ISLAMIC ETHICS

Introduction

A good starting point for our understanding of ethics is to raise a few fundamental
questions about ethics and morality. Are the ethics and morality same? Is there any
difference between ethics and morality? Are the students of ethics the students of
morality? Do we need to study in Islamic ethics the Islamic morals and morality as the
students of Islamic ethics? What is the term which is used in Arabic for morality and
ethics? Is this term same or different? Can we translate morality as Akhlaq in Arabic? Is
the use of this term Akhlaq for morality is appropriate? How do we translate ethics in
Arabic? Do ethics mean morality or Akhlaq? If yes, then, can we translate ethics as
Akhlaq? The answers of all these questions would facilitate our efforts to understand the
true meaning of ethics and morality as well as the difference between ethics and morality.
Ethics is neither morality nor we study under Islamic ethics Islamic morals and manners.
There is a great difference between ethics and morality.

Under Islamic ethics we are not supposed to study Islamic morals or morality or human
behaviour or conduct because we are not the students of morality. Many people do not
understand the difference between ethic and morality. Consequently, they are unable to
understand what is ethics? Therefore, they discuss more and more on Akhlaq and
morality instead of discussing ethics. They mix ethics with Akhlaq or morality. Instead of
elaborating ethics they focus on morality. The same attitude is also of those who teach or
write on Islamic ethics. They think that they are concerned in Islamic ethics with Islamic
Akhlaq or morality. Hence, they explain wrongly morality or Akhlaq under Islamic ethics.
The current books and articles dealing with Islamic ethics are the best example of this
gross root misunderstanding. Hence, at the very outset, as a prerequisite, we, as the
students of Islamic ethics, need to understand what is ethics? and what is Islamic ethics?

What is Ethics?

What do ethics mean to you? If you ask this question to people in different walks of life
they will give you different answers. You may expect the following replies.

"Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong."

"Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs."
"Being ethical is doing what the law requires."
"Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts."
"I don't know what the word means."

These replies reflect different perception about ethics. Hence, scholars argue that to
determine one single meaning of "ethics" is difficult. We cannot pin down a single
meaning, and the views many people have about ethics may be questionable.

1
Many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a
matter of following one's feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from
doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.

Some other people contend that we should identify ethics with religion. No doubt, most
religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to
religion, they argue, ethics then would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies
as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can set high ethical
standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however,
cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.

Another group of people argue that following the law does not mean that we are ethical.
The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws,
like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. In recent years we have observed that the
United States of America violated its own laws when American government opened
prisons in Guantanamo and tortured people against its own laws. In this case we
understand that the United States of America and its Allies governments did not work
ethically. These are obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.

Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society,
most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in
society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt.
Israeli society is a good example of ethically corrupt society as they have occupied the
land of Palestinians and Palestinians are staying in other countries as refugees, where as,
they had in the past their own lawful land.

Moreover, if being ethical were doing "whatever society accepts," then to find out what is
ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what we should think
about abortion, for example, we would have to take a survey of any given society and
then authenticate our beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide
an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues
makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept
abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts,
one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.

What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things, some people would say. First, ethics refers to
well based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually
in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics for
them, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to
refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also
include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical
standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom
from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics
because they are supported by consistent and well founded reasons. This may be a good
example of ethics. But this explanation of ethics also falls short of ethical elaboration. In
other words this definition of ethics is neither comprehensive nor universal. In this

2
explanation of ethics we are more concerned with right, wrong, virtues, obligation etc.
Confining ethics to these areas defeats the purpose of ethics. The scope of ethics is as
wide as life.

Based on above explanation it is generally concluded that ethics refers to the study and
development of one's ethical standards [that is moral standards]. They also assert that
feelings, laws, and social norms cannot be considered as the source of ethical
understanding. In spite of this argument still these people confine ethics to moral
standards. Hence, they emphasize for constant examination of moral standards to ensure
that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort
of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we,
and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-
based.

What is ethics all about?

It is a fact that most people only have a partial understanding of the basic questions that
are addressed in the field of ethics. The most commonly held views include a mixture of
the following:
 Ethics is the same as morality
 Ethics is about rules for behavior
 Ethics is to do with theory
 Ethics is not the morality

While each view is severely limited, it is easy to see how it can be held as most people
tend to see only part of the overall picture. Those wanting to capture the broader
perspective may be best assisted by returning to what is regarded to be the founding
question in ethics.

There is a tendency to search origin of any thing in Greek civilization. Hence, in the case
of ethics most people relate the origin of ethical discourse to Greek philosophers. The
basic assumption is that the basic question of ethics has an ancient pedigree. Indeed, they
try to trace back to a Greek philosopher who lived and taught in Athens during the fifth
century BC. Socrates who asked: "What ought one to do?"

But this is not true. Ethics is not only the matter of “what ought one to do”. Ethics is
more than that. The basic questions of ethics are different from moral questions. Due to
lack of proper understanding of meaning and scope of ethics some people assert that:
Ethics is a matter of practical concern. For them this is an immensely practical question
which confronts all of us whenever we have a choice or decision to make. It is also a
question that is extremely difficult to avoid. Indeed, the only sure way to escape this
question is to be a creature of unthinking habit that goes about life doing things “because
everyone does it” or because “that's just the way we do things around here” or because “it

3
seemed like a good idea at the time”. This sort of unthinking custom and practice can be
seen as being the enemy of an 'examined life'.

What is Morality?

“There are difficult questions to answer because philosophers disagree about the
methods, goals, and subject matter of ethics and morality. It is probably safe to say
that morality is a code of conduct or system of values providing guidance about
right and wrong actions as well as the passions, desires, beliefs, words, character
traits and other such things related to these actions. Morality tells us which options
to choose in a wide range of different situations and why these choices are right and
others are wrong. Ethics is more complicated. A] Sometimes ethics simply means
morality. The terms “ethical” and “moral” can be used interchangeably. B]
Sometimes ethics is taken to be a theory providing guidance not just about right
and wrong but about all aspects of life. In this sense, ethics includes morality and
much more. C] Finally, ethics is sometimes thought of as the study of morality, a
theoretical investigation of morality.” [Howard J. Curzer, Ethical Theory and Moral
Problems, Wadsworth Publishing Company, London, 1999, p.6]

Ethics is not the same as morality

If ethics is about practical rather than purely theoretical matters, it should also be
understood that it encompasses a general conversation about how people should live a
‘good’ life. This helps to explain the difference between ethics and morality. The
distinction can be demonstrated by using the analogy of a conversation.

If one imagines that the field of ethics is a conversation which has arisen in order to
answer the question, “What ought one to do?”, then moralities (and they are various) are
the different voices in that conversation.

Each voice belongs to a tradition or theory that offers a framework within which the
question might be contemplated and answered. So in the conversation there can be a
Christian voice, a Jewish voice, an Islamic voice, Buddhist voice, Hindu voice,
Confucian voice and so on. Each voice has something distinctive to say - although they
may all share certain things in common.

There are, in addition to the moralities that flow from the worlds’ religions, the voices
that represent the various attempts to found moral systems on the thinking of secular
philosophers and others - for example utilitarianism, humanism, feminism and many
others.

Definitions of ethics

• Ethics deals with the ideas of right and wrong

• the philosophical study of moral values and rules

4
 • According to the Church of Scientology, "Ethics may be defined as
the actions an individual takes on himself to ensure his continued
survival across the dynamics. It is a personal thing. When one is ethical,
it is something he does himself by his own choice."

• Ethics is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions

about morality, such as what the fundamental semantic, ontological,
and epistemic nature of ethics or morality is (meta-ethics), how moral
values should be determined (normative ethics), how a moral outcome
can be achieved
•
• The study of principles relating to right and wrong conduct;
Morality; The standards that govern the conduct of a person, especially
a member of a profession

• ethical - of or relating to the philosophical study of ethics; "ethical

codes"; "ethical theories"
• ethical - conforming to accepted standards of social or professional
behavior; "an ethical lawyer"; "ethical medical practice"; "an ethical
problem"; "had no ethical objection to drinking"; "Ours is a world of
nuclear giants and ethical infants”
• adhering to ethical and moral principles; "it seems ethical and right";
"followed the only honorable course of action"

• ethicism - a doctrine that ethics and ethical ideas are valid and
important; "his ethicism often led him to moralize"

• ethicism - The application of ethics; The use of ethics to create

competitive advantage in business

• a set of moral principles. The study of morality.

