Darwin himself agreed on better adaptation, and increasing complexification, but wholly rejected the idea that the evolutionary progress of organisms had any kind of moral implication. He understood the ‘improvement’ implied in ‘progress through evolution’ in a functional rather than an ethical, moral, or social sense.

Darwinism – Spencerism

By some analogy to its biological counterpart, Social Darwinism argues that the struggle for existence among humans may be expected to yield social progress, just as struggle among human communities does produce evolutionary adaptive results. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), English sociologist and philosopher, was the pioneer of this approach, so much so that Social Darwinism might, in many respects, be better called ‘Social Spencerism’. Spencer was raised in the competitive atmosphere of the Industrial Revolution and remained one of the great champions of laissez-faire economics. It was he who coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ to describe natural selection, although he was never a convinced Darwinist. He had already accepted a progressive view of human society, and the idea of biological evolution, during the 1850s, before Darwin’s theory became public. For Spencer, Malthus’s ‘law’ of demographic change was the dynamic agent of social development, constantly forcing societies to progress economically in order to escape the pressure of limited resources. At the same time, he was convinced by Lamarck’s arguments for evolution and began to see the possibility of constructing a synthesis that would unite all aspects of natural and human evolution under the same laws.

Social Darwinism and the American Way

Social Darwinism received some of its widest support in the U.S where the laissez-faire economics developed in England and France in the late 18th century was vigorously espoused, and where, after the successful War of Independence, rights of the individual (especially in the form of freedom from government interference) were enthusiastically promoted. The leading Social Darwinist in American academic circles was William Graham Sumner (1840-1910), Professor of political economy and social science at Yale which, under his influence, became a kind of pulpit for Social Darwinism. His ideas were derived chiefly from Spencer. He viewed the capitalist system with great favour because it allowed the free play of the ‘competition of life’. Unlike Spencer, he was very pessimistic and didn’t look forward to a future state of equilibrium. The well-known industrialist and philanthropist, Andrew Carnegie (1 835-191 4), held the view that individualism, private property, the law of accumulation of wealth and the law of competition promoted the highest and best in human achievements. Other businessman liked to see (and present) themselves as successful survivors in the struggle for existence. For example Rockefeller said: ‘The growth of a large business is merely survival of the fittest…’. Interestingly, many rich American industrialists and businessmen found no difficulty in accommodating Christianity to the Darwinian idea of a competitive struggle which ‘necessarily’ eliminated the weaker parties in the struggle.

War of nations and races

It is not surprising that Social Darwinist arguments were readily extended to the conclusion that evolutionary progress of mankind is furthered by inter-racial or inter-national struggles. The theory of evolution could be and was used in justifications of wars for national or racial supremacy. The best known writer in this vein was the German historian Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896). In his ‘Politics’, he argued that the weak must perish, and that they perish ‘justly’: ‘The grandeur of history lies in the perpetual conflict of nations, and it is simply foolish to desire the suppression of their rivalry.’

Though Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) never stated explicitly that he was drawing on Darwin’s theory of evolution, we can easily see the Hitlerian doctrine of racial superiority a kind of Darwinism carried to logical extreme of madness. (Darwin himself might have had some racist tendencies. For example, he wrote: ‘The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.’)

Influence on political ideology

Spencerian Social Darwinism reached its peak of influence in 1882, when Spencer visited U.S. for an extensive lecture tour. But that tour also coincided with the beginning of questioning and reaction. Leading the reaction was Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913), a geologist and a professor of sociology. Ward took his stand on the side of nurture in the growing controversy of nature vs. nurture. His thoughts can be described as reformed or liberal Social Darwinism, repudiating the struggle doctrines of the laissez-faire school in favour of emphasis on social improvement through attention to the conditions of the social environment.

Australia, in the period from 1860 to 1885, saw the most frequent advocacy of Spencerian evolutionary ideas. Many Spencerian, Darwinian and Malthusian ideas and slogans were repeated by politicians, businessmen, academics, and journalists, just as in the U.S. But the succeeding period of economic depression dampened the enthusiasm, again as in the U.S., and criticisms began to develop and made themselves felt in the 1880s.

Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, various political and intellectual ideologies were clearly inspired to some degree by Social Darwinism-militarism, colonialism, racism, Nazism. Even socialism and anarchism were influenced by this doctrine. Marx and Engels were much interested in Darwin’s work, and used his theory to underpin their notion of the historical evolution of class struggle.

Essentialism and relativism

The influence of Darwinism on philosophical ideas was considerable and many-sided, but the precise way this influence worked is by no means easy to state in simple terms. Generally, Darwinian theory promoted or assisted the decline of Essentialism and the concomitant rise of relativism in many branches of philosophy. The doctrine of essences, all allegedly ‘ultimate explanations’, was driven out of philosophy. The American school of philosophy called ‘Pragmatism’, developed in the 1870s, was self-consciously influenced by Darwinism, some of its proponents being firm believers. Notably, Chauncy Wright (1830-1875), who, to Darwin’s considerable pleasure, defended the Darwinian theory against the perceptive attacks of some Catholic scholars. Charles Pierce (1839-1914), after his careful study of Darwin’s work, envisaged a kind natural selection process acting on ideas.

