There are three ethical approaches to classical Islam namely; Mu’tazilla, Ash’ari and Islamic humanism. Etymologically, the term Mu’tazilla is a derivative of the Arabic word i’tizal, which means to secede or withdraw. Mu'tazilites emphasized the concept of human reason on critical issues of Islam (Izutsu, 2002). Mu’tazilla was established by Wasil bin Ata and espoused the conviction that it was necessary to give a rationally coherent account of Islamic beliefs. Moreover, Mu'tazilites believed in the existence of the free will and, therefore, denied the basic attributes of God or the idea that the Quran was eternal. Mu'tazilites were not ready to blindly accept the conventional interpretation of the Islamic faith as the absolute truth. Consequently, they called for a reasoned interpretation of the meaning of ”Allah.” Mu’tzallites opined that the failure to apply reasoned interpretation to critical issues in Islam would make people vulnerable to the conventional interpretation of Islam, most of which was corrupted by existing political philosophies (Madsen & Strong, 2003). Ideally, Mu’tazilla sought to premise Islamic beliefs on reason and logic.
On the other hand, Ash’ari holds the belief that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. In other words, Ash’arites believed that good and evil was what God commanded or forbade, respectively. Ash’arites opined that while human beings enjoy some degree of freedom of thought or reason, it is God who reserves the power to create actions (Alimi, 2020). In addition, Ash’arites believed that humans had no power but to follow what they were commanded to do by God. Therefore, Ash’arites interpreted the Quran and its teachings as absolute and enduring truths.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Lastly, Islamic humanism emphasizes the concept of moral reciprocity and the need for people to treat each other as they would want to be treated with tolerance, compassion and consideration (Rahman, 1995). Islamic humanism has three major tenets; the singularity of humanity, human dignity, and justice. The singularity of humanity embodies the idea that humanity is one. In other words, human beings have a common origin and ought not to be segregated regardless of their beliefs. Islam strongly advocates for human dignity. Nonetheless, humans can only be dignified if every person honors their moral obligations to others, including living in harmony and treating others with respect. Islamic humanism also calls for the practice of justice (Sardar, 2016). Justice is not the duty of government but that of every person. In essence, all humans should stand up against injustice and make the society a harmonious and comfortable place for people to live in. Also, justice calls for the exercise of restraint and punishment of people for their crimes according to the concept of Hadd in Islamic law (Rahman, 1995). Ultimately, the practice of justice supports the other two tenets of Islamic humanism.
Fundamentally, Mu’tazilla advocated for human reasoning on every aspect of Islam and life in general. Indeed, human beings had the freedom to determine what was right or wrong. Based on Mu’tazilla epistemological viewpoints, there was no absolute truth or established moral fabric that guided individuals. Every aspect of life, ethics or morality was subject to reasoned interpretation. The ethical theory of Mu’tazilla was the principle of rationalism owing to the belief that both divine and human actions are knowable only through human reasoning (Madsen and Strong, 2003). According to Mu’tazilla ethical premises, religion or faith had virtually no role in the definition of what was morally acceptable in society. Human reason is capable of deciphering what is good or evil without relying on external help such as religion.
Similarly, Ash’ari accepts the ability of human reasoning in the understanding of moral values and ethics. Unlike Mu’tazilla, Asharites believe that acts are the creation of God. Moreover, Asharites suggest that religion is fundamental in the establishment of ethics. Put simply, Ash’arites believed that ethics were beyond human reasoning and argued that premising ethics on human reasoning would make it vulnerable to human tendencies. Mu'tazilites challenged the Ash’ari contradictory notion that if God were the creator of all actions, how come some actions are evil yet God cannot create evil. To clarify this idea, Ash’arites put forward the theory of gain “Kasb,” which explains the simultaneity of independent human action with the creation of the ability to act by God. Ash’arites opined that God only creates the power to act but does not dictate man’s intention to act in a certain way. For instance, an individual who chooses to walk decides to walk but it is God who creates the ability to do so. According to Ash’arites, the attributes of good and evil are not intrinsic but dependent on the circumstances under which a particular activity is carried out. To a certain extent, Mu’tazilla and Ash’ari have similar beliefs on the attributes of good and evil.
