Over at National Review Online, Cliff May, who is right 99.9% of the time, makes a rare error. He questions President Obama’s Nobel Prize speech claim that “the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.” May points to the Sermon on the Mount and to the teachings of the first-century Rabbi Hillel for evidence of the Golden Rule in Christian and Jewish thought. (An even better Jewish cite would have been Leviticus 19:18–“Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself”–since Leviticus is Jewish scripture, and Rabbi Hillel’s kind and wise sayings are not.) May then writes: “I don’t think one finds either sentiment in the Koran and the Hadith. Infidels do not enjoy the same status as the Faithful – not in Allah’s eyes and not in the eyes of Allah’s servants. Not unless and until they convert.”
One can find innumerable historical examples of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others viciously mistreating people who were of different religions. In many cases, the mistreaters could offer some plausible citation to their own religion’s scripture or other teachings. However, if the question is: “Does every major world religion contain the Golden Rule?” the answer is “yes.” To wit:
Islam: “Not one of you (truly) believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” An-Nawawī’s Forty Hadith, transl., Ezzeddin Ibrahim & Denys Johnson-Davies (Damascus, Syria: The Holy Koran Publishing House, 3d ed. 1977), Hadith 13, p. 56 (attributed to Mohammed; parenthetical in original).
Confucianism: Mencius said, “Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.” Mencius, Mencius, transl. D.C. Lau (N.Y.: Penguin, 1970), book 7, part A, item 4, p. 182. (And yes, I know that there’s a lot of discussion about whether Confucianism and Taoism are actually religions, or just philosophies.)
Taoism: Lao Tzu said, “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” Lao Tzu, T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien (Treatise of the Exalted One on Response and Retribution), transl. Teitaro Suzuki & Paul Carus (La Salle, Illinois: The Open Court Pub. Co., 1906).
Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.” Mahabharata, 5:1517.
Buddhism: Siddhartha said, “What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to others too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?” Christopher W. Gowans, Philosophy of the Buddha (London: Routledge, 2003), ch. 15.
Baha’i: : “Lay not on any soul a load which ye would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for any one the things ye would not desire for yourselves. This is My best counsel unto you, did ye but observe it.” Baha’u’lah, Gleanings, from the Writings of Baha’u’lah (U.S.: 1990), ch. 56, p. 128.
Jainism: “One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated.” Mahāvīra, Sutrakritanga 1.11.33.
Sikhism: “I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.” Guru Granth Sahib, pg. 1299.
Are the above sayings all “central” to their respective religions? Well in Islam, the Hadith (stories and sayings of Muhammad, based on tradition) are much less central than the Koran. In Confucianism, Mencius is perhaps the greatest of Confucian writers, but he’s not Confucius. One could raise centrality questions about most of the quotes (other than the Sermon on the Mount, which is indisputably central). Does the Hadith’s reference to “his brother” mean: 1. A sibling? 2. A co-religionist? 3. Everyone? At the least, the Hadith’s text (like the text of references to a “brother” in other religions) is open enough so that kind-hearted people can legitimately interpret it as “everyone.”
While President Obama’s Nobel speech is Kennedyesque in the very best way, there is an important difference between the challenge that JFK faced and the one that BHO faces. Communism, like Nazism, was Evil incarnate. President Roosevelt was right to say so about Nazism, and President Reagan was right to say the same about Communism. The appropriate long-term goal for American policy was to eliminate these evils from the face of the earth. Such a goal is neither appropriate nor legitimate with regard to Islam. Accordingly, it was proper for the President Obama in Oslo to continue the Bush policy of appealing the best part of Islam, and of denying the claims of al Qaeda and similar evil-doers that they represent true Islam.
Although I didn’t vote for Barack Obama, he is my President, and I wish him every success in carrying out the positive vision he articulated today; if he does, he will have more than fully earned the Nobel Peace Prize.
redc1c4 says:
the only real “golden rule” is “he who has the gold, makes the rules.”
that would explain Ear Leader’s tax plans and individual health care mandate.
Molon labe, jug ears..... redc1c4(Quote)
leo marvin says:
Are “Ear Leader” and “jug ears” for the benefit of anyone who can’t tell from the rest of your message what you think of the Golden Rule? leo marvin(Quote)
Mike B. says:
Thank you Mr. Kopel for this post, and especially for the last two paragraphs.
My personal politics are center-left. I have been coming to VC for the several years that I have been a law student because this is the best blawg in the business and I find many of the posts on here to be fantastic and interesting reads.
I have noticed that since I have been reading here there has been a slightly more partisan slant to the site since the time slightly before the run up to the 2008 election. Of course this has always been a libertarian-conservative law blog — but until the shift occurred I always thought of the site as being all about looking at these legal issues through a rational and fair lens — albeit a more conservative/libertarian view. In this past year I have seen a rise in ideologically focused posts (as opposed to having the ideology more in the background).
Reading a post like this makes me believe that all is not lost here at VC.
I know that my opinion is of minimal importance because I am not the target audience here — but its just my perspective. Mike B.(Quote)
Daniel Charlies says:
he is my President, and I wish him every success in carrying out the positive vision he articulated today; if he does, he will have more than fully earned the Nobel Peace Prize.
...
Reading a post like this makes me believe that all is not lost here at VC.
Tis the season of hope. Whether you put your faith in 8 days worth of oil, the baby Messiah, a secular Santa Claus, or a charismatic young politician...
We never grow too old to need to believe, we all evaluate the “track record” differently. Still, while Kopel’s reactions to the speechwriter’s words might be coming across as naive, it is touching to see. Much like the light in a young child’s eyes as he exits Santa’s lap after pouring out his dreams...
Usually the grown-ups of the world do their best to deliver at least a portion of the dreamy dreams the child is counting on. And I’m sure Mr. Kopel, America’s soldiers will do their very best to deliver ... even as we gird our loins for Israel’s upcoming attacks on Iran, necessary to carry out the visions President Obama outlined today, correct?
You dream your Christmas dreams; I’ll hold mine close too. Daniel Charlies(Quote)
Rafi says:
Mike B.,
For whatever it’s worth, I agree with you 100% and am in a similar boat. I think there are a lot out there like us, who have just stopped commenting (or even venturing to look at the comments). I just hope that the VC writers understand the extent to which their commenters may not be representative of their readership in general. Rafi(Quote)
public_defender says:
You may have been too kind to May. He finished his diatribe by saying:
It’s one thing to make a misstatement. It’s another to claim that an opponent looks “foolish” for failing to do its research when you are the one who is objectively wrong.
One time, a state’s lawyer wrote in her brief that one of my central factual allegations was “not true.” Yes, she bolded it. For non-lawyers reading this, calling an opposing counsel’s factual assertion “not true” is a polite lawyers way of saying that your opposing counsel is lying, or at least reckless with the facts. The only problem was that the facts was undeniably true. My opposing counsel had misread the record, and I got to have fun with a bolded “not true” in the reply.
But back to my point, it’s one thing to make a factual error. We all do that sometimes. It’s quite another to make a factual error while at the same time insulting your opponent for not adequately researching the point.
It will be interesting to see if May retracts his statement. I don’t know his writing, so I don’t know if this is typical or just an unusual oversight. (Although I stopped regularly reading the site as it became more-and-more just a dumping ground for Republican talking-points.) If May’s misstatement is just an unusual oversight, he can correct it with a sufficiently contrite retraction. public_defender(Quote)
Eric Rasmusen says:
Pride goes before fall. Mr. May should be less confident in the future.