• The moral code which guides the members of the profession in

proper conduct of their duties and obligations.

Academic Definitions

At a higher level ethics is also defined in various ways. “The term ethics has several
meanings. It is often used to refer to a set of standards of right and wrong established by a
particular group and imposed on members of that group as a means of regulating and
setting limits on their behavior”. [Judith A. Boss, Ethics for Life, Mayfield Publishing
Company, California, 2001, p.5]

In another definition it is said that: “The study of ethics is about what we should do and
what we should be. It is about right, wrong, good, bad, evil, and the relationship of
humans to each other and to other living things.”[Joanne B. Ciulla, The Ethics of
Leadership, Thomson, USA 2003, p. xi]

5
Some other scholars take ethics “as the systematic inquiry into human conduct with the
purpose of discovering both the rules that ought to govern our action and the goods we
should seek in life… Ethics is concerned with attempting to answer two different
questions: What is right [or wrong]? And What is good [or bad]?...The history of ethics
presents us with two traditions: one concerned primarily with action and its rightness or
wrongness and the other with the ends or goals of action and their goodness or badness.”[
[Oliver A. Johnson, Ethics: Selections from Classical and Contemporary Writers, fifth
edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1984, pp.6-7] However, the modern
philosophers with their diverse emphasis devote considerable attention to both
dimensions.

We should know what do we mean by the rightness of an idea or action? “All of us,
…believe that some types of action are right and others wrong and that we have a
duty to do the former and avoid the latter.” [ibid, p. 7] Generally, rightness means
as our reason confirms it as right. But this does not qualify to be right because there are
so many things that are considered as right and good but in reality they are not right.
They are not confirmed to the criteria of truth. In truth they are not right. For example,
according to humanism humans are at the centre of universe. Is this really true and in line
with reality? Can human alter the day and night? In what sense humans are at the centre
of universe? Humans are not the owners of universe. They are not sustaining and
maintaining universe. In many ways humans are at the mercy of nature. The natural
disasters and calamities are beyond the control of humans. Then how come we can
conclude that humans are at the centre of universe.

However, “Ethics may be defined as the philosophical study of morality—that is, of right
conduct, moral character, obligation and responsibility, social justice, and the nature of
the good life”. [Victor Grassian, Moral Reading: Ethical Theory and Some Contemporary
Moral Problems, second edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1992, p3] “A study of ethics
can help us better understand and classify our own moral principles; most of all, it can
help refine, develop, and sometimes change these principles…The study of ethics can
lead one from blind and irrational acceptance of the moral dogma one has assimilated
without logical scrutiny into the development of a critical reflective morality of one’s
own.” [ibid. p4]

“The central question of ethics is on, ‘what basis, if any, do people have to approve or
disapprove the correctness of any idea, behavior or action. In the domain of ethics,
philosophers considered, for example, such questions as what sort of life is worthwhile or
fulfilling for a human being? What acquired characteristics make people especially
worthy of admiration? What is pleasure and what role should it have in human life.”[J.E.
Tiles, Moral Measures: An introduction to ethics west and east, Rutledge, London, 2000,
p2] As Aristotle puts it, ‘the whole concern both of [ethical] excellence and political
science is with pleasures and pains; for the man who uses these well will be good and he
who uses them badly [will be] bad’ [1105a 10-13]. [ibid, p, 3] “ It is also a function of
reason as a human capacity to evaluate reasons, to appreciate that some are more
satisfactory than others. [ibid, p.67]

6
It is contended that philosophers are seekers after certain sorts of truth. But philosophers
want their beliefs not only to be true but also to be somehow justified or supported or
explained. Why is mere truth not enough? Because claim for truth or beliefs alone cannot
persuade others. One must have good reasons for one’s true beliefs, and these reasons are
fundamental to claims of truth. This is the reason that the Quran did not ask anybody to
accept its belief system. Rather it presented along with its belief systems arguments and
provided valid and sound reasons for its acceptance. More than this the Quran asked its
readers to utilize all their faculties to understand both belief systems and arguments. In
spite of this ethical approach of the Quran, some ignorant and arrogant people blame
Islam that it presents dogmatic beliefs and demands blind submission.

Ethics is also defined as “the science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn
from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerning duty, whether
true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or
social ethics; medical ethics. For some ethics is “a philosophical discipline,” that
“includes the study of the values and guidelines by which we live and the justification for
these values and guidelines. Rather than simply accepting the customs or guidelines used
by one particular group or culture, philosophical ethics analyzes and evaluates these
guidelines in light of accepted universal principles and concerns.” [Judith A. Boss, Ethics
for Life, Mayfield Publishing Company, California, 2001, pp.5-6] In our view ethics
cannot be confined to the evaluation of customs, values and guidelines alone. More
importantly, “ethics is a way of life. In this sense, ethics involves active engagement in
the pursuit of the good life—a life consistent with a coherent set of moral values”.[ ibid.
p. 6] But before one discusses good life he must elaborate what is life at all. Without this
elaboration the elaboration of good life is meaningless. At the very outset one must know
what is life all about?

Moreover, for these scholars, “Moral guidelines are not simply a list of dos and don’ts
that others impose upon us, however, as adults, it is not enough just to do as we are told.
We expect to be given reasons for acting certain ways or taking certain positions on
moral issues”. [ibid. p. 8] Hence, they argue that: “Ethical theories do not stand on their
own but are grounded in other philosophical presuppositions about such matters as the
role of humans in the universe, the existence of free will, and the nature of knowledge”.
[p12] Here philosophers need to answer this question: What is the basis of this
philosophical presupposition? This shows that, “Our concept of human nature has a
profound influence on our concept of how we ought to live…Metaphysical assumptions
about the nature of reality are not simply abstract theories; they can have a profound
effect on both ethical theory and normative ethics. Metaphysical assumptions play a
pivotal role, for better or for worse, in structuring relations among humans and between
humans and the rest of the world.” [ibid., p. 12] This is the reason that we argue “Only
through reason can we understand moral truth and achieve the good life.”[ibid, p. 13] In
modern times a different position is adopted. It is asserted that: “The creation of the
social sciences as a discipline separate form philosophy, Darwin’s theory of evolution,
and the growing emphasis on the scientific method as the source of truth all contributed
to the growing trend in the West to describe human behavior in purely scientific terms.”
[ibid. p.16]

7
This is the reason that human behavior is examined in the light of modern ethical
theories. For example, “The theory of determinism states that all events are governed by
causal laws: There is no free will. Humans are governed by causal laws just as all other
physical objects and beings are. According to strict determinism, if we had complete
knowledge, we could predict future events with one hundred percent certainty…
Psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud [1856-1939] claimed that humans are governed by
powerful unconscious forces and that even our most noble accomplishments are the result
of prior events and instincts. Behaviorists such as John Watson [1878-1958] and .B F.
Skinner [1904-1990] also believed that human behavior is determined by past events in
our lives. However, they argued that, rather than the unconscious controlling our actions,
so-called mental states, are really just a function of the physical body. Rather than being
free, autonomous agents, we are simply the products of past conditioning, elaborately
programmed computers—according to Watson, an assembled organic machine ready to
run.” [ibid. p16] These philosophers believe that there are no objective or universal moral
standards or truth; instead, there are only opinions. They are bound to form this opinion
because they do not have any divine universal sacred source. They have neglected the
need of a universal sacred source.

