In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of worlds. Peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah and upon his family and Companions.
We would like to show our grateful acknowledgement to the institutions that invited us to share our views on ‘common values’ that hope to become a basis of understanding, mutual approach and harmony. Surely, this is promising if we look for the common fundamentals and spheres of agreement to manifest their hidden meanings and develop their incentives. This is the reason behind my personal research on this subject.
The research at hand is not expected to be a conclusive philosophic thesis. I will briefly discuss, after defining the word ‘values’, the issue of the existence of common values in light of philosophy, the texts of Shari`ah (“Islamic Law”) and the comments of scholars.
The definition of Qiyam (“values”)
Firstly, let us demonstrate the definition of ‘values’. If we reviewed the corresponding synonyms of the word values in French we will find ‘ethique‘ which indicates a set of rules of conduct. We also find the term ‘valeurs‘, which refers to matters qualified as being right, beautiful and good, in accordance with personal or societal criteria, and can be used as a criterion and reference of a moral principle.
As for the meaning of the word in Arabic, it is the plural of Qima (“value”) which refers to what makes something valuable or useful. An Arabic maxim says: “The value of a person is what they are excelled in.” The word value means a praiseworthy and noble character which prompts man to acquire it, just as precious things. Also, it refers to the price of a value.
The word Qiyam may be mentioned to refer to a singular infinitive as in the Qur’an: “Truly, my Lord has guided me to ‘Din-an Qiyam-an’ (a Straight Path, a right religion)” (Al-An`am 6:161) in one of the recitations of the Qur’an. Also, it is mentioned in Allah’s Words: “And give not unto the foolish your property which Allah has made ‘Qiyam-an’ (a means of support for you)” (Al-Nisaa 4:5) in the recitation of Nafi` referring to the means of support. If something is Qayyim, it has a precious value. Another recitation of the aforementioned verse says, “Din-an Qiyam-an” with the meaning of a straight religion or a religion sufficient for the interests of people and considers them.
Philosophers defined value as ‘man’s ruling on something which gives rise to objection and protest against existence with its current reality to change it to what should be.’ Depending on this linguistic meaning, the word ‘values’ stands for moral principles that are praised and commended while their opposites are denounced and condemned. Here, we should mention briefly the definition of ‘morals’, which stands for both the inherent characters in the soul and the outward manifestation of these characters. Some scholars view morals as psychological rather than external, as the outer appearance is conduct or treatment.(i)
Accordingly, a value is only what is approved, provided that such approval is general and continual. If someone loves a kind of food, this cannot be a value. Also, this general approval may be confined to certain society or may extend to the whole humanity. It is known that philosophers are not in agreement regarding the existence of common values.
The values belonging to certain societies that stem from conventions or religion are an undisputable fact. However, the existence of common values is questionable for philosophers. According to scholars of Usul-ul-Fiqh (“Principles of Religion”), we should verify the point of disagreement. Let us therefore pose the following questions: What is the core of ‘value’? Being the basis of all values, does goodness have an objective, absolute existence? Is there such a thing as goodness within the general meaning of the word or is it always subjective, pursuant to approval of certain persons or groups?
Philosophers disagree over this basic issue to such an extent that several approaches have emerged. These approaches have divided into the economists, socialists, opportunists and idealists. To summarize, there are two main stances: those who advocate relativity, maintaining that the existence of a common value is untrue, regardless of the title used; and those who state that values are common, regardless of the motives. After dealing with these two schools of thought, I will point out the position of Islam in this regard and conclude with a linguistic article.
Theories of relativity and absolute principle
The best expression about relativity and the dependence of values on community is clarified by Whitehead in his book Adventures of Ideas. Whitehead states: “The details of these moral criteria are related to the social conditions of the environment corresponding to life in a particular time, such as the life in the fertile part of Arabian Peninsula, the life on lower slopes of Himalaya, the life in the plains of China and India or the life in a delta. However, the meaning of these criteria is changeable and obscure, such as the concepts of monarchy, family, marriage, reason and Almighty God.
“For example, the behavior which brings about an appropriate criterion of agreeable satisfaction in a certain environment and stage may be in another environment and stage ignoble to the highest degree. Therefore, each society has its special pattern of perfection which bears specific inevitable difficulties in its stage. Thus, the claim that there are specific regulative concepts which are well-adjusted to clarify the details of behavior of all sensible beings on the earth, in any other planet and in each solar system, is a concept worthy of negligence because it is a single pattern of perfection applied to the whole universe.”(ii) This is the doctrine of relativity.
On the other side we have the ‘absolute doctrine’ as explained by Hunter Mead who says: “In short, the absolute doctrine can be better illustrated by the fact that there is only one criterion or one law with regard to ethics that is right, since antiquity. This criterion or law is applicable to all people and is separated from time, geographic location, social customs, legal convention and anything else. Something that represents commitment in my country is equally the same in China, Spain or Poland.
