| Religion, Terror, War, and the Need for Global Ethics |
|
|
| Written by Dr. Bekir Karliga | |
| Sunday, 08 January 2006 | |
|
Terror, which manifested itself as a means of rebellion against the unipolar world that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union, has become a global catastrophe with the advent of September 11th. The fact that the only sovereign power which has set out to fight terrorism considers the situation to be a cause for war, has not only made humanity—and more especially the Middle East—come face to face with the threat of war once again, but it has also led to the neglect or rejection of human values. Consequently, the principles of "universal ethics" and "international law," which are the aims of the United Nations, an institution that was set up after the harrowing experiences of two great wars, have been violated and unease of global proportions has arisen. In the face of these developments, religious and ethical values have once again regained great importance. Religion Religion may be roughly defined as the sum of the rules and principles that have been sent by God to guide humanity to happiness in this world and in the hereafter. The history of religion starts with the history of humanity. The first explanations by people concerning what went on around them—near or far—were based on religion. This led to religion playing a very important role in the arenas that humanity have cultivated in the course of history, such as science, culture, art, law, and ethics. Religion makes it possible for people to discover the lofty and transcendent values that are hidden deep in their nature and thus to experience a special delight. Ideas that do not somehow converge with religion perforce remain one-dimensional and lack the capacity to explain existence as a whole. On the other hand, a religion which has no wisdom results in the individual being entrapped in constricted molds and to a loss in the value of life, rather than the intended aim, i.e., the opening and surmounting of one's horizons. Just as people are not able to determine their own identity without a belief, nor are they able to grasp their place, role, and status in this universe. It is a clear fact that humankind is the most valuable and important creation of the universe. The element that enables people to possess such importance and worth is our spiritual structure, not our physical structure. With regard to our physical makeup, we share many characteristics with other creatures. Like other organisms, our bodies are also made up of cells, genes, and tissues. But what makes us special is our ability to think, believe, and acquire knowledge, and the fact that we are aware of these capabilities; that is to say humans are conscious beings. It is due to this quality that we can make abstractions and formulate general concepts, and also that we are able to determine thoughts and actions. These values form beliefs and norms. The spiritual and physical makeup (the soul and body) of humankind form a complete entity. False beliefs and rigid ideologies are trying to rip apart this entity: they have either tried to make people into abstract beings with only souls, or into physical beings composed of only bodies. This in turn has led to the creation of misconceptions about existence as a whole. The essential goal of divine religions is to bring together this sundered existence within the framework of "knowledge and wisdom." But sometimes even religions become removed from their essence and are turned into dogmas; this is when they fail to perform the principle mission for which they have been created. When this occurs, religions either turn into a rigid ideology or into a collection of hollow rituals. According to the renowned Islamic scholar, Imam Shatibi (d. 790), the principle aim of religion is the benefit of humanity in this world and in the hereafter. Consequently, included among the main objectives of religion are the preservation of faith, life, wealth, progeny, and mind:
The Requisites (Az-Zaruri) connote those things that have to be present if one is to realize benefits, in both the religious and the secular aspects of life. . . This is so true that if they are lost, worldly functions cannot be performed; and these functions deteriorate, anarchy rules, and sometimes this can even lead to the end of life. Likewise, salvation in the hereafter is lost, as well as any gifts that have been bestowed, and disappointment is the final result. (Faith, life, mind, progeny, and wealth are the requisites that need protection from danger—Ed.) The protection of the requisites can be achieved in the one of the following two ways: The first way is to lay sturdy foundations and to keep the pillars strengthened—this means keeping them well maintained by means of those elements that are already present in life. The other method is to take care of any deficiencies; that is, to keep the requisites well maintained by taking measures that will prevent these elements from disappearing. For instance, faith, the testimony of faith, giving alms, the