But those who believe in religion state differently. For them the study of sacred scriptures
is important, in part, because it teaches right from wrong. However, those who oppose it
argue that, “…this by itself does not imply that religion or scripture is the only source of
moral guidance or that morality is relative to religion. In the Jewish religion, Roman
Catholicism, and mainstream Protestant religions, the basic moral principles are also held
to be universal and discoverable through other means such as the use of reason or
intuition.” [ibid, p.152] So far as Islam is concerned, they argue that “Islam maintains
that ethics is inseparable from religion and is built entirely upon. An action is right
simply because God commands it. Religion informs not only the Muslim’s personal life
but also the basis of public policy. The sovereignty of Allah is the starting point of
Islamic political philosophy and law….Humans are not expected to discern right from
wrong but simply to submit unquestioningly to God’s will”. [ibid, 152] This issue of
unquestioning may be relevant to religions but so for Islam is concerned it is not correct.
We will demonstrate later on that Islam does not demand submission without
understanding. Rather rational understanding is a prerequisite for submission. Hence, it is
also wrong to say that: “There are no independent, universal moral standards by which to
judge God’s commands. No other justification is necessary for an action to be right other
than that God commanded it.” [ibid] This understanding of commands of God is baseless
and unfounded. The question here is: What are those universal moral standards? Who sets
those universal moral standards? The developments of universal moral standards are not
more important rather the development of ethical criteria is more important than the
examination of those universal moral standards. To conclude they say that: “God’s
reasons are ultimately unknowable to humans, and therefore, we must accept God’s
commands—whatever they are, on faith.” [ibid, 154] This claim is also not correct.
Humans are free to make rational search to understand the reasons behind the God’s
commands. They are not dogmatic and there is no question of blind acceptance of belief.
Belief means deeper understanding of ultimate truth and realities. The difference here is
that Islam suggests a different methodology for rational understanding. Its process of

8
examination is not based on metaphysical ignorance rather it presents before humans the
divine knowledge and asks them to study and understand that divine knowledge. If it is
convincing and satisfy their rational criteria then they are expected to accept it whole
heartedly otherwise humans are free to follow any other system of belief.

If ethical inquiry is not based on divine guidance and knowledge, then there cannot be
any ethics. This is the first principle of ethical inquiry. [Mumtaz] Some philosophers
believe that depending on God’s guidance for ethics is logically unsound. God cannot be
used as a fundamental criterion for ethical inquiry, nor is God necessary for ethics. [ibid.
158] According to some philosophers such as Aquinas and Aristotle, “we function best as
humans when we are perfecting our human capacities, reason being the highest or most
important of these capacities. Because moral law is embedded in human reason, our
actions do not depend upon our perception of God’s will or commands at any particular
moment.” [ibid, 161] But this assertion is not supported by observable happenings.
Observable happenings suggest that there is always a big gap between divine knowledge
and human understanding. Although, the sense of ethical inquiry is grounded in human
nature, but it works, in a proper direction, when it seeks God’s guidance and submits to it.
By nature humans are rational it is only because God made humans as rational beings—
in God’s image—that they can discern right from wrong. Human nature is free and
autonomous [ibid, 161] but it is easily influenced by human desires and lust. [Mumtaz]
Ethical inquiry, therefore, cannot be done simply with the help of “light of natural
reason” which is part of our human nature. Only on the basis of the light of natural reason
with which God endowed human beings, we are unable to discern ethical principles.
Hence, it requires guidance rather iman—yaqeen—belief--that is unshakeable
understanding. [Mumtaz]

In previous inquiries, the domain of ethics was limited to the domain of human conduct.
By contrast contemporary ethics sought to broaden the domain to include a general
inquiry into what is good that involves metaphysics. Metaphysics study metaphysical
realities as they are but in ethics we study how far metaphysical studies and
understandings of reality are really right, true, and in line with Reality. How far they are
useful for developing a better life and society? What are the reasons and evidences for
being right, true, and beneficial?

In the light of all these definitions of ethics we are arguing that we do not accept any
thing which does not have good reasons and sound basis. We reject superstitions,
dogmas, blind following and dogmatic belief systems and want to accept truth and
reality. If this is the case then ethics must fulfill certain ethical conditions. For example:

1. It should be eternal/ universal/ not relative

2. It must be comprehensive/ not confining to moral life in a limited or
religious sense
3. It must be true i-e based on truth and in line with reality
4. It should not be the result of philosophical speculation or intellectual
conjecture.

9
5. It must be based on true and authentic knowledge instead of imagination,
assumption or guess
6. It should come from such source who is universal and whose knowledge is
unlimited and wisdom unimaginable-no limit-no end.

In our opinion ethics cannot be confined to the study of morality or to the science of
morality. Ethics deals with worldview, purpose of life, way of life, code of conduct,
mode of thinking and living. In short ethics is a rational inquiry or search which intends
to see the sound and logical reasons for the explanation and acceptance of any
worldview, purpose of life, way of life, code of conduct, mode of thinking and living in
accordance with truth and in line with reality of this world. A comparative study of belief
systems and ideologies is one of the goals of ethics. It helps us to understand and accept
that point of view or belief system which fulfils the criterion of reason and sense
perception.

Keeping in mind the above definition and purpose of ethics we argue that the translation
of term ethics in Arabic as Akhlaq or even as Ilm al Akhlaq, which means the science of
Akhlaq or morality, is also not suitable translation. Ethics as the science of conduct is a
popular concept in modern time. “Ethics is a science in the sense that its study represents
an intellectual enterprise, a rational inquiry into its subject matter in the hope of gaining
knowledge”. “Although ethics differs from the various empirical sciences both in its
subject matter and in its special methodology, it shares with them a general methodology,
rational inquiry, and an overall goal—the attainment of truth.” “These relationships
between ethics and science have led philosophers to speak of ethics as a normative
science, because it concerns itself with norms or standards, in contrast to the descriptive
sciences, which concern themselves with describing empirical facts.” [Oliver A. Johnson,
Ethics: Selections from Classical and Contemporary Writers, fifth edition, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, New York, 1984, p1] “Some philosophers would question the belief that
the study of ethics falls within the domain of science—even in a broad definition of that
term—because they believe that scientific knowledge must be based on empirical facts
and can never take norms or values in to consideration. This is a vital difference between
science and ethics that cannot be overlooked; at the same time, however, it should not be
forgotten that both are inquiries whose goal is the truth.”[ibid., p. 2]

We are not concerned in ethics with Akhlaq or with the Ilm of Akhlaq alone rather we are
concerned in ethics with the rightness or wrongness of worldview, purpose of life, way of
life, code of conduct, mode of thinking and living etc. Ethics in fact was a branch of
philosophy in the beginning which was called moral philosophy. Later on it was
separated from philosophy and was given a new name ethics. When ethics was a branch
of philosophy it was concerned with rational inquiry of goodness of an action which is
not the domain of philosophy. Philosophy is more concerned with rational inquiry
particularly about metaphysics. Metaphysics means beyond physics. In simple words
moral philosophy should be involved in a rational search of unseen aspects of any idea or
action. Ideas about our own self and the world around us are the subject matters of
metaphysics not the action or conduct. Our own self and the world around us are

10
available with us in the physical form which can be seen and observed but ideas about
them are not in the physical form hence cannot be seen. Ethics as a separate branch of
knowledge, not like metaphysics which is concerned only with unseen world, is
concerned with the rightness of the unseen aspects of our ideas and actions. From this
point of view ethics’ interest lies in the search of suitability and soundness of
metaphysical understanding of our ideas and actions related to this world. Hence, it is
right to argue that ethics is concerned with the rational search and understanding of the
soundness of any idea or action. Which idea is true and useful and in line with truth and
reality. Which idea and action is useful and why it is useful, what are the arguments for
its usefulness is the subject matter of ethics not the morality is subject matter as generally
understood in the academic world. Confining the inquiry of ethics to the science of
morality is to defeat the purpose of ethical inquiry as a separate discipline. What is useful
for and individual or community is the question of ethics? A rational understanding is
developed by ethics. In other words in ethics we want to make a rational search so that
we can find out the reasonableness of an idea or action. Here one question may be asked.
Is “maintaining a distinction between ethics and morality an easy task? for in our every
day language most of us use the terms interchangeably.” [ibid, Oliver, .p2] The answer is:
“Ethics, as we have already said, is a term that refers not directly to practice but rather to
theory”. [ibid,p. 2] “This difference in usage, although generally accepted in
philosophical circles, is not followed by people in general.” [ibid]We should not use
terms ethics and ethical in place of morality and moral. “Because the two realms—the
practical and the theoretical—do exist and do differ from each other, our use of different
terms to distinguish the one from the other is a wise precaution to help us avoid
confusion.” [ibid.] It is also wrong to say that ethics is the theoretical examination of
morality because in any way we cannot confine ethical inquiry to morality, conduct or
behaviour. Its scope, from ethical point of view, includes every thing. One of the main
objectives of ethics is to determine the rightness or wrongness of ideas, theories and
thought.