This was a good post— good evidence and educational. The Golden Rule is Natural Law, not Divine Law— that is, it can be discovered purely by reason, without any revelation. The *first* commandment, is where revelation comes in. From Mark 12:
“28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”
Mr. May was perhaps correct when he said that Moslems apply the Golden Rule only to other Moslems. But of course the Jewish and Christian rule is about “neighbors” too, which is almost always overlooked (tho look at the Good Samaritan parable for elucidation). Eric Rasmusen(Quote)
Basil says:
I’m not sure the Islam quote qualifies, as it only applies to “brothers,” not to “others.” As for Judaism, you would have been better off citing Leviticus 19.34, which universalizes the application. Unless you can find a universal application in Islam, I do not think you’ve made your point. Basil(Quote)
PersonFromPorlock says:
But isn’t this making the classic error of citing one sentence of a law out of context? Golden Rule, yes, it’s pretty much there in all cases — but what else is there, too? I’m pretty sure that the Sikh religion must include something that allows them to be renowned soldiers, while the Jain religion, with its reverence for all life (not just human), doesn’t.
Also, “do unto others” isn’t all that much of a deterrent to hasty acts when your religion tells you that, it being the True Religion, forcibly converting you to it would be a benevolence. PersonFromPorlock(Quote)
Patrick S. O'Donnell says:
The Golden Rule is found in the Analects, and has been tendentiously labeled the “Silver Rule” owing to it negative formulation: “One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct. . .loving-kindness [jen]. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.–Confucius, Analects 15.23
There’s a nice discussion of this rule by David S. Nivison, “Golden Rule Arguments in Chinese Moral Philosophy,” in his book, The Ways of Confucianism: Investigations in Chinese Philosophy (1996): 59–76.
Socrates arguably formulates a variant on the Golden Rule in the Crito (49, c): “One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.”
And cf. Epictetus: “What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others.” Patrick S. O’Donnell(Quote)
Waste93 says:
The Islamic quote doesn’t qualify. The quote only refers to other Muslims. A couple lines from the Koran make this clear in that Muslims can not take non-believers as friends and non-believers are relegated a lesser status in Islam. They are not equals. There are many Koranic quotes in regards to unbelivers. Here are a couple.
[3.28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.
25.52] So do not follow the unbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it. Waste93(Quote)
Patrick S. O'Donnell says:
Incidentally, Confucianism and Daoism are both religions and philosophies. With regard to the former, Confucius’ acceptance of many existing religious practices (e.g., worship of ancestors, prescribed mourning periods), albeit more to the background than foreground in the Analects, as well as his understanding of the meaning and role of tian (a term misleadingly translated as ‘heaven’), are among the reasons for viewing Confucianism as a religion (cf. Robert Louden’s essay, “‘What Does Heaven Say?:’ Christian Wolff and Western Interpretations of Confucian Ethics,” in Bryan W. Van Norden, ed., Confucius and the Analects: New Essays, 2002: 73–93). Patrick S. O’Donnell(Quote)
MarriedAnApostate says:
Another quote from the Quran (as the post notes, the Quran has more religious significance to Islam than the Hadith): “Slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.” (Sura 9:5). MarriedAnApostate(Quote)
Smooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Patrick:
I did not realize that, while Epictetus spoke an Elizabethan English, Socrates spoke in a much more modern idiom. Smooth, like a Rhapsody(Quote)
Patrick S. O'Donnell says:
“Waste93” does not know what he/she is talking about: the Qur’an’s affirmation of religious freedom does place “believers” and “unbelievers” on equal footing. Cf. Q. 2:256, 18:29, 10:99, 50:45, and 109:6. Faith is achieved by conviction, and thus one cannot compel one to believe.
Quoting passages from the Qur’an when one is oblivious to the fundamental methods and principles of tafsir and Quranic hermeneutics in general is an exercise in utter ignorance and sheer folly.
As Lenn E. Goodman, among others, have made clear, ahadith (the correct plural form of the singular ‘hadith’) were composed in the light (or knowledge) of biblical and rabbinic material, specifically, several hadith (including the one under question) from Bukhari’s collection look “back to the biblical and rabbinic formulations of the Golden Rule....”
As to the “universalization” principle in the Qur’an which would support the Golden Rule reading of the hadith, as well as its centrality in Islamic ethics, see Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s The Dignity of Man: An Islamic Perspective (2002), and his Freedom, Equality and Justice in Islam (2002).
To write intelligently on these topics, one must be acquainted not only with the Qur’an and the adhadith literature, but with the Islamic theory and history of adab and akhlaq as well. Patrick S. O’Donnell(Quote)
SenatorX says:
Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.–Confucius, Analects 15.23
This was always my understanding of the golden rule. Slightly different than “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. SenatorX(Quote)
Carl Donath says:
I also question the extent of the use of the term “brother” in the quote.
The other quotes use “neighbor”, “others”, “all creatures” and “strangers” — terms naturally more encompassing of those who are not counted as “brothers” (in genes or spirit).
When an author, whether divine, admonishes kindness for “brothers” but death for “infidels” defined as merely unbelievers, I must at least question whether the philosophy embraces the Golden Rule.
Remember, the Good Samaritan (a parable of the Golden Rule) was kind to one whom his faith had taught him to hate — to wit: an infidel — making his actions exemplary worthy of a parable for another faith, though he violated teachings of his own. Whither then a faith whose text promotes jihad against infidels? Carl Donath(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
Oh boy, it’s an out of context holy book quoting contest! I love these!
“the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.” –whoa, so much for the golden rule!
“This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.” — terrorism ROCKS!
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. ” Jesus is totally all about holy war here!
“all that fight against Zion shall be destroyed, and that great whore, who hath perverted the right ways of the Lord, yea, that great and abominable church, shall tumble to the dust and great shall be the fall of it.” –Oh, those violent Mormons.
Not to mention what those Israelites did to poor Shechem!
Only religions I like get the real goden rule! All the others are clearly violent and hateful, as I can tell by looking at their holy books unmediated by any church teachings or anythin! Sarcastro(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
I question it too, partly because “sisters” are SOL.
There’s one little problem with the Golden Rule — it assumes that other people want to be treated the way you want to be treated. That is not true in every case. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
I like this one. It reminds me of Donne:
Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
ChrisIowa says:
I am certainly not an expert in the area, but as I remember Hillel’s comment being don’t do to others what you would find abhorent if done to you.
The Christian version as I remember, is do unto others as you would have done to you. Though translations and memories may vary.
Hillel’s version, I only have to refrain from slugging my neighbor. In the Christian version I have to shovel my neighbor’s sidewalk for him. Which I will when mine is done. Its interesting to read the different versions above for this don’t-do-negative vs do-positive difference. ChrisIowa(Quote)
Ken Arromdee says:
This seems to me like pointing out that every major country’s constitution recognizes human rights. Every major constitution contains something which sounds like a recognition of human rights. Yet many countries that like to violate human rights can do so without violating their own constitutions. How do they do this? By having small differences in wording that lead to big differences in what rights people actually get.
If you leave a loophole such as the “brother” one in your formulation of the Golden Rule, you don’t really have a Golden Rule, you have an ambiguous rule which may or may not be the Golden Rule depending on something somewhere else in the religion. Ken Arromdee(Quote)
ChrisIowa says:
I find the use of the possessive related to a President as irritating. No President is “My” President. I am a free person and not ruled over by any office holder in any office. Bush was “The” President not “My” President. Obama is “The” President not “My” President. The President is only an office holder, he is not a ruler. ChrisIowa(Quote)
Ken Arromdee says:
Oh, you don’t even have to go that far. My problem with the Golden Rule is this: whether an act is the same thing as another act is entirely a matter of definition.
If I were to make a rule “everyone must give $100 to a Jew” (I’m Jewish), I could truthfully say that I wouldn’t mind my neighbor applying this rule to myself, and vice versa. After all, I can give money to myself, and there’s a chance my neighbor might give something to me.
It’s like the old joke, “In America, you can say ‘I hate Ronald Reagan’. In the Soviet Union, it’s just as free–you can say ‘I hate Ronald Reagan’.”
