Quranic Foundations And Structure Of Muslim Society
2. Subject of Moral Judgment :
The Qur’anic view with regard to the
subject of moraljudgment is that it is
the Conscience, or, Moral Reason, of the moral agent, because it maintains:
“Oh, but the human being (in his Conscience,[1]
or, Moral Reason) is endowed with discernment concerning himself.” (75:14).
And this is possible because of the duality of human
nature:
“By the Soul, and Him Who gave it proportion and
order, and inspired it (with the conscience of) what is wrong for it and (what
is) right for it.” (91:7-8).
Verse 8 implies that the human self
is capable of wickedness (fujūr), which is the urge of the lower self, or, the
“Impelling Self” (12:53), and also of virtue (taqwā), which is the urge of the
higher self, or, the Moral Reason named as the “Reproaching Self” (75:2). But
the urge of the lower self should be made subordinate to the urge of the higher
self in order that it becomes finally powerless in respect of compelling the
individual to follow the path of Desire in defiance of the call of Duty,—the
human self at attaining finally the stage of the Beautified Self(89:27).
g
[1] In respect of the nature of Conscience, there are two views in
modern moral philosophy. One of them holds that it is ‘Moral Sense’,—that is,
it is based on Feeling. The other maintains that it is Reason,—that is, its
basis is Knowing. According to the Holy Qur’ān, it may best be termed as ‘Moral
Reason’. This view we obtain from the word basīrah in the Arabic original of the
word.
As regards the function of Conscience, again, there are two schools
of thought. One, which Sidgwick names as ‘unphilosophical Intuitionism’,
maintains that Conscience is a dictator, dictating all the time and in all acts
as to the course of moral action. The other school, which is called
‘philosophical Intuitionism’, holds that Conscience is a legislator,
legislating in respect of the morality of human actions. According to the Holy
Qur’ān, Conscience is the judge (or, the evaluator)—as basīrah, whose
function is to judge whether a certain action is morally approvable or
disapprovable in the light of the standard laid down by the Divine Law, that
standard having reference to consequences also, as we shall shortly see.
Thus the Holy Qur’ān steers clear of the mistakes
committed by the modern intuitionist thinkers in respect of the nature and
function of Conscience.
Quranic Foundations And Structure Of Muslim Society
Now, as to the Qur’anic teaching in that behalf:
1. Object of Moral Judgment :
The object of moral judgment is, in
the first instance, voluntary action which involves will, as opposed to reflex
action which lacks will. Thus it has been affirmed:
“Allah will not call you to account for that which is
unintentional in your oaths, but He will take you to task for that which your
hearts have garnered …” (2:223).
Again:
“… But if one is forced by necessity, without willful
(i.e., voluntary) disobedience, nor transgressing the limits, then he is
guiltless …” (2:173).
The voluntary action comprises within it such elements
as:
The conflict between two motives, the
motive of the performance of Duty (i.e., the consciousness of an obligatory
Law) and the motive of the fulfillment of Desire (i.e., the instinctive urge in
defiance of the moral law).
Duty is constituted of:
1.the consciousness of an obligatory
Law;
2.the feeling of reverence associated
with it;
3.the consciousness of want of moral
value in the idea of failing in duty.
Desire is constituted of:
1.the idea of the end;
2.the feeling of pleasantness
associated with the idea;
3.present state of uneasiness from want
of something.
b.Besides the conflict, there is
involved deliberation, i.e., the weighing and balancing of each of the two
conflicting factors in the voluntary action.
c.Deliberation is followed by choice of
either of the two conflicting motives of Duty and Desire, which is a free
choice and every morally
-conscious agent knows that it is free.
d.Finally, there is resolution to fulfill either the Desire or the Duty, thereby passing beyond mere intention.
e.The resolution is followed by the
execution or the actual performance of the action.
f.The performance of the action brings
in the consequences, or the result of the performance, which is causally
determined by numerous factors not in control of the agent without taufīq.[1]
MOTIVE
The analysis of voluntary action
brings out and the Holy Qur’an affirms that man is responsible only to the
extent of the freedom he possesses:
“Allah does not hold anyone responsible except to the
limit of his capability.” (2:286).
Now, because this capability is
confined to the freedom of choice in respect of conflicting motives, the real
object of moral judgment is the motive,* as the following verses
confirm:
“… And there is no blame on you in the mistakes that
you make unintentionally, but (what counts is) that which your hearts intend
purposely …” (33:5).
* The Holy Prophet
(Peace be on him!) says:
“Verily the value of actions lies in the motives (by
which they are prompted).” (Bukhārī: Sahih; vol. 1, p. 2.).
It should also be noted that motives not translated
into action (i.e., lamam) do not form the object of moral judgment, as we have
been told:
“… those who avoid great sins and abominations, save
the slight and unwilled deviations from virtue …” (52:32).