Source of Ethical Knowledge

There are several opinions about the origin of the universe. Some claim that these
opinions have been shaped by traditional myths. Some other contends that their views are
based on historical or empirical facts. A few also claim about authority. The scientific
view of the origin of the universe is considered most authentic. All these schools of
thought describe, not only how human life began, but also why, it is so hard, so painful,
so confusing, so conflict-ridden. To avoid pain and conflict rather for survival it-self
social order came into existence only through a reluctant bargain. This explanation does
not claim that it is based on true knowledge or authentic source.

What is the possibility of ethical knowledge? Ethical skeptics deny the possibility of
ethical knowledge altogether. However, recent moral philosophers have devoted more
attention to this question. They considered this issue the issue of meta-ethics. They
differentiate between ethics and meta-ethics.

11
“There are two traditional subdivisions of ethics: 1. normative ethics and 2. theoretical
ethics. Theoretical ethics is concerned with appraising the logical foundations and
internal consistencies of ethical systems. Theoretical ethics is also known as meta-ethics;
the prefix meta comes from the Greek word meaning “about” or “above.” Normative
ethics, on the other hand, gives us, hands-on practical guidelines or norms, such as “do
not lie” or “do no harm,” regarding which actions are right and which are wrong. In other
words theoretical ethics, or meta-ethics, studies why we should act and feel a certain way;
normative ethics tells us how we should act in particular situations.” [Judith A. Boss,
Ethics for Life, Mayfield Publishing Company, California, 2001, p. 8]

There is a concern: we should better understand ourselves, our place in the world, and our
relationships to others. The answers of these questions are divided into three broad
categories: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and practical ethics.

Meta-ethics: What is the status of moral claims? Are claims about morality just
statements of the society’s standards or individual choices? Are they objective in some
sense? If they are objective, what makes them so? Is ethics a viable intellectual
enterprise? What is the connection, if any, between our psychological makeup and the
nature of moral judgments?
Normative ethics: What is the best way, broadly understood, to live? Are there general
principles, rules, guidelines that we should follow, or virtues that we should inculcate,
that help us distinguish right from wrong and good from bad?
Practical ethics: How should we behave in particular situations: when should we tell
the truth, under what circumstances can or should we go to war, what is the best way to
organize society, how should we relate to the environment and to animals? [Hugh
LaFollette, editor, The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford,
2001, pp. 1-2]

“The attempt to provide systematic and justifiable answers to moral questions is called
normative ethics and is distinguished from the second task of the philosophical study of
morality, meta-ethics, which consists of an inquiry into the meaning and logic of moral
language.” [Victor Grassian, Moral Reading: Ethical Theory and Some Contemporary
Moral Problems, second edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1992, p3]

“The conclusion of so many contemporary philosophers that ethical knowledge is

impossible has forced everyone interested in the field to examine its foundations, to see
whether they can find any way of providing a rational basis, first, for the ethical theories
that moral philosophers have developed and, second, for our own practical convictions
about the way in which we ought to live.” [[Oliver A. Johnson, Ethics: Selections from
Classical and Contemporary Writers, fifth edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
York, 1984, p11]

In ethics we claim we make a rational search or inquiry on the basis of our reason. Can
we ask an ethical question concerning the position of human reason? Can human reason
be the source of ethical knowledge? We are asking this question because we are claiming
that our reason is the source of ethical knowledge that is human reason is capable to

12
understand not only the metaphysical realities rather what is right and what is wrong for
us and for mankind? In other words we want to ascertain the role of human reason. Can
our reason be independently the source of ethical inquiry? Do we need other than our
reason any other source for ethical inquiry? These questions are related to some other
questions for example Does ethics is relative or universal? If ethics is universal then what
is our understanding of universal? What are the basic and fundamental questions in
ethics?

In ethics we are determined to know reasonable answers. We need reasonable answers so

that we can guarantee our peaceful and pleasant forward movement in this world. We are
searching for better life of man on this earth. The question here is: Are we searching for
man of the past or present or future or for all. The answer is for all. It means ethics is
universal and it should be universal because whatever is good for man as human being
must be good for all human being of the past, present and future. If we agree that man is
capable to answers the fundamental ethical questions or what is right and what is wrong
for man and humanity then the question is which man should answers the man of the past
or present or future. We claim in our social sciences theories and even in scientific
theories that man opened his eyes in primitive stage of his life. If we accept these so-
called social and scientific theories of origin of man then we are bound to accept this
bitter reality that the man of the past can not be source of ethical knowledge because he
was initially in his primitive age, hence, was not at all capable to understand and answer
all these ethical questions. If we accept this as a reality and truth and we are forced to
accept as such because we follow so-called scientific and social science theories. In this
case then the man of the past cannot be the source of ethical knowledge. But this
acceptance will deny the universal nature of ethics. It means in the past people were not
ethical. They live unethical life. In this case ethics will be relative. If ethics can be
relative then we can not move in society smoothly as every one will think that it is good
for him and whatever is good for him is not necessarily good for other human beings.

So can we say that the man of the present day world is capable to answer the ethical
questions because he is more knowledgeable and mature enough? Here another question
will arise. Is man of the present is really knowledgeable and mature enough? Can he
claim that he knows every thing of this world? Does he possess unlimited knowledge of
this world? Does the production of weapons of mass destruction and chemical and
nuclear weapons are the signs of his maturity? If he is capable then why he is not able to
arrest environmental crisis and global warming etc.? All these questions clearly
demonstrate that man of the present in spite of his knowledge, technical skills and
faculties of reasoning and empirical understanding is not at all capable to design an
ethical code or to provide ethical answers to the fundamental ethical questions. The most
fundamental ethical question on whose rational understanding depend good life of man
on this earth. What is the purpose of life? What is the place of man in this world? What is
the nature of the relationship between man and nature? Who is his creator? Does he have
any dynamic link with his creator? What is the worldview which is true and in line with
reality? So far man of the present world has failed to answers these questions
satisfactorily. Does it not mean that modern man cannot be the source of ethical
knowledge?

13
Can science and scientists can be source of ethical knowledge as they claim that they
have most authentic source of knowledge of this world based on scientific method of
observation, experiment and verification. How can science and scientists of our time be
the source of ethical knowledge that is not able to overcome the problems of epidemic
diseases and natural disasters? If they can be the source of ethical knowledge then we
must accept again that ethics cannot be universal as such the development of science and
scientists are the phenomenon of the modern world which means before the development
of science man was living an unethical life. If we accept this then we deny universal
ethics. And the concept of relative ethics itself is an unethical concept. It is unethical
[unreasonable] to assume that until the dawn of modern world during which period
science was developed man was living an unethical life.

Now religion is left. Can any religion be the source of ethical knowledge? If we accept
that every religion is divine then we have to accept the relativity of religions because
every religion took birth in a particular time in history. [This claim that every religion is
divine is itself subject to ethical inquiry. We can not take it as granted. If we accept this
preposition it means we are unethical. Ethical attitude demands a through rational
examination of each and every religion.] All these religions did not come at the same
time. Every religion is produced in a particular time in history. If religion is the product
of history then it can not be universal and ethics thus developed based on that particular
religion can not be universal. There is another important ethical question. Which religion
should be the source of ethics? Every religion will develop its own ethics. In this case
there would be many ethical perspectives. Is this position of different ethical perspective
is ethical? Can at a single time there be many true, authentic and realistic understandings
[ethical perspectives] particularly about fundamental ethical questions such as purpose of
life? Can there are many purposes of life of man? And is every purpose right and true?
Religions can not be the source of ethical knowledge.