Of course, the obvious solution is that to generalize a rule to other people, you must remove all distinctions that privilege yourself over others. Then, the correct way to generalize “give money to Jews” is to say “give to yourself or to people similar to yourself”. If my neighbor were to do this, I won’t benefit so much.
However, this solution doesn’t work. Consider “jail all criminals” (when I am not a criminal and my neighbor is), “give money to a poor person” (when my neighbor is not poor and I am), or even “elect someone by majority vote” (when the majority vote agrees with me and not with my neighbor). These distinctions are equally as self-serving as “give money to a Jew”–they don’t harm me because they depend on particular attributes of mine that my neighbor doesn’t share. Yet they’re fine.
If I’m a poor Jew, you have to twist the Golden Rule pretty far to say that the “poor” part generalizes differently from the “Jew” part, and that it’s okay to say “I want everyone to give to the poor” yet it’s self-serving to say “I want everyone to give to Jews”. Ken Arromdee(Quote)
John Armstrong says:
While the rest of the comments degenerate, I want to back up Mike B. in commending Prof. Kopel. Sir, I haven’t agreed with many of your posts, but the one and the previous one have been thoroughly honorable. Would that more people shared your sentiment, “although I didn’t vote for Barack Obama, he is my President.” John Armstrong(Quote)
Virginian says:
Back when Clinton was in office, I had a bumper sticker on my car that read “Charlton Heston is my president.” If I had a similar bumper sticker today, it would read “Philip Van Cleave is my president.” Virginian(Quote)
Pete Freans says:
At the least, the Hadith’s text (like the text of references to a “brother” in other religions) is open enough so that kind-hearted people can legitimately interpret it as “everyone.”
Well, I may interpret it as “everyone”, but then again I’m a Roman Catholic. It’s irrelevant how I interpret the Hadith. How Muslims interpret the hadiths is what concerns me. Pete Freans(Quote)
Dan F. says:
I think a significant point which has been alluded to in the comments but not elucidated is the difference between the positive and negative formation.
in the Negative formation the ‘golden rule’ would read something like: Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you. In other words, my concern for my neighbor only extends as far as not harming them.
In the Positive formation the rule reads: DO unto others as you would have them do unto you. In other words, my concern for my neighbor should cause me to act positively toward him (giving gifts, inviting to dinner/family BBQ/ etc. as well as avoid harming him/her. Couple that with Christ’s definition of neighbor as “the person/group that you hate the most” and the difference between the Positive and Negative formation is quite significant. Dan F.(Quote)
Shane says:
I’m with Sarcastro on this one. People here love shoehorning theories as to why Islam doesn’t deserve respect — “oh, it’s just for other Muslims.”. I can just as easily pull quotes from the Bible both out of context and in context justifying total war and slavery. I’m pretty sure that most Christians would recognize that they would not like slavery or total war imposed on themselves. In any case, plenty of passages in Judges, Chronicles, Kings, etc. show some abhorrent activity being directly commanded by God. Shane(Quote)
JRL says:
Sarcastro is awesome! I am very religious, and I hate hearing other people tell me what I believe. So I also hate hearing other people tell me what their friends or neighbors or people across the world believe.
And stop being silly, folks. President Obama is our president. JRL(Quote)
JK says:
Dan F.,
As a logical matter I don’t think there is really a difference between the “positive and negative” formations. You could easily say “I wouldn’t want to not be invited to my neighbor’s BBQ, therefore I should invite him to mine.” There might be a difference in tone that I think you accurately summarize, but I think that could easily be overstated, particularly without looking into the use of negatives in the original language more closely. JK(Quote)
Sam Hall says:
It certainly is. “Do unto others...” implies that you have the right to do things to other people without their consent. For example, I had a roommate in college that would try to drag me to events HE thought I should go to. Now he would have been happy if I had done that to him, so it fit the rule. Sam Hall(Quote)
PubliusFL says:
In other words, when I do unto others as I would have others do unto me, I have to make sure I use a definition of “as I would have others do unto me” that includes others taking into account my own subjective preferences of how to be treated. Therefore I would take into account THEIR subjective preferences of how to be treated. Hooray for recursion! :) PubliusFL(Quote)
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Obama and the Universal Golden Rule -- Topsy.com says:
fooburger says:
There is a huge difference between the negative and positive framing of the golden rule. I don’t think a negatively framed pseudo-golden rule qualifies, it’s not in the spirit of generosity which people in the US generally see as aspirational (even if they don’t manage to practice it much themselves).
There is also a large difference between the active and inactive formulation. Where “wishing” and “hoping” wont shovel the snow on my sidewalk, that extremely generous fellow who helps me “do” the shoveling is not just helping me, but everybody.
Extrapolate that one step further, and the guy down the street who is ummm... nice enough to hope that I’m not injured horribly while I shovel snow... umm.. thanks for that, I guess... but I’d rather he pick up a shovel and help, and we’ll clear his sidewalk while we’re at it... like I was going to do anyways...
I’ve read claims that xianity contains the only positive golden rule assertion among major religions. Obviously as the poster here has shown, we can dig out text from others that kind of hint in the same direction (though I disagree with the Confucian quote, as another commenter showed the more accurate direct quote from Confucius).
But context is important, and as the golden rule in xianity is so central and important to the religion, relegating it to a comparison with other religions which do not place such an importance on it is probably like saying that monotheism isn’t just a thing of judaism (or the abrahamic faiths in general) by comparing select quotes about the importance of some central god in other religions.
fooburger(Quote)
Tal says:
This is not necessarily true. As Patrick pointed out, one needs to be aware of a passage’s history of interpretation.
For example, take the Biblical “ve-ahavta le-re’akha kamokha” (Love thy fellow like thyself); as far as rabbinic interpretation goes, this verse — and Hillel’s corresponding formulation in the negative (see Pseudo-Jonathan to Lev 19:18, where the two are conjoined) — seems to have been taken as a statement of universal values, i.e. love other people, in general.
But while many of the medieval Jewish authorities affirmed this understanding of the verse (e.g. Ramah to B. Sanh. 52b; Shita Mequbetset to B. Ket 37b), others applied the verse as follows: “‘Love thy fellow like thyself,’ [this refers only to] thy fellow who is like thyself [i.e. who observes all of the commandments], but if he is a sinner, there is no obligation to love him” (Sefer Yere’im 224, s.v. “ve-ahavta”; cf. Maimonides, Laws of the Mourner 14:1; Semag, Asin 9; R. Samuel b. Meir to Lev 19:18, s.v. “ve-ahavta,” etc.).
Although on top of this, one should remember that although R. Akiba (and Hillel) saw Leviticus 19:18 as the most central verse in the Bible, the other view (as recorded in Sifra to Leviticus, Kedoshim 2.4.12), ascribed to the rabbi ben Azzai, is that an even more important verse is Genesis 5:1, “zeh sefer toledot adam” (“This is the book of the generation of Man”). The reason why this verse is considered of greater importance by ben Azzai is because it highlights all of humanity’s common ancestry, and thus is a more expansive expression of the Golden Rule.
The point is as follows: armchair commentary on religious sources that ignores the extensive interpretative and hermeneutical history relating to those sources is completely useless as far as explaining religious traditions is concerned. Tal(Quote)
RPT says:
Glenn Beck’s favorite sponsor posts. RPT(Quote)
Randy says:
Laura: “There’s one little problem with the Golden Rule — it assumes that other people want to be treated the way you want to be treated. That is not true in every case.”
A friend of mine says that the statement is “Love others as you love yourself” is equally fraught with problems. Why? Because a lot of people actually hate themselves, or treat themselves quite poorly. (Could be lots of reasons, low self-esteem, repressive environments, and so on). And so they spread their misery around to everyone else.
Perhaps a better rule would be: Love one another unconditionally. For a Golden Rule, a better one might be, Treat all others with kindness and compassion.