This is the Qur’anic view of the object of moral
judgment. But there is a view opposed to it which regards ‘consequence’ as the
object. That view is, however, unacceptable; because, in the first instance,
consequence is determined not by the human will but by casual nexus. Secondly,
morality is reduced thereby to expediency. Thirdly, because vice too is an
expediency, virtue can hardly be separated from vice.
“… save him who is compelled thereto (i.e., unto the
declaration of unbelief), while his heart is still contented with Faith …”
(16:106).
Namely, if his motive is not to defy
the truth, the transgression committed by him under duress will not be
condemned.
“… When the Hypocrites come to you (O Prophet!), they
say, ‘we bear witness that you are indeed the Messenger of Allah’. Yes, Allah
knows that you are indeed His Messenger. But Allah bears witness that the
Hypocrites are indeed liars (in respect of their motive).” (62:1).
“It is not their (i.e., the sacrificial animals’)
meat, nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your (motive for) piety that
reaches Him …” (22:37).
Viewing the problem from another
angle, it is the conflict between Desire and Duty that gives rise to the moral
situation, wherein emerges the question: what is really binding as moral
obligation? Now, the Qur’anic verse: “Oh you who believe! Stand out firmly for
justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or
your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor …” (4:135), implies that the
moral imperative expressed in the words “stand out firmly for justice” is the
standard to be adhered to without regard to any other consideration whatsoever,
which means that an action is morally approvable only when it is performed in
obedience to the imperative, and condemnable if performed in defiance of it.
The value resides thus in the motive of the performed action, which relates to
the performance of Duty [2]
in the case of virtue, and to the defiance of Duty and obedience to Desire [3]
in the case of vice, and is subjected as such to moral approval and
disapproval.
Note on Desire:
It should be clearly noted that it is
not desire as such, nor the higher desires that relate to high and noble ends,
but only the desires relating to the instinctive urges, called hawā’ in Qur’anic
terminology, obedience to which, in defiance of the sense of duty, is what is
meant here by ‘obedience to Desire’, as the verses quoted in footnote 2 signify.
The correctness of this Qur’anic view
is self-evident even though certain great religions like Buddhism,[4]
and certain great moral philosophers like Kant are opposed to it. For
instance, maintaining that all desire is bad, Kant says: “The inclinations
themselves being sources of want, are so far from having an absolute worth for
which they should be desired, that on the contrary it must be the universal
wish of every rational being to be wholly free from them”. (Grundlegung, 2;
E.T., Abbot, p. 46). Schopenhauer terms Kant’s view as the ‘apotheosis of
lovelessness’. (Ueber die Grundlage der Moral; E. T., Bullock, 1903, p. 49);
because, in Kant’s estimation, even the most unselfish acts of benevolence
towards, and love for, other human beings lose all their moral worth unless
inspired by pure sense of duty and unless emptied of all desire to be
benevolent towards fellow-beings.
If we take into consideration the
facts of human psychology in reference to the proper realisation of the moral
ideal, we are bound to hold to the Qur’anic view that some desires deserve to
be suppressed, some to be moderated, and some to be encouraged and enhanced,
ultimately subordinating all to the spiritual yearning of obtaining Divine
Pleasure,—keeping the sense of duty always dynamically alive and the action
entrenched in the purest motivation.
However, Kant’s deification of Duty
acquires meaning in the Qur’an itself, in the idea of Absolute Duty to God,
because the Divine Will is directed absolutely to all that is good—including
the supreme good of humanity—and to good and good alone, and the
negation of all Desire relating to this world at that level, except the
inspiration of fellowship with the Absolute Ideal that is also absolutely Real,
would be permissible, because it leads ipso facto to perfection above all the
perfections that might be aimed at in relation to earthly life.]
[1] This is the verdict of the Qur’ān (11:88). The question arises:
what is the significance of taufīq? Taufīq means: ‘conformation’. As a Qur’ānic
term it implies the existence of harmony between the effort of the moral agent
and the extraneous factors through Divine Grace. The occasion for Divine Grace,
in its turn, arises, according to the Holy Qur’ān, only when the moral agent
takes the initiative (13:11)—which initiative, again, should be in consonance
with the Law that governs the cosmological process and is reflected in history.
We have discussed that Law in our “Dynamics of Moral Revolution”.
“And
for such as had entertained the fear of standing before theirLord’s (tribunal) and had restrained
(their) soul from the lust of the instinctive urges, or evil Desire, (out of
respect for Duty), their abode will be the Garden.” (79:40-41).
“Then,
for such as had rebelled (against Duty) and chose the life of this world (—the
life of following Desire in the sense of slavery to the lust of instinctive
urges); lo! Hell will be his home”. (79:37-39).
[4] For a critical appraisal of the Buddhist point of view relating to
the present discussion, as also to other philosophical and ethical problems,
and its comparison with the Islamic point of view, readers should refer to the
penetrating and masterly exposition presented by the young Muslim thinker from the West Indies, Imran Nazar Hosein, in his
brilliant book: “Islam and Buddhism in the Modern World” (published by the
World Federation of Islamic Missions, Karachi, Pakistan.)