Furthermore, Mu’tazilla differs from Islamic humanism. The latter recognizes the central role of religion in the establishment of ethics. Classical Islamic humanists called for human beings to strive for perfection and attain the highest levels of morality, as was their God, Allah. In other words, God is the gold standard of ethics and every human being should make their moral compass as inflexible as God’s. In contrast, Mu’tazilla only recognizes the understanding of morality from the basis of human reason without any particular benchmarks. Essentially, human reason is subjective. What one person may consider ethical may be deemed unethical by another (Miles, 2002). Also, Mu'tazilites and Ash’arites did not propose any ethical values as the bases of morality, unlike Islamic humanists who proposed singularity of humanity, human dignity and justice as the principal tenets of ethics. Therefore, the Mu’tazillite approach to ethics is dependent on human reasoning and ignores its subjective nature (Nyang, 2002). Mu'tazilites also fail to recognize the impact of external factors such as culture on the ability to understand or interpret the attributes of good and evil. Ash’arites, on the other hand, rely on the Islamic doctrinal teachings as the foundational tenets of ethics. Ash’arites regard what is ethical as only that which is in tandem with the Islamic religion. In stark contrast with Mu’tazilites and Ash’arites, Islamic humanists premise their ethical theory on the values of the singularity of humanity, human dignity, and justice. Islamic humanists also recognize God as the exemplar of morality.
Classical Islamic approaches to ethics have significantly impacted Islamic history and modern ethical epistemologies. Mu’tazilla is reflected in the modern interpretation of the Quran and has led to the emergence of religious sects within Islam. Mu'tazilites believed that the Quran was created and was not the eternal word of God and in effect, challenged its authority and teachings. Mu'tazilites also furthered the idea that human beings could interpret the Quran as they thought fit since the Quran was not the absolute truth. Today, there are different interpretations of the Quran some of which are in total contradiction with mainstream Islam (Madsen & Strong, 2003). For instance, Mu'tazilites led to the development of the Caliphate belief system that was different from traditional Islam. The Caliphates persecuted anyone who challenged the Caliphate belief system. Fundamentally, the culture of intolerance to divergent religious views that are witnessed in modern Islam can be traced to Mu’tazilla.
Ash’ari is also reflected in modern Islam whose key tenet is the profession of the shahada (recognition that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed was the messenger of Allah). Essentially, modern Islam recognizes the Quran as the untainted and eternal word of God. Primarily, this is consistent with the key principles of Ash’ari that the Quran is the supreme word of God, which should not be questioned but obeyed (Nyang, 2002). Indeed, the meaning of the word ”Islam” is submission, which is consistent with the premises of Ash’ari (Izutsu, 2002). To a large extent, the principles of Ash’ari are all captured in the five pillars of modern Islam, which calls for total obedience of the faith.
Lastly, classical Islamic humanism is reflected in modern Islamic to the extent that both modern Islam and classic Islamic humanism embrace the value of justice. Classical Islamic humanism advocated for justice in society and urged all humans to rise against injustice. Classic Islamic humanists supported the idea of equality where every human ought to be treated equally regardless of their status in the society or beliefs (Sardar, 2016). Modern Islam also embraces the value of justice and advocates for equality in society. One of the key pillars of Islam is zakat, which requires Muslims to give up a percentage of their wealth to help the poor and promote equality in society (Izutsu, 2002). Additionally, classical Islamic humanism is consistent with contemporary approaches to ethics in Islam. Islamic humanism emphasized the oneness of humanity and the need to treat others as one would want to be treated with compassion, tolerance, and consideration. Similarly, modern Islam teaches human beings to promote what is good and desist from what is evil (Nyang, 2002). In promoting what is good and preventing evil, the Quran teaches human beings to do so in a manner that will not result in bodily harm or injury to anyone.