Ethics

Darwin himself was one of the first to consider the relationship between ethical theory and evolutionary doctrines, as when he argued that altruism might have had an evolutionary origin. He tried to show how ethical behaviour would have survival value, and thus might become established in human societies. But Darwin didn’t take the further step and say that one might distinguish between right and wrong by considering what had happened during the course of evolution, or where it was going in future. Evolution in itself did not provide an ethical code. Herbert Spencer, however, went beyond Darwin and hinted that this would be a possibility, as he wrote, ‘The conduct to which we apply the name good, is the relatively more evolved conduct, and … bad is the name we apply to conduct which is relatively less evolved.’

Such opinions were countered by T. H. Huxley in his 1893 essay, ‘Evolution and ethics’, saying that one cannot possibly draw any moral or ethical conclusions from a consideration of the course of evolution, evolution and ethics are quite distinct. Although his arguments were quite persuasive, others went on attempting to derive ethical norms from the evolutionary process.

Exclusion of the supernatural

Darwinian theory was purely naturalistic; it made no appeal to entities such as God, divine spirits, hypothetical intellects, final causes, souls or Platonic ideas. By providing an alternative naturalistic explanation of design, Darwin made it seem less necessary to construct a view of the world that invoked some kind of supernatural being. Darwin’s theories therefore gave considerable support to materialist interpretations of the world. The old mind/body dualism of Descartes and his followers would be replaced by a monistic materialism. This attitude proved particularly attractive in Germany, in the writings of the members of so-called ‘Monist League’, the work of the philosopher/biologist, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) being particularly prominent. Haeckel, once regarded as a progressive liberal opposed to the excesses of arbitrary state power, has (in the light of more recent studies) come to be considered as one of formative influences on German Nazism. The three main strands in his thought were German Romantic Idealism, scientific positivism and materialism, and Darwinism. But Haeckel’s materialism was interestingly different; for him, atoms were endowed with souls.

Also drawing on biological evolution, although less directly, was the philologist and nihilist professor, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), particularly in his poetic-philosophic discourse work Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He believed that by a proper exercise of will, certain men might evolve into a world-elite of ‘Ubermenschen’ or Supermen. Superman would be his own master and might succeed to the rank and authority traditionally associated with God.

Metaphysics

Henri Bergson, a French philosopher, (1859-1941), accorded primacy to spirit and intuition, rather than matter and analysis. Metaphysics was concerned with spirit and intuition, and he sided with the metaphysicians. Bergson’s evolutionism, though all-pervasive in his system, was very different from Darwin’s naturalistic, mechanistic or materialistic doctrine of evolution by natural selection. It is clear that Bergson far transcended the hard ground of Darwinian science and moved on to the lusher fields of speculative metaphysics. In its time, his work Creative Evolution aroused considerable excitement and enthusiasm.

On the subject of metaphysics Darwin himself was somewhat sceptical: ‘To study metaphysics as it has always been studied appears to me to be like puzzling at astronomy without mechanics.’ He felt that one who had explained the (biological) origin of man, who knew what a baboon was, had done more to explain man than Locke.

Religion

Darwinism’s impact on religion can be summarized by saying that it undermined religious beliefs, and was one of the major influences in encouraging agnosticism. Its naturalistic structure opposed the teleological basis of Christianity and other religions. Between 1830 and 1875, we observe an evolution in British society and particularly British scientific society. In 1830s, science as a profession was just beginning, and because of the peculiarities of British higher education there were strong links between science and organized religion. The next forty to fifty years saw those links weaken and break; and evolutionism, particularly Darwinian evolutionism gained the opportunity to be used. Darwin succeeded where Chambers (who proposed a designed evolution) failed, because Darwin had earned respect as a scientist. So for this change in Victorian Britain, the Darwinian Revolution was part cause and part effect.

Conclusion

Evolution, one of the fundamental discoveries and concepts in modern thought, is central to modem biology and to the use of biology in modern society. Without it, genetics, physiology, ecology, and every other aspect of biology would lack coherence. Evolution has also added new perspectives to the discussions on scientific methodology. More dramatic (and famous) has been the theory’s extra-scientific impacts. Evolution has been and probably will remain a doctrine that has consequences for our understanding of the nature of man, and the purpose (or lack of purpose) in his existence. Also, because of its social implications, as in human genetics, evolution is a subject highly charged with emotion, and much of the literature on it suffers from unspoken and often untested assumptions. It is very difficult to discuss the theory with objectivity. Discussion of it tends to spill over to virtually every area of discourse in the humanities and social sciences: Sociology, Economics, Politics, Theology, Philosophy, Psychology, Anthropology, Literature, and Music.