Once you remove yourself from the equation, it makes things a bit more clear. Randy(Quote)
Tal says:
Since the Jewish tradition emphasizes the negative formulation, it may be worth noting that Jewish philosophers for the last millenium and a half have argued (although there is dissent) that the positive formulation is actually inappropriate as an ethical statement.
They’re not necessarily right, but to glibly dismiss their position (and the position of every other tradition possessing a negative formulation) seems kind of silly. Tal(Quote)
Granite26 says:
I also find the difference between positive (do this) and negative (don’t do this) morallity between religions interesting.
I’ll bet you could tease out quite a bit of information between translations on this. Granite26(Quote)
senatorX says:
“Since the Jewish tradition emphasizes the negative formulation, it may be worth noting that Jewish philosophers for the last millenium and a half have argued (although there is dissent) that the positive formulation is actually inappropriate as an ethical statement.”
Exactly. I was under the impression that the negative formulation was the historical and correct formulation (and yes the way I prefer). The positive formulation was a bastardization of it. Though the positive saying is common it’s both wrong and oppressive. Or is that oppressive and therefore wrong?... senatorX(Quote)
Xanthippas says:
Thanks for this really informative post. I had no idea so many religions had this variation on a theme. Xanthippas(Quote)
Malvolio says:
Really? How broadly do you construe this rule? Speaking for myself, I have “my” mother-in-law, “my” dog, “my” boss, “my” neighbor, and “my” president. Do you substitute the definite article for the first-person-singular possessive pronoun in those cases too? Malvolio(Quote)
Malvolio says:
Well stop doing that. The “I’m worse than everybody else” attitude is much of a vanity (and for the religious among you, as much of a sin) as “I’m better than everybody else”. Among the many, many problems with such self-contempt is how it messes up the Golden Rule.
If your self-contempt is justified by your actions, yeah, stop doing those too. Malvolio(Quote)
Aultimer says:
Exactly right, Dr. Rorschach. “Neighbors” couldn’t possibly mean “the people who live directly adjacent to you” and “brothers” couldn’t possibly mean “fellow man”. Aultimer(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Randy, I think it’s worthwhile to ask ourselves what “love” means.
“Love” in this context means “wanting the best for that person”. It doesn’t mean liking him all the time (do you like yourself all the time? I don’t) or thinking everything he does is cool. It may even mean risking a friendship if a person needs an intervention of some sort — “I hate that haircut” for instance. You’re right, some people don’t love themselves and that’s a problem too.
Right, and if we think that way, then we do not fall into the trap of offending people b/c we act in ways that do not offend us and if that’s good enough for us it ought to be good enough for anyone. Like, “I don’t mind sexist language so you shouldn’t either,” that kind of thing. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
DJF says:
The remark that Hillel’s statement is not “Jewish scripture” is correct to the extent that “scripture” refers to the Hebrew Bible. However, the post-biblical rabbinic literature (the “oral Torah,” i.e., the Talmud and various collections of ancient rabbinic glosses on the Bible), in which Hillel’s sayings are preserved, are considered sacred and (insofar as they deal with legal issues) the authority for later rabbinic legal rulings in Judaism, which rulings tend not to be based on direct interpretation of the Bible itself. Thus, the post is in error to the extent it implies that Hillel was simply a highly esteemed Jewish thinker, as if he were an 1st century version of Martin Buber. DJF(Quote)
Mark says:
Nice try about being rational, Dave, but the agenda boys will have none of it. They want nothing short of a final solution to the Islamic problem, and they aren’t going to let bedwetters like us stand in the way. Mark(Quote)
Yankev says:
Hear, hear. As is any attempt to draw conclusions from the English translation of a text written in another language, the moreso when that language is from a family of languages sharing little or nothing with English by way of grammar, structure, imagery, homonymns, connotation or idiom. Yankev(Quote)
leo marvin says:
and
and
Guys, it isn’t just a rule of love. It’s a rule of reason. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, provided you were in their circumstances, you were unusually self-aware, and you generally behaved in accordance with your enlightened self interest” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. And even that barely scratches the surface of all the nuanced consideration required to apply it with any consistency. As someone who practices the rule poorly, but cares and thinks a lot about it, I find it as intellectually as it is morally demanding. leo marvin(Quote)
Ryan Waxx says:
Excuse me, but who really cares about the physical features of the man’s face? The contentless style of your postings combined with insults that should have been left behind in junior high leads me to believe that you’re just trying to smear your opponents by pretending to be a particularly odious example of them. Ryan Waxx(Quote)
ChrisTS says:
LEO:
Leo, Randy, Laura, Pub:
I suggest the Kantian Imperative: Treat always every [person, including yourself] as an end-in-itself and never merely as a means. Kant chose this formulation precisely so as to eliminate subjectivity, self-hatred, emotional states, and the other problems you note. He regarded the Golden Rule as a ‘trivialization’ of the Imperative, which is, indeed, a Rule of Reason. ChrisTS(Quote)
ChrisTS says:
I join those thanking DK for the fair-mindedness and rationality of this and the prior post.
Somewhat to my surprise, I thank Ryan for aptly responding to what’s-his-face. ChrisTS(Quote)
egd says:
This post is totally right on point. All religions are equal and have the same belief structures. Any difference in practice of those religions (e.g. domestic violence counseling vs. stoning rape victims) cannot be attributed to religious differences, but is rather based on the acts of a few people (those few people definitely NOT being Jesus and Mohammad) who take the wise words of prophets out of context. egd(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
The “trick” is that you care and think. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Chris:
Going back to the disability discussion: It matters whether you design a wheelchair ramp so you can check “ADA compliant” off your list, or whether you actually look at your proposed design and imagine a person in a wheelchair navigating the features on the sidewalk, getting up your ramp, and getting in the door to make sure it was the best design for the person needing it. In Memphis, the main library prior to the new, very accessible one had a wheelchair-accessible entrance; it came into the children’s section, where the door was usually kept locked, so that the wheelchaired person had to ring a bell and wait for a librarian to come and open it for him. This could take a while, depending on what the staff were doing, and there was no cover in case it was raining, windy, whatever. But by golly, they had an accessible entrance. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
yankee says:
Not at all. I wouldn’t say that the Bible and the Qu’ran teach the same things, though I haven’t read the Qu’ran at all so I don’t have a particularly informed opinion. I would say that the texts in question (or at least the Bible) are vague and contradictory enough that people can read whatever they want into them. Especially if they are prone to selective reading, as most of them are. They remember the stuff about homosexuals, but forget (or handwave away) the bits about polygamy, stoning people for adultery, marrying your brother’s widow, and prohibiting divorce. They remember loving thy neighbor, but forget the bits where God endorses genocide. And so forth and so on, so that the Bible turns out to contain exactly the stuff they wanted to believe in the first place.
Also, domestic violence counseling exists as a result of the modern feminist movement, so it’s hard to give Christianity credit for it. yankee(Quote)
Hm says:
wouldn’t satanism be considered outside of this? Hm(Quote)
Waste93 says:
Patrick,
Believers and nonbelievers are not on equal footing in Islam. Nonbelievers are obligated to pay a tax (jizya). Believers are not. The Koran also obligates Muslims to subjugate, kill, or convert other members of the Book (jews and christians). Other religions are supposed to be offered the choice of death or convert though they were also sometimes allowed to be subjugated.
You can also look at the Islamic judicial system to see how Muslims and non-believers are treated differently. Punishments vary depending on the religion of the victim and the accused. Also non muslims are barred from holding positions of authority of Muslims and is not considered a citizen.
If the Koran treated non-believers equally you would not have the ban on building and repairing places of worship of a non-Islamic type. Though I don’t beleive this is mentioned in the Koran but is also from the ahadith. In a number of Islamic countries converts from Islam are routinely executed or in some cases (Egypt)not allowed to change their ID cards to reflect their new religion. You probably couldn’t name a single majority Islamic country where non-believers are on equal footing with Muslims. Turkey may qualify though it had secularism forced on it after WWI and that is starting to fade.