Question Two: Islamic Civil Society
Islamic ideas about civil society have always been controversial and different from western conceptualizations. Mainstream ideas about civil society are premised on democracy and the establishment of institutions to provide checks and balances to governments (Miles, 2002). Civil society is commonly defined as the space in which people can organize and agitate for certain matters of public interest without interference from the state. To understand the Islamic ideas about civil society, it is important to conceptualize Islam not as a religion but as a political theory. In Muslim states, the role of civil society was performed by the ulama (traditional religious leaders) who wielded much power and influence in the society (Kamali, 2001). The ulamas also played key roles in cultural rites such as marriages and burials in Islam. The ulamas also derived some of their power from the bazaris, who were the business communities in Islam. The bazaris comprised of merchants, businessmen and other extra-constitutional actors with strong financial muscles to countervail state power. The bazaris needed the ulamas to legitimize their economic activities while the ulamas needed the economic support of the bazaris to advance their religious ideologies and beliefs. The strong mutualistic relationship between ulamas and bazaris led to the establishment of alternative centers of power capable of challenging the status quo and putting the government in check. In Islamic communities, civil society is not about individualism or democracy but emerges from groups that enjoy a certain degree of autonomy from the state (Kamali, 2001). The ulamas and the bazaris assumed the role of civil society because of their economic autonomy. The two groups enjoyed religious and economic legitimacy to push for particular issues in society. Unlike Western ideas of civil society where special interest groups or virtually anyone is able to take up the role of civil society, only those groups that command religious or economic influence in an Islamic society can take up the role of civil society.
Another key idea of Islamic civil society is autonomous access to the state, which is a condition for the existence of civil society. In other words, civil society groups in Islam must have the means to institutionally gain access and influence the government of the day (Kamali, 2001). Civil society groups, in this case, the ulama, exercised control over the state partly because their religious influence made them independent of the state. Similarly, bazaris had institutional access to the state by leveraging their economic power to influence state activities and authority (Miles, 2002). Therefore, civil society in Islam was akin to a parallel government because of the significant influence that civil society groups commanded in the state.
Moreover, civil society in Islam can only exist if there is a fairly independent public sphere. Ideally, the public must enjoy a certain degree of freedom from state control. Public sphere comprises of institutions in the society where people can engage in debates and influence decision-making processes in the nation. Such public spheres must not be under the control of the state. In Islam, the most important public institution is manbar, which is also referred to as the pulpit (Izutsu, 2002). The pulpit is essential in organizing, mobilizing and legitimizing certain political ideas so that they can be adopted by the state. The delivery of critical sermons on the pulpit has been instrumental in shaping public discourse in Islam for centuries. The pulpit is more than just a place for spiritual nourishment but also important for mobilizing and influencing people towards certain political philosophies. The pulpit emboldens the people to agitate for their civil liberties and fundamental freedoms while groups such as bazaris and the ulama use their direct connections with the state to influence policy and decision-making processes.
Additionally, there must exist legal and normative protection of the civil society for it to perform its duties as required. In Islamic societies, the ulama enjoyed a monopoly over Islamic jurisprudence and used their power to protect traditional civil society groups from state machinations and interventions. Besides, civil society thrives where there is social solidarity (Kamali, 2001). People and groups of people must feel a sense of belonging in the society in which they live. Social solidarity will motivate individuals or groups to rise against injustices in society or work together to make it a better place for all. Social solidarity is strengthened when there are minimal social inequalities in society (Kamali, 2002). The gap between the haves and the have nots must be reduced for both groups to be motivated to participate in the affairs of the state. In Islam, the ulamas and bazaris reinforced the bases of social solidarity by establishing and enabling conditions for individuals and groups to feel integrated into society. The bazaris used their material wealth to build mosques and other social institutions while the ulamas used their religious authority and direct connections with the state to empower those institutions to champion for public interests. In a nutshell, Islamic ideas about civil society go beyond the relationship between people and the state but also acknowledge the important place of social solidarity and how it was enhanced by the ulamas and bazaris
In the modern Western context, Muslims face several challenges, including secularization, political participation, and ethical diversity. Islam has traditionally been conceptualized as political theory, thus, blurring the dichotomy between religious and political authority. In the contemporary political landscape, there is increasing recognition of Islam as a religious authority, which should not wield any political influence. Specifically, modern democratic dispensations recognize the people as the chief custodians of power, which they can exercise either directly or through their elected officials. Muslims perceive secularism as a threat to Islamic beliefs because the rise of political secularism in the twentieth century diminished the place of religion as the basis of political engagement (Miles, 2002). Muslims in different parts of the world have made several attempts to desecularize their states and establish purely Islamic states where Islam is the only religion and sole political authority. As a result, radical Islamic ideas have been fronted, including the use of violence against non-Muslims in what was referred to as religious cleansing. Desecularization attempts have tainted the reputation of the Islamic religion by fuelling stereotypes, especially those linking Islam to terrorism (Powell, 2009). While Islamic ideas about civil society are noble, most attempts at desecularization have gone against the premises of civil society in Islam.