One argument for the antiquity of the doctrines of reincarnation is the ‘evidence’ in ancient literature, in the tales of metamorphosis-for example, Ovid’s colorful extravagances of that name, in which ‘gods’ take on human and animal forms, humans take on a diversity of different shapes, etc. But these tales do not constitute a doctrine; the doctrine proper is not to do with, simply, colourful change of form, but with a belief that an individual soul must pass through every ‘level’ of creation, every species of life- form, animate or inanimate, sentient or insentient. If we reflect upon this, we soon realize that the doctrine is really a strange elaboration on the immortality of the soul. In other words, the kernel of it is the intuition that the soul is immortal. That kernel is true; the rest is not. The doctrine may also have arisen from the observation of the likeness in physical and other traits between parents and offspring:

in other words, the biological phenomena of heredity, perfectly intelligibly explained by the laws of genetics, are given a less intelligible, indeed downright irrational, explanation by the doctrine of reincarnation.

The doctrine is said to have emerged in the Nile basin, spreading thence to other regions and peoples, to India, for example, and back west from thence, to Greece. There, the eloquence of the philosophers rationalized it (incredibly, it seems to us) into a source of consolation and hope for people who, as do all people, longed for eternity. Among the major religions, the doctrine was, initially, infiltrated into Judaism by the Kabbalists, and by the contrivance of Jewish thinkers into Christianity, and finally into the ideas of some Sufis-despite the hard labours of Muslim theologians to refute such a distortion.

To support it, every apologist for the doctrine, put forward some ‘evidence’. For instance, the Kabbalists mention the transformation of Niobe (mentioned in the Old Testament) into a marble sculpture, and of the wife of the Prophet Lot, into a statue made of dust; and others have referred to a literal transformation of Jews into monkeys and pigs.

Another argument explains instinct and intelligence in animals, and the splendours of the plant kingdom, as once human intelligence and vitality which had entered into them. The idea debases humanity and shames its proponents: it is really difficult to accept that such an assertion, even if made on the spur of the moment, could be made by people of any understanding. Certainly, it is beyond doubt that there is a programme and a predetermined destiny for plants and inanimate creation. But it is rather far-fetched to trace the harmony and order we see in the plant or mineral kingdoms to souls which formerly lived as or in human beings. Actually, plants and trees have a certain life, a plant-life, a direction of growth towards light and moisture, but this does not mean that this is the activity of the soul of a human soul cast down, or a soul on its way up the levels of creation.

Despite efforts to corroborate this, no one has ever received any message from a plant-form confirming that it contains a soul that once belonged to a human being, nor have we heard any account from a human being that he or she was once the soul of a plant or animal. True, there have been claims, spread about by tabloids and other such media, of people recollecting ‘past lives’, even recounting incidents from them. Where these claims are not totally absurd and ridiculous ravings, their substance can easily be explained as recollections of what the individual has seen or read and then, knowingly or otherwise, elaborated and transformed as in any ordinary human fiction.

The fact that Niobe and the wife of the Prophet Lot were transformed into sculptures of marble or dust respectively, even if accepted literally, are neither an instance nor evidence of reincarnation. What we have in this case is a transformation of a physical kind; it has nothing to do with transmigration of the soul. As for petrified bodies, that is not an arcane phenomenon: just such corpses have been found, in considerable numbers, preserved by the absolute dryness of volcanic ashes. Pompeii was destroyed by a sudden volcanic eruption and remained buried under the ashes of Vesuvius for hundreds of years. The excavations performed there revealed numerous Niobe-like petrified bodies. In these ruins, and in the petrified faces and bodies, so busy in their self-indulgent vices, so secure in their arrogance, we can, if we wish, read the signs of Divine wrath and punishment. Perhaps these figures had their way of life solidified in ash and so preserved, so that future generations might witness and take heed. To interpret them as evidence of reincarnation is simply untenable.

Belief in reincarnation in Egypt, India and Greece, developed as a result of distortion of once sound beliefs in the Hereafter, and from a longing for the immortality of the soul. Neither in Ahen-Aten’s Egypt nor in Pythagoras’ Greece did anyone know of the reincarnation which these distorted beliefs brought about. To Ahen-Aten, when man’s life ends in this world, a different one starts in heaven. As soon as one dies, one’s soul sets off on its journey to reach ‘the Greatest Court’ in heaven, It goes so high that it reaches to the presence of Osiris, and hopes to give an account of itself in words like these: ‘I have come to Your presence as I was free from sins, and throughout my life, I did do everything I could that would make devout men pleased. I did not shed blood nor did I steal. Neither did I make mischief nor did I mean any. I did not commit any adultery nor fornication whatever’. Those who can speak so join Orisis’ congregation, those who cannot, whose evil deeds outweigh their good, are hurled into hell and tortured by demons.