“Moreover, it was a form of commitment for the Greeks and Europeans in middle centuries, whether they were aware of that or not. Also, it will be a commitment for all future races and civilizations. Whatever is good nowadays was the same in the past and will be so forever. There is no moral law for the past and another for the present or a criterion for the East and another for the West. Yet, goodness and right are comprehensive and applicable to every time and place.”(iii)
However, the theory of absolute principle is supported by divine religions, especially those that call to comprehensiveness. Hunter Mead admits that the source of the western civilization is Christianity. He elaborates: “When we mention a Christian, we mean in philosophy the ‘monotheistic’. This is because the belief in one God rules the universe which He created. This is the basis of religious western thought…These orders of Allah are comprehensive and applicable to all people everywhere.”
The logical source
It could be said that Kant was the most renowned rationalist in the field of ethics. He believed that analysis is always able to establish that violating the moral law represents violation of the law of logic. Actually, immorality contains contradiction. Let us quote the most famous examples which Kant gave in this respect: “When we make a promise with no intention to fulfill it, our behavior becomes a kind of evil, because we base our behavior on two contradictory principles in the same time. One of these two principles is that people should believe in promise but one violates it. This means that every person has the right to violate his promise as long as the moral law is comprehensive. Then, if everyone breaks his promise, no one will believe in the promise and we will have another principle that it is right that no one should believe in promises. Surely, this principle contradicts the first one.”(iv)
In regards to Muslims, all our intellectual conceptions refer to a common basis for values between humans, in accordance with the following principles:
1. Islam admits the principle of absolute equality between people and refers them to one source because their Lord is One and their father is one. Almighty Allah says: “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another.” (Al-Hujurat 49:13) The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “O people, your Lord is One and your father is one. You all are Adam’s offspring, and Adam was created from soil. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is that who has piety. An Arab is not superior to a non-Arab, a non-Arab is not superior to an Arab or a white person is not superior to a red person except through piety.”(v)
Therefore, I support the view that there are common values and that globalization and its means (including means of transportation and communication) have removed the material barrier that Whitehead spoke of, though the psychological barrier is still present.
2. The Message of the seal of the Prophets, Muhammad (peace be upon him), is for all people. Allah (exalted be He) says: “Say, (O Muhammad), “O mankind, verily I am sent to you as the Messenger of Allah-to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. None has the right to be worshipped but He; it is He Who gives life and causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who believes in Allah and His words…and follow Him that you may be guided“.” (Al-A`raf 7:158)
3. Islam maintains that an inclination to good, faith and right is the natural disposition of all people. Allah says: “So set your face towards the religion of pure Islamic monotheism, (Allah’s Fitrah) with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Khalqillah (the religion of Allah), that is the straight religion, but most of men know not.” (Al-Rum 30:30)
No matter how far the intellectual disputes over the absolute and proportional principle go and how the philosophic theories twist endlessly, it is obvious that there are common values among people. Reason (the best thing divided among people, according to René Descartes) and language are the best evidences for that.
Noble characteristics
All minds and languages consider ‘justice’ a noble and beloved word. It is commonly accepted that ‘truthfulness’, ‘freedom’, ‘tolerance’, ‘faithfulness’ and the like are praiseworthy words for all people. Mankind also deems the opposite of such words as dispraised and unacceptable, for example ‘injustice’ or ‘oppression’. If you say to the most wrongful person that he is unjust he will become annoyed, even if he is described fairly. The same is true for ‘lying’, ‘fanaticism’ and ‘betrayal’ that are reprehensible words and detested by all people. Likewise, nature and reason deny them. Is this not a practical evidence and clear proof on the existence of common values?
People should always respect human rights, as arguably this is a bare minimum quality without which humanity cannot survive. But, employment of noble characteristics, such as leniency, mercy, altruism, cooperation and helping the needy or disabled regardless of their race, religion or geographic origin, provides a new concept for humanity. This concept surpasses the neutral principle of human rights, such as equality and blindness to difference, to positivity in treatment which gives the other a sense of love and brotherhood.
This notion conforms with the Arabic saying: “Treat people as you would like them to treat you.” There is a hadith which refers to such deeper meanings which states: “None of you believes until they love for his brother what they love for themselves.” This hadith confirms the value of love and the value of human brotherhood which gives a sense of kinship. In fact, this explanation is not my own as, many centuries ago, scholars such as Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali in his explanation of Al-Arba`in Al-Nawawiyyah (“The Forty Hadith compiled by Al-Nawawi”) and Al-Shabrakhiti said, “The brotherhood mentioned in the hadith is the human brotherhood.”
Love is a graceful value, as every human being yearns to be loved. It is rare that you come across a person who enjoys being hated by others. Such behavior is a paradox, where some people quarrel with others on the plea that the latter do not love them. However, they mistake the means to people’s hearts, as maintained by the Mauritanian scholar. When love is felt by both sides, no aggression emerges. Love is constituted of sentiment, behavior, incarnation, and declaration. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “When one of you loves another, let he inform him of that.” So, it is a value because all people have a high opinion of it, even those who do not share it. Such is the criterion of value. Everybody seeks to acquire it because everyone wishes to be just and tolerant.