hajj, fasting, and other similar ways of worship are directed toward the protection of religion as existing phenomena. Eating, drinking, clothing, lodging, and similar habits are directed toward the protection of the mind and the soul as existing phenomena. Public behavior is aimed at the protection of one's belongings and progeny; while habits or behavior patterns are intended to protect the health of the mind and the soul through establishing certain treatment patterns. Punishments, which are aimed at encouraging good deeds and preventing bad deeds, provide protection by means of keeping certain negative elements out of the realm of both society and the individual. There are five essential goals of the Shari'a. These are the preservation of faith, life, wealth, progeny, and mind. It is stated that in all religions these basic elements are considered to be essential rights that must be protected. The Necessary (al-Haji) are those things that are needed in order to eradicate the difficulties and problems that generally arise as a result of the loss of general physical or metaphysical wishes of people, both in personal and social perspectives. If these needs are not attended to, then all those responsible will face difficulties and run into problems. But the difficulties mentioned here—which occur when these needs (needs may be material or abstract) are not attended to—are not to the same degree as the degeneration caused by the injury committed against common benefit. These things that could be placed in the circle of the Requisites are but only to mention in the realms of worship, habit, behavior, and punishment. (Dry ablution for those who cannot find water, being free from fasting when on a journey, or praying while seated for those who cannot physically unable to stand, can be considered among the Necessary—Ed.) The elements directed towards Amelioration (at-Tahsini), on the other hand, can be formulated as adopting the appropriate and good habits, and staying away from the shameful and the evil ones which people with common sense would abstain from. All of these kinds of behaviors, too, are classified and labeled as "public moral virtues," and the conditions that are valid for the first two issues (the Requisites and Necessary) are also valid for this one. (Shatibi 2/4) Thus, it is impossible for there to be a concept of religion where one of these three universal principles of religion is neglected. But unfortunately, both in the past and today, religion and values that are considered sacred by religion seem to lie behind negative phenomena, such as aggression, terror, and war. In fact, what injures religions most—and it does indeed—is this bitter reality. In order to remedy this negative situation and to save religions from being used as a reason for enmity, the leaders of world religions must come together and take steps toward inter-religious peace, tolerance, and dialog. Terror Terror is a crime against humanity. "Religion" and "terror" are two concepts that can never be brought together, for all religions deny and condemn terror. Terror is not just one crime unto itself; within it are contained five other crimes. A terrorist commits a crime against the Creator, against humanity as a species, against the particular individuals at whom the terror is directed, against themselves, and against the community of which they are a member. According to Islam, humanity, which has been honored (Isra 17:70), has been created by God in the best form and nature (Tin 95:4). Since the One who gives life and death is God (Al 'Imran 3:156), it is forbidden to kill: Do not kill the soul which God has made sacred, except for a just cause (An'am 6:151); no one can take away the life that God has given. Thus, whoever kills a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, is like one who killed the whole of mankind (Ma'ida, 5:32). Moreover, according to the verse And spend in the way of God and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands, and do good (to others); surely God loves the doers of good (Baqara 2:195) no one has the right even to put oneself in danger, nor, according to the following verse does anyone have the right to kill oneself: Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily God has been to you Most Merciful (Nisa 4:29). Consequently, whatever the grounds may be, in Islam "the prohibition of damage to oneself or to others" is a general rule; the killing of innocent people is an unforgivable crime against humanity. In Islam, rights are divided into three different categories: "the rights of God," "the rights of people," and "composite rights"; the first two play a major role. The rights of God are generally considered to be belief in God and worshiping Him, along with rights that concern the common benefit and order, not inclusive of those of the individual or individual communities. The concept can be taken further to include the rights of all living and non-living things in the rights of God. The right to life is also considered to be a right of God, and not a right of the individual. For