Such sound belief is witnessed also in epitaphs relating to Ahen-Aten’s religion as follows: ‘What You have done is too much and our eyes cannot perceive most of them. 0 One, Only God No one possesses such might as You have. It is You who has created this universe’ as You wish and You alone. It is You who decree the world suitable for human beings, for all animals, whether big or small, whether they walk on the earth on their legs or they fly up in the sky on their wings. And it is You alone who sustain and nourish them. Thanks to You, all beauties come into existence. All eyes see You by means of those. Verily, my heart belongs to You (You are in my heart).’ The ideas quoted verbatim above were the things which were believed as truth in Egypt some four thousand years ago.

Likewise, in Ancient Greece, the belief in resurrection and the immortality of the soul was quite sound. The great philosopher Pythagoras, for example, believed that the soul on leaving the body has a life peculiar to itself; in fact any soul has this same kind of life even before it quits the earth. It is commissioned with some responsibilities on earth; if it commits any evil, it will be punished, thrown into hell and tormented by demons. On the other hand, in return for the good that it does, it will be given high rank and blessed with a happy life. Allowing for the changes that might have been made in the views of Pythagoras over time, we can certainly still see that there are fundamental similarities with the Islamic creed of resurrection. Plato’s account is not so different either. In his famous treatise The Republic, he says that the soul on leaving the body forgets the material life totally; it ascends into an appropriate realm, a spiritual one, saturated with wisdom and immortality; the soul is free from all scarcity, deficiency, error, fear, and from the passion and love which afflicted it while it lived on earth; and then, being free from all the evil consequences of human nature, it is blessed with eternal bliss.

In essence, the doctrine of reincarnation is, in its different forms within different creeds, if we look carefully, a distorted version of a sound belief. Every creed, with the exception of Islam, has suffered such distortions. Christianity, for example, once a divinely revealed religion, has been distorted and Prophet Jesus deified. Had it not been for the luminous and clarifying verses of the Qur’an, and the influence of Islam, Christianity’s formal position on this matter may not have been different. If Christianity teaches the unity of the soul and body, it owes this to the Andalusian Muslim savants. One of the most famous Christian philosophers is St Thomas Aquinas. The great part of his new ideas and synthesis were adapted from Islamic teachings. He says in his distinguished book Summa Theologica (Part I, Question 90, Art. 4) that the key concept of man is that the soul and body are united in an apt composite. He adds that animal souls develop with animal bodies, but that human souls are especially created at some time during early development (Art. 3), and he therefore rejects the abstract speculations of the Neo-Platonist school.

In a comparable way, no doubt also through unscrupulous translation away from the original language and subsequent further distinctions, the Ancient Egyptian, Indian and Greek religions became unrecognizable. The doctrine of reincarnation may well be one such alteration from an originally sound conception of the immortality of the soul and its return to the Divine Judgement.

After reincarnation was inscribed into the beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians, it became one of the central themes of songs and legends throughout the vicinity of the Nile region. Elaborated further with the eloquent expressions of Greek philosophers, it became, with the expansion of Greek influence, a widespread phenomenon.

Reincarnation and Hinduism

The Hindus consider matter as the lowest manifestation of Brahma, and deem that the convergence of body and soul is a demeaning of the soul, a decline into evil. However, death is believed to be salvation, a separation from human defects, a possible chance to achieve an ecstatic union with the truth. The Hindus are polytheistic in practice. Their greatest god is ‘Krishna’, who is believed to have come in a human figure in order to eradicate evil.

Their second greatest god is ‘Vishnu’, which means that which can penetrate the human body. According to Hinduism, Vishnu has descended into this world nine times in different shapes (human, animal, or flower). He is also expected to descend for the tenth time. Since they believe that Vishnu will next come to this world in the shape of an animal, killing any animal is absolutely prohibited. Killing animals is only allowed during war; and the zealots of that religion do not normally eat meat. According to the Vedanta, the most important religious book of the Hindus, the soul is a part, a fragment, of Brahma; it will never be able to get rid of suffering and distress until it returns to its origin. Soul achieves gnosis by isolating itself from the ego and all wickedness pertaining to the ego, and by running towards Brahma, just as a river flows down into a sea. When the soul reaches and unites with Brahma, it acquires absolute peace, tranquillity and stillness, another version of which is Nirvana in Buddhism:there is an abatement of active seeking, a passivity of soul in the latter, whereas the soul is dynamic in Hinduism.

Reincarnation in monotheistic religions

Some Jewish sects adopted reincarnation and appropriated it. After refusing belief in Resurrection and Judgement, the Jews, who can be inordinately covetous of life yet remain fascinated by the immortality of the soul as well, could do little else than accept reincarnation. Later, the Kabbalists contrived to transfer it to the Church of Alexandria through certain monastic orders in that region. The doctrine has had negligible effect on the manifestation of Islam, nevertheless it was, unfortunately, introduced among Muslims by the Ghulat-i Shi’a (an extremist Shi’a faction).

