Global Intifada

Sidi Luqman from Uruk - A Search for Identity recently made an excellent post that he had previously made on facebook: Dialogue on Obligation.

Here’s the Jinnzaman version:

(Warning: Don’t read if you easily succumb to waswasa by studying Philosophy. Only the strong in iman and ‘aql and humor should proceed.)

Rumi: I was reading Luqman’s blog.

Athiest Lawyer : I was watching Metalocalypse.

Rumi: That show is awesome. Anyhow, I’m trying to understand the overall discussion on the source of ethical obligation in Islam. Would you mind listening to me recap the various arguments?

Athiest Lawyer: Sure. Its not like I’ve got anything better to do. By the way, I pull $300 per hour. So make it fast. Time is money. And by “money” I mean “your money.”

Rumi: I hate you and all lawyers.

Athiest Lawyer: Don’t hate, appreciate!

Rumi: Whatever. Anyhow, the gist of the dialogue is over the various contending potential justifications for obeying the commands and prohibitions from the Creator. The most popular response to this inquiry is what might be termed a natural rights, positivist argument: The decrees of God, as the ultimate sovereign (al-Malik), in and of themselves impose obligations upon His subjects.

Athiest Lawyer: Okay. But isn’t such an argument essentially tautological? The Creator should be obeyed because He is the Creator?

Rumi: For the purposes of this discussion, that might be true. However, an alternative utilitarianesque argument can be made: Obeying the Creator is the supreme maximization and supreme minimization of interests for the human. The theory propounded by Imam Shatibi (known as Maqasid al-Shari’ah) posits that every law within the Shari’ah can be traced to the promotion of a particular benefit or the minimization of a particular harm. For example, the consumption of alcohol is prohibited because it leads to intoxication that results in the stultification of the human intellect which has potential harm in this life and the next. The harm in this life may be towards one’s self (by engaging in self-destructive acts, the minimum of which could be the long-term destruction of body organs), towards one’s property (think: drunk driving), towards one’s family (think: people engaging in zina when they’re drunk), or towards one’s self in the akhirah (since one goes to hellfire as punishment for disobeying Allah (subhana wa ta’ala).

Athiest Lawyer: The problem with this argument is that its essentially a syllogistic argument. The inquiry into obedience doesn’t get answered and basically gets reduced to the positivist argument that the Creator should be obeyed because if He is not obeyed, the human being will be punished. I mean, this isn’t even a real alternative argument, merely an extension of the previous positivist argument.

Rumi: Hmmm. Okay, another alternative approach can be seen in the works of Sufis, such as Imam Ghazzali (Ibn Taymiyyah makes a similar epistemological argument), that we obey Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) out of love and because it is within our fitrah to do so.

Athiest Lawyer: One potential problem with this argument, as was briefly pointed out Luqman’s post in the dialogue, is that its difficult to distinguish between one’s fitrah and one’s nafs. This is most evident in Evangelical Pentecostal-style Christianity where their acts of worship are imbued entirely within the nafs. Syncretic Sufism also shared this problem, often flaunting the Shari’ah itself in order attain a loving relationship with the Creator. Although not illogical, it might be inconsistent. After all, it seems strange to argue that the human fitrah is logically required to believe in the existence of the abstract concept of God that cannot be known experientially or really rationally (unless you take the proofs of the Mu’takallimun as a given), but is completely precluded from deducing an ethical system. This essentially reduces the human being to an automaton that can only determine “rights” and “wrongs” from an ethical “program” designed by the Creator. Why is the human mind precluded from the latter when it instinctively knows certain rights and wrongs, but is not precluded from knowing the creator? Why accept one innate instinct but reject the other, especially when the latter can be deduced through human experience (as argued by the proponents of democracy) whereas the former can not be validated empirically or rationally?

Rumi: Okay. You might have a valid point there. After all, the Creator is beyond the need for such forms of gratitude. However, this can be rebutted by the Creator Himself since in various parts of the Qur’an, He calls upon believers to be grateful for His many blessings by obeying Him.