Here at this point we find a different but unique voice and this voice’s claim is that it is
Wise since it is coming from a source which is full of Wisdom and possesses Unlimited
Knowledge of every thing, physical and metaphysical, of this universe. This voice is
raised by people but they elucidate that it is not their human voice it is the result of
Knowledge that is revealed to them by a special mean. They challenge the Revealer of
this knowledge claims that He is the Creator of this universe. The interesting aspect of
this voice is that it is raised by thousands of people in human history since the inception
of life on this earth. These people though come in different periods of history but raise
the same voice. They do not contradict one another instead confirm each other. They
demonstrated during their life time a high standard of character. They call themselves as
the Messenger of Creator of this universe who is God or Allah. The Knowledge which
they received is contained in the books which were sent by God through these
messengers for the guidance of mankind because without this guidance man is not able to
think and understand properly and correctly. All these books were sent during different
period in history but all these books review the same guidance and confirm the message
of each other. The book sent by God through messenger Prophet Muhammad is the last

14
book. This book makes some challenges to mankind. These challenges are interesting
and directly in line with ethical inquiry. They include:

1. The first challenge is that this book contains in it the true and authentic
knowledge of Truth of this world, physical and metaphysical.
2. This knowledge is from God.
3. This book presents clearly beyond any doubt the knowledge of the origin
of universe, the creation of man, purpose of life and about the creator himself.
4. Man, who is granted by his creator God the faculties of reasoning and
sense perception is asked by this book to utilize them fully to ascertain the claim of
this book.
5. If man finds in it truth and only truth then it is ethical for him to follow
this guidance for further ethical inquiry.
6. This book makes an obligation to man for thinking and understanding of
each and every thing which is the goal of ethics.
7. This book further claims that its guidance for mankind is universal. It is
not the product of history. It maintains permanency and continuity.
8. Its guidance is universal as well as comprehensive covers all aspects of
life, physical and metaphysical.
9. Its guidance as being comprehensive helps man to develop systems of
knowledge and other aspects of life. Does not leave man without guidance.
10. It places man at the centre of universe. Man according to this guidance is
responsible for construction and destruction of this world.
11. This book claims that since the time of first messenger Adam [p.b.u.h.]
until the last messenger Muhammed [p.b.u.h.] the guidance of this book is called
Islam. This name Islam is given by God and those who follow this guidance are
called Muslim.
12. Finally, this book challenge mankind to produce better guidance than
this guidance. Definitely man will fail. There is no other way for man except to
accept its guidance and continue ethical search in the light of this guidance. This
book is the Quran.

Ethical Theory

To understand what is good and reasonable and how to achieve that good in our life and
society many people have developed many theories about this whole process. Majid
Fakhry in his book Ethical Theories in Islam defines ethical theory as follows:

An ethical theory is a reasoned account of the nature and grounds of right

actions and decisions and the principles underlying the claim that they are
morally commendable or reprehensible. Ethical enquiry has therefore
always placed a special stress on the definition of ethical concepts and the
justification or appraisal of moral judgments, as well as the discrimination
between right and wrong actions or decisions. To be complete, an ethical
system must deal adequately with these aspects of moral enquiry in an
articulate and coherent way.

15
Structure of an Ethical System

It is generally contended that an ethical system should contain the following components.

1. True understanding [belief] about the nature of man

2. True understanding [belief] about ideals

3. True understanding [belief] what is good and desirable or worthy of pursuit

for its own sake

4. Rules laying down what ought to be done and what ought not to be done

5. Motives that incline us to choose the right or the wrong course.

There are three kinds of motives.

1. Self-interest
2. Respect for rules
3. Respect for the rights of others or other motives

Islamic Ethics

What is Islamic ethics is not explained clearly yet. We do not find scholarly works on this
subject. Whatever works we have on Islamic ethics they do not explain Islamic ethics.
They use in their titles Islamic ethics but fail to deal with Islamic ethics. All of them end
up with Islamic morals or Akhlaq. For example, Yasien Mohamed writing on “The
Evolution of Early Islamic Ethics” argues that the nature of Islamic ethics is shaped by
the Quran. He says, “Any kind of Islamic ethics, whether religious or philosophical, is
ultimately based on the Quran. It is in this broad sense that the term Islamic ethics is
used”. He further argues that “a detailed Quranic system of ethics has not been worked
out in the modern period…”. However, he asserts that: “the semantic and the theological
foundations for such a task have been laid by the work of Izutsu, Rahman and Hourani.”
He concludes that “Rahman, in his Major Themes of the Quran, reinterpreted the Quran
according to the overarching virtue of social justice, but without minimizing the principle
of Divine justice. Hourani in his “Ethical Presuppositions of the Quran”, reopened the
Mutazilite approach to Quranic ethics and demonstrated that the Quran teaches that
ethical value has an objective reality, and that ethics cannot simply be reduced to the
commands and prohibitions of God.” While referring to these modernist scholars he
overlooked completely the contributions of other contemporary Islamic revivalist
scholars such as Syed Qutb and Seyyed Mawdudi. Mawdudi, for example, contributed a
number of books which are rightly included in the category of ethical works but Yasien
Mohamed did not even mention those works in his paper such as Ethical Viewpoint of
Islam [translated from urdu Islam ka Akhlaqi Nuqta-i- Nazar]; Islamic Way of Life

16
[ translated from urdu Islam ka Nizam-i-Hayat]; Towards Understanding
Islam[ translated from urdu Risalai Diniyat]; The Islamic Movement—Dynamics of
Values, Power and Change [translated and edited by Khurram Murad from urdu Tehrik
Islami Ki Akhlaqi Bunyadain]; The Religion of Truth [translated from urdu Din-i-Haqq];
Islam and Ignorance [translated from urdu Islam awr Jahiliyah] just to mention a few.
Quite contrary to Mohamed Yasien Sheila McDonough’s makes the following
observation about the contributions of Mawdudi in the area of Islamic ethical thought
which deserves our attention here. He says:

Mawdudi’s book The Ethical Viewpoint of Islam is a vigorous statement of

the position that underlies all his writings. His aim is to persuade Muslims to
a new vision of their traditional religion. His way of doing this is to attempt
to convince them that the ethical teachings of that heritage, properly
understood, contain the only feasible solution to the oppressive dilemmas of
existence in the modern world. The ethical viewpoint, in other words, holds
the key to all problems, to the transformation of individual and social life,
and to the rebirth of dynamic Islam. [Muslim Ethics and Modernity: A
Comparative Study of the Ethical Thought of Sayyid Ahmad Khan and
Mawlana Mawdudi, 1984, 59]

However, Yasein Mohamed’s paper “The Evolution of Early Islamic Ethics” does not
deal with Islamic ethics as such rather with Islamic morals. A serious reading of this
paper reveals this bitter reality that he fails to distinguish between ethics and morals as a
result he explains Islamic morals instead of Islamic ethics. Abdullahi Hassan Zaroug’s
paper “Ethics from an Islamic Perspective: Basic Issues” falls in the same category. He
also fails to explain what is Islamic ethics? We do not find in his paper any definition or
meaning of Islamic ethics. Readers fail to understand in what way Islamic ethics is
different from conventional ethics. His paper deals with Islamic morals and moral
concepts. Azim Nanji work on “Islamic ethics” makes an unethical comment in the
beginning when he argues that Islam is among the youngest of the world’s major
religions because his observation goes against the Quranic declaration that God sent
Islam - as a way of life and code of conduct- through all His messengers from Adam,
p.b.u.h. till the last messenger the Prophet Muhammed, p.b.u.h. Islam continues to be the
oldest as well as youngest din sent by God for the guidance of mankind. Nevertheless
Azim Nanji’s treatment of the subject, certain extent, remains within the framework of
ethical discourse. With reference to Fazlur Rahman he asserts that, “…in its initial phase
Islam was moved by a deep rational and moral concern for reforming society, and that
this moral intentionality was conceived in ways that encouraged a deep commitment to
reasoning and rational discourse”. [Nazim Nanji, “Islamic ethics” in Peter Singer, editor,
Blackwell Companions to Philosophy: A Companion to Ethics, Blackwell Publishers,
Oxford, 1993, pp. 106-107] Putting his arguments in proper ethical perspective he
explains Islam’s ethical position. He elaborates:

While revealing His will to humankind in the Quran, God also urges them
to exercise reason in understanding revelation. One part of this rational
inquiry into the meaning of revelation led Muslims to elaborate rules for

17
 ethical behaviour and the principles upon which such rules could be based.
In time, the relationship between the Quran and the life of the Prophet, as a
model of behaviour, would also be elaborated, to extend the framework
within which values and obligations could be determined. The process of
determination and elaboration, however, involved the application oh
human reasoning, and it is this continuing interaction between reason and
revelation, and the potential and limits of the former in relation to the
latter, that provided the basis for formalized expression of ethical thought
in Islam.[ ibid, P.107]

However, the rest of the article as a whole fails to elaborate Islamic ethics in time space
context. It seems to us that due to the influence of modern Muslim and Western thought
on his mind, he ignores to remain within the purview of Islamic ethical discourse. He also
goes on to explain Islamic morals instead of elaborating Islamic ethics and ethical
concepts of the Quran. Bashir Ahmad Dar, in his book Quranic Ethics, however, seems
to be little different from other above-mentioned authors. Writing on Quranic Ethics Dar
first explains what is ethics? But again his definition of ethics remains within the context
of conduct and morality and does not provide an ethical definition of ethics. For example,
he says ethics deals with the manifold problems of human conduct. He, therefore
concludes that “Ethics is the study of human conduct, not as it is, but as it is related to
certain basic ideals and norms…”. Instead clarifying the position of Islamic ethics, he
creates more confusion about Islamic ethics and fails to define it. One finds in his work
several misconceptions about Islam and Islamic ethics.