All ancient, new and contemporary acceptance of the doctrine of reincarnation has one characteristic, one root, in common, that is the belief in incarnation. There is a shared failure of intellect to both grasp and accept the Absolute Transcendence of God: corrupted by this failure, people have been persuaded to believe that the Divine mixes with the corporal and that the corporal or the human will mix or can mix with the Divine. This failure is, except for Islam which, by God, has retained its strict purity of belief, all but universal. The central figure in each of these distorted religions is an incarnation or reincarnation-Aten in Atenism, Brahma in Hinduism. Ezra (Uzair) in Judaism, Jesus in Christianity, and Ali in the Ghulat-i Shi’a faction who are considered to be outside the fold of Islam. Allegations that some of the writings and utterances of some Muslim Sufis support the doctrine of reincarnation are either plainly malicious or the result of absurdly literal understanding of the Sufis’ highly symbolic and esoteric discourse. The scholars of Islam, certainly among the ninety percent of Sunnis, have all, unanimously and unequivocally, rejected reincarnation as totally contrary to the spirit of Islam. This is true of scholars in every field-jurisprudence, theology, Qur’anic commentary (tafsir) or commentary on Hadith. The reason for this stand is simple: the absolute centrality in Islam of the belief that every individual lives and dies according to his or her individual destiny, carries his or her individual load, will be individually resurrected and individually called to answer for his or her intentions and actions and their consequences, and each individually will receive Divine judgement (which is perfect justice) according to the same criteria.

Islam’s rejection of reincarnation

We set below, in the form of a list of points, the cardinal reasons why Islam altogether rejects the doctrine of reincarnation. Belief in Islam requires belief in the Resurrection and Judgement when justice is meted out to each individual soul according to that individual’s record in life.

1. If the individual soul passes into different lives, in which form or personality will it be resurrected, commanded to give account, and rewarded or punished?

2. This world is created for the purpose of test and trial, to benefit the soul thereby. One focus of the test is belief in the ghayb (the Unseen). Under the doctrine of resurrection, those who live a bad life pass into a lower form of life (animal, tree, etc.) after death. But in that case, they will know the consequences of their former life and life as test loses its meaning.

To get around this, believers in this doctrine also have to have a doctrine of forgetfulness-the soul ‘forgets’ its past existence. In that case, for all practical purposes, having had (or not having had) a past existence is of no consequence to any living creature. Plainly, the doctrine contradicts itself and has no bearing on life as it is lived except to make the individual accept his condition whatever it may be without actively striving for salvation.

3. If each individual is supposed to go through a painful cycle of transmigrations in order to acquire eternal bliss, then God’s promise to punish the wicked and the sinful, and to reward the good and the righteous, has no meaning for the individual life. This is unacceptable for Providence and God is far from being vain or futile in his actions.

4. The Qur’an and other Divine Books state that sins will be forgiven (if truly repented). This proves how unnecessary and cumbersome a device it is, this doctrine that the soul must endure innumerable cycles to realize forgiveness. How much better do the concepts of mercy and forgiveness befit God, the Beneficent Merciful Creator.

In Islam, there is no sin which God cannot forgive as He wills. God, the All-Mighty, reveals and promises in the Qur’an that He will forgive those who repent what they have done wrong and sincerely intend not to do it again. In this respect, God does not see how great or little your sins are, nor how late your penitence is. This may mean that a sinner who disobeys and rebels against God throughout his life can also he forgiven by a single act of true repentance, done with absolute sincerity and a profound understanding of servanthood and dependence on God. (But no individual knows his or her future, none knows if that late hour will come-how unwise then to postpone it!)

5. Long, and tiresome cycles of rebirth are contrary to the mercy, favour, grace and forgiveness of God, the All- Compassionate. If He wills, He takes ordinary, worthless, inferior things and turns them into what is purest, and best and beyond price. Infinite indeed are His blessings and munificence.

6. Among the followers of the prophets, there have been many who led wicked lives but who afterwards reformed and did so within an incredibly short time, then being the revered models of virtue for later generations. After meeting the Prophets, and embracing the Divine Message, some of them even surpassed previous followers and came to be more revered than them. This indicates that by the favour of God one can easily and quickly rise to the summit, even if, previously, one had been of those apparently destined for the pit. It also shows, again, how unnecessary is the doctrine of souls ‘graduating’ into higher levels of being:indeed the doctrine may have the effect of lessening incentives to moral effort.

7. To believe that God, the All-Mighty, has created for each individual an individual soul is a part of belief in His Omnipotence. To believe, instead, that a limited number of souls migrate from body to body, argues the illogical proposition that the Omnipotent is not Omnipotent. The sheer abundance of life, its infinite variety, its refusal of mere repetition of form, is everywhere evident:God is indeed All-Mighty. There are approximately 5 or 5.5 billion people in the world. In recent times we have learnt how to prove that each individual is absolutely unique-an idea urged by many verses of the Qur’an-by looking at fingerprints or gene codes. No individual’s gene code or fingerprint is like any other’s-a fact so reliable as to be used in forensic science to identify criminals. Another example is the observation by a German professor, over thirty years, of millions of pictures of snow-flakes not one of which is ever exactly like any other in shape or pattern. It is scarcely imaginable how many snowflakes fall in one season on one mountainside, let alone all that have ever fallen. How foolish to imply then that the Omnipotent could not create an infinite number of individual souls and supply them with an infinite number of bodies.