The examples of Islamic societies treating believers and non-believers differently is overwhelming. The examples of equal treatment is extremely scarce. Waste93(Quote)
spasticblue says:
Waste93: Your post could easily have been about the Christian Bible and the Roman Catholic Church through the years. spasticblue(Quote)
geokstr says:
Yes, we have to have this heavy duty security apparatus in place and be fearful to simply be American all over the planet, because everyone knows that those awful Xtianists, headed by the Devil Pope, are constantly fomenting violence against us, goaded on by the Satanic rituals in their holy book.
Good thing we can count on the Muslims and their Religion of Peace (and Perpetual Outrage) to be our allies against Catholicism.
(sarc off)
Just in case, on the offhand chance you didn’t notice, the local churches here and in every other country on the planet are not preaching violence against all the infidels, and have not done so for, oh, I dunno, maybe several centuries or so. (Well, OK, there is that one TUCC church in Chicago...)
I for one am getting very fed up with the commenters who react to every horrific outrage committed by Islamists and the content of the official writings they use to justify blowing up children and cutting off heads and enslaving women and others and marriage to nine year olds and so much more wonderfulness with the standard “yes, but those eeevvviiiilll vicious Xtianists, did you know that 1,000 years ago they...”. geokstr(Quote)
Shane says:
geokstr,
I mean, I want to be sympathetic to your view, because I believe that the evolution of Christianity has generally been in a positive direction in the past few hundred years. Most Christians today recognize that slavery is wrong, and that’s a great development. There’s still a long way to go, though. It was only a generation ago that preachers were railing against the abomination that was interracial marriage. Today, their proteges are screaming about faggots.
But the mere fact that western, Christian cultures have had an enlightenment period to refine their religion to be less barbaric doesn’t mean that Islam is intrinsically evil, incapable of reform. There are plenty of activists pushing for reform from within Islam, but every time a western leader talks about the evils of Islam, bans minarets or hajibs, and quotes the Quran out of context, they play right into the extremists hands. Besides, my time spent in the middle east showed that even in a war zone, the vast majority are nonviolent.
I’m a big fan of the counterinsurgency concepts that conceptually frame the ordinary populace as the prize to be won in this war — and pushing them towards the extremists by insulting their religious views is counterproductive. Not to mention despicable. Shane(Quote)
neurodoc says:
It’s mere “office holder” versus “ruler”? How about acceptance of the indisputable fact that he/she is the highest office holder in the land, this country’s legally recognized leader, someone freely chosen by voters, and as such presumptively entitled to our respect and support? If you find it irritating to hear others refer to him/her as “my president,” feel free to do so, but don’t expect your irritation to be paid much heed. And understand that when others refer to him/her as “my president,” especially those who oppose him politically, they are probably emphasizing our common bonds over partisanship and disaffection. neurodoc(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Agreed here too. IMO, the identity of the person who won that spot is much, much less important than the fact that we had our election when we were supposed to have it and the person who occupies the White House got there the way every president before him did, all the way back to the beginning. To say that Barack Obama is “my” president is to say that I am an American citizen who values and appreciates the rule of law and the orderly progression of constitutionally-limited power from the previous president to the current one. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
Brian B says:
I’ll probably get flamed for this since I’m kind of flaming everyone else but even reading the comments section of a blog as sharp as this one makes me despair for humanity.
Everyone has half an opinion based on a quarter of the info.
Confirmation bias, thy name is man. In deference to sister Laura that is the generic man. Brian B(Quote)
Ricardo says:
For instance, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Sam. 15:2–3).
In other parts of the Hebrew Bible, there is a clear commandment to completely destroy the nation of the Amalekites so that the memory of them is blotted out of history forever. Needless to say, this divine commandment applied to women and infants as well as men. If anyone wants to defend genocide or wars of extermination as compatible with the Golden Rule, I’m all ears.
The real point is that many historical principles did not apply universally. Few people thought at the time of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” applied to blacks. Instead, we widen the sphere of moral concern so that fundamental moral principles like the Golden Rule or equal rights get expanded beyond the extended family, clan, tribe, or nation. Ricardo(Quote)
neurodoc says:
A few hundred years, or even a couple of hundred years, allows for a huge amount of progress in terms of the “enlightenment,” or the lack thereof that Islam has seen.
A “mere fact”?!
No, doesn’t mean that Islam is or isn’t intrinsically evil, incapable of reform. But Islam’s failure to reform is no more attributable to anything non-Muslims have or have not done than the “enlightment” of non-Muslims is attributable to anything Muslims have or have not done. neurodoc(Quote)
Shane says:
You don’t think I can pull out examples of Christianity making no progress, or even regressing, over a period of several centuries? The Enlightenment was about a cultural elevation of reason over dogma and blind faith, leading to a more secular society. Secular reason is no more intrinsically compatible with Christianity than it is with Islam. And it’s hard to say that simply viewing the first 1500 years of Christianity would lead one to believe that western nations would develop the way they did.
I won’t dispute that Islam is a hurdle towards progress, but then again, I feel the same way about Christianity. And I’m at least polite enough to let Christians practice as they please with a minimum of harassment, so long as they don’t hold other religions to a double standard. Shane(Quote)
neurodoc says:
But you have already conceded, have you not, that Islam is hundreds of years behind Christianity in terms of “enlightenment.” Does the existence of a Reverend Phelps and other Christian misanthropes and troglodytes provide you with your “examples of Christianity making no progress, or even regressing,” and negate or diminish that gap of centuries between Islam and Christianity? (Of course, it does not all reduce to a time lag between them, but time makes for an easy comparison, especially when you have Islamists calling for a return to the good old days, those being the 7th Century, the time of the Caliphate, and the fulfillment of irridentist designs on Al-Andalus.)
Sorry, I don’t understand. In your opinion, Islam and Christianity have equally far to go in the direction of progress, but you acknowledge that Islam is hundreds of years behind Christianity in terms of “enlightenment”?!
Who do you imagine is stopping Muslims from practicing their religion as they please, except to “harass” them when their practice of their faith entails killing and/or asserting dominion over non-Muslims? And how do you imagine that but for your minimal “politeness” you might prevent Christians from practicing their religion “with a minimum of harassment, so long as they don’t hold other religions to a double standard”? And what “double standard(s)” do you have in mind? neurodoc(Quote)
Patrick S. O'Donnell says:
Waste93,
Believers and unbelievers, in theory and sometimes in practice, are indeed on equal footing in Islam. I never claimed that for any and all purposes they are always on an equal footing, as this would remove many of the items that help to distinguish this religious tradition from others. When it comes to important metaphysical and ethical beliefs (propositions), as well as for many legal purposes, they are indeed on the same footing. If in specific Islamic regimes there is a failure to live up to specific (normative) principles and ideals in the tradition this is a lamentable fact and one which not a few Muslims have found reasons for opposition and critique. In argument terms, actual practice can neither decisively prove nor refute normative arguments or this sort (as Hobbes reminded us).