Abdul Haq Ansari occupies the highest place among all those scholars who have written
on Islamic ethics in modern times. His position on Islamic ethics remains within the
framework of ethical discourse. He argues that Abu Ali Miskawayh [936—1030 AD], the
father of Muslim ethics, was the first Muslim philosopher who worked out an elaborate
system of ethics in Islam. Miskawayh gave an independent status to ethics and made it a
part and parcel of Islamic sciences. But it was not developed further. Hence, “Islamic
ethics as a discipline or a subject does not exit at the present. We do not have works that
define its concepts, outline its issues, and discuss its problems”. Ansari further argues that
Muslim philosophers, in their ethical works, have mostly rehashed Greek ethics. They
have introduced in Greek ethics some Islamic terms and concepts and modified some
notions. However, “This does not make their ethics Islamic. They do not raise many
issues that Islamic ethics must raise, and many ideas they have set forth cannot be
considered to be Islamic unless they are seriously modified”. According to Ansari, there
are some important ethical questions in Islamic ethics that must be raised and answered.
For example, what/who is the source of ethical knowledge? Are there any ethical terms in
the Quran? These answers must be given from ethical point of view. In spite of his clarity
of thought on Islamic ethics he also did not provide any definition of Islamic ethics. The
meaning, definition and scope of Islamic ethics can only be explained in terms of the
role/task of Islamic ethics.

Task of Islamic Ethics

18
There are four tasks of Islamic ethics as elaborated by Ansari. They cover the following
areas:

1. Vision of life

According to Ansari, the first task of Islamic ethics is to understand and expound the
ethos of Islam [that is to explain what is the vision of life which is ethical] as conceived
in the Quran and elaborated in the Sunnah of the Prophet. Majid Fahkry argues that the
Quran does not contain ethical theories but “it embodies the whole of the Islamic ethos.
How to go about eliciting this ethos thus becomes of paramount importance to the student
of Islamic ethics”. His contention is that the Quran and the Sunnah do embody the
original core of the Islamic ethical spirit. However, elaboration of Islamic ethos is not as
easy as one can understand. Naturally it may be very vague and elusive concept for some
one. For Ansari it is not very difficult. The Islamic ethos may include the following.

The view of life and good life has to be set forth in detail.

• Various component of that life

• The traits and characteristics of that good life.
• The motives and attitudes, feelings and emotions, actions and reactions, relations
and associations in that good life.
• It has to determine the place of human necessities and material conditions in the
realization of that life.
• It has to define the priorities: What goods are higher and what are lover.
• It has to explain what is the ultimate end of life, and how are various goods
related to that end?
• It has to study the relation between knowledge, action, and feelings; between
personal attainments and social concerns; between devotion to God and
commitment to humanity.
• It has to determine the place of aesthetic values in life, the pleasure of the body
and material goods.
• It has to show the value of individual work and collective action.
• In all the above-mentioned things, it has to be viewed in the context of normal
life, as well as in extraordinary and stress situation.
• It also needs to explain what is right and what is meritorious, and, opposingly
what is wrong and what is punishable by God?
• What is the place of motive and intention?
• What are the degrees of obligation, and what are the personal and collective
duties?
• How do the circumstances of the individual and society affect the degree of
obligation?

2. General terms of ethics

The second task of Islamic ethics is

19
 • To explain the general terms used in Islamic ethics, such as good, bad, right,
wrong, meritorious, non-meritorious, responsibility, and obligation.
• This task has to determine and explain what these terms, or the terms used in
Islamic sources communicating these ideas, mean.
• What are their degrees or levels, and how are they determined?
• What part is played in their knowledge by reason, intuition, and revelation as
incorporated in the Quran and the Sunnah?
• It has to inquire into the ways the language of the Quran and the Sunnah
expresses or suggests the degree of good and right, evil and wrong.
• It has to determine what act and practice of the Prophet is the Sunnah to be
followed, and what is a personal habit or preference, or what incidental actions
and practices are not meant to be followed.
• Islamic ethics has to determine what is the place of convention of a given society?
• What is the place of mystical intuition or inspiration?

3. Relation between Reason and Faith

The third task of Islamic ethics, as elaborated by Ansari, is:

• To discuss and explain how Islamic ethics is related to and influenced by Islamic
faith-the idea of God, the life Hereafter, Prophecy, and revelation.
• Islamic ethics has to point out the different ways in which Islamic faith affects
ethical life and concepts.
• It has to explain: What is the possibility of human freedom and responsibility in
the context of Divine omnipotence and predestination?
• Islamic ethics has to show that the freedom of man, to the extent he is held
responsible for his acts, is not contravened by the omnipotence and predestination
of God.
• It has to explain what extent the norm of rationality, goodness, and justice,
applicable to man, are equally applicable to God? Or is it that they only partly
apply to Him?

4. Judgments on Current Issues

The fourth task of Islamic ethics is

• To pronounce judgments on problems that face Islamic society and to say what is
right or wrong in this case?
• It has to specify the values that are permanent and unchangeable, and those whose
operational norms may change.

These are the tasks which have to be explained in detail by Islamic ethics. This
explanation of the task of Islamic ethics clearly shows that how wide is the scope of
Islamic ethics. Hence, confining ethics to morals and behaviour is equallent to do gross
injustice to ethics itself. Ethics cannot be reduced to morality and conduct alone.

20
Fundamental issues in Islamic Ethics

Islamic ethics is different, in general, from ethics in various ways. It is different in terms
of its method, scope and objective. Islamic ethics is more concerned with fundamental
issues of epistemological nature than moral and behavioural aspects. It is because Islam is
more interested in true understanding of each and every thing of this world. Islam desires
people to live according to truth and in line with reality based on knowledge instead of
conjecture and speculation. It wishes to develop human behaviour and conduct on the
basis of true and authentic understanding. Islamic ethics, being based on Islam which is
revealed by God, intends at the very outset, to introduce God. In fact, God introduces
Himself in the Quran. Let us understand who is God?

1. Who is God?

They [angels] said: ‘Glory to You We have no knowledge except what

You taught us. You, only You, are All-Knowing, All Wise.’ 2: 32

He is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. 2: 137

Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. 2: 227

Surely Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. 2: 181

Surely You alone are All-Hearing, All-Knowing. 3: 35

Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing. 3: 73

He is All-Powerful as well as All-Wise. 2:220

Fear Allah, and know well that Allah has full knowledge of everything. 2: 231

Fear Allah and know well that Allah sees all that you do. 2: 233

Allah has full knowledge of all that you do. 2: 283

He teaches you the right way and has full knowledge of everything. 2: 282

There is no God but He; the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. 3: 6

Allah knows what is in the heavens and in the earth and He has power
over everything. 3: 29

Allah, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting by Whom all subsist, there is

no God but He. Neither slumber seizes Him, nor sleep; to Him belongs all
that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Who is there who might
intercede with him save with his leave? 2: 255

21
Irrespective of the number of gods or objects of worship set up by ignorant people, the
fact remains that godhead in its entirety belongs exclusively to the Eternal Being, Who is
indebted to no one for His existence. In fact, He is not only self-existent, but upon Him
rests the entire order of the universe. He alone wields all sovereign authority over His
dominion. None shares either His attributes or His power and might, and no one has the
same claims against the creatures as He. Hence, if anywhere in the heavens or the earth
someone sets up anything or anybody as an object of worship and service, either instead
of or in addition to the One True God this amounts to declaring war on reality.
To God belong the heavens and the earth and everything therein. There is no one
who shares anything with God in governance either of the heavens or of the earth. Any
conceivable being other than God would necessarily be a part of the universe and thus
belong to, and be a subject of, God rather than His partner and equal. [vol. 2. p. 196]