Moreover, Muslims face the challenge of ethnic diversity, especially the intolerance to Islamic beliefs in Christian-dominated countries. As the world grapples with international terror, stereotypes about Islam have emerged and led to divisions in society. Many Muslims in countries that are predominantly Christian are discriminated against based on their beliefs and values and simply because they are the minority (Nimni & Pavlovic, 2020). Although Christians do not directly undermine Islamic freedom of worship, the attitudes and stereotypes against Muslims inadvertently limit their freedom to worship. Islamic civil society has not been able to overcome the challenge of intolerance to ethnic diversity in Western countries because conditions in such nations do not support the development of Islamic civil society. As noted earlier, civil society in Islam thrives when individuals or groups have easy access to the state and where there exist legal and normative measures to protect the civil society from state interference (Kamali, 2001). Muslims in Western countries do not enjoy such privileges. Moreover, there are no strong legal or normative protections of Islamic civil society in countries that perceive Islam as a threat to national security and public peace. Besides, Muslims do not enjoy equal rights of political participation in countries that are dominated by other religions particularly Christianity. Political participation is a necessary condition for civil society to thrive. Individuals or groups must enjoy the rights to take part in the processes of vertical and horizontal accountability. Muslims are disadvantaged because most of them are foreigners in Western countries. Consequently, they are not entitled to vote or take part in political protests.
In a nutshell, the Islamic ideas about civil society are different from the mainstream ideas that are based on democratic principles of individualism, fundamental rights, and liberties. In mainstream political philosophies, civil society revolves around the relationship between people and the state. Individuals or groups of people use civil society as avenues to organize and agitate for particular matters of public interest. However, Islamic civil society is not about individualism or the relationship between people and the state. Traditional civil society in Islam was established by the ulamas (religious authorities) and bazaris (economic authorities) who wielded significant influence over the state and dictated policy and decision-making processes. Therefore, the ulamas and the bazaris laid the foundation for civil society. Other conditions for the establishment of civil society in Islam include economic autonomy from the state, independence from the state, and the existence of legal and normative protections for civil society.
References
Alimi, T. (2020). Covenants and commands. Journal of Religious Ethics, 48 (3), 498-518. DOI:10.1111/jore.12319
Izutsu, T. (2002). Ethico-religious concepts in the Qur'an . McGill-Queen's University Press. Retrieved November 4, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt80w81
Kamali, M. (2001). Civil society and Islam: A sociological perspective. European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes De Sociologie / Europäisches Archiv Für Soziologie, 42 (3), 457-482. Retrieved November 4, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23999069
Madsen, R., & Strong, T. (2003). Religious and secular perspectives on ethical pluralism in the modern world. In Madsen R. & Strong T. (Eds.), The many and the one: Religious and secular perspectives on ethical pluralism in the modern world (pp. 1-22). Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press. DOI:10.2307/j.ctt7sm5r.4
Miles, J. (2002). Front matter. In Hashmi S. (Ed.), Islamic Political Ethics: Civil Society, Pluralism, and Conflict (pp. I-Iv). Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press. DOI:10.2307/j.ctt7t420.1
Nimni, E., & Pavlovic, A. (2020). Non-territorial autonomy as an enrichment of representative democracy. Retrieved November 04, 2020, from https://entan.org/entan-activity/nta-as-an-enrichment-of-representative-democracy/
Nyang, S. (2002). Religion and the maintenance of boundaries: An Islamic view. In Miles J. (Author) & Hashmi S. (Ed.), Islamic Political Ethics: Civil Society, Pluralism, and Conflict (pp. 102-112). Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press. DOI:10.2307/j.ctt7t420.9
Powell, R. (2009). Forgiveness in Islamic jurisprudence and its role in intercommunal relations. SSRN Electronic Journal . DOI:10.2139/ssrn.1524436
Rahman, F. (1965). The concept of Ḥadd in Islamic law. Islamic Studies, 4 (3), 237-251. Retrieved November 4, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20832806
Sardar, Z. (2016). Islam beyond the violent Jihadis: An optimistic Muslim speaks . Londres: Biteback Publishing.