Incidentally, when you speak of “the Islamic judicial system” you are referring to an empty set: there is no one Islamic system of fiqh found instantiated geo-historically throughout the globe. Islamic legal systems have been many and various, the relevant variables being both time and place. Moreover, it is probably safe to say that there’s never been a purely or wholly Islamic legal system, as such systems have invariably, in practice, incorporated pre-Islamic, and other legal systems and codes (this is apart from whatever differences that exist between legal schools). In the Qur’an, legal topics form but a small portion of the text and thus are not always determinative or decisive on many questions, apart from the degree of legal indeterminacy that comes about as a result of the logical, metaphysical and conceptual gap that exists between Shariah and fiqh (even if Muslims and others use the former concept in a way that serves to obscure or ignore such a gap):
“Historically, the term Sharī‘ah refers to all the elements of a proper, i.e. righteous life; this includes moral behavior, proper respect towards Allāh, correct belief, personal piety, and so on. In other words, it means the right way to live one’s life as a Muslim in conformity to God’s will. In more recent times, the scope of its reference has narrowed to that which falls under the rubric of Islamic law (fiqh), but there is a logical, conceptual and practical difference between Sharī‘ah and fiqh. The latter involves the human process of understanding and implementing the divine law. It is a serious (religious, epistemological, ontological, ethical…) mistake to conflate Sharī‘ah and fiqh, or to use these terms, as often happens today, as synonyms. The Sharī‘ah, writes Khaled Abou El Fadl, ‘is God’s Will in an ideal and abstract fashion, but the fiqh is the product of the human attempt to understand God’s Will. In this sense, the Sharī‘ah is always fair, just and equitable, but the fiqh is only an attempt at reaching the ideals and purposes of Sharī‘ah (maqāsid al-Sharī‘ah). [….] The conceptual distinction between Sharī‘ah and fiqh was the product of a recognition of the inevitable failures of human efforts at understanding the purposes or intentions of God.’ The function of Sharī’ah is here analogous or similar to that of Natural Law intimations among the Stoics and both religious and secular Natural Law doctrine as it developed from and after Grotius.
Recently, Abdullahi An-Na‘im has made the provocative argument that ‘precisely because sharī‘a is supposed to be binding on Muslims out of religious conviction, a believer cannot be religiously bound except by what he or she personally believes to be a valid interpretation of the relevant texts of the Qur’ān and Sunnah. Yet, given the diversity of opinions among Muslim jurists, whatever the state elects to enforce as positive law is bound to be deemed an invalid interpretation of Islamic sources by some of the Muslim citizens of the state.’ Moreover, such ‘objections to the enforcement of sharī‘a through positive law and the notion of an Islamic state do not, of course, preclude Muslims from personally conforming with every aspect of sharī‘a.’
We might describe the function of Sharī‘ah along the order of a Platonic Form, at least in its ‘bedrock version’ as outlined by T.K. Seung in Intuition and Construction: The Foundation of Normative Theory (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993). In this account, intuition and construction are two integral processes intrinsic to the functional role of Platonic Forms (or ‘Ideas,’ ‘Archetypes,’ etc.). Platonic Forms—like the Sharī‘ah—are (is) fairly indeterminate, while nonetheless serving as normative, intuitive, and largely nonpropositional foundations (in theory, accessible to any Muslim) for constructing (propositional, hence legal) models or ‘middle terms’ as guides for determinate social realities and the means to endeavor to close the gap between theory and praxis, the ‘is’ and the ‘ought,’ the (utopian or transcendent) ideal and reality, thus, for example, (the Form) Justice is only the normative foundation for constructing principled models of determinate social orders, none of which fully realizes Justice, and all of which endeavor to approach Justice, succeeding by degree. What is more, the attempt to instantiate or embody the model is never wholly successful, given the nature of the human condition and the model’s idealized qualities in reference to the Form itself: ‘The indeterminacy of Platonic Forms makes them flexible standards, and their flexibility assures their eternal durability.’ Philosophically speaking, Sharī‘ah is like the Platonic Form in being universal, abstract, and ‘indeterminate,’ and thus cannot directly serve as a normative standard (i.e., any interpretation of the Divine Will needs religiously rationalized and principled justification by way of textual hermeneutics and exegesis). This is perhaps one reason Norman Calder writes that, ‘in modern academic analysis of Islamic law, the word Sharī‘ah is of little use: what we can study and describe is always fiqh.’ Fiqh represents a Platonic-like endeavor to translate Sharī‘ah into direct, concrete, and normative models for particular contexts. As with Platonic intuitionism in which all human beings have access to Platonic Forms, all Muslims, as noted by An-‘Naim above, have access to Sharī‘ah, indeed, they are under a spiritual obligation to attempt to understand (and live by that understanding of) the divine law. Such understanding is necessarily partial and fallible and may vary according to the individual (every Muslim is different): ‘Indeterminacy and relativity are inseparable in the domain of realization.’ The divine nature of Sharī‘ah means that it retains a normatively transcendent and evaluative function whatever the extent of its positivization as fiqh (we can put this in theological terms by stating that Muslims can always get closer to God or become ever more proficient in acting according to their understanding of God’s will). In other words, law as such, or positive law, cannot exhaust the evaluative function of divine law as one’s understanding of same can always deepen, one’s intuitive discernment can always be keener. As a transcendent (nonpropositional) guide for action, and despite its integral relation to Islamic law, Sharī‘ah should not be confused or conflated with any of its specific principled and propositional constructions by way of fiqh, or any political proposal for a putatively Islamic state.
Nonetheless, fiqh can serve as an aid in coming to understand divine law insofar as it enables us to obtain further, dialectical insight into that which transcends positive law; discursive reasoning and rational understanding, in other words, and in this case intrinsic to the Islamic science of jurisprudence, are part and parcel of the process of acquiring (intuitive or nonpropositional) insight into divine law. The jurist’s fallible, limited, and historical understanding of Sharī‘ah, in other words, is evidenced by his facility with ’usūl al-fiqh: how he has arrived at the determination of law, rather than simply the result, that is, the legal determination or ruling itself, or, in the case of furū‘ al-fiqh, the persuasiveness of the arguments explicating the concepts and rules that relate to religious rituals and ethico-religious conduct in the widest sense. And it is fitra, the Islamic term that designates our primordial inclination or general predisposition to the good as a constituent feature of human nature, that allows individual qua individuals, to have insight into the Divine Will (and thus functions like soul memory in Platonic thought: permitting individual intuitive awareness, however dim or partial, into the Good; this insight is what Socrates set out to awaken in the interlocutors of the dialectical dialogues). In fact, fitra can serve as the Islamic equivalent of individual conscience, according individuals in effect the right of principled objection to interpretations of Sharī‘ah that violate their sincere and sustained endeavors (made in the context of the Islamic tradition) to realize this dispositional awareness of ‘the Good,’ the Divine Will or Sharī‘a.” (from my study guide for Islam) Patrick S. O’Donnell(Quote)
Patrick S. O'Donnell says:
erratum in first para.: “arguments of this sort” Patrick S. O’Donnell(Quote)
neurodoc says:
Do you appreciate that for many of us what Islam may be understood by its adherents to say about such matters as “believers” vs “unbelievers,” that is the “theory” of Islam, is of little or no interest or concern, whereas the “practice” of Islam, e.g., the treatment of “believers” vs “unbelievers,” is of great interest and concern? neurodoc(Quote)
Joe says:
Equality by itself is not enough since we can treat everyone badly. But, it’s a useful first step. Joe(Quote)
Shane says:
neurodoc,
I think you assume that I believe that progress is inevitable and always forward moving in religion. I do not believe this. Therefore, I don’t frame this discussion as how many hundreds of years behind Christianity Islam is. That might be the source of our disagreement.
When I refer to The Enlightenment, I speak specifically of the movement in European thought that elevated rationality over religion, and the cultural change that resulted. I neither believe that this beneficial development was inevitable in a Christian society, nor that Christianity in the 1600’s was any more conducive than other religions to giving secular rationality a higher standing than religious dogma. Frankly, I believe that like most things in history, it just happened.
