, of course, your own unsupported opinion and attitude. It seems comparatively frivolous and does distinguish you from Muslims. Muslims take the word of God much more seriously than that. They surrender to God as the Messengers including Jesus required. E.g. "Thy Will not mine be done" "I do as I hear" etc.

The Quran calls itself the Guidance, but it also contains instructions.

Critic:-

To my thought, the main defect of the Quran, as we have it today, is that it seems to teach Muslims to adopt different standards of behaviour towards other Muslims than toward everyone else. Surely this was not God's intention.

Comment:-

God's intention are made clear in the Quran. We are required to be just towards all even against ourselves and our relatives etc. There is no difference in the matter of kindness and truth etc. The whole of Mankind is considered as a single organism. But even an organism is made up of different kinds of cells.

There are difference between how we treat relatives and non-relatives and people of ones community, Muslims and non-Muslims. Muslims, all those who surrender to Allah, form a spiritual brotherhood that have a common goal. There cannot be such a brotherhood with people who do not surrender to Allah. I cannot see how ignoring the distinction can possibly have any ethical value. On the contrary it would be unethical because it would erode the distinction between the purposive behaviour on the one hand and the non-purposive or wrong behaviour on the other. This is not Justice.

Critic:-

In the semantic system I am working in, laws and ethics are two entirely different things and have nothing in common.

Comment:-

I wonder where you get this semantic system from. It is not obtained from any religious teaching.

Certain Law and Ethics are two different things in the West. But in Religion, specially in Hebrewism and in Islam Law is based on ethics and is part of Ethics. Jesus spoke of the Law which he had come to fulfil. The word "Law" does not have the narrow meaning you give it. Ethics deals with the following questions:-

(1) What is the Good?

(2) How can it be known and obeyed?

(3) Why should it be obeyed?

(4) How can it be established?

Law could be regarded, by some people, as referring to only the last of these, but they would be wrong. Not only does Law have all these levels, but the method of establishing the good includes, Education, Culture, Organisation and the System of Trial, Punishment and Reward.

Critic:-

The point to be made is that when plurality of ethical principles is forbidden in a law system, that law system has a tendency towards stifling diversity and freedom.

Comment:-

Truth is One. An Objective Ethic ought also to be one in ultimate purpose, but different circumstances make differences in application.

As far as I know the only Legal System that makes allowance for diversity of Law is the Islamic one. Not only does it have 5 different Islamic ones but it also recognises the right of other religious communities to apply their own laws to members of their community.

Every other legal system has only a single collection of laws, which are usually not self-consistent and arise from the vagaries of a power struggle. and ignore all notions of Justice, Compassion or Truth. Their purpose is social order rather than spiritual development.

----------<O>----------

Re: Islamic Law - Part 2..........Content