8. As there are about 5.5 billion people altogether on the earth, could not a few of them at least have had some marks, or signs on them, or evidence, or something convincing to tell, of their memories, adventures and experiences in different forms and bodies? Must not there have be an accumulation of knowledge, experience and culture in some of those who have come to this world a few times or even completed their cycles? If this happend in only one out of a million should we not expect there to be a great number of people now living of extraordinary virtue and competence? Should we not have met a few of them even in our own countries? If so, where are they?

9. When a body reaches an age (let’s say three or four years) and a measure of physical maturity, should we not expect the soul to emerge with, as it were, all the acquisition and achievement of previous lives? Should we not expect prodigies? There have been quite a few prodigies in recorded history, but their special gifts need not be the result of lives lived many times before. It can equally well be explained as a special combination of genetic characteristics occurring in a particular time and place which is attributable to Divine Grace and Favour, together with supreme effort on the part of the individual to understand his or her own gift in the tradition and context in which it is given.

10. No faculty special only to human beings has ever been found in any other entities, animate or inanimate. But we should expect such a discovery if there were any truth in reincarnation. If a lower form of life is, so to speak, the consequence (punishment) for particular evil deeds in the previous life, then, presumably, the good in that life (outweighed by the evil) must also be carried forward. In other words, some part of the individual’s previous life should be retained in the next life. In this case we would expect the boundaries of particular forms to be frequently burst open-with, for example, plants never known to do so, suddenly showing properties associated with animal life. But, by the Mercy of God, zoology and botany have not, for all their many welcome advances in recent years, discovered any such monsters.

11. If being a man or animal is the consequence of one’s deeds in a former life, which first existed, man or animal, the higher or the lower? Advocates of the doctrine cannot decide or agree on any form for the first creature, for every generation implies a preceding generation in order that the succeeding generation may be considered as the consequence of the former. And if generation is an evil, as some who believe in reincarnation also believe, why did the whole thing start? Why did life begin at all? Plainly, the doctrine leads again and again to absurdity.

Introduction

Around the middle of this century, influential voices in the West began to say that unlimited exploitation of natural resources could not continue much longer. They questioned the viability of the prevailing ethic based on laissez faire capitalism and unlimited economic growth at the expense of others and of the environment. The main outcome of such Western self-criticism has been the emergence, since the 1950s, of two broad schools of thought.1 The first arose out of efforts to re-examine and re-present the stewardship ethic of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. The second, ironically enough, grew as a critique of that same Judaeo-Christian tradition, accusing it of being the cause of the problem. This second school of thought is generally known as the ‘deep ecology’ school:

The ‘deep ecology’ approach

Here the inspiration is from Hindu and Buddhist religious philosophy which contains the oldest known ecological teachings.2 The Hindu-Buddhist world-view regards all creatures, including the non-human (perhaps also the inanimate), as holy, as possessed of intrinsic value, and therefore to be respected. This view is based on the idea that the soul leaves the body after death only to move into another, different body, the cycle of transmigration continuing from every level of existence to every other, possibly including inert existents like stones, minerals, etc. Because a human being’s soul might be embodied in, for example, a plant or animal, every element of the global ecosystem is respected as sacred. Respect for the ecosystem must be independent of any utilitarian value human beings may derive from the non-human species. In sum, ‘deep ecologists’ reject the attitude that values ecosystems only to the extent that they contribute to human survival or human quality of life. Humans have no right to reduce the richness and diversity of the environment except to satisfy basic needs.3 The most well-known advocate of this school is Aldo Leopold who maintains that ‘a thing is right when it tends to preserve the stability and integrity of the biotic community; it is wrong when it tends otherwise.’4

This non-Western attitude has achieved a widespread following among Western environmentalists since the 1950s. They reject the Judaeo-Christian ethic which, as they believe, is centred on human domination of the non-human and so promotes an uncaring, rapacious attitude.5 Lynn White, a famous historian of technology, was the first to voice this critique.6 Hooker, commenting on the passage in Genesis ch. 1, felt that the Bible urged an imperialist attitude to nature.7 The Bible there orders man, created in God’s image, to go forth and multiply, and to subdue the earth. In so doing, it appears to encourage a despotic human rule over the ‘lower orders’ of creation. Passmore says that the despotic elements in the Christian concept became more intense in the 17th century, around the time of Descartes.8

While we do not support the Christian view, we must protest that it is a historical misunderstanding to claim that Western European attitudes and actions have been securely based on Christianity. As Murphy rightly says, Western materialism has always disguised in the name of Jesus, the Evangelism of conquistadors and missionaries and the acquisitive Calvinism of the merchant burghers.9

It is not God’s will that mankind should use up natural resources in a self-centred, exploitative manner.10 Western writers themselves have realized this: ‘The phrase “conquest of nature” is certainly one of the most objectionable and misleading expressions of Western languages. It reflects the illusion that all natural forces can be entirely controlled, and it expresses the criminal conceit that nature is to be considered primarily as a source of raw materials and energy for human purposes.’11

Whether ‘conquest of nature’ is inspired by Christianity is doubtful. It is certainly the case, however, that (whatever Christianity’s influence) international law shows no awareness of ecological considerations in the exploration and exploitation of the world’s natural resources.12 The cardinal principles of international law such as freedom of exploitation of international spaces or permanent sovereignty over natural resources have been ‘primarily based upon the concept of successful sharing rather than conservation itself.’13

The stewardship ethic

It was inevitable, given the self-assertiveness of Western culture, that Christians, as a part of that culture, should search for a Christian teaching that did not propose ‘conquest of nature’. In the last twenty years or so, a new ethic has been outlined on the basis of the Protestant Doctrine of ‘good stewardship’. An advocate of this approach, Kevin Kelly, writes:

It has been fashionable to blame our Judaeo-Christian ancestry for our woeful behaviour toward Gaia. Outrageous figures like James Watt convinced most people that good Christians believed that they were obliged to loot the Earth. All the while a congregation of believing environmentalists has been steering toward an ethic of ecology based on the Bible-the key word is ‘stewardship’… Their directive is the Eleventh Commandment: ‘The Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; thou shall not despoil the Earth, nor the life there-on.’14

The stewardship ethic is human-centred, erected upon human choices not choices within the domain of other species, entities or systems. This view denies the belief that human beings are simply one other species sharing the planet with the rest. But, the superiority of mankind or the Biblical call for dominion cannot be a justification for cruelty to animals or for the destruction of nature. Human beings, as the stewards of God, have responsibilities not only for the other creatures, but also for the generations to come.

In many areas of collective activity, Christians struggle to find a secure basis for a sustainable ethic which can win and hold the adherence of the mass of people. The neo-Christian stewardship ethic is but the latest example. The Islamic teachings on the issue are, by contrast, unequivocal and have the authority of tradition, of ‘custom and practice’. 

The Islamic stewardship ethic

Man, in Islam, has no dominion over the earth, but is charged, as a khalifah or steward, with the protection and preservation of the environment, and permitted the use of its natural resources without undue waste. As khalifah, he has responsibilities to creation as well privileges over it. In other words, man was not created in order to let loose a consuming, selfish destructiveness on the earth. Everything in the sky and on earth has been put at the disposal of man as a trust or amanah,15 for the use of any particle of which he is answerable to its true Owner, Allah. The human duty to protect the biosphere has been succinctly expressed in these words: God”s wisdom has ordained to grant man inheritance on earth. Therefore, in addition to being part of the earth and part of the universe, man is also the executor of God”s instructions and commands. And as such he is a mere manager of the earth and not a proprietor; a beneficiary and not a disposer or ordainer. Man has been granted inheritance to manage and utilize the earth for his benefits and for the fulfilment of his interests. He, therefore, has to keep, maintain and preserve it honestly, and has to act within the limits dictated by honesty.16 The duties and privileges of stewardship extend to all human beings as such, not to a particular nation excluding others, nor to particular classes excluding others. In other words, management of these resources must be sustainable: the resources belong to mankind as a whole, not just to the present generation. It follows that Muslims should not regard use of any resource as a right of full possession which would legitimize the individual exhausting that resource.17 Man is, so to speak, a tenant, not a proprietor – and even as tenant, Islam traditionally recognizes only a right of usufruct. Man is entitled to benefit from, to produce from, the use of natural resources. But this entitlement does not, as Locke and Nozick claim,18 extend to any absolute right to dispose and use up natural resources, even if there is a legitimate “property” right as recognized in modern legal systems. Tenancy of the biosphere prohibits present generations from disregarding and threatening the interests of future generations. This is well illustrated in one of the sayings of the Prophet, upon him be peace: If the Hour is imminent and anyone of you has a palm shoot in his hand and is able to plant it before the Hour strikes, then he should do so and he will be rewarded for that action That hadith is clear evidence that a concern for future generations was on the public agenda as early as the seventh century, whereas in the Western world this concern, ushered in by John Rawls and his followers,19 is as recent as the early 1970s. That Western concern, although modern, need not be any the less serious for being so. In the 1970s it contributed significantly to the development of the public trust doctrine. This doctrine can be said to be a natural consequence of the stewardship ethic by which the present generation are regarded as trustees, charged with protecting and passing on, for the benefit of future generations, all the resources they inherited from their ancestors. The historical roots of this doctrine are claimed to date back to the Roman concept of trust.20 However, Roman law did not develop the trust concept as a tool for environmental protection. We should accept that the contemporary origin of this doctrine originates from the American Charity Trust Law.21 Since the 1970s, the public trust or charitable trust device became the most viable way of tackling global environmental problems.22 Today, there are numerous international environmental conventions which incorporate the doctrine.23 As for international application of the public trust doctrine, states and governmental or nongovernmental organizations act, on behalf of the international community and of future generations, as trustees for those natural and cultural re-sources within their effective jurisdiction. And they are morally and legally responsible to the rest of mankind for the trust they hold. It is a pity that the Western advocates of this doctrine have not had access to the vast archives of Ottoman vaqf (Trust) Law.24 If they had had access, they would have realized that the first historical precedents for charitable trusts for precisely this purpose, date back to the era of the Prophet, upon him be peace. He was the first to donate two date-yards as a charitable trust specifically for the benefit of succeeding generations. This tradition later found its mature and magnificent form in the Ottoman vaqfs which included trusts set up to protect local birds and to facilitate the settlement and migration of storks. Unfortunately, it must be admitted that the historic Ottoman vaqfs 25 situated in modern Turkey are not as effective as they used to be, and cannot therefore be demonstrated as precedents. Nevertheless, it would be of great value to do serious research on Islamic vaqfs related to environmental purposes, in order to develop practical legal models to deal with this problem in the future.

Notes and References

1. There have, of course, been several different schools of concern about this issue-for example, the North American Indian trend represented by Chief Seattle, or the “ecofeminists”. See, in general, DIAMOND, E. AND ORENSTEIN, G. (eds) Reviewing the World: the Emergence of Ecofeminism, 1990.

2. See in general, NAESSA, A. “The shallow and the deep. Long range ecology movement: a summary”, Inquiry, (1973) 16, p.95.

3. For more detail see DALY, E. and COBB, B., For the Common Good, Green Print, London, 1989, ch.20, pp.376-400, p. 377.

4. In 1949 Aldo Leopold wrote a slender volume, A Sand Country Almanac and Scythes Here and There. The quotation is the core message of his ethical understanding.

5. HOOKER, C. A., “Responsibility, Ethics and Nature” in The Environment in Question, pp.147-164, 151.

6. See WHITE, L., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”, originally published in Science, March 1967, but reprinted many times throughout the 1970s, e.g. BELL, G. (ed.) Environmental Handbook, Ballantine Books Inc., 1970, p.14.

7. HOOKER, p.151.

8. PASSMORE, J., Man’s Responsibility for Nature, 1974, p. 114.

9. MURPHY, E. E, “The Diminishing World of Western Law”, 1981, 16/1, Texas International Law Journal, pp.1-10, p.2.

10. WHITE, ibid.

11. DUBES, R., A God Within; quotation was taken from PORRIT, J., “A New International Order: One World and Beyond” in Save the Planet, 1991, p.41.

12. KU, C., “The Concept of Res Communis in International Law”, 1990, 12/4 History of European Ideas, pp.459-77, p.459.

13. BROWNLIE, I., “A Survey of International Customary Rules of Environmental Protection” in TECLAFF, I. & UTTON, A., (eds) International Environmental Law, pp.1-12, p.1.

14. Quoted in REINHART, P., “The Eleventh Commandment”, 1986, 50 Whole Earth Review, pp.83-4, p.83.

15. See HAMID, A., Islam: the Natural Way, MELS Publication, London, 1989, 22, pp.160-2.

16. IUCN, “Islamic Principles for the Conservation of the Natural Environment”, 1983, 11 Environmental Policy and Law, pp.83-6, p.83.

17. ibid.

18. See Liberal Locke and Nozick’s entitlements theories of justice over natural resources and their consequences in LOCKE, Two Treaties on Civil Government, Cambridge University Press, 1960 (Second Treatise) and NOZICK, R., Anarchy, State and Utopia, Blackwell, Oxford, 1974, pp.174-5.

19. See Rawls” “The just saving and different principles” in RAWLS, j., A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1971. 20. The progenitor of this school is Joseph Sax, a jurist: SAX, J., “The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Interventio”, 1970, 68, Michigan Law Review, pp.470-565.

21. See SAX, ibid.

22. See for more information NANDA, V. and KIS, W. K., “The Public Trust Doctrine: A Viable Approach to International Environmental Protectio”, 1976, 5 Ecology Law Quarterly, pp.291-320; also WEISS, E. B., In Fairness to Future Generations: Common Patrimony, International Law, Inter-generational Equity, 1989, University of United Nations, Tokyo.

23. See NANDA and KIS, ibid.

24. See for more information YEDIYILDIZ, B., Institution du vaqf au XVIIeme siedle en Turquie”. Etude socio-historique, Minist. de la Culture, Ankara, 1990.

25. The establishment of institutionalized vaqfs took place at the time of Sulaiman the Magniflicent, in the 15th century. The vaqf institution lost its historic meaning when the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the early 20th century. See AKGUNDUZ, A, Belgeler Gercekleri Konusuyor (2), Nil Nesriyat, Izmir-Turkey, 1990, pp.107-10.