The Golden Rule in Islam: Ethics of Reciprocity in Islamic Traditions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Golden Rule in Islam: Ethics of Reciprocity in Islamic Traditions Justin Parrott, MLIS Supervised by Prof. Gary Bunt Submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of Masters of Research in Islamic Studies University of Wales Trinity Saint David 2018 1 Abstract The ethics of reciprocity, known as the “golden rule,” is any moral dictum that encourages people to treat others the way they would like to be treated. The principle exists in the sacred texts of the world’s religions as well as the writings of secular philosophers. Due to its ubiquity in many contexts, it has become an important focal point for interfaith dialogue and the development of international human rights norms. Islam, as a world religion with over one billion followers, has an important role to play in facilitating dialogue and cooperation with other groups in the modern world. The golden rule in Islamic traditions has been explicitly invoked by numerous Muslim leaders and organizations towards this end. This study examines the phenomenological appearance of the golden rule in Islamic texts and modern interfaith dialogue with Muslims. Sources include the Qur’ān, Ḥadīth traditions, exegetical commentaries, extracanonical or apocryphal literature, and contemporary works. Sections are organised by genre of literature and are loosely chronological. Key interpretive points from the classical period are related to modern interfaith initiatives and universal human rights, with a view of demonstrating the ways in which the classical heritage informs the experiences of Muslims today. 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 4 a. What is the Golden Rule? 4 b. The Golden Rule in Islam 8 c. Methodology and scope 10 2. The Golden Rule in the Qur’ān 12 3. The Golden Rule in the Sunnah and Ḥadīth traditions 26 a. Anas ibn Mālik 27 b. Abū Hurayrah 39 c. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr 46 d. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib 49 e. Other Ḥadīth traditions 51 4. The Golden Rule in Extracanonical Traditions 59 a. Weak Ḥadīth traditions 59 b. Historical reports from companions and successors 60 c. Sufi traditions 63 d. Shi’ite traditions 66 e. Isrāʼīlīyāt traditions 68 f. Legal traditions 71 5. The Golden Rule in Modern Islam 75 a. Modern commentaries and interpretations 75 b. Interfaith dialogue 80 c. Universal human rights 82 6. Conclusion 91 7. Bibliography 93 بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful 3 1. Introduction 1a. What is the Golden Rule? The ethics of reciprocity, known as the “golden rule,” is any moral dictum that encourages people to treat others the way they would like to be treated. The rule appears in a variety of forms and contexts, in different religions, philosophies, and peoples widely separated by time, place, and language, to the degree that it appears to be a nearly universal maxim among humankind.1 It has a central role in theistic religious ethics as well as some secular philosophies; it is justified on the basis of scriptural authority or reason or both. It is expressed in both positive formulations (“do unto others…”) and negative formulations (“do not do unto others…”). The rule often appears as a summarising principle of good conduct, perhaps as the supreme moral principle of right action between human beings. Though not always understood literally, as it has its own caveats and relationships with other moral imperatives, it generally functions as a method of moral reasoning in a process of emotional and spiritual development. Yet despite the different formulations, wordings, and contexts in which the rule appears across religions and traditions, Jeffery Wattles asserts that there is enough continuity in meaning and application to justify describing the ethics of reciprocity as the golden rule.2 For the purposes of this study, we will refer to the ethics of reciprocity in Islamic texts as Islam’s version of the golden rule. Moral reasoning with the golden rule, under the guidance of one’s conscience, does not exist in a vacuum. It requires complementary principles or values, consideration of context, and a maturity of thought to operate in a workable manner. Literal and fallacious applications of the rule can lead to absurd results, as pointed out by many of the golden rule’s critics. For example, a monkey would prefer to stay out of the water for his own comfort, while a fish requires staying in the water to survive. If the monkey literally treats the fish as he would like to be treated, and thus removes it from the water, he would end up needlessly killing the fish; an obvious ethical violation.3 It was this kind 1 Joyce Oramel Hertzler, "On Golden Rules," The International Journal of Ethics 44, no. 4 (1934): 418. 2 Jeffrey Wattles, The Golden Rule (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 5. 3 Harry J. Gensler, Ethics and the Golden Rule (New York: Routledge, 2013), 3. 4 of simplistic use of the golden rule that George Bernard Shaw criticised through the character of John Tanner, “Do not do unto others as you would that they do unto you. Their tastes may be different… The golden rule is that there are no golden rules.”4 The potential for the golden rule – left underdeveloped or unqualified – to result in preposterous moral conclusions has led to its dismissal as a serious guiding principle by a number of philosophers. To abandon the rule entirely based upon such simplified characterizations, however, would be a serious mistake. Harry J. Gensler, building upon the work of Wattles and others, attempts to formulate the rule in terms that dispel its common criticisms: “Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation.”5 Context matters in the process of moral reasoning; what the rule demands is not literal adherence as much as it is ethical consistency and the equal dignity of human beings on par with each other as the first principle from which a course of action is deliberated. Moreover, application of the rule ought to be informed by an array of principles, values, and virtues that are manifestations of the rule in action. For this reason, writers throughout history have used the rule “as a hub around which to gather great themes.”6 Notions of justice, love, compassion, and other virtues have all been related to the rule by various authors and traditions. Accounting for all of these considerations and responding to common objections, both Wattles and Gensler have convincingly defended the golden rule from its detractors and have presented it as a viable first principle for a modern moral philosophy. Viewed in light of their scholarship, we can appreciate why so many religions and philosophies have incorporated the rule as one of their central maxims. It is a simple, intuitive idea from which more refined ethical concepts, like universal human rights, can be derived and developed in a process of thoughtful conscience-based reasoning. The simplicity of the rule makes it comprehensible at any level of education; the far-reaching implications of the rule make it relevant to issues at the highest levels of society and the existential human condition. It has the potential to serve as an immediate point of 4 Bernard Shaw, Nine Plays (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co, 1944), 731. 5 Gensler, Ethics and the Golden Rule, 2. 6 Wattles, The Golden Rule, 28. 5 connection, and agreement in principle, between people whose traditions might otherwise appear superficially antithetical to each other. The book of Leviticus, a sacred text for Jews and Christians, states the golden rule as God’s command to be a good neighbour: You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbour, or you will incur guilt yourself. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord.7 As Leviticus is a core text in the Rabbinic tradition of Judaism, this verse was recognised in commentaries as central to understanding the Torah as a whole. This sentiment was expressed by Rabbi Hillel (d. 10) in a story rather well-known in some interfaith circles: On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, ‘Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.’ Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said to him, ‘What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.’8 The axiomatic nature of the golden rule would continue in the Christian tradition as well, even as the early dissident Jewish sect gradually transformed into a global movement, a new and distinct religion with its own scriptures adding to the Torah and other Jewish texts. In the Gospel according to Matthew, one of the New Testament’s core texts, Jesus of Nazareth tells his disciples, “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.”9 The golden rule of Christianity centres on the theme of selfless love, or agape (ἀγάπη), meaning “affection, good-will, love, benevolence.”10 It is understood to be love for one’s neighbour and enemies, “Love your 7 Leviticus 19:17-18; Michael D. Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, The New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 171. 8Isidore Epstein and Maurice Simon, Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino Press, 1960), v.3 folio 31a.