Are you struggling to come up with fresh content ideas for your blog, website, or social media channels? If so, I have great news for you. I’m excited to share with you “1000+ ChatGPT Prompts for Business”. This collection contains over 1000 pre-written prompts that you can easily copy and paste into ChatGPT to help you generate content, saving you time and effort. Get it here for FREE (Limited Time Only).

With the late-2022 launch of chatbots, ads like the one above is becoming more common. As exciting as it appears, many are not sure where this new era is leading. One major question about AI centers around ethics. On January 10, 2023, “AI Ethics: An Abrahamic Commitment to the Rome Call” [1] gathered the three Abrahamic religions and different corporate leaders at the Vatican for the purpose of discussing ethics in navigating this technology. The common agreement was that algorithms should improve the world but not be the ultimate decision-maker.

In his speech, Microsoft representative Brad Smith underlined the importance of considering a religious take on ethics as a moral compass in determining the rules and regulations around AI. Following the conference, the leaders of the Abrahamic religions signed a joint declaration. It urged the developers of AI to follow six principles: AI must be transparent, inclusive, accountable, impartial, reliable, secure, and respectful of the users’ privacy. It is necessary to analyze relevant studies that bring up the positive and negative aspects of AI in order to better understand the rising concern that surrounds it.

Findings from previous AI studies indicate that AI carries about itself a vague identity; hence, it is not totally clear what might possibly go wrong with the technology. Proponents of the technology call for its urgent implementation because machines seem to be working for the benefit of society. For instance, AI is currently being used at fulfilling some Sustainable Development Goals, and the UN believes that technology can assist in overcoming global catastrophes in the future. Some believe AI has potential benefits [2] in industries such as manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, translation, and publishing. Scientific American [3] reported how AI is helping doctors find out possible causes of life-threatening illnesses in order to reduce deaths by 20 percent. Researchers state that medical experts analyze the provided information related to a patients’ condition and make decisions about whether to agree with a machine’s data or not. In this case, health providers are able to take control of the machine, not vice versa. This is one example that demonstrates that people are not blindly relying on algorithms.

Scientists believe that AI can contribute to combating the climate crisis [4] as long as innovators make climate decision-making processes local, democratic, and open. Here we can see further evidence of technology acting as an ally in coping with environmental disasters and illnesses without compromising human authority.

On the other hand, the future consequences of man-made tech is still blurry; there are legitimate concerns that their possible malfunctioning might lead to harmful situations. The launch of ChatGPT has caused major debates about its ethical usage. While generating something based on already existing data, some people think ChatGPT violates the rights of the artists and writers who actually made the work that the program sources. A couple of studies have evidenced cases where machines let down their users. In 2016, Chatbot Tay made by Microsoft initially looked human-friendly but had to be shut down after unexpectedly tweeting pro-Nazi, antisemitic, and anti-feminist remarks. The technology failed at giving sensible responses when Joseph Austerweil, a psychologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, tested the machine for morality questions [5].

A study [6] by the National Institute of Standards and Technology showed that facial recognition systems are biased against people of color and women. San Francisco and Berkeley (CA), Somerville, and Brookline (MA) prohibited the government from using facial recognition tools because the biased technology is found to be more problematic in law enforcement and governance. Maria De-Arteaga, an algorithmic systems researcher at Carnegie Mellon University suggested that companies and governments should be very careful before relying on a machine’s intellect and questioned the safety of these technologies. 

While these machines appear uncontrollable and unpredictable, an ethics researcher at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia believes that “they are not unguided” and work according to the instructions and choices made by people. At the Rome Call for AI ethics convention, Mario Rosetti, Professor Emeritus of Theoretical Physics at the Politecnico di Torino, noted that the human brain cannot be compared to an artificial intellect due to the brain’s magnificent structure and function. If the human brain is far more powerful than AI, then there is hope that the technology could be controlled by people. All the previous studies accentuate an argument that AI must not be worshiped.

Since machines are constantly being improved upon, religious and tech leaders have found it important to discuss the ethical issues that surround AI and help innovators minimize their risks. Religious leaders at Rome Call for AI ethics approached the ethical issues of the technology from a spiritual perspective by referring to holy scriptures.

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, President of Zaytuna College, explained how inventions have historically been approached with caution. Yusuf gave the example of a dialogue from Plato’s Phaedrus, in which Thoth (or Theuth) shows his invention of writing to the King as “a recipe for memory and wisdom.” The King responds that this invention will “implant forgetfulness in their souls.” With this example, Shaykh Yusuf was basically pointing to the risk that such inventions may not really serve knowledge, for with such inventions, knowledge is no longer coming from inside but from outside. He also highlighted that the concept of invention always had negative connotations in many religious traditions out of fear of societal destabilization. When the focus is on technological benefits, people might disregard the potential harm, including its alienating, distracting nature which we experience everyday by “constantly checking our phones.” In the past, distraction was considered synonymous with “mental drain.” Kafka said, “Evil is whatever distracts.” While progress might be inevitable, it does not mean all progress is useful. We need to “look down the road at the consequences,” Shaykh said, based on an Islamic juristic principle (al-nazar fi al-maalat) and seriously consider how we can prevent harm. In his speech, Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah reminded that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, “There should be no harm and no reciprocation of harm.” Reflecting on Aristotle’s five intellectual virtues, Hamza Yusuf noted the importance of approaching technology (artistry, craftsmanship) with prudence (phronesis) and wisdom (sophia).

The Jewish attitude is that humans are created in God’s image and that they carry divine attributes within themselves and therefore stand above artificial intelligence. Israeli attorney and professor of law Haim Aviad Hacohen talked about the ancient Babylonian civilization’s failure to appreciate this quality of mankind. The Babylonians had an eager wish to reach heaven through the highest tower. The Bible tells us that this tower was special and that it would have demonstrated the technical and economic accomplishment of that nation. People were obsessed with the idea of conquering the sky, so they excluded God’s opinion and showed no care for the construction workers that built the tower because, as Rabbi Hacohen narrated, “from the high top one cannot really see millions of needy people on the ground who need their attention.” Rabbi Shlomo David Rosen gave an example, saying that “When a brick fell down and broke, people stopped their work and cried. But when a person fell and died, they did not bat an eyelid.” Consequently, people were punished for their arrogant and negligent behaviors when God made them speak different languages.

Previously, Rabbi Eliezer Simha Weisz, a member of the Council of the Chief Rabbinate, said that the Jewish community used to make golems (creatures brought to life using clay and Hebrew incantations) by means of kabbalistic efforts to protect themselves from their enemies. However, the golems were the ones who would be defeated. Even though they were man-made powerful creatures they came out to be weaker than human beings.

The essential argument made by almost every religious leader in the convention can be summed up into one common statement: “Technology has to be used for the improvement of human life and shouldn’t leave anyone behind.” It should not harm but serve humanity. Therefore, human beings must be in control of it and not vice versa. All of the speakers at the event supported Pope Francis’ statement concerning asylum seekers. Thus, technology shouldn’t harm the most vulnerable category of people but assist them in overcoming their hardships.

When all is said and done, it seems that technology is like God’s creation of evil. It is there to guide people in the difference between good and bad, and to stimulate us to seek higher achievements in this life. But this is possible only as long as we control that which is evil, which is not an easy task. Similarly, AI is a man-made invention, and it is inevitably becoming part of our daily lives. Instead of avoiding its usage, it’s better to look for healthy ways of integrating it into our lives. However, whether or not AI will act in favor of, or against, mankind will depend on how it is applied.

References

1. https://www.romecall.org/the-abrahamic-commitment-to-the-rome-call-for-ai-ethics-10th-january-2023/
2. https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/backgrounders/Pages/artificial-intelligence-for-good.aspx
3. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/algorithm-that-detects-sepsis-cut-deaths-by-nearly-20-percent/
4. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-ai-can-do-for-climate-change-and-what-climate-change-can-do-for-ai/
5. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/technology/can-a-machine-learn-morality.html
6. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/technology/facial-recognition-bias.html

One may feel inclined to avoid the obvious, but most thinking readers and writers will say that the defining factor of our century is fundamentalism. And yet, there is something that goes hand-in-hand with fundamentalism: the material savage that is raging around our planet. Wasn’t it always, one way or another, about God versus Mammon? It is hardly surprising that we should connect the strife as we know it today with money. “Of course,” the citizen in the street will say, “it is all about oil.” But is oil the real cause? As a tongue-in-cheek proposition, one might say that right now the cause could be solar panels—or more likely, the capacity to build electric- or solar-driven automobiles. As far as America and the West in general is concerned, it will be, and probably already is, all about energy independence. But perhaps personal independence for the citizen on the street could be approached in a different and more appropriate manner.

The German-speaking world, which gave us the likes of Freud and Adler and Jung, has also given us a word that expresses it all so neatly, so precisely. It was what National Socialism was founded on. Existenzangst is the explanation for most things deplorable within the human frame and is ultimately the forming factor of the human condition. Feelings of insecurity and fear are obviously not to be desired, and people will fight to avoid or subdue them. It is noticeable that panic fostered by poverty demonstrably leads to fanaticism—but that only according to the level of so-called civilized sophistication and through manipulative politics. In the developing world, where poverty is usually the given norm, apathy rules until parties with an interest start to exercise pressure. Apathy in the West, however, has never been seen when a nation hits a bad patch in its collective history; that nation gets up and fights. The extreme exaggerations of the fundamentalists today are financed—but by whom or what, is often not known. But they are financed to the point where warfare is an easily accessed option and the general public are coerced, often unwittingly, into taking part.