In spite of God being All-Knowing, All-Wise, and All-Powerful He not only granted man
the freedom of choice but he is also endowed with the faculties of hearing, seeing and
reasoning. It is absolutely his right to accept truth or reject it. “The entire basis of the
Divine plan is that men should have free-will and be allowed to choose between the Truth
and falsehood; that the truth should be explained to them in order that they be tested with
regard to their choice between Truth and falsehood. The right attitude, therefore, is for
them to follow the Straight Way which has been illuminated by the light bequeathed to
them and to keep on calling others towards it. They should naturally value very highly all
those who respond to the message of the Truth. Such persons should not be forsaken or
neglected, however humble their station in the world. As for those who willfully reject
the message of God, one need not pursue them too far. They should rather be left alone to
proceed towards their doom since they themselves wish so, and are insistent on doing
so.” [vol. 2, p. 263]

They do so because, “They only follow idle fancies, indulging in conjecture” [6: 116]
because the way of life of the majority of people is influenced by their fancies and their
conjectures rather than sound knowledge. “Their beliefs, their ideas and concepts, their
philosophies of life, the guiding principles of their conduct, their laws—all these are
founded on conjecture. On the contrary, the way of life which pleases God, was revealed
by Him and hence is based on true knowledge rather than conjecture. Instead of trying to
discover the way of life of the majority, a seeker after truth should, therefore, persevere in
the way prescribed by God, even if he finds himself to be a solitary traveler.” [vol. 2, p.
268]

One possible way for God to guide man to the right way was to make him inherently
rightly-directed, which is the manner of beings that are devoid of all free-will. This,
however, was not God’s will. He willed that there should come into being a species
possessed of free-will and volition, one capable of making its own choice—even the
wrong choice.
In order that man might make use of this freedom, he was endowed with the means of
acquiring knowledge, with the faculties of reason and thinking, with the potential for will
and desire, with the power to use a large number of things both within and outside him.

22
God also created in man’s nature and in the world around a number of things which could
lead man either to true guidance or to error. All this would have been meaningless had it
been decided that man, in terms of his nature, could only follow the true guidance, and
that no other option was available to him. Nor would it have been possible for man to
reach those heights of spiritual growth which can be reached only by the exercise of free-
will.
God, therefore, did not will that men should be compelled to follow only the right
way. Instead, God decided to establish the institution of prophet-hood. It was, thus,
ensured that man would retain his freedom. At the same time, it was also ensured that the
purpose of putting man to the test should also be realized. All this was done side by side
with making adequate arrangements for the availability of true guidance to mankind. [vol.
1, pp. 315-17]

2. God is the first Teacher of man--God taught man about Him-self and the Universe.

The ethical teachings of Islam go against all social contract theories of classical and
modern periods and also to the Laws of Three Stages of Human Evolution which assumes
that “man began his life in the darkness of polytheism and that in the course of time,
corresponding to man’s progress, this darkness gradually receded and light increased till
man arrived at monotheism.
The Quranic version, however, proclaims that man began his life in full light of the
Truth. God revealed this Truth to the very first man He created, one to whom He
intimated the right way of life for man.” [vol. 1, p. 165] The first human being was not
born in a state of ignorance and darkness. On the contrary, he began his life in the broad
day light of Divine Guidance. He had intimate knowledge of Reality and Truth. It also
goes against religious understanding that man was sent on this earth as fallen man. It is
not true as the Quran proclaims. God sent Adam on earth and “honoured him by
endowing him with prophet-hood so that he might be able to direct his children correctly.
The repetition of the order to leave Paradise and go down to earth is aimed at driving
home the point that earth was not created as a place of punishment for man. On the
contrary, man was put on earth to serve as God’s vicegerent there. It was only to test man
and thereafter to equip him for the performance of God’s vicegerency that man was
placed temporary in Paradise.” [vol. 1, p. 66] Man was taught by God-himself so that he
can perform his duty well. See in this context some Quranic verses. For Example:

Read! In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created [man]….He
Who taught [The use of] the Pen—Taught man that which he knew not.
Nay, but man doth transgress all bounds. 96: 1, & 4-6
Muhammad Asad explains this verse. “The pen” is used here as a symbol for the art of
writing or, more specifically, for all knowledge recorded by means of writing: and this
explains…Man’s unique ability to transmit, by means of written records, his thoughts,
experiences and insights from individual to individual, from generation to generation, and
from one cultural environment to another endows all human knowledge with a
cumulative character; and since, thanks to this God-given ability, every human being
partakes, in one way or another, in mankind’s continuous accumulation of knowledge,
man is spoken of as being “taught by God” things which the single individual does not—

23
and, indeed, cannot—know by himself…Furthermore, God’s “teaching” man signifies
also the act of His revealing, through the prophets, spiritual truths and moral standards
which cannot be unequivocally established through human experience and reasoning
alone: and, thus, it circumscribes the phenomenon of divine revelation as such.”
[Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Quran, Dar Al-Andalus, Gibraltar, 1984, pp. 963-
64]

Then Allah taught Adam the names of all things. 2: 31

And recall [O Prophet] when your Lord brought forth descendants from
the loins of the sons of Adam, and made them witnesses against their own
selves, asking them: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They said: ‘Yes, we do
testify.’ 7: 172

This event, according to several traditions, took place at the time of the creation of Adam.
Apart from the prostration of the angels before Adam and the proclamation that man
would be God’s vicegerent on earth, all the future progeny of Adam were gathered, and
were endowed with both existence and consciousness in order to bear witness to God’s
lordship. The best interpretation of this event is found in a statement by ‘Ubayy b. Ka‘b,
who has probably given the substance of what he had heard from the Prophet[peace be on
him:
God gathered all human beings, divided them into different groups, granted
them human form and the faculty of speech, made them enter into a
covenant, and then making them witnesses against themselves He asked
them: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They replied: ‘Assuredly you are our Lord,’
Then Gold told tem: ‘I call upon the sky and the earth and your own
progenitor, Adam, to be witness against you lest you should say on the Day
of Judgement that you were ignorant of this. Know well that no one other
than Me deserves to be worshipped and no one other than Me is your Lord.
So do not ascribe any partner to Me. I shall send to you My Messengers who
will remind you of this covenant which you made with Me. I shall send
down to you My Books.’ In reply all said: ‘We witness that You are Our
Lord and our Deity. We have no lord or deity other than Yoy.’ [Ahmad b.
Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 5, p. 135] [ vol. 3, pp. 97-98]

This event did actually take place; there is no doubt about it. “For both the Quran and
Hadith recount it not only as an actual happening, but also affirm that the covenant would
be adduced as an argument against man on the Day of Judgement…In our view the event
did take place. God caused all human beings whom He intended to create until the Last
Day to come into existence. He endowed upon them life, consciousness and the faculty of
speech, and brought home to them that there is no god or lord besides Him, and that
Islam alone is the right way to serve Him.
If someone considers calling all human beings together in one assembly impossible,
that shows, more than anything else the woeful paucity of his imagination. For if
someone accepts that God has the power to created countless human beings in
succession, there is no reason to suppose that He did not have the power to create them

24
all at some given moment prior to the creation of the universe, or that He will be unable
to resurrect them all at some given moment in the future. Again, it stands to reason that at
a time when God wanted to designate man as His vicegerent on earth after endowing him
with reason and understanding. He took from him an oath of allegiance. All this is so
reasonable that the actual occurrence of the covenant should not cause any wonder. On
the contrary, one should wonder if the event did not take place. [vol. 3, p. 98]