that reason, the rights of God cannot be made subject to forgiveness nor can they be waived, as can other rights; such rights cannot be abolished or changed by humans or governments. Only God can forgive the trespasses against His rights. The acts of terror that have been carried out in recent years, sometimes intended as a rebellion against modern values, sometimes in order to get opinions heard, along with individual or collective acts of suicide, are all outlawed by Islam. Whatever the reason may be, the individual has no right to act in such a manner. Some of these incidents stem from a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation of the religion, while others stem from a lack of a reliable and sound religious knowledge. Still, the fact that such acts have become more common is an issue that must be examined. Whatever the aim of such an act, the reasons that lead a person to commit terrorism must be uncovered and eradicated; this is the foremost duty of humanity. Taking this situation lightly, turning a blind eye to it for petty reasons, or supporting those who cause such acts to be repeated must also be regarded as crimes against all of humanity. On the other hand, it should not be ignored that narcissism and aggressive feelings play a large part in determining a person's behavior. When the emotion of "self-love," an emotion that enables the individual to protect themselves, is threatened in some way, the result is generally a state of shame or an injured consciousness, thus causing the individual to engage in aggressive action in order to reconstruct this emotion. Moreover, "ignorance," or insufficient and false knowledge, feeds bigotry, bigotry prepares the ground for fanaticism, and fanaticism leaves the door ajar to terror. When the field in which ignorance reigns is religion, the situation becomes even more complex. People who are not well informed about their own beliefs cannot formulate a healthy correlation between the values in which they believe and the life that they lead. Consequently, they lose connection with life and start to adopt illogical behavior, or they start to despise their values and develop inferiority complexes. Both are nothing but errant behavior. As a matter of fact, terror is a consequence of desperate circumstances where no solutions can be developed. Desperate circumstances stem from ignorance, while helplessness derives from not possessing the necessary means. Individuals, thus societies, that are not equipped sufficiently in terms of education and intellectual wisdom produce problems rather than solutions and they are more likely to be abused by others. Moreover, problems arising from failure to fully utilize their available resources result in helplessness, and this helplessness gives rise to aggression. The fact that the concept of jihad is invoked in acts of terror, acts which have gained popularity in the Islamic world due to various causes, like the ones given above, has made this concept a topic of discussion today. Jihad Etymologically, the word jihad has the meanings of effort, exertion, test, weathering, the extracting of butter from milk, or feeling hungry. In any struggle, force is activated and effort is exerted; it is in this way that jihad also comes to mean an active war. However it is interpreted, when all these different meanings are taken into consideration, four different dimensions of jihad arise:
There are many hadith which are concerned with the psychological aspect of jihad. It was reported that after returning from a battle the Prophet said, "We have returned from the minor jihad to the major one."[5] Likewise, the Prophet said, "The mujahid is one who makes jihad against his/her own carnal self."[6] The following hadith makes clear the social aspect of this concept: "The messenger of God asked one of the Companions who wanted to participate in jihad (in the sense of war) whether his parents were alive. Upon receiving a positive answer, the Prophet told this man to make jihad for them (i.e., to serve them instead)."[7] The Prophet once stated: "Those who work for widows and the poor are like those who make jihad for God."[8] Also, he declared that "It is the greatest jihad to speak words of justice and truth to an oppressive ruler."[9] Concerning the intellectual aspect of jihad, there are plenty of hadiths which promote contemplation, research and the attainment of both religious and non-religious knowledge. As can be seen, in Islam the social, psychological, intellectual, and humane dimensions of jihad are more pronounced than the dimension that is related to war. In Islamic literature jihad does not necessarily denote war. The word has come to be used in place of war simply because communities spend all of their effort and power when they fight an enemy. In the Koran, it is seen that other words are used to directly denote war, such as qital, harb, muharaba, and ma'raka. As pointed out by the renowned Islamic scholar Muhammad Hamidullah, wars that are not in keeping with the goals that God has set are illegitimate in Islam. The wars that the Prophet engaged in were wars that were aimed at defense, punishing those who allied themselves with the enemy or betrayed the Muslim community by violating previous agreements, and the protection of Islamic lands (Hamidullah 1995, 222-223). It is for this reason that the aim of Islamic conquests has never been merely aggression, robbery, or plunder. Rather, the aim of such conflicts has always been to create an environment where people could freely choose the belief system that they wanted to follow. Consequently, Muslim conquerors let the people of other lands choose freely between becoming Muslim or living under Islamic rule levied with capitation tax (jizya), which is an alternative to zakat and sadaqa, taxes Muslim citizens are obliged to pay. Islam has, from the very beginning, demanded that non-Muslims be well-treated in the lands where Muslims rule—whether these people were of the region and citizens of the conquered state or whether they were people who settled there later—in particular Christians and Jews, as they are considered to be People of the Book. It is reported that even with his last breath the Prophet advised his people to treat non-Muslims well. He is reported to have said that "those who ill-treat Christians and Jews will answer to me on Judgment Day"[10] and that "those who do injustice to Christians and Jews will not be able to enter Paradise."[11] In Islam, fields and trees cannot be set on fire during war-time, nor can temples or buildings be destroyed. The killing of women, children, the elderly, the blind, and members of the clergy is forbidden. The taxes that are collected from the non-Muslim population cannot be used to meet the expenses of Muslims, but the alms collected from Muslims can be used to provide for non-Muslims who are in need.[12] In the decree promulgated by Caliph 'Umar to Abu Musa al-Ashari when he was posted as governor of Basra, it is instructed that all who come to the governor should be treated equally, that all those who come to trials should be seated together in the courtroom and that the governor should even be equal in the looks that he dispenses to each side during a trial, with no discrimination of religious tradition: ". . . Thus the rich among them should not think that you will rule unjustly, nor the poor think that injustice will be inflicted upon them."[13] Holy War and Just War in Christianity In Christianity, which has manifested itself as a religion that is on the side of peace, the concept of war occupies a very important place. The Christians, who suffered greatly, especially during the Roman era, chose "passive resistance" as their way to put an end to Roman oppression, and overlooked the warring and fighting aspect of this religion; rather they attempted to highlight the aspects of peace and tolerance found within. Starting with Marcion of Sinop, early Christian writers wanted to make sovereign not the "creating, judging, ruling, and punishing God Jehovah" of the Old Testament, but the "savior, the forgiving God of Love, Jesus Messiah." According to Christian scriptures, the greatest order God has given is to love God and to love one's neighbor. Just as Jesus loved his disciples, he also preached that they should love one another. As stated in the Gospels according to Matthew, Jesus said the following:
We see that alongside these messages of love, messages of war also occupy a great part of the New Testament.
Suppose you that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. (Luke 12:51-53) According to the Bible, acts of violence and catastrophes will befall toward the end of time to prepare the world for the second coming of Jesus, who shall rule (them) with a rod of iron as the vessels of potter shall they be broken to shivers (Revelation 2:27-28). And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise. (Revelation 8:12) In surveys that have been carried out in the USA, it has been discovered that around 30% of the population with religious beliefs believe that the world will end with the wars of Armageddon. Fanatic groups have emerged, some of which have even committed mass suicide. For instance, Jim Jones, the leader of the People's Temple sect, in his sermons in 1978 preached that the world had come to an end and that this indicated the Armageddon mentioned in the Bible. He said "Judgment Day is at our footsteps, let us go with it and be the first in the crowd." As we all know, 913 people committed suicide pursuit of this goal. (Halsel 2002, 21) On the other hand, some Christian groups believe that the world has come or is coming to an end, and they feel they have to be near the Messiah and therefore go to Jerusalem to die. Professor François Mayer claims that since the 1850s many people have left the USA to go to Palestine for that very reason. When people of different views were started to be oppressed—like Donatus and the Donatists who did not accept the Patriarch appointed by Constantine in the fourth century, and Arius, Makedonius, Nestorius and their followers—the pacifist character of Christianity was damaged. In the fifth century, when the Barbarian hordes threatened Rome, the famous Christian saint Augustine argued that war could be legitimate for Christians under certain circumstances and he was the first to voice the concept of "a just war." In the thirteenth century, St. Thomas developed this concept and systemized it. According to him, to designate a war a "just war" the following three principles must be present:
Starting from the tenth century, with the recapture of Spain and the Crusades in Western Europe, a new concept entered Christian literature: that of "Holy War." This concept connoted an argument that encouraged attack and legitimized war, according to the argument "God has enemies and these enemies want to destroy all those who submit themselves to God. The enemies of God are those who go against Christianity, the true religion of God and therefore they must be fought and destroyed." In the fourteenth century, St. Raymond Lulle (of Spanish origin), a man who continuously slandered the jihad concept in Islam, said, "Missionaries who try to convert Muslims into Christianity should first of all take love as their principle. They have to use Jesus' way of loving all. Secondly, they have to let the Muslims choose Christianity with their own free will. But if they should resist after they have been told about Christianity, the true religion, then it would be legitimate to make them accept Christianity through the use of force" (Ramon 1983, 375). The Crusades, which continued for more than 300 years, left bitter and unpleasant memories both in the Western societies that waged it and among the Muslims. For that reason, the term "Holy War" was set aside in Christianity to be replaced with the concept of "a just war"; this denoted a war of "good vs. evil." With the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, the religious context of this concept was lost and it assumed a secular guise. According to this new guise, a "just war" was a war that did not have aggression as its aim; rather it was a defensive war. There must be a group of people who were rebelling against an oppressive government and who are, for that reason, faced with even greater oppression. Any intervention had to be carried out by a legitimate authority and had to be limited. This concept was first brought to discussion in modern times by Michael Walzer, who opposed America's Vietnam War, in terms of its legitimacy and ethical dimensions. Perpetual Peace The German philosopher Emmanuel Kant developed the term "Perpetual Peace" in place of "just war." In the treatise "Perpetual Peace," he wrote toward the end of his life, he addressed the theoretical, political, and legal aspects of the idea of "perpetual peace," and delved into how a world without war could be achieved. Kant speaks of 6 main principles for the institution of "perpetual peace" on Earth:
According to Kant, for "perpetual peace" to be realized, everyone should assume responsibility, and values, such as "good intentions" and "duty ethics," must be cultivated; behind the state of peace and war lie ethical questions. The nature of humanity is the greatest assurance for the propagation of peace; it is not an obstacle in its path. But it is a common fact that ethics and politics usually contradict one another. In order to alleviate this contradiction, "transcendentalism," which is the starting point of Kantian idealism, should be applied in the field of universal law. Kant's ideal was attempted on a relatively large scale with the establishment of United Nations after the Second World War. But the situation that we have arrived at today gives the impression that we are back at how things were before the Second World War. The only way to put a halt to this course of events is to develop the concept of global ethics. The Need for Global Ethics The fact that the most basic problem that modern society is faced with today is not a political, social, or economic problem, but an ethical one, is now very clear. It is impossible for a society that lacks ethical pillars to remain standing. Leslie Lipson thinks in a similar way:
Those who are to blame for this are the scientists who do not take responsibility for the ethical outcomes of their discoveries, the economists who claim that production for economic gain is unrelated to ethical principles, the political scientists who limit themselves to forms of technical methods and systems of governance, and all those others who do not distinguish between good and bad knowledge, thus turning a blind eye to the things that are most damaging to society. The West, suffering from giddiness due to its own material success, has allowed materialism and the commercial superiority that comes along with it, to rule over all else. Today, the worship of the Golden Calf[14] has been replaced by the worship of the idolized gross national product. But goals have to be sought elsewhere. They should be sought in humanism, good citizenship, and good society. In the history of all civilizations, at every point of human development, one can come across occurrences of evil. But we have introduced brand-new evils into the twentieth century. All these evils are connected with the irresponsible methods that we use when we apply technology to our daily use. The existence of nuclear weapons, the pollution of the environment and its out-right destruction, the population explosion in areas where living standards are already low—these are such problems that if they are not solved the result will be one of the two following scenarios: Either the quality of civilization in all parts of the world will decline, including that in rich areas, or the planet itself will become an untenable place to live. Thus, the following question arises: What must we, all of humanity, do in order to escape such an eventuality? In my opinion, what we need are radical changes that will go down deep to the roots of the civilization that we are familiar with. Only a complete, radical attempt can save us from decline. There are two requisites for this action: the first one will involve a revolution in our institutions and the second, in our values. If civilization is to be protected and to continue to rise, these two requisites have to go hand in hand. (Lipson 2000, 298-300) Francis Fukuyama, who has attracted interest with his "The End of History?" thesis, argues that at the root of the development of societies and progress lies the feeling of trust, and that social welfare cannot be instituted without such a feeling. The institution of trust depends on the establishment of a strong civil social structure. Civil society has a complex structure which is comprised of firms, educational establishments, NGOs, the media, unions, charitable organizations, clubs, and religious institutions. Civil society is built upon the institution of the family, which passes on the values and knowledge pertaining to that society from generation to generation and provides for the qualities that enable individuals to live in a larger society. But a strong, consistent family structure and social institutions that have continuity do not come about through legislation, as do governments, central banks, or national forces. A successful civil society is built upon the habits, traditions, and ethical values of the individual. In socialization and in the furthering of social welfare the main propagating force is culture. For that reason societies have to make a great effort to maintain the cultural values which they have inherited from their past. Reasonable approaches and positive values cannot always be solutions by themselves alone; there must also be moral and spiritual values. In the twenty-first century, there is a need for measures that will enhance trust among different societies. And this can only be achieved by bringing together traditional cultures with modern institutions in a viable synthesis. Economic activity in the modern world is carried out, not by individuals, but by organizations that require the utmost social cooperation. Right to possessions, contracts and trade laws are all essential institutions for forming an economic system with modern market tendencies. But such institutions are only significant when coupled with social capital and trust. It cannot be claimed that these social norms and rules are not modern. In order for modern democracy to be functional, rational values and ethical values have to co-exist. Law, contracts, and economic rationality are elements that are needed for the prosperity of post-industrial societies, but they are not enough. As well as these values that rest upon rationality, there have to be values that are based on habits, mutual relations, ethical responsibilities and duties, and trust within society. These values are not in any way out-dated. On the contrary, they are indispensable elements of the success of modern society. (Fukuyama 1998) Our globalized world is in need more than ever of new global ethics that will be valid everywhere. It is imperative that the approach of "global ethics" that has been developed by Protestant intellectuals, such as Hans Küng and Josef Kushel, should be enriched, especially with the intellectual tradition of Islamic thinking. References
Dr. Bekir Karliga, Professor of Islamic Philosophy at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey [1] Tawba 9:41, 73; Furqan 25:52; Tahrim 66:9. [2] Hajj 22:78 ; Tawba 9:24, 88; Baqara 2:218; Al 'Imran 3:143; Hujurat 49:15; Ma'ida 5:35, 95; Ankabut 29:6; Mumtahana 60:1. [3] Tawba 9:122. [4] Ma'ida 5:54; Tawba 9:19; Anfal 8:72; Nahl 16:110; Ankabut 29:6, 8; Luqman 31:15. [5] 'Ajluni 1/424. [6] Tirmidhi, Fada'il al-Jihad, 2. [7] Bukhari, Jihad, 138; Muslim, Birr, 5. [8] Bukhari, Nafaqa, 1; Muslim, Zuhd, 41. [9] Abu Dawud, Malahim, 17; Tirmidhi, Fitan, 13. [10] 'Ajluni 2/285; Baghdadi 8/370. [11] Darimi, Seerah, 16. [12] Ibn Rushd 1/348. [13] Baykhaki, 10/150; Daraktuni, 4/206; Sarahsi, 16/61. [14] So he brought forth for them a calf, a (mere) body, which had a mooing sound, so they said: This is your god and the god of Moses, but he forgot. (Ta-Ha 20:88) Related Items: |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|