Money makes the world go round! How awful to be obliged to admit it. But the human psyche would have it so. Many years ago, an astute social observer was reported to have maintained that the hippy movement of the 1960s was made possible because the kids, supported by their perfectly solvent parents, were financially able to drop out. America was enjoying an upturn in fiscal endeavor. Things were going swimmingly. What to do? Well, the kids didn’t really rebel against materialism; they rebelled against a vague stirring within themselves. It was a stirring, a burgeoning feeling of frustration. They wished for freedom and were looking for the same through a medium that had not made them captive. Most never found that medium. To put it bluntly, they were—we are—very much of this world.

It means that when a certain material level has been achieved and sufficient outlets have been provided for disposing of one’s wealth, restlessness sets in. Restlessness among the young is no great novelty, and, one way or another, every generation pushes past the frontiers of convention. New standards are set, and old regimes are torn down.

It has always been so. The terrorists of today have been recorded in dismal similarity at regular intervals throughout what we are pleased to call human history. But why? What was really behind the so-called Protestant versus Catholic conflict in Ireland, or the war in Vietnam, or the mass-murder of Jews in World War II? What makes humans so inhuman? Is it simply a lack of money? Is it desperation to maintain a few bits of inconsequential civilization? Perhaps, even, the need to “be something,” or someone?

Physical attack admittedly requires defense, but for all else, one does have the option of simply turning away. “Brushing the dust from one’s heels,” so to speak. One finds the word “perverse” perfectly apt for describing the world’s ills, as perpetrated by the world’s troublemakers. My dictionary offers: wayward or contrary; obstinate; cantankerous as an explanation for perversity. It is all the stuff of self-will, and that sometimes to the point of madness. If one points out to world leaders that their policies and actions are costing the lives of women and children (men, too, of course), they seem incapable or resolutely contrary, nay oblivious, to what would be seen as being truly human. Our technological advance has apparently gone hand in glove with our decline as humans. One remembers Albert Einstein and his famous words after splitting the atom for us; “My God, what have we done?” Well, two steps forward, one step back really does seem to be the mode.

The age of connections. Rebirth of faith. Clash of civilizations. Age of the Internet. Rise of fundamentalism. Interstellar travel. Gender equality. Human trafficking. WWIII. Artificial intelligence. Genetics. Cooperation. Competition. Spiritual revolution. Secularism. Values and Ethics…

All will loom large in public awareness in the 21^st century. Nevertheless, the last theme on the list, Ethics, will possibly be our only hope if we wish to manage all of the rest in the future. An ethical approach is, of course, paramount for dealing with what will be our lot as we continue to flounder in our sea of uncertainty. Mr. and Mrs. Average, people like you and me, will be made subject to matters far beyond our control. It will be this lack of control—having everything out of our hands—that could foster frustration anew. This is where ethics will be of the essence.

Could there be a better way to live life? As humans awaken and walk forward into their day, their global difficulties will continue to flow towards them. For many a “heads down” approach will be all that is left to them. Heads down and somehow struggle or barge through. It may be well to remember Ernest Hemmingway’s admonition to “not confuse movement with action.” This will, for many, and especially our opinion makers, go against the intellectual grain. Listening to any of the news and discussion programs one must be aware that the name of the game is action and counteraction, which is obviously and commonly known as treating the symptom and not the cause.

Since ethics are sometimes to be first sought, one could find it useful to simply stand still. It could mean a neat sidestep from the shenanigans of what we may be forced to countenance. To make light for a moment of a serious matter, a sort of olé response could be adopted to counteract the obvious perversity that rushes, bull-like, at us. Imagine an elegant stance, a numbing of the thinking mind, a quietening of the jabbering mental voice. There would be no hectic rush when the body and mind are in accord. A mind slowly fading into its own background noise—almost you might say, a mind being modest. A modest mind would be quite an innovation. But standing still, reflecting a little, taking it easy, will give us time to really understand what is going on around us. After all, a headlong rush into the fray will usually only add fire to an already raging inferno.

Our children—my wife and I have four—are already pulling back, withdrawing their time, their money, and their energies from a world that is no longer governed by ethics. In their own small way they are refusing to be a part of the global materialism that is being thrust at them. They do not leap to buy the latest technology, do not need to have, come what may, the latest gadget or carefully construed merchandise. Perhaps the children of the 1960s were not so wrong in principle after all. But now could be the time to not only drop out in an endeavor to attain freedom from the advertised life; we may now be able to see freedom in a different light.

We can say “no” because it is our right and privilege. This may well imply division between the warring classes and the pacifists, but the division is already becoming a reality. To recap on the theme of perversity, one should try to understand that there is no way to counter it. This is a given fact. As obvious as it may be, a person or party bent on action that defies all reason will be beyond their capacity to be reasoned with. There are hard-headed policies to contend with; they tell of a need to somehow “win” at all costs. Escape from the round of win-and-lose could be seen in the sophist’s claim: “I cannot be beaten by you because I have no wish to win.”

Ethics must prevail or all else will be lost. In the end we may be able to become responsible for our ideas, endeavors and attitudes, and above all our feelings. “Live and let live” must sooner or later become more than an empty phrase because it is clear that humans are largely unable to leave each other alone. Going one’s own ethical way and proceeding in a quiet and sincere manner seems reasonable, I feel.

I remember reading an observation by a literary light who suggested that there existed a very special club that people can join. There are no badges or insignia, and its members do not know each other, but when they chance to cross paths recognition is instant, although they may never even converse. Perhaps a nod sponsored by a deep awareness may be given. The club, of course, comprises true ladies and gentlemen. They are people of a quiet, even reticent, demeanor. They display no attitude or flair. They are slow to anger, and they are to be encountered at places and in situations that means they are where they are due to purpose and not whim. It is often these people who anonymously sponsor charities and are much involved in giving aid to the world’s poor and oppressed.

Is it too much to ask that we become ladies and gentlemen? The inner world of humans is fraught with desires and feelings that are all too often less than useful. It is by now common knowledge that the real meaning of jihad, a word largely associated with terror, is all about a personal inner battle and not a battle with someone else. One need not be a Muslim to see the possibility of undertaking our own inner battles. One may perhaps not become a superstar, but one does have the chance of becoming truly human.

“Change yourself if you wish to change the world,” is the old adage. I believe it is not even a matter of changing ourselves in the accepted sense (although I for one could discard a few bad habits) but tapping into a long-forgotten birthright. A birthright that is still there but has been overcharged with “needs” that are not really needs.

Personal ethics as the given norm would be a good place to start, for without them all else that is damnable is a foregone conclusion.

God has prescribed us to act mercifully and charged us with the responsibility of getting to know one another and living together in peace so that religion is practiced for God alone, and no human is given authority over another. The purpose of this prescription is to ensure that everyone is free to practice their faith, is safe, doesn’t worry about their financial interactions, and can express one’s beliefs. In fact, all the rules, laws and regulations of Islam have actually been placed in order to secure, guarantee, and regulate these freedoms.

Community freedoms are different; some are shared by all, and some are agreed upon. While some are mutually inclusive, some might conflict or oppose the freedoms of others. By reminding of possible consequences and promises of rewards in the hereafter, Islam aims to prevent such conflicts by commanding virtue and prohibiting vice.

A truly free human being is one whose presence in a community is respected. A free individual can enjoy the opportunities of advancement and development, in realms both material and immaterial. Therefore, what befalls upon such a free person is to observe and respect the rights and freedoms of others and to defend these rights just like his own rights are defended. Free individuals seek equality.

It is among one’s rights to discuss and debate with others regarding their thoughts and creeds; even to raise objections in light of one’s faith and creed. However, one is not allowed to cause any harm to others, nor mock what they consider holy or make fun of the symbols of their religions. Rather, one must respect what they hold high. In turn, one might expect others to respect what you consider holy.

Shedding light on this topic, God says, “And do not insult those they invoke other than God, lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge” (Qur’an 6:107-8). And He the Exalted also said, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best” (16:125). He also added, “Do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them” (29:46).

The main structure of freedom, according to Islam, is based on the obligation of securing the individual’s life through providing his or her basic necessities and needs. Based on this provision, it is possible for an individual to utilize their right of freedom in thought, faith, religious practice, and expression. Nonetheless, if the community fails to cater to the rights of the poor, weak, and impoverished some people will be deprived of their freedoms. This is especially so when the distribution of welfare is off balance, for the crushing forces of poverty will further curtail the freedoms of the poor.

God says in the Qur’an, “God will surely perfect His light, however hateful (it may be) to the unbelievers dislike it. He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religions” (61:8-9).

The “perfecting of the light” and the “manifesting of the truth” can only be realized when the community and the nation become an exemplary embodiment of the values they hold. These values include mercy, peace, respect, solidarity, unity, prosperity, truthfulness, and other high moral qualities. In the community where all these values are manifested, creedal concepts are translated into behavior and aesthetic values. For this to be possible members of the community have to be aware of their rights and the ways of obtaining them. Consequently, communities will be committed to preserving these rights – and then extending them to other states or nations. Just as one must live justly, one should support other nations and communities that strive to obtain their human rights, prosperity, and freedom; this is an inseparable part of the being an exemplary community.