However, these values may dry up if they are not fostered and developed by education. An Arabic poet once said: “If nurtured by noble deeds…good manners grow like a plant.” As a matter of fact, the most important value that symbolizes the solution of the world’s problems is the respect of disagreement, or even love of disagreement, so that it is regarded as a source of cultural richness, a sort of gracefulness and a basis for human character. If we think highly of disagreement and develop the law of virtue in addition to the law of human rights, we can put the basis of employing the common values that turn difference into harmony and change enmity to love. In accordance with Allah’s saying: “The good deed and the evil deed cannot be equal. Repel (the evil) with one which is better; then verily! He, between you and whom there was enmity (will become) as though he was a close friend.” (Fussilat 41:34) It is a moral law confirmed by the Qur’an, namely tolerance, that gives birth to love.
Application of values in modern society
We hope that the common forms of goodness and the human munificent common values will be developed. This can be realized through our virtuous manners, tolerance, generosity, truthfulness, faithfulness and honesty. These values will, in turn, convince others to show us the same noble treatment because they, being human, share the same satisfaction with these values. Goodness leads to goodness and similarly generosity. Moreover, convincing others with good treatment is the most important human concern. We quote the saying of Plato:
“The spread of morals in the world is an indication of the triumph of persuasion over power. The value of people is expressed in their willingness for persuasion. They are eligible for conviction on all sides where it is possible to replace power with persuasion, as one of them is the best and the other is the worst. Yet, civilization is to maintain the social system through natural convincing expressed in choosing the best. No matter how inevitable it is, the use of power reveals the failure of civilization whether for the community in general or for individuals.”
Therefore, this sort of harmony should not be limited to societies with different cultures, but in fact this kind of accord is needed in the life of each person who embodies different cultures. For example, a person may have an Asian origin, Muslim religion and British birth and upbringing. Sometimes this creates a sort of struggle of values inside them but this should change to harmony and cultural richness. We studied something of that in the biographies of late scholars and it was a source of richness, rather than contradiction. So, let us try to achieve such harmony within ourselves in order to have our hope founded on a firm basis; otherwise it is not hope, simply deception. It is unacceptable that one does nothing for love and expects to realize it. Abu Hamid al-Ghazali said: “This is like someone who waits for harvest without sowing or wants children without marriage.”
Another problem is the great inconformity between words and deeds, or ‘hypocrisy’ as indicated by Al-Tughra’y. There is a great difference between the actions of politicians and values. Indeed, if this inconformity decreased, it would be possible to evade many of the foolish sacrifices that society has to make. We should pay greater attention to the value of tolerance in place of hatred or violence and direct the powers of youth to channels of innovation and general interest, instead of forcing them on wars in armies or volunteering to die in suicidal groups. We should provide alternatives to reach interests without engaging in wars.
The awakening of international conscience is necessary in order to rewrite the law of virtues, to remind people of their human rights and that they are legal privileges for every human being. However, when we hear of the struggle between Democrats and Republicans in the country of the world’s greatest power, one realizes that this hopeful awakening is out of reach. This is because the dispute is around the means and not the aims or the principles. This is a very uncomfortable reality, as the world has waited for a long time, but still no change has materialized.
Such disagreement is about the greatest basic values, such as the right to life, honor and freedom. We hope it is in fact about the finer details of those who deserve life and those who deserve freedom. Surely respecting disagreement, establishing its importance and building the bridges of unity is the sole path to restoring the values of man, because all of us deserve these values.
Conclusion
Scholars of religion should be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem. We have witnessed in the past some scholars who have only agitated disagreement by trying to please others, but such actions have reflected negatively on the values of human cooperation and good understanding. Media, institutions of civil society, universities and research centers are also invited to play a positive role in developing values. Likewise, political leaders should take part and make great effort to decrease injustice. Leaders should look to obtain solutions for enduring problems, even if they are not conclusive or perfectly fair, as solving matters through military means is simply immoral.
We would recommend the three following goals to achieve a better balance in society’s values:
1. Deliver lectures about values to convince Europeans, particularly the Muslim youth, to prevent them from falling into terrorism and crime.
2. Ask the concerned authorities in the West to give the Muslim youth their due rights, especially their cultural rights, so that they become a positive factor with their specific characteristics that do not contradict the main values of European society.
3. Inviting the West to reconsider its relationship with the Muslim world in light of such values to bring about a more agreeable coexistence for all. A moral, intelligent and generous goal.
(i) Ahmed Amin, The Ethics, p. 63.
(ii) Whitehead, Ideas Adventures, translated by Anis Zaki Hassan, p. 439.
(iii) Hunter Mead, Philosophy, Its Kinds and Problems, translated by Fuad Zakariyya, p. 264.
(iv) Op cit. p. 267.
(v) Related by Al-Tirmidhi.