You also seem to believe that religion alone is what motivates our enemies. Our enemies in Iraq don’t hate us because we’re not Muslim — they hate us because we’re in their country. Besides, you wouldn’t say our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan are “less Muslim” than our enemies, right? Again, you’d be playing right into the enemy’s propaganda. Any other Muslim country would be having difficulty occupying Iraq as well, especially if the occupying force were not Arabic-speaking (but still Muslim). I think it’s a healthier and more accurate perspective to view our current enemies as driven by a narrow ideology, rather than by a major world religion. Otherwise we’d have a difficult time trying to isolate those who actually wish to do us harm, versus those who just plain don’t like us. Shane(Quote)
Patrick S. O'Donnell says:
neurodoc,
The “practice” of Muslims is many respects unintelligible or opaque to the extent one lacks a basic understanding of the various theoretical and normative construals of the tradition from both within and outside Islam (this is not unrelated to the fact/value distinction, meaning while facts and values are conceptually distinguishable, these are not two independent realms*): be they implausible, irrational, plausible, rational, persuasive or sound. An ability to understand, assess and possibly alter whatever practices are found, say, ethically or legally repugnant or wanting, is only possible from (and in any case assumes or presumes) plausible and arguable normative standards and viewpoints, both Islamic and non-Islamic. One cannot criticize or alter “practice” without normative standards and theoretical guidance. I was concerned here to articulate the fundamental lineaments of same from within the Islamic tradition, as any alteration of such practices will have to rely on sources of belief and motivation common to Muslims themselves, however much non-Muslims may want to assess or critique such practices in a language or terms foreign to the tradition (and to the extent that non-Islamic critiques and assessments aim to be principled and thus universalizable, they need to explore whether or not there are values and concepts within Islam that are compatible or supportive of such universalization, as has in fact taken place, for example, where Muslims support human rights principles based on the Sharī‘ah).
Were it that this putative concern for “practice” by those quick to critique Muslims in general or the Islamic tradition in toto be exemplified in their own case: “the mote and the beam” thing here apropos.
*Please see my post on “Facts and Values, Truth and Objectivity” at Ratio Juris.
Cf. (courtesy of Hilary Putnam, from A.E. Singer,Jr.):
1. Knowledge of facts presupposes knowledge of theories.
2. Knowledge of theories presupposes knowledge of facts.
3. Knowledge of facts presupposes knowledge of values.
4. Knowledge of values presupposes knowledge of facts. Patrick S. O’Donnell(Quote)
neurodoc says:
Forgive me, I intend no offense, but are you: i) an academic who cannot avoid ponderosity even when responding to a simple question; ii) someone striking an academic pose for whatever their reason(s); or, iii) a person just unable to communicate clearly and effectively? Whichever, I take your answer to my earlier question to mean you do not “appreciate that for many of us what Islam may be understood by its adherents to say about such matters as ‘believers’ vs ‘unbelievers,’ that is the ‘theory’ of Islam, is of little or no interest or concern, whereas the ‘practice’ of Islam, e.g., the treatment of ‘believers’ vs ‘unbelievers,’ is of great interest and concern.”
I don’t think my views are at all exceptional among non-Muslims, or “unbelievers” if you will. Indeed, I think most non-Muslims don’t give a fig, a crap, a rat’s ass, or anything of the sort, what theological explanations there may be for the Islamic world’s many barbarous expressions. Nor are we impressed by tu quoque’s of the sort Shane offers on behalf of Muslims, or his suggestions that non-Muslims with their criticism and/or harrassment of Muslims are somehow responsible for those barbarous expressions.
It is said, “Beauty is as beauty does.” The same might be said of Islam, at least from the perspective of us “unbelievers.” And Islam isn’t very beautiful in our eyes, notwithstanding all the apologies its apologists can muster on its behalf.
A decade ago, my views were considerably different. My thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its antecedents has always been decidedly partisan, so I did not have a very favorable opinion of Arabs generally. That was about Arabs, though, not Islam. And for years I favored the “believer” Pakistanis over the “unbeliever” Indians, until I came to see Pakistan as a curse upon the world. Then 9/11 came and my thinking about the Islamic world, like that of many I know, changed dramatically for the worse. (Note, I speak of Muslims or “believers” and the Islamic world, so as not to be drawn into any discussion of the religion per se.) neurodoc(Quote)
neurodoc says:
No, I don’t assume you to believe that, nor do I believe it myself.
But it is the case that Islam has not undergone anything like the reformation/enlightenment that Christianity underwent hundreds of years ago. And that is hugely important whether or not you chose to frame this discussion in terms of that number of years Islam is behind Christianity. (Yes, I see it as “behind,” no matter how many “believers” may think it is not “behind” in any sense of the word.)
OK, feel free to believe “it just happened,” that such changes are just random developments with nothing to explain why they happened. But don’t waste your time trying to convince me of that view of history.
No, I don’t believe that simplistic, reductionist answer to the question of what motivates our enemies.
So, you think religion explains nothing there, not the divisions among Iraqis, the involvement of foreign jihadis, etc.? The Taliban are not animated by any religious faith? Al Qaeda is all about geopolitics, not at all about religious faith?
Huh??? (Sorry, I’m not going to follow you down every logical rabbit hole you dive into.)
(Health is health, and we are not talking about health matters here.) I don’t think it helpful to deny the role of religion when young men are recruited to blow themselves and innocents up by talk of virgins waiting for them in the afterlife if they commit themselves to “martyrdom,” even if the religion is “a major world religion.” neurodoc(Quote)
ChrisTS says:
Sigh. ChrisTS(Quote)
Shane says:
Neurodoc, I’m saying that in the absence of any world religions, there will still be wars of ideology. The enemy du jour might be motivated by religion, but that’s not an indictment of the religion itself. My point is that we have allies in the Middle East (not just in the conventional sense, but those dedicated to advancing ideologies we believe in) who nobody would deny are Muslims. That observation seems to me to be evidence that Islam is not an intrinsically barbaric faith and can be compatible with a well-functioning society with respect for individuals.
To be clear: I am agreeing with you that Middle Eastern societies are fairly backwards in their thinking, as compared to Western society. But then so are non-western Christian nations. To me, it’s not the religion — it’s the entire culture, of which the religion is only a small part.
But to bring it back around to the original discussion — I think Islam has a golden rule, and attempts to disqualify Islam as a world-religion-with-a-golden-rule is holding Islam against a double standard. Shane(Quote)
Guy says:
Cliff May, paraphrased: Obama says that Islam teaches people to be moral, but obviously it doesn’t; they want to kill all infidels! Now some of my best friends are Muslims, and they are moral, but that’s the exception, not the rule. Most educated Muslims know that there is nothing moral about their faith, and they will scoff at Obama’s naivete. Guy(Quote)
neurodoc says:
Shane, I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I see no way to minimize the role of religion, specifically Islam, in any discussion of the greatest threat to Western Civilization since Communism. And it helps not at all to substitute “culture” for “religion,” especially when the religion in question, Islam, is such a huge component of the “culture,” affecting (infecting?) as it does so many aspects of life, from governance, to laws, to education, to the treatment of women, to economic organization, to attitudes regarding “martyrdom,” to acceptance of “unbelievers,” to the place of clerics, to...
The role of Christianity has waned so much in Europe in just the past few decades that perhaps one could talk about the culture there without most of the discussion immediately pertaining to religion, but there is no way that one can talk about the “culture” in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and the other countries of greatest concern to us without a lot of attention to the place of Islam in those societies. neurodoc(Quote)
neurodoc says:
“specifically,” not “secifically”
I don’t understand why I wasn’t able to make that correction, since I saw it only a few seconds into the 5 minute window allowed for edits, made the change and hit “save.” But while the screen then said “saving,” and continued to do so, when it was all final, the original typo remained. Have others experienced this too? Am I doing something wrong when I try to make corrections like this one, or is there a technical glitch with the website? neurodoc(Quote)
Shane says:
neurodoc,
Yeah, you’re right — we should probably wrap this up. This will be my last reply. I believe that religion is a necessary but not sufficient explanation for extremist behavior. Having worked closely with Iraqis who were religious, I don’t see why the religion they follow necessarily will result in extremism against the west. Iran has had some experience with democratic forms of government. Muslims from Indonesia and Malaysia don’t seem to be causing much trouble either — and they are a nontrivial proportion of the world’s Muslims. My pointing out these guys is just to demonstrate that any dismissal of Islam as unreformable is to miss the potential opportunities in front of us.
Our enemies in Iraq use prostitutes, gamble, and drink alcohol. They aren’t all that religious. I can’t speak for our enemy in Afghanistan, where I expect they are more religiously motivated, but my personal experience with Iraqis (both friendly and hostile) showed that there was little correlation between religious enthusiasm and hatred of the United States. Really, most of it was family/tribal affiliations and a desire for vengeance.
I’m not trying to minimize the role that religion plays in our enemies’ motivations. Putting aside the fact that I don’t think they play an existential threat to us, it’s not useful in our current fight to just throw up our hands and say “all Muslims hate us; we shouldn’t bother with COIN strategies.” Nor do I think it’s good to criticize our Presidents for reaching out to moderate Muslims. I remember Bush taking a lot of flak from the right on that, and the same guys are criticizing Obama, too. Shane(Quote)
neurodoc says:
Shane, I take your points. So let me amend, if I may, my previous, “I think we will have to agree to disagree.” to, “I think we agree on some things and disagree on others, the question being how to weight those, respectively.”
[Was your experience in those parts of the world gained through the military or other federal or NGO employment?] neurodoc(Quote)
Shane says:
neurodoc, fair enough. That sounds about right. Don’t get me wrong — the things you’ve said have forced me to think about the issues, which has led me to at least flesh out my ideas and refine what I think. I do appreciate the thread, although I still disagree on a few things here and there.
I went to Iraq as a soldier and did intelligence work both in an office and regular face-to-face meetings with locals. Shane(Quote)
scattergood says:
Until those who support the contention that the Quran has a Golden Rule that applies to all can effectively deal with the tenet of Abrogation, then they are either being willfully opaque or just naive.
Abrogation, in Quranic terms, means that the later passages that were given chronologically abrogate any contradictory passages. Thus statements like ‘there is no compulsion in religion’, while in the Quran, are void of meaning since the Sura of the Sword (9th Sura) comes after which states ‘slay the unbelievers where you find them...’. scattergood(Quote)
Dan F. says:
JK,
I would agree that, as a logical matter, particularly without breaking down the text into symbols, there is little difference between the ‘positive and negative’ formation. However, I think that this reveals the limits of logic rather than impacts the overall argument. The argument is moral rather than legal — should I be concerned for the well-being of my neighbor? Or should I simply avoid doing him/her harm? Those are drastically different positions in terms of both intent and focus.
Dan F.(Quote)
Patrick S. O'Donnell says:
scattergood,
You join hands with not a few commenters in this thread who have proudly proved their ample ignorance of Muslims and the Islamic tradition. Moreover, you appear not to have read either the post or the subsequent comments, which discuss the Golden Rule in hadith literature, not the Qur’an.
The exegetical principle or doctrine of abrogation (naskh, or nasikh and mansuk, of which there are five distinct modes) is not absolute nor is it one of logical entailment: a later verse MAY (i.e., not necessarily) abrogate one revealed earlier, especially in cases of manifest contradiction. And while there are numerous works on the subject, Muslims themselves are not in agreement as to its “validity, meaning, and applicability.” In any case, this interpetive practice has to be examined in the light of (i.e., in conjunction with) other principles of Quranic exegesis and hermeneutics as I noted above. Those with a genuine interest in such matters should look at Farid Esack’s The Qur’an: A Short Introduction (2002), as well as Abdullah Saeed’s Interpreting the Qur’ān: Towards a Contemporary Approach (New York: Routledge, 2005). Other relevant works are found in Sec. 3 of my Islamic Studies bibliography.
In short, your comment is absolutely wrong. Patrick S. O’Donnell(Quote)
scattergood says:
Patrick, my comment was intended to point out only that those who quote certian parts of the Quran do so in either will full ignorance or significant naiveté.
Abrogation is a widely held docrtrine and supported within the Quran itself. I’ll just quote one such support:
Abu Ja‘far Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari (d. 923), a Sunni famous as a historian, argued that “abrogation can only be done with regard to commands and prohibitions.”
Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari, Tafsir: The Commentary on the Qur’an, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 471–2
Whether YOU believe abrogation to exist or not, or what is abrograted by what is pretty immaterial. What is clear is that there is a long, well supported, classical understanding of abrogation.
Islamic scholars throughout history have used it in many contexts, and have in nearly all the legal schools done so to bring about a more absolutist understanding of Islam.
So, as you even point out, abrogration exists. How does that make me ‘absolutely’ wrong? scattergood(Quote)
Patrick S. O'Donnell says:
Your are absolutely wrong owing to both your example, which is NOT true, as well as your claim that abrogation works in the manner of your description, which it DOES NOT. Nothing I said was contingent upon what I believed was true or not, thus there are objective criteria whereby one can determine when, how, to what extent, and so on, Muslims rely (and have relied) on abrogation. You need to read carefully what I wrote, as no where did I claim I did not believe abrogation existed: what I said was that it did not exist in the manner you defined it, nor was your Quranic example pertinent or accurate. Nor did I ever claim that the doctrine was not supported by the Qur’an (cf. 2.106).
Your understanding of the doctrine is superficial and simple-minded and you’ve yet to demonstrate how the doctrine works in conjunction with, say, tafsir (e.g., exegesis by transmission, reason, and ‘indication’). So, your comment, as it stands, was absolutely wrong for two reasons: first, it was not a proper characterization of naskh (for instance, in addition to the various kinds of abrogation, what are the three categories of ‘repealed’ verses having to do with a verse’s ruling, wording and recitation?) and, secondly, the example was in no way an exemplary instance of same. Some Muslim scholars have denied the doctrine of abrogation entirely (e.g., Abu Muslim al-Isfahani, d. 1527) and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1209), “one of the great commentators of the Qur’an, argued that the possibility of abrogation does not actually mean that it did occur.” And those resorting to the principle, differ as to the number (500? 235? 21? 5?: early on, the number of abrogated verses gradually increased in number, while in the modern period it has gradually, and substantially, declined) of verses “abrogated” (i.e., there is no trans-historical consensus here).
Contemporary Islamic scholars like Saeed also point out the importance of abrogation with regard to distinguishing the outward form of Quranic rulings and the moral or spiritual purpose that animates them. Thus, for instance, “the Qur’an does not abrogate the objective of a ruling, but rather reinforces the objective by amending the ruling itself.” This illustates one way in which temporal, cultural and circumstantial differences or contexts may be taken into account, as has been the case of the Quranic verse dealing with theft (the ‘amputation’ verse: Q. 5.38). At a point in time, amputation was an accepted means to an end or objective, hence today, many Muslims acknowledge that different, more humane means may be used to achieve the selfsame underlying objective: respect for personal property and the prevention of theft.
And this is apart from the fact that your first paragraph made no sense whatsoever in light of the fact that textual support for the Golden Rule relies on hadith literature and not the Qur’an, even if the latter can then be used, in turn, to support the principle itself (e.g., to the extent it relies on a principle of universalization or an awareness of assumptions intrinsic to basic moral behavior). Patrick S. O’Donnell(Quote)
FamouslyUnknown says:
Regarding the Golden Rule and its variants, they all either invite the masochist to behave as a sadist, or do not preclude that behavior.
Better to adhere to the Platinum Rule: “Knowingly or unknowingly, do no harm. But if you must do harm, do as little as necessary.”
At one extreme defining what a “just war” is. At another extreme, how to treat a naughty child.
To be human is to determine/know,in each situation, what is harm and what is necessary. No easy path to wisdom. FamouslyUnknown(Quote)