When moral qualities and values are firmly rooted in a community and the consciences of the people, these values will be seen in their behaviors, actions, and attitudes guiding them to becoming the “perfect human” who is potentially equipped with faculties to receive the heavenly message and benefit from it. A community’s advancement and civilization are in direct proportion with nobleness of the moral values it possesses.  

Islam did not leave the issue of a community’s morality to the wills of individuals. Rather, it put certain limits and borders on freedoms and established rules and regulations to establish a moral atmosphere. It also laid down a set of punitive measures to ensure security and peaceful coexistence in the society.

By entrusting the rights of the needy and poor upon the society at large it can also be said that Islam enjoins a social security system. As an extension of these rights, Islam has prescribed alms-giving (zakat) upon the rich and other legal incentives for the giving of charity through vows (nadhr), expiations (kaffarah), and financial compensations. In return, to protect peoples’ rights of property, Islam has also laid down a penal system against crimes like theft, rebellion, and murder which endanger a community’s safety and unity whilst also undermining its ethical values.

The moral system that Islam lays down is unique in the following aspects:

1. The source of Islam’s moral system is divine revelation: the Qur’an and the Sunna. In these two sources, there are measurements and broad objectives that adjust a person’s behavior in the universe in accordance with a lofty system of high morals.

2. Good character is obtained by effort. The opportunity to advance and acquire high moral levels is open to all humans and all people. All start from a common point where they are all equal in this race for a higher good, that being that they are all the children of Adam (pbuh). In light of this, it is narrated that the Companion of the Prophet, peace be upon him, Abu Said al- Khudri said, “Some of the people of the Ansar asked for something from the Messenger of God and he gave it to them. Then they asked him again and he gave it to them until he had used up everything he had. He said, ‘If I had anything, I would not keep it away from you. (Remember) Whoever abstains from asking others, God will make him contented, and whoever tries to make himself self-sufficient, God will make him self-sufficient. And whoever remains patient, God will make him patient. Nobody can be given a blessing better and greater than patience.’”

3. This moral system is also uniquely characterized by steadiness and stability. The reason for this is that morality in Islam has a “worship element” (ta’abbudi) in which a person seeks his Lord’s pleasure. Hence the reason behind the morality emanates from the fact that it is requested by the Almighty and hence it is not merely a way of interacting with others based on utilitarian principles and interest. In relation to this, the Companion of the Prophet, Abu Hurayra, narrated that the Prophet said, “May he be miserable, the worshipper of the dinar and dirham, and the worshipper of the striped silk cloak. If he is given anything, he is satisfied; but if not, he is unsatisfied” (Bukhari, Riqaq).

4. Islamic morality is also distinguished by being comprehensive and completing all aspects of life, the public and private, from one’s relationship with the Lord to those with other human beings, even down to the level of his domestic interactions.

5. The moral values in Islam point to ideal forms, yet they are also applicable and realistic. They do not oblige a person to do something that is beyond his or her ability. God said in the Holy Qur’an, “Keep, then, from disobedience to God in reverence for Him and piety as far as you can, and listen attentively and submit (to His commands), and obey Him, and spend (in His cause and for the needy), as it is to the betterment of your souls. Whoever is guarded against the avarice of his soul, those are they who are truly prosperous” (64:16).

Another verse reads, “What I seek is only to set things right so far as I am able. My success in my task depends on God alone. In Him have I put my trust, and to Him do I always turn with all my heart” (11:88).

God also said, “But seek, by means of what God has granted you, the abode of the Hereafter (by spending in alms and other good causes), without forgetting your share (which God has appointed) in this world. Do good to others as God has done good to you (out of His pure grace). Do not seek corruption and mischief in the land, for God does not love those who cause corruption and make mischief” (28:77).

6. Finally, Islamic morals are universal and dynamically alive. They are suitable for all human beings. The benefit of abiding by these morals will return to all humans, irrespective of whether they are Muslim or not. This stems from Islam being a religion which brought about universal and comprehensive systems, rules, and morals. To emphasize further on the universality of Islam, God said, “But it is not other than a Reminder for all beings” (68:52), and, “O humanity, in deed I am a messenger of God sent to all of you.” In the Qur’an, the Prophet is referred to as a “mercy” for all: “We have not sent you (O Muhammad) but as an unequalled mercy for all the worlds” (21:107). It is narrated that the Prophet said, “The Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the people are safe, and the believer is the one people trust with their lives and wealth” (Sahih Ibn Hibban). The Prophet (pbuh) also said, “The most beloved people to God are those who are most beneficial to the people” (Tabarani, al-Mu’jam’ul Kabir).

The message of the Prophet is established on the foundations of Islam’s moral system. The concept of the love of God and the love of His Prophet is tied with a person’s adherence to honorable and outstanding ethical and moral values. The Prophet summarized the whole purpose of his messengership as the completion and perfection of good character (Imam Malik, Muwatta). The Prophets before him began the project, and he finished it – or as he (pbuh) described through an analogy, all the Prophets worked together to build a building and only one brick was missing, and he (pbuh) was that missing brick.

It is reported that the Prophet said, “The dearest and nearest among you to me on the Day of Resurrection will be one who is the best of you in manners” (Bukhari, Fadail al-Sahaba). When the Prophet was asked what enables people to enter heaven, he replied, “piety and good manners” (Tirmidhi, Birr and Sila). The Prophet categorized good manners as worship through which a person can gain great spiritual rewards like someone who is in constant prayer day and night: “By his good character a believer will attain the degree of one who prays during the night and fasts during the day.”

The Qur’an verses refer to prostration as a sign of being free of arrogance: “Only they (truly) believe in Our signs and Revelations who, when they are mentioned of them (by way of advice and instruction), fall down in prostration, and glorify their Lord with His praise, and they do not behave with haughtiness. (32:15).

Prostration (sajda) is the way to show respect to the Creator – not only for human beings, but also for angels and other creatures: “Before God prostrates itself whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth of living creatures, and the angels (likewise, for) they are not arrogant.” (16:49).

Prostration has been practiced in Judaism and Christianity as well, sometimes with one’s knees and face on the ground, and sometimes as a full-body prostration: lying flat on the ground with the face down and the arms open. Even today in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican churches, and amongst Ashkenazi Jews, these practices continue. This makes sense, for the Qur’an talks about a promise that God took from the Children of Israel to establish the prayer (2:83).

In summary, putting one’s face on the ground as a sign of respect or as a part of worship has been one of the central practices in all Abrahamic religions. The Almighty God wants His servants to make it a frequently observed practice that we bow down and put our foreheads on the ground in worship of Him. The spiritual and psychological impact of a prayer of this form can be immense, particularly in the long term, and should be discussed at length in another essay. Here we would like only to point out the neurological aspect of prostration and its connections.

Another The Fountain article discussed the function of the frontal brain lobe (“The Sinning Forelock,” Issue 51, 2005) and its importance in forming ethical and moral values:

“Frontal lobotomy is the term used for the surgical removal of the frontal lobe in patients with emotional disorders (1). It may be difficult today to imagine that an invasive procedure like destroying a large portion of the brain can be employed as a therapeutic approach. Yet, in 1949 the Nobel Prize in medicine was awarded to Dr. Egas Moniz for his development of the frontal lobotomy technique. (Strange enough, Moniz himself was shot in the spine and partially paralyzed by a lobotomized patient.) Tens of thousands of people were lobotomized following World War II . Although frontal lobotomy did not significantly alter the patient’s IQ or memory functions, some other profound side effects emerged.”

The negative impacts of this surgical procedure on the personality of these patients were so serious that frontal lobotomies had to be abandoned after some years. Instances of local injury to the frontal lobes have clearly demonstrated that after losing parts of the forebrain, a human loses much of their moral values, ethics, and many of the general traits that make them human.

We can see this by looking at the case of Phineas Gage (2). According his doctor, who followed Gage for 12 years after the accident (until his death), “He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating … His mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was no longer Gage” (2).

It is interesting to note here that it is the forehead (forelock) that is mentioned in the Qur’an as the sinning part of the head: “No indeed! If he does not desist, We will certainly seize and drag him by the forelock; a lying, sinful forelock!” (Alaq 96:15-16).

On a different note, the benefit of exercise and physical therapy has been well established in neural disorders. The main rehabilitative effect of physiotherapy in stroke patients and other neurological disorders is the elevation of neural activity in the spinal cord and the brain, which in turn encourages the neurons to rewire, i.e. form new connections and replace the networks that have been lost due to injury.

If we look at the Hebbian theory of learning, or neural plasticity (3) – which can be summarized as, “neurons that fire together wire together” – we can understand that when a subset of nerve cells in the central nervous system are somehow made to fire almost simultaneously, through exercise or other means, they begin to form connections. As a result, in injured patients, these new connections form a neural network that replaces or substitutes for the functions that are lost after injury.

Recent neuroscience research also shows that the rehabilitative effect is highly correlated with an increase in the blood flow to the brain area that is affected by the injury (4, 5). Contrarily, the blood circulation increases in an area of the brain within a few seconds as a response to increased neural activity because of a heightened demand for oxygen and glucose. Indeed, one of the most successful imaging techniques, the BOLD (Blood Oxygen Level Dependent) fMRI technique, completely depends on this phenomenon. These basic findings in neuroscience teach us that there is a close relationship between the local blood flow in the brain and the neural functioning, and this is a part of the process of eventually forming new networks.

Going back to the concept of prostration, lowering one’s head and putting the forehead on ground can elevate the blood flow to the frontal brain areas simply by the hydrostatic effect. We all know how blood rushes to the head when the legs are raised when lying down in the supine position. The neurological outcomes of hydrostatic blood pressures may not have been studied so far, as suggested by the lack of publications on this topic. However, in light of all the other evidence above, it would not be surprising to find out that the new neural networks form faster under higher blood flows and pressure to a local brain area.

Let us now recall the topics discussed above: prostration in Abrahamic religions, the role of the frontal lobe in forming ethical values, and the effect of blood circulation in forming new neural connections. All of this points us in one obvious direction. Prostration, or sajda, can increase the neural activity and promote new connections in the frontal lobe, a center that is instrumental in forming moral values. And this could be the neural basis of becoming more religious as one practices prostration as a part of his or her prayers. It also makes complete sense that The Creator asks His servants to worship Him with prostration that would make them better human beings, not only because of the spiritual experience, but also by endowing them with brain connections through prostration which will then function as receiving ears to future inspirations.

References

1. Bear, M., F., Connors, B., W., Paradiso, M., A., “Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain,” second edition, Lippincott Williams& Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland: 2001.
2. Harlow, J.,M., “Recovery from the passage of an iron bar through the head,” Publication of Massachusetts Medical Society, (1868) 2:329-347.
3. Zhang P, Yu H, Zhou N, Zhang J, Wu Y, Zhang Y, Bai Y, Jia J, Zhang Q, Tian S, Wu J, Hu Y.’ Early exercise improves cerebral blood flow through increased angiogenesis in experimental stroke rat model.,” J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 Apr 26;10:43.
4. Zheng Q, Zhu D, Bai Y, Wu Y, Jia J, Hu Y., “Exercise improves recovery after ischemic brain injury by inducing the expression of angiopoietin-1 and Tie-2 in rats.,” Tohoku J Exp Med. 2011;224(3):221-8.
5. Hebb, D.O.(1949). The Organization of Behavior. New York: Wiley & Sons.

M&B: Your area of study is social ethics. In what way your approach to environmental problems is different than an ecologist, environmental scientist, or a purely religious scholar?

Dr. Hadsell: As social ethicists, when we look at the question of the environment we look at other questions in the human social world. So for example questions of peace and conflict, questions of population, questions of rich and poor within countries, questions of rich nations and poor nations, north and south, east and west so forth. In every case the goal is also to get the science right, to get the data right. So if you’re looking at issues of north and south for example what is the north what is the south what are the relationships we’re talking about are those political relationships? Are those economic relationships? How are political relationships related to economic relationships and culture and language and history and so forth? And when we therefore turn our attention to the environment we’re doing the same thing. We’re asking “whose environment?” According to whom what aspects of the environment. We also look at how are the environmental questions are being raised today. We look at issues of global warming and our use of natural resources accelerated use of natural resources and so forth. The social ethicist will say how these environmental issues are related to other issues that we know something about? That is how are they related to political issues, to economic issues to historical cultural interactions and so forth?

While some environmentalists takes the environmental issue as an object in itself and see it from their own perspective, a social ethicist will say as we look at the environment how is that question embedded in all of these other questions? They want to know the data about the environment the scientific data about the use of the consumption of natural resources and the acceleration of global warming and who is using the most resources? They want to know all of those things but they drive that discussion also from the philosophical religious side of things and ask from a religious perspective from a Christian perspective from a Muslim perspective let’s say, what is the human responsibility here? What does scripture tell us about the proper relationship between humans on the one hand nature on the other and God on the other? What is this relationship between these 3 things?

M&B: It seems like many different factors must be taken in to considerations.

Social ethics is really a composition of a number of things including sociology, political science studies of the social world, sometimes cultural anthropology as well as the more philosophical and religious area of ethics. And if you put those all together you have what is really called social ethics. People often work out of traditions, for example one can be an ethicist who’s interested in the social world and political issues in the social world out of a Muslim perspective or out of a Christian perspective or out of a Hindu perspective and so forth. There are also a humanist perspective so there are various approaches and they can be grounded religiously or not. That is religious people using scripture and faith but also then drawing upon as I said political science, history, sociology, cultural anthropology. When you put that together then it really is what in the United States we call the discipline of social ethics.

M&B: What are the challenges in working in such a diverse multicultural setting?

Multicultural settings are challenging be cause the history of human relationship with the environment varies with the cultures and religions. Different cultures approach nature in different ways and have a history with nature that is specific and different from other cultures.

In the United States and in our school Hartford Seminary we have a lot of cultures interacting as well as religions interacting. So you get a wide spectrum of perspectives and a wide spectrum of experiences and each perspective and each experience may assume that its own perspective is the normative one because of course it comes out of their own experience. It’s very important to think and to discuss these questions of the human relationship with nature across cultures and across religions to check the tendency for each perspective to blow its own perspective up and to call it common sense and to assume that its common to everyone.

M&B: Not only there are various religious and cultural settings but also geography seems to be an important factor when we approach to environmental problems.

In the United States for several decades there was an assumption that the environment is an issue that is of concern to white rich people. And that the rest of the American population or maybe the rest of the global population outside of north America and Europe for example don’t have the luxury of thinking about environmental issues. Of course that’s not true. The environmental issues such as global warming are going to affect most directly the very people who, once thought, shouldn’t care about the environment because they have other things to worry about like getting food on the table and so forth.

So these issues are complex and I think in recent years the environmental movement has become more able to think across cultures and across specific social classes for example and nations to think about the environment in more subtle ways. In the United States one of the things we’ve started talking about already 10 years ago is for example the issue of environmental racism. That is African Americans in the United States and inner cities of the United States may think of the environment as being something that people in the suburbs who are worried about who want to protect their trees or their streams or you know the kind of natural environment that they have and the reason that they’ve moved out into the suburbs in the first place. Whereas there are many environmental issues going on right in the inner cities which is often the place where the dirtiest processing plants are located. Many environmental issues are very close to home to a variety of cultures and a variety of income groups. The environment is far too important for global humanity to leave it up to one group as an issue for that particular group. It has to be an issue that is on the agenda for all of us from our own perspectives because we all get hit with these environmental issues. They’re moral issues for all of us and we need to have that conversation across these groups.

M&B: You said that the environmental problems hits the communities who depends on nature first. On the other hand the ones who are doing the pollution actually do not depend on nature so much. Do you think this adds another layer of responsibility or accountability to the problem?

I think it’s very true that the people around the world who are already vulnerable often already poor and often already living very close to nature. I think about people in the Pacific Islands for example. They are the people who are most immediately affected by changes in the environment as we see with the studies about the rising sea level in relationship to global warming. Many the people who will be most immediately affected are people who live as fishermen for example in villages who can’t protect themselves and can’t protect their villages and their livelihoods from the effects of global warming.

So yes, it’s very much the case that the people who are already vulnerable are the people who are poor and don’t have a lot of political participation or representation. The people who don’t have a lot of control over their lives are the people who will be most immediately affected by global warming. The people who live in big cities and lives removed from nature in the sense that they don’t know where their food comes from it’s shipped in from wherever all around the globe. They live in heated buildings and air conditioned buildings and they drive cars and so forth. They may not understand the complexity of the environmental issues and they may think themselves to be less vulnerable to questions like global warming.

I think one of the challenges of social ethics pertaining to the environment is to get the people in the cities who feel separate from nature and from the processes of nature to understand the direct although sometimes hidden links they have with the natural world and how their lifestyle and their consumption of resources effects the natural world and how the depletion of nature will in turn affect them and their lifestyles and even in big cities.

M&B: In what way religious traditions or ethical approaches could motivate them to take a new look at the nature?

I think that the sense of the sacred is a very important concept for the environmental movement. I think that as religious people the worldview of religious people is that everything that is given by God is endowed with a kind of sacred quality. So that all of the resources given by God should be approached with a sense of respect and honor the same kind of sense of respect and honor that we give towards sort of classically sacred moments or objects. It’s very much the case that many people in the environmental movement even if they are secular people, they have an experience with nature, an intuition of something bigger, grander and outside of human control and domination.

Many people, even if they’re secular, they sense in nature a kind of sacredness and it brings them that sense that they have even if they can’t talk about it in religious terms or don’t choose to talk about it in religious terms. I’ve met a number of people for whom direct experience with nature has brought them back into religious exploration in religious traditions because they’ve sensed a presence of the sacred in nature. And it takes them into an exploration in their own traditions or new traditions for them. It’s very clear that nature and the sacred are in many ways connected.

Unfortunately there is also a sense in which the leveling of the human perception and imagination in an extremely secular spirit so that the only measure is the human. To think that there are no measurements, no dimensions outside of the human is an impoverishment of human imagination and leads to a disregard for the intrinsic value of nature. Nature is not simply a reflection of what it does for me or how I can use it but that the things of nature are intrinsically in and of themselves valuable.

M&B: Do you think interfaith dialog is an important step to solve environmental problems?

I do think that when we think about religious plurality there are varieties of ways to structure conversations across different religious groups. And some people really want to spend their time talking about religious doctrine. That’s what they like to do and they really want to spend their time talking about religious doctrine and I think that’s a wonderful occupation, its time very well spent, and those people ought to spend their time doing that.

There’s other people who want to work together inter religiously not so much on the issues directly of religious doctrine, but on other issues. They want to problem solve together and they want to attack together across religions questions that are facing all of us. And it is for those kinds of people that the environmental issues are good possibilities for bringing people together across religious traditions to work together on environmental challenges. That is how Hindus or Buddhists or Christians or Muslims or Jews, each formed by and carrying with them their religious values can come to a common table and think together about environmental challenges and work together on those environmental challenges.

And I think that’s a very interesting way to work and it is a way that in some ways will go farther than either political conversations – specifically political conversations – or specifically doctrinal conversations; this is a different way of working together and I think it can be very positive.

Our Friend

in the beauty of

countless vibrant hearts

strongly sinewed

in purifying love.

We meet you

Our Friend

in the steadfast

prayerful care

of blessing hands

and radiant faces.

We meet you

Our Friend

in attentive minds

and quickened spirits

devoted to guiding

our journey together.

We meet you

Our Friend

in crescendoed voices

reverberating the praises

of the Only Holy One

Whose lowly servant you are.

Salaam.

– Bernadette & Daniel Skubik

Bernadette and Daniel live in Riverside, CA. Daniel Skubik is a professor of law, ethics, and humanities in California Baptist University.

We didn’t have long to wait. The next morning the opening ceremony of the conference entitled “From Terrorism to Universal Ethics: Religions and Peace” in Moscow, staged by Dialogue Eurasia Platform of the Journalists and Writers Foundation and the Russian Institute of Oriental Studies, reflected the same colorful picture of the rainbow the day before. Turkish folk music singer Mahsun Kirmizigul performed the song “The Song of Religions” and 48 children in groups of eight, all dressed in white, came onto the stage with scarves of different colors that represent richness of diversity. Following this colorful performance, 14 spiritual leaders and ecclesiastics took their respective seats: Mark Yegoryevskiy, the representer of Alexi II, the Patriarch of the Russian-Orthodox Church; Emmanuel Adamakis, Metropolitan of France; Priest Sahak Mashalyan, the representative of the Turkish Armenian Patriarch; the assistant of Ravil Gaynutdin (the mufti of the Muslims in Russia); Prof. Mustafa Cagrici, the mufti of Istanbul; Ishak Haleva, the Chief Rabbi of Turkish Jews; Syrian Ancient Community Metropolitan Yusuf Cetin; Yusuf Sag, Vice Patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Community; Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, from India, the founder of The Art of Living Foundation; Byung Do Min, Buddhist Priest from South Korea; Tizen Giok Sang, the Buddhist priest, the representative of the Dalai Lama; Bingkil Irawan, the representative of the Confucius Community of Indonesia; Jadi Nugroho Damaris, the leader of the Protestant Community in Indonesia. Some of them prayed according to their own beliefs and some of them shared their ideas. Then they all planted a “Tree of Love” in a glass sphere that had a world map drawn on. The sphere was filled with earth that had been taken from different parts of the world, and then the children carried water in their hands in order to show everyone how difficult it is to help an olive tree to grow, the symbol of peace.

It was not surprising to see the use of such symbols in order to relay impressive messages at the beginning of the ceremony; interestingly, the four fundamental concepts (terrorism, universal ethics, religion, and peace) that are usually defined differently and toward which different approaches are generally adopted were all discussed under the same heading. What is more, the conference was held in the city of Moscow; a city that was the capital of a country where it used to be imposed that “religion is the opium of the masses.” This meeting was held near the Duma, the sub-parliament of the Russian Parliament, and about 100 yards from Red Square.

In addition to the role the city played in the past and the significance of the subject, the hall where the conference was held was also important. The sessions were held in a conference hall called the Kalani Zal; formerly this had been where important decisions had been made and where the funeral of Stalin, a leader who had put religious groups under great pressure, was conducted 52 years ago. In this hall, adorned with dozens of chandeliers, large and small, the participants expressed their pleasure in being there, as well as stressing the need for perpetual peace in the world. The fact that the writer Chingiz Aytmatov expressed his feelings in the following way indicates the importance of the meeting: “This symposium stems from a need. We have organized it so that we can strive to form common values; this is what life forces us to do. Why does terror exist with the technology that we have developed? Why are people still killing each other? For what reason has terrorism been identified with Islam? We have all just celebrated the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. While its sorrow is still fresh in our heart, why is terrorism still on the agenda? We are here to answer these questions. In the past we used to gather in this hall for important occasions. Now it is good that we are here for different goals.”

A Platform geared up

In fact for a long time the DA (Dialogue Eurasia) Platform has been organizing meetings and publishing books in order to try to meet the concerns expressed by Aytmatov. The meeting in Moscow was a part of such efforts, but one detail separated this symposium “From Terrorism to Universal Ethics: Religions and Peace” from the others. In the past, these activities had been limited only to the region of Eurasia and the area of Abrahamic faiths; now they had gone one step beyond. Among the many participants from 38 countries there were Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Confucians; the geographical boundaries ranged from the United States, Canada, Bulgaria, Georgia, India, South Korea, and Indonesia. Such an expansion to include almost the entire world shows the ground that the DA Platform had covered in a very brief time.

During the meeting people expressed their dissatisfaction with the trend that was now prevalent throughout the world. The deadlock that Western civilization had reached and is now facing was often referred to, as well as the attempts to find a solution to the problems and the expression of the need for alternative approaches. The participants were aware of the problems, but when it came to solutions, the common points made way to different insights and approaches. Ratislav Ribekov, the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Oriental Studies, dwelled on the role of religion in this subject, saying, “All the religions must be in the struggle for good and bad; they must join forces.” Prof. Ilber Ortayli, the second-term president of the DA, said “Peace means religion and religion means peace. Each and every religion tries to realize this by striving for peace.” With this sentence, he sent a clear message to those who were trying to make a connection between “terrorism” and “religion.” Anar, the Chairman of the Writers Foundation in Azerbaijan, also spoke on the point made by Ilber Ortayli and he reminded us that all cooperation and reciprocal understanding begin with dialogue. Muhammed Nur Hidayet, the President of the Assembly in Indonesia, emphasized the importance of “being constructive without being destructive,” showing the approach that should be adopted.

The symposium consisted of five sessions. In the first session, “The Obstacles of Global Peace and Critical Views,” Dr. Kamran Mofid from England presented a paper with a heading of “Violence or Dialogue?” Born in Iran, Mofid stated that the world was enraged and displeased and said “Bombs explode everyday. People are killed. That is not the type of world that God wishes for.” A lecturer in economics, Mofid said that he had noticed the close connection between economics and theology, and that economics inseminates people with the idea “You can be happy through consumption”; theology states that the same happiness can be realized with the help of love and compassion. “Money is important. Being rich or trading are also important. But those who deal with money should know that wealth is attained only for a noble goal.”

Mofid also said “We talk continuously about economic growth and prosperity at school, on the street, and on TV. We have focused too much on production and consumption. However, we do not discuss whether economic growth can bring justice. Then why do we produce something? What is our aim? What is more, what is the goal of the journey we call ‘life’?” He stated that the world was in need of a spiritual revolution and we should contemplate the concept of “common benefit.”

The second speech was made by Prof. Hassan Hanafi from the Cairo University. The title of his paper was “Violence and the Factual Analysis of the Violence Thesis Based on the Enlightenment Theory Opposing Violence.” Hanafi said “It is easy to curse terrorism, but it is difficult to reveal its sources. We want to extirpate the source of violence and terror from the world, but it is a hard to admit that we are desperate.” He stated that violence and terror were social facts and that tendency toward violence decreases as people gained their liberty. He said “We often accuse others, saying ‘I’m innocent.’ We even say ‘my violence is good,’ but apart from individual violence, there is also the violence of organized groups and even states.” He stated that terrorism has become a global “phenomenon” and that the mass media has played an essential role in this process. The final speaker of the first session was J. C. Kapur, publisher of The Journal of International Issues and president of the Kapur Surya Foundation in New Delhi. Unfortunately, he was not able to participate in the symposium, so his paper, “Challenges on the Pathways to Peace,” was read by someone else. Kapur stressed that the misconstruction of secularism had caused the erosion of ethical values in society.

The title of the second session, conducted by Prof. Dogu Ergil, was “Religion, Belief and Tradition: the Contribution to Universal Ethics.” In this session, Prof. Dimitri Kitsikis dwelled on the role of religions for the maintenance of peace in a globalizing world. Claiming that nation states are steadily disappearing, Kitsikis said “The European Union is openly directing its efforts, in its integration process, to replace nation states with regions. In time, all nation states will be carved up into regions inside the European Union.” Drawing attention to the process of Turkey’s membership, he stated that some regions were being encouraged toward autonomy in some member countries of the EU: “Turkey should be aware of what is awaiting her when she joins the European Union as a full member.”

No peace project can continue without religion

Presenting a paper with the title “The Importance of Interreligious Dialogue in the Middle East Peace,” Rabbi David Rosen from Israel talked about the misuse and exploitation of religion. Stating that religion adds meaning and goals to our lives, he said “Religion surely brings identity to a person. Who am I? What is my aim? Of course the answers to these questions disclose our psycho-moral values.” He also commented on the reflection of religion and the identity relationship in the Israeli-Palestine conflict in the Middle East: “The Israeli-Palestine conflict is in fact a regional problem. This is a conflict over land. This can be solved by a regional concession, namely the giving of some land. Of course, this should be done with the affirmation of both parties. Unfortunately, this has not yet been realized. This regional conflict has turned into a religious conflict. Now a party is using religion to try to remove the other, while the other side is trying to defend itself in the same way. A conflict for land can be solved by means of land concessions.” Stressing that the components of religion and identity have become intertwined, Rosen thinks that we should make religion a part of the solution. If we exclude religion, it could hang over our heads. No peace project can be lasting without benefiting from religion.

Submitting a paper with the title of ‘Can Sufism be a Base for a Universal Ethics?’ Prof. Kenan Gursoy put the same emphasis on this matter: ‘Those who have tried to exclude religion are now unsuccessful. Today we have to discuss the problems without avoiding religion. If religion becomes the means of domination instead of bringing an inner peace, then we must evaluate it in the name of humanity and ethics. Modernity has become ethics of division and there is no space for differences there. In this part of the symposium, Associate Prof. Irina Kudrasava of the Foreign Relations Institute of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Russia made a speech that gave some important clues about Moscow”s perspective on world politics, and particularly on terrorism. Having stated that after the collapse of the Soviet Union there had been a process of globalization and that the liberal model was in effect all over the world, Kudrasava thought that globalization had introduced serious problems in terms of economy and humanity in the Islamic geography. Therefore, many Muslims believe that Christians and Jews were waging a war against Muslims. On the contrary, there is no such thing; this is merely the result of political injustice. Expressing that globalization made human beings Western and that the West is viewing the rise of Islam as being ‘aggressive and dogmatic,’ Irina Kudrasava went on to say that, ‘Islam is perceived as a phenomenon that must be kept under control. Therefore the West behaves like a policeman and keeps Islam within limits.’

According to Kudrasava, globalization had made countries dependant on each other. ‘Today there are 15-20 million Muslims in Europe. These are not only the emigrants coming from outside of Europe, but also Europeans that have accepted Islam. The priority of the first emigrants was economic independence. Religion and culture became more important for the children of the first emigrants. There are foundations, mosques, houses of culture, and publications that belong to the Muslims in Europe now. In short, there has been an Islamic revolution in Europe.’ Evaluating the end of the second session, Dogu Ergil said that, ‘Humans are like a family. Individuals are responsible to one another in matters of independence, prosperity, and security. This leads to an insight of morality. Almost everybody answers the question of ‘Can religion form such a common ethical insight?’ by saying that it is possible. Religions must be part of the solution, not the problem. Therefore, religions must establish dialogue with each other in the name of compromise.’ On the second day of the symposium, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, from India, was the chairman of the session. Abd al-Wahid Pallavicini, the President CO.RE.IS. Italiana, was unable to participate in the symposium for the first speech. Prof. Ahmed Abdulveli Vincenzo, from Napoli Frederico II University read Pallavicini”s paper, ‘What is European Islam?’ on his behalf. Stating that in terms of sociology the existence of a large number of Muslims is being perceived as if there were many forms of Islam, Vincenzo went on to say that Islam was a universal religion and addresses everyone. Believing that concepts like fundamentalism, civilization, and tolerance have been misunderstood, he said ‘Fundamentalism was born in a Baptist Church in the US. It made religious concepts political. Fundamentalism does not exist in Islam. It is an ideology. The civilization philosophy of Islam can only be explained in terms that we call umran, which means ‘the existence of God in society.’

Umran is a concept that shows that human beings are equal and a concept which has a universal quality.’ Stating that dialogue is one of the key concepts between Muslims and Western Europe, Vincenzo said, ‘The religion that is the majority religion in a region must approach other minority religions with tolerance. Freedom of religion in Europe does not necessarily mean that all religions in Europe have the same conditions; Islamic groups are not treated with equality to other Christian groups. For a multi-cultural Europe, it is essential that we get in touch with those Islamic groups that are on this continent and that the Muslims tell the Europeans about the universality and encompassing nature of Islam.’ Presenting a paper under the title of ‘Synagogue, People, and Ethics’ Zinoviy Kogan, Chief Rabbi of Russia, stated that Russia is a country where celestial religions have existed for a long time, that an interreligious platform has been founded in the structure of the Russian Federation, and that they amicably live with the Muslims of Russia. ‘Ministers should attach importance to dialogue instead of highlighting the areas of dispute. Stalin tried to eradicate the Jews and other people who belonged to other religions. We got rid of him; we saw him off 50 years ago in this hall.’

In the second session of the second day, individual and civil society dynamics and universal ethics were discussed. Chingiz Aytmatov was the chairman of this session and Prof. Memetsho Illolov expressed that peace was being maintained in the Eurasia region and that there was dialogue among both political figures and non-governmental organizations. Then, presenting a paper under the heading of ‘Democracy and the Human Rights Problem in the Traditions of Western and Islamic Law,’ Prof. Leonid Sukiyanen, one of the most eminent experts of Islamic Law in Russia, stated that the Islamic world and other religions have some serious problems when it comes to understanding each other. According to Sukiyanen, human rights and democracy today are explained in terms of liberal concepts. Therefore, Western countries tell Islamic countries that ‘If you want democracy, betray your Islamic principles.’ Extremist Muslims appear under the flag of Islam and claim that there is no common point between them, the West, and democratic values. On the contrary, Islamic principles have arguments that support dialogue among civilizations.

A discussion of the legal system

After this evaluation, Sukiyanen went on to say that, ‘Politics should support the democrats, not the extremists.’ He also mentioned different cultural structures and problems, reminding us that in some countries some rights have only recently been given to women. Saying that ‘There may be some kind of compromise between West and Islam on some common points, like human rights,’ Sukiyanen suggested that within the scope of Dialogue Eurasia, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish jurists could meet and discuss their own law systems. In his paper, ‘The Role of the Civil Society in Preventing International Terrorism’ Alexander Dichek, the President of the Ukraine Anti-Terror Center, said that modern terrorism had become a social fact that had reached very dangerous dimensions. Stating that it is not possible to eradicate terrorism through sheer force, he said ‘We do not divide civilization into West-East or Islam-Christianity.’ According to Dichek, terrorism has demanding economic and human resources conditions. Therefore, in order to struggle with the fact that ‘systematic terrorism’ has a huge structure, it is inevitable that a new national security architecture be founded. The last speech in the same session belonged to Ali Bulaç, the columnist from the daily newspaper Zaman. Dividing the world into two categories, as ‘the region of crisis’ and ‘the region of potential crisis,’ Bulaç said that the main question we should be asking must be, ‘Can we solve these conflicts with the accumulation of knowledge and experience we have?’ Claiming that what we have learned in the 200 years since the Enlightenment had not been enough to find a solution to the existing problems, Ali Bulaç went on to say that people are seeking solutions outside of the West. He also stated that the Madina Agreement was a good reference for the solution of the problems of the world. In the last session of the symposium, named ‘Applicable and Sustainable Peace Projects,’ Prof. Hervé Legrand, Sergey Lazarev and Rabbi Brad Hirschfield presented their papers. Finally, Dr. Gunduz Aktan, former Turkish ambassador to the Geneva office of the UN made the conclusive remarks about the event. In brief, ‘religion and religious arguments’ were the basic ingredients of the two-day symposium.

Note

This report was originally published in Aksiyon, issue # 549, Istanbul, and we thank Kemal Budak for its translation into English.

Honesty, defined as honor gained by action or conduct, is an inevitable part of our private and public life. But its implications for public life in a democracy are far more important. We can do a better job of passing on a sense of the value of honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility to the next generation in a democratic society. Teddy Roosevelt, while governor of New York, said: Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest we have no right to keep him in public life. No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community.(1)

It is not an easy task to resolve the problem of honesty in democratic governance. To the extent that knowledge gives power, to that extent do lies affect the distribution of power; they add to that of the liar, and diminish that of the deceived, altering his choices at different levels.(2) Bok, a writer and philosopher currently serving as a distinguished fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, explains the importance of honesty in public life by emphasizing how lying harms social trust:

The importance of honesty in public life is as follows. Lying and deception clearly do not affect only isolated individuals. As lies spread “ by imitation, or in retaliation, or forestall suspected deception “ social trust is damaged. Yet trust is a social good to be protected just as much as the air we breathe or the water we drink. Social goods are non-excludable, individuals cannot be prevented from sharing them, and they are available for the public to enjoy. Examples include the lighthouse, peace and security, and law and order. When social trust is damaged, the community as a whole suffers; and when it is destroyed, societies falter and collapse.(3)

In the public sphere, lying or the suspicion of lying has an added consequence: the proliferation of bureaucracy and regulation.

Gutmann and Thompson see deception, the action of deceiving or cheating, as closely related to secrecy and confidentiality. They consider the following factors in which citizens can permit public officials to engage in deception: the importance of the deception’s goal; the availability of alternative goal-achieving means; who will be deceived (other officials, other governments, all citizens); accountability (the possibility of approving deception in advance or discovering it later); and containing the deception (its effects on other actions by officials).(4)

Requirements of honesty

The principle of honesty, when applied to public policy and administration, has several requirements. The first one is the obligation to avoid lying. The Iran-Contra affair and other cases raised the perennial question of whether official lies should be permitted for the public good. When John M. Poindexter, President Reagan’s national security advisor, was accused by Congress of an unapologetic embrace of truth, he replied that he had acted in what he thought were the country’s long-term interests. Even those who disagree with Poindexter’s judgment acknowledge that certain situations warrant deception. But was this particular situation exceptional enough to warrant it?

The second requirement is being truthful when presenting information to superiors and the public. For example, a public official cannot make exaggerated claims (or vice versa) about what a proposed program will do in order to generate enthusiasm for it.

The third requirement is respecting other people’s ability to gather and present accurate information relevant to public policy. In other words, honesty requires that an official does not try to prevent or suppress studies that challenge his or her view. Deception involves intentionally (or negligently) causing someone to believe something that the deceiver knows (or should know) to be false. Political deception is not always easy to recognize, because it seldom comes in the form of an outright lie.(5)

The fourth requirement is to keep the public well-informed. This cannot be overemphasized, for an informed public is an essential ingredient of democracy. Yet in practice, some officials (e.g., the president, mayor, policy makers, or military people) have found an easy justification for both secrecy and deception. They believe that ordinary citizens, even sometimes other government officials, cannot understand such complex problems as military operations, international security and national defense issues, and other such matters. The people’s apparent inability to do so gives public officials a kind of right to deception. Since average citizens cannot possibly know the whole truth about specialized subjects, lying to them is permissible “ provided that there are some good reasons. Sometimes, government officials use the same ethic when they decide not to inform citizens of government involvement in various complex issues.

Conclusion

In a democratic society, these reasons cannot be used to justify giving anybody permission to deceive whenever they consider it necessary. The social good and public interest should not be used as excuses for deception; rather, they must be a reason for honesty. The ethical education of public officials, public awareness, open and transparent public administration, clear rules, policies, and regulations might ease the job of public officials in terms of ethical dilemmas. Such practices also might help them by providing consistency in decision-making, understanding the values reflected by that decision, and reaching more reflective judgments. Findings reported in several analytical studies indicate that ethics education is making a difference. We cannot afford, intentionally or unintentionally, to be a partner in producing a new generation of leaders who are ethically illiterate and morally misguided.

Footnotes

1. Theodore Roosevelt, The Eighth and Ninth Commandments in Politics, Outlook (12 May 1900). Online at: www.bartleby.com/58/7.html
2. Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Pantheon, 1978), 20.
3. Ibid.
4. A. Gutmann and D. F. Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1998), 48.
5. Ibid.

Despite these common properties, the concept of being alive is well defined in biology. Living beings take in energy, produce waste, grow and reproduce. Plants and animals, however primitive, are living beings. Humans are included in the animal kingdom in that, like animals and unlike plants, they are animate.

It may be useful as well as interesting and challenging to make the distinction between living and non-living and seek answers to the questions, What is life? What is living and non-living being? What are the actual moral differences between them? and Do non-living beings

have any worth? The fact that (as we noted at the outset), in respect of their material and physical composition, living and non-living beings are similar, is a crucial one: if every thing is made up of Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen and other elements, then, to some extent, the difference between living and non-living is going to be expressed in meta-physical and moral terms.

We define certain ‘life-functions’ like ‘take in energy, produce waste, grow and reproduce’, and classify entities as living or not by these criteria. If some or all of these ‘functions’ are there, we say ‘it is alive’, if not, we say ‘it is not-alive’. Consider a cat wandering and playing around. It eats poisonous meat and lies down. After ten minutes we check it for ‘life-functions and, realizing they are all negative, we say ‘it is dead (or not-alive)’. We may now ask, what is the actual difference in the being of the cat between these two states? Although, in terms of the cat’s physical make-up, everything is unchanged, how can we define it as being alive at one time and not-alive at another? Is it just our labelling of beings with our own criteria? And can our descriptions be adequate without some metaphysical considerations?

If it is right to say that the building blocks of every living being are lifeless, not only life but also lifelessness should have some worth. Oxygen and water are unquestionably lifeless entities, but they are the most precious things on earth for beings living in this world. Therefore the intrinsic value of something has nothing to do with its being alive or not.

Dworkin (1993, p.69) reports the argument of David Hume and many other philosophers that objects or events can be valuable only when and because they serve someone’s or something’s interests, and (p.71) comments:

On this view, nothing is valuable unless someone wants it or unless it helps someone to get what he does want.

Dworkin’s own view is:

Something is instrumentally important if its value depends on its usefulness, its capacity to help people get something else they want. For example, money and medicine. Something is subjectively valuable only to the people who happen to desire it. Something is intrinsically valuable, on the contrary, if its value is independent of what people happen to enjoy or want or need or what is good for them.

Dworkin’s classification, wide- ranging though it is, could be extended by replacing the word ‘someone’ with ‘something’, and ‘people’ with ‘entities’. If we accept this extension, it emerges that everything living or non-living has some sort of value. Whether humans comprehend it or not, everything on earth and in universe has a purpose, and is of service to someone or something. Perhaps with the further advance of science and technology we will come to see more and more things, now considered as useless, as in fact valuable for some entity or other.

It follows that life is not a prerequisite in order for something to have value. It is existence that is primary. Spinoza (1923 edn, p196) wrote:

No one can desire to be happy, to act well and live well, who does not at the same time desire to be, to act, and to live, that is to say, actually to exist.

From existence every beauty and perfection may come, whilst from non-existence nothing is produced, good or evil. Although existence is entirely valuable itself, there are degrees of value. We are almost bound to assume that the perfection of an entity’s existence is through life for only a living being can experience its own existence, through thinking and reasoning. And all our knowledge is founded on experiences (Locke, 1993 edn, p.45).

Schweitzer (1923, p.26) argues that the essence of Goodness is: preserve life, promote life, help it to achieve its highest destiny.According to him, the fundamental principle of ethics is reverence for life. All the goodness one displays toward a living organism is helping it to preserve and further its existence. He believes that ethics embraces not only people, but also creatures; an ethics that does not also embrace our relation to the world of creatures is incomplete (pp.22-3).

If something is so valuable and precious, it must, in one way or another, be protected. We go to great lengths to secure and protect man-made pieces of art and scientific instruments. If life is so good and precious, how is it protected?

Every living being has an instinctive will to survive and is equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills. A small animal e.g. chicken will fight with a dog to stay alive. Plants too exhibit a desire to live. Individuals from the same-species grow roots and leaves in different lengths and sizes, depending on their environment, to increase their life chance. Schweitzer (1966, p.25) calls this the ‘will to live’. The ‘will to live’ is a universal fact, and entails competition between individuals and species. We observe in nature that, as well as co-operation and mutual helping, there is struggle: one life preserves itself by fighting and destroying other lives.

We destroy lives not only for survival but also for our convenience. We cannot build dams and produce electricity without destroying the environment and ending some forms of lives. All our daily food are plants and animals. It is unavoidable to destroy the lives of some plants or animals, knowingly or unknowingly, for various reasons.

If existence is entirely valuable, and the real basis of existence is life, then life should be valuable and respected in any form. However, is there any difference in terms of their value between different forms of life? Can animals be favoured over against plants, or humans over against both animals and plants? Could there be any justification for it? Is this a species-ism?

Many writers have sought answers to the question: ‘What makes human life valuable and, in particular, what makes it more valuable than other forms of life?’ (Harris, 1985, p.7). Harris questions the assumption that human life is (or should be treated as) more valuable than other forms of life. What justifies it and what, if anything, makes it more than mere prejudice to favour ourselves and our own kind? He says: ‘There is no doubt that we do value human life supremely, we think it important to save a person rather than a dog where we cannot save both, and we think it right to do so.’ Obviously, we must ask Why?

Before attempting to offer a possible answer, we should refer to Aristotle’s argument in his Ethics. He suggested:

We must not even demand to know the explanation in all cases alike; there are some in which it is quite enough if the fact itself is exhibited, e.g. in the case of first principles; the fact is primary and a starting point. Some starting-points are grasped by indication, some by perception, some by a kind of habituation, others by other ways’ (Aristotle, 1976 edn, p.77).

And preferences between forms of life fit into this category. We may not be obliged to find a satisfactory explanation as to why we value human life, even some individual’s life, supremely. Who could accuse me of unworthy discrimination if I rescue a human rather than a cat, my wife rather than a stranger, a black rather than a white, one from my nationality rather than one from another, in a rescue operation that does not permit me to rescue all? Who could accuse me of being a nationalist, racist or species-ist? This is simply a matter of preferences. This does not mean that I do not value the lives of the ones I could not rescue.

I cannot be expected to have a special reason for making that or a similar choice. I did so just because I felt it was the right thing to do.

Although it is not necessary to find a ‘convincing’ reason to value human life supremely, we can distinguish humans from other beings by some of his features, namely by their consciousness, reason and intellect. Dworkin argues that; ‘We treat the preservation and prosperity of our own species as of capital importance because we believe that we are the highest achievements of God’s creation, if we are conventionally religious, or of evolution, if we are not’ (Dworkin, 1993, p.82). Although in religious terminology God is free from having particular achievements or failures, it is true that humans are His special creatures, to whom He relates through Messengers. He made humans responsible for their conduct as they uniquely are equipped with consciousness, reason and intelligence to distinguish right from wrong.

In conclusion we may say that, to comprehend the nature of life is extremely important, but perplexing as well. Maybe we will never achieve that. However, as conscious beings, it should not be too hard for us to respect every being on earth, and reflect that they are all valuable.

Is there any reason to compare the worth of different forms of lives, if we embrace in advance the idea that they are all valuable and necessary for this world? Why should we put ourselves to the trouble of wondering whether we have any right to destroy some forms of lives for the benefit of others? Why do we hesitate to admit the distinctiveness of human beings? It is perfectly understandable to reject discrimination between human beings on the basis of race, gender, nationality and religion, but what could be a sufficient reason for devaluing humans as such in the name of equality between species?

Existence is good and every single being on earth and in the universe is valuable, and purposeful.

Therefore we should value all existing beings.

Consciousness, reason and intellect are precious, and we do accord supreme value to the lives of those beings who have these features. We should be aware of that too, and be respectful and responsible accordingly. 

References

• Aristotle (1976 edn)The Ethics of Aristotle, Penguin Books, London.
• Dworkin, R. (1993) Life’s Dominion, Harper Collins, London.
• Harris, J. (1985) The Value of Life, Routledge & Kegan, Paul, London.
• Locke, J. (1993 edn) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Everyman, London.
• Schweitzer, A. (1923) Civilization And Ethics, A.&C. Black Ltd., London.
• Schweitzer, A. (1966) The Teaching of Reverence for Life, Peter Owen Ltd., London.
• Spinoza (1923 edn), Ethics, trans. White, W.H. and Stirling, A.H., Oxford University Press, London.

The norms and assumptions that have characterised belief and action in Islam have their initial inspiration in two fundamental sources. One is scriptural, embodying the message revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad (d.632), upon him be peace, and recorded in the Quran. The second is the exemplification of this message in the pattern or norm derived from the Prophet’s actions and precepts, collectively called the Sunna. Muslims regard the Qur’an as the ultimate closure in a series of revelations to humankind from God, and the Sunna as the historical projection of a divinely inspired and guided human life.

In one of the chapters of Qur’an, entitled al-Furqan (the Criterion: Chapter 25), revelation – addressed to all humankind — becomes the point of reference for distinguishing right from wrong:

Blessed be He Who sent down the criterion (of right and wrong, i.e. this Qur’an) to His servant (Muhammad) that he may be a warner to mankind. He to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and Who has begotten no son and for Whom there is no partner in the dominion. He has created everything, and has measured it exactly according to its due measurement (25.1-2).

The same chapter goes on to give examples of past Prophets and Messengers (many referred to in the Bible also) and their role as mediators of God’s word to their respective societies.

The Sunna is a necessary source of knowledge for Muslims as Muhammad is described in the Qur’an as ‘a fine example’ and one who possesses ‘high moral excellence’:

In the Messenger of God (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) God and the Last Day and remembers God much. (al-Ahzab, 33.21)

… you (0 Muhammad) are on an exalted standard of character. (al-Qalain, 68.4)

As the secondary source of knowledge, the Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad, the written record or text of the Sunna) are to be relied upon on the authority of God’s saying in the Quran:

By the star when it goes down. Your companion (Muhammad) is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he speak from out of (his own) desire. It is no less than Inspiration sent down to him. (al-Najni, 53.1-4).

The necessary elements of the creed of Islam are defined in the Quran (al-Baqara, 2.177) as belief in God, the Angels, the Books (Scriptures), the Prophets, the Last Day, the qadar (destiny) or the faith that, good and bad, everything is originally from God-that is, God is the Creator of all men and their actions whether good or bad, and the genuine source of all good.

For the derivation of legal principles and rulings, Quran and Hadith are supported by ijma, the consensus of scholars on behalf of community, and by qiyas, reasoning by analogy, when no explicit and specific ruling can be found in the texts.

The human quality that encompasses the concept of ideal ethical value in the Qur’an is summed up in the term taqwa, which in its various forms occurs over two hundred times in the text. It represents, on the one hand, the moral grounding that underlies human action, while on the other, it signifies the ethical conscience which makes human beings aware of their responsibilities to God and society. Applied to the wider social context taqwa becomes the distinguishing mark of a truly moral community:

O humankind! We have created you out of male and female and constituted you into different groups and societies, so that you may come to know each other-the noblest of you, in the sight of God, are the ones possessing taqwa. God is the All-Knowing, the All-Aware. (al-Hujurat, 49.13)

The Quran affirms the different dimensions of human individual and social life-the material as well as the spiritual-but these aspects are not seen in conflictual terms, nor is it assumed that spiritual goals should predominate in a way that devalues material aspects of life. The Qur’an, affirming the complementarity of the two, asserts that human conduct and aspirations have relevance as acts of faith within the wider human, social and cultural contexts. It is in this sense that the idea that Islam embodies a total way of life can best be understood.

In the Qur’an Jews and Christians are referred to as ‘People of the Book. While recognizing the particularity of the Muslim community and its preeminent status, the Qur’an encourages a wider respect for difference and otherness in human society, while favouring common moral goals over mutually divisive and antagonistic attitudes:

We sent Jesus, son of Mary confirming the Torah that had come before him, and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Torah that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for the pious. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed therein. And whosoever does not judge by what God has revealed (then) such (people) are the rebellious to God. And We sent down to you (0 Muhammad) the Book (this Quran) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and muhayminan (trustworthy in excellence and in witness) over it (old Scriptures). So judge between them by what God has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you, We have prescribed law and a clear way. If God willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to God; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ. (al-Ma ‘ida, 5.46-8)

For Muslims, the message of the Qur’an and the example of the Prophet’s life remain inseparably related through all of history as paradigms for moral and ethical behaviour. They formed the basis for Muslim thinkers subsequently to develop legal tools for embodying moral imperatives. The elaboration of legal sciences led to a codification of norms and statutes that gave form to the concept of law in Islam, generally referred to as the Shari’a. Muslim conquest and expansion resulted in contact with cultures whose intellectual heritage was in time selectively appropriated by Muslims, then refined and further developed. The integration of the intellectual and philosophical legacies of ancient Greece, India and Persia among others, created conditions and a tradition of intellectual activity that would lead to the cosmopolitan and pluralist character of an emerging Islamic civilisation. Christian and Jewish scholars, who had already encountered the above legacies in varying degrees, played a crucial mediating role as ‘translators, particularly since they were also aware that the moral disposition of Muslims, like their own, was shaped by common monotheistic conceptions based on Divine command and revelation. The term adab has come to be used to denote the wide-ranging moral, ethical, intellectual and literary discourse that emerged.

The integration of the philosophical legacy of antiquity in the Islamic world was a major enabling factor in the use of philosophical tradition among Muslim intellectuals. It gave rise to figures such as al-Farabi, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes), al-Ghazali and others, who became well-known to medieval Europe as philosophers, commentators and exponents of the classical tradition going back to Plato and Aristotle. The Muslim philosophical tradition of ethics is therefore doubly significant: for its value in continuing and enhancing classical Greek philosophy and for its commitment to synthesising Islam and philosophical thinking.

Al-Farabi (d. 950) argued for harmony between the ideals of religious virtue and the goals of a true polity The greater the wisdom and virtue of the rulers and the citizens, the greater the possibility of attaining the true goal of philosophy and religion-contentment in this and the next world.

Ibn Sina (d. 1037) developed the argument that the Prophet embodies the totality of virtuous action and thought, the best of which is reflected in the attainment of moral virtue. The establishment of justice, in Ibn Sina’s view, is the basis for all human good. The combination of philosophy arid religion enables harmonious living in both this world and in the hereafter.

Al-Ghazali (d. 1111) stressed the importance of conformity to the religious law, but even more the inner spiritual dimension. In his ‘The Incoherence of The Philosophers’, he tried to show that the philosophers were self contradictory and anti-scriptural, and that, in some cases, they ended up affirming heretical beliefs. He stressed the importance of sabr (perseverance in hardship, patient endurance and resignation to God’s decrees), tawakkul (absolute trust in God) and dhikr (constant remembrance of God).

The various Muslim philosophers in their extension and occasional revision of earlier classical notions linked ethics to theoretical knowledge, which was to be acquired by rational means. Since human beings were rational, the virtues and qualities that they embraced and practised were seen as furthering the ultimate goal of individuals and community. This goal was the attainment of happiness.

The practice and influence of the diverse ethical heritage in Islam has continued in varying degrees among Muslims in the contemporary world. There is growing self-consciousness about identification with that past heritage and a recognition of the need to adapt to changing circumstances and a globalization of human society. They must take into account the diversity and pluralism that has marked the Muslims of the past as well as the present.

As Nanji has pointed out, because the modern conception of religion familiar to people in the West assumes a formal separation between specifically religious and perceived secular activity, certain aspects of contemporary Muslim discourse, which does not accept such a separation, appear strange and often retrogressive. Nanji went on to argue that, in the pursuit of a vision that will guide Muslims in decisions and choices about present and future ethical matters, the most important challenge may be not simply to formulate a continuity and dialogue with their own past ethical underpinning but, like the Muslims of the past, to remain open to the possibilities and challenges of new ethical and moral discoveries.

References and Further Reading 

• Dar, BA. (1960) Qur’anic Ethics, Institute of IslamicCulture, Lahore.
• Johnstone, P. ‘Islamic Ethics’ in MacQuarry, J. & Childress, J. (eds) New Dictionary of Christian Ethics, Westminster Press, London. pp.314-6.
• Nanji, A. (1993) ‘Islamic Ethics’, in Singer, P. (ed.) A Companion to Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.106-20.