Athiest Lawyer: Even if thats true, from a legal perspective, the notion of returning a service or good for a benefit would not be considered “gratitude” but rather, a form of employment or servitude. A blessing might be considered a form of a gift and the definition of a gift is a good, service, or property bestowed upon one party to another without any condition placed upon it. If a condition is based upon it, then this is not a gift, but a contract that requires performance and the blessing is merely a form of capital for a service or good that is to be provided by the recipient of the “good”. In other words, returning the gratitude of a beneficiary by engaging in services that would be construed as obligatory would not be really a “gift” or “blessing” at all, but rather, an exchange for services. Thus, such a transaction would be a contractual one.

Rumi: I have no idea what you’re talking about. Speak English, fool!

Athiest Lawyer: To break it down compare a birthday gift with a graduation gift. A birthday gift is often done without the donor placing any conditions upon the recipient; the good is given in and of itself. A graduation gift is usually conditional upon the completion of a particular task or object. It is not given in and of itself but only arises after the fulfillment of a particular task. The former is a gift and the latter is merely an exchange for services in the guise of a gift. The substance is really a contractual relationship.

Rumi: Okay. I sort of see what you are saying. Please, continue.

Athiest Lawyer: If the creation is legally obliged to return the “favors” of the Creator in the form of obedience to the latter, then this would not be considered fair since the creation had no true consideration of the offer. The gift of existence, sustenance, guidance are all non-refundable goods. The creation cannot opt to reject such gifts if it does not seek fulfill the legal obligations. After all, the gift of life isn’t a gift at all, since the creation cannot reject it because the dictated punishment for suicide is eternal hellfire. Thus, not only are such blessings not gifts and are in fact contractual obligations, they are not fairly drawn since the creation lacks the volition to consider either rejecting or accepting the terms of such a contract. The creation, in essence, is coerced into this contract through no fault of its own.

Rumi: Blast it. This essentially reduces back into the problem with the Maqasid al-Shari’ah and positivist arguments.

Athiest Lawyer: Yup. That means I win.

Rumi: Not really. The consideration of the contract between the Creator and creation did have consideration.

Athiest Lawyer: How so? The human being had no choice in accepting the contract, the Creator imposed benefits and then imposed obligations with the threat of imminent and eternal harm and destruction, how can that be considered the manifestation of free will?

Rumi: Easy. Firstly, even in this life, no human being can make an actual contract that is in a complete state of volition since both parties lack supreme knowledge of benefits and harms. People make contracts that are not beneficial and possibly harmful all the time. In fact, if contracts were made perfectly with proper consideration, then you, my lawyer-friend wouldnt’ even have a job. It is because their is ambiguity and coercion in the formation of contracts that the legal system exists. Even non-Islamic legal systems recognize contracts that may contain elements of coercion. People purchase cell-phones without reading the fine print or accept massive loans for higher education because although their is no imminent harm upon them, their is a greater social detriment.

Athiest Lawyer: This is true. I’ve had plenty of clients that have made idiotic contracts. Such as yourself. I dont’ care because i get lots of money. I digress. Continue with your argument.

Rumi: Secondly, the Creator, in His infinite wisdom, has stated that He would not burden the creation with more than it could bear. Since He is intimately concerned with his Creation and desires their benefit, then as the dominant party in the formulation of the contract, He assumes the consideration for the creation.

Athiest Lawyer: Thats possible, but such an argument has a variety of flaws.

Rumi: I’m not done yet. Thirdly, the human being was not created in this world with benefits that were imposed on them and coerced. If one looks at the history of humanity, all human beings already accepted such a covenant with Creator in the event of Alastoo where all of the descendants of Adam (alayhi salam) were drawn out from him and recognized the Creator and agreed to worship Him and refrain from that which He prohibited. Furthermore, at this time, no benefit was imposed nor was any threat of punishment presented, thus there was no element of coercion in the universal contract. Hence, the pledge of Alastoo is conclusive proof that the contract between humans and the Creator was with proper consideration since their was no coercion.

Athiest Lawyer: Hmm. This is true. However, a possible objection may be risen in the form of whether proto-humans had the rational capabilities to engage in such a covenant in the first place and whether they were by their very nature designed by the Creator.

Rumi: This raises a separate question: that of free will versus pre-destination.

Athiest Lawyer: Hmmm. This is an interesting argument, but I have to eat lunch now.

Rumi: Oh okay. Thank you for your time.

Athiest Lawyer: No problem. Thank you for your money.

Rumi: I hate you.

Share This