Now, it can be argued that even if the covenant did take place, no human being
remembers its occurrence. No human being is aware that a long time ago, at the time of
creation, he had affirmed, in response to God’s query, that God indeed was his Lord. This
being the case, it can be further argued that no charge can be legitimately brought against
man on the ground of a covenant with God which he no longer remembers to have made.
In response to this it can be said that had the covenant been made fully in man’s
conscious memory, it would be meaningless for God to put man to the test in this world.
Hence, there can be no denying that the covenant is not preserved in man’s conscious
memory. But it has doubtlessly been preserved in man’s sub-conscious mind. In this
respect the primordial covenant is no different from other pieces of knowledge in man’s
sub-conscious mind. Whatever, man has so far achieved in the way of culture and
civilization can be attributed to his latent potentialities. All external factors and internal
motivations simply account for helping the actualization of those potentialities. Neither
education nor training nor environmental factors can bring out anything which is not
potentially found in the human mind. Likewise, external factors have no power to root
out man’s latent potentialities.. External factors may, at the most, cause a person to
deflect from the course dictated by sound human nature. However, man’s sound nature is
inclined to resist the pressure of external forces and exert itself in order to find an outlet.
As we have said earlier, this is not peculiar to man’s religious propensity alone, but is
equally true of all his mental potentialities. [vol. 3, p. 99]

Man’s intuitive knowledge regarding his position in the universe and his relationship with
his Creator plays an important role keeping him on right direction. In this connection the
following points need to be understood properly:

1. That man has always had such intuitive knowledge is evident from the fact that this
knowledge has surfaced throughout history in every period and in every part of
the world, and which no power has so far been able to extirpate.

2. That this intuitive knowledge conforms to objective reality is borne out by

the fact that whenever this knowledge has influenced human life, it has had
beneficial results.

3. That in order to manifest itself in his practical life, man’s intuitive knowledge has
always required external stimuli. The stimuli have consisted of the advent of the
Prophets [peace be on them], the revelation of the Heavenly Books, and the striving
of those who have tried to follow them and invite others to do the same. It is for this
reason that the Quran has been designated as mudhakkir [the reminder]; dhikr
[remembrance]; tadhkirah [admonition], and the function of the Quran has been

25
 characterized as tadhkir [rminding]. What this suggests is that the Prophets, the
Heavenly Books and those who invite people to the truth do not seek to provide
human beings with something new, something which exits outside of them. Their
task rather consists of bringing to the surface and rejuvenating what is latent,
though dormant, in man himself. [vol. 3, p. 100]

3. Man is not capable to understand the Metaphysical Realities of this world by himself.

Is the understanding or rational inquiry of anything of this universe possible for man?
This is the basic question of Islamic ethics. We need to understand this question first.
This question, in fact, belongs to the domain of metaphysics—the Unseen, the Ultimate
Reality—the ghayb. The ghayb—the Unseen signifies the verities which are hidden from
man’s senses and which are beyond the scope of man’s ordinary observation and
experience, for example the existence and attributes of God, the Creator of man and
universe, the purpose of creation, the nature of relationship between different creatures,
the existence of Akhirah [life hereafter], the angels, the process of revelation, Paradise,
Hell and so on. In short, all those things come under the Unseen that cannot be observed,
experienced, weighed or measured by human senses or imagined authentically by reason.
Hence, we need to understand that there is a link between metaphysical truth and truth of
life. We cannot understand the truth and reality of our life without understanding the truth
of metaphysical realities –The Unseen; the realm beyond the reach of human perception.
“Since Ultimate Reality is hidden in this world, the superficially minded ones who lack
true perception encounter many a thing which causes them to fall a prey to
misconceptions. As a result of these misconceptions such persons indulge in a variety of
actions which are so blatantly opposed to reality that their life seems to consist merely of
sport and pastime. One who assumes the position of a king in this world, for instance, is
no different from the person who plays the part of a king on the stage of a theatre. His
head is bedecked with a crown and he goes about commanding people as if he were a
king, even though he has no royal authority. He may later, if the director of the theatre
wishes, be either dismissed from his royal office, put into prison or even be sentenced to
death. Plays of this kind go on all over the world.” [vol. 2, p. 225]

Hence, the real success or failure in our life depends on the failure or success in knowing
the truth of metaphysical realities. Consequently, the most fundamental question of
Islamic ethics is: Is man capable to understand the metaphysical realities of this world?
The success and failure of man depends on the correct answer of this question. So far as
the Quran is concerned, it is very clear on this issue. The Quran has made it explicitly
clear beyond any doubt that man by himself is not at all capable to understand the
realities of this world as we also concluded in our discussion on the source of ethical
knowledge. This is the unfortunate phenomenon of humanity that the man of modern
world bitterly failed to understand this reality and truth. He declared himself free and at
liberty from God and His guidance. He pronounced that he is capable to understand each
and every thing of this world by himself. Whereas, God mentioned repeatedly in the
Quran that He has sent for the guidance of man thousands and thousands of prophets
through out history but man out of his ignorance and arrogance deny to understand this

26
fact of life and developed false understandings and gave them names of knowledge,
science, philosophy, metaphysics and ethics. If man can understand the true nature of
metaphysical realities then there is no need of prophets and guidance. From pure ethical
point of view at the very out set man needs to settle on the basis of rational understanding
the issues of worldview, purpose of life, way of life or path of conduct. The Quran has
mentioned twenty five names of the prophets who were sent with guidance towards
mankind. The twenty-five names which have been mentioned in the Quran are as follows

They include: Adam, Idris (Enoch), Nuh (Noah), Hud (Heber), Salih (Methusaleh), Lut
(Lot), Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaq (Isaac), Yaqub (Jacob), Yusuf
(Joseph), Shu'aib (Jethro), Ayyub (Job), Dhulkifl (Ezekiel), Musa (Moses), Harun
(Aaron), Dawud (David), Sulayman (Solomon), Ilias (Elias), Alyasa (Elisha), Yunus
(Jonah), Zakariya (Zachariah), Yahya (John the Baptist), Isa (Jesus) and Muhammad.
Peace be upon them all.

The Quran teaches that God created man with a purpose. To help man understand his
purpose God raises up prophets from society to teach us. Prophets were sent at different
times in history and were all human beings supported by God. Understanding about the
need of prophets of God is essential from ethical perspective because all of the prophets
were sent by the same God with the same message. To accept some and reject others
could imply a racial bias or ignorance about the role of prophets and the fact that they all
invited people to the understanding of truth and reality of this world that God exists and
man is created by Him. It is repeatedly confirmed in the Quran that prophet Adam (p. b.
u. h.) was the first prophet and Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) was the last prophet, and in between
the two of them there were numerous prophets sent. God instructs us:

Say: ‘We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and
what was revealed to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the
Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets,
from their Lord: we make no distinction between one and another
among them, and to God do we bow our will (in Islam).’ (Quran
3:84)

Surely Allah has knowledge of everything. 29: 63

Indeed, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware. 31: 34

“It is clearly stated in the Quran that man does not even have knowledge of some of the
matters that are of the utmost interest to him. This being so, how can he know for sure
about this whole Universe? Let us consider some of the obvious limitations of man’s
knowledge. For instance, man’s material propriety and adversity depend mainly on
rainfall, yet rainfall is totally under God’s control. God causes rain to fall as and when
and in the quantity that He wills. He stops it, again at His will. Man does not know where
and when it will rain and in what quantity. Nor does man know which part of the earth
will remain deprived of rainfall; nor yet, for which part of the earth rainfall would be
harmful. Consider another case: a woman becomes pregnant with her husband’s seed.

27
This is the process that perpetuates man’s progeny. Yet neither the husband nor the wife
is aware as regards the fetus being nurtured in the womb and what its shape and its good
and bad qualities will be at the time it is born. In fact, man does not even know what his
next day will be like. A sudden accident can change the entire course of his life. Yet he
cannot anticipate that accident even by just a minute before it occurs. Man does not even
know where he will breathe his last. All these crucial bits of knowledge rest only with
God, man being denied the least bit of such knowledge.” [vol. viii, p150] The Unseen
[ghayb] comprises all things that lie beyond the range of man’s knowledge and which are
exclusively known to God. The range of Unseen in this sense is vast: it is veritably
limitless. [ibid, p. 151]

Say: “None in the heavens and on the earth has knowledge of the Unseen
save Allah. 27: 65

Earlier, the power of God was argued. “Now, another of God’s Attributes, His
Knowledge of the Unseen Reality, is being mentioned in order to emphasise that even in
this respect, none can be associated with God. God has no partner. All creatures in the
heavens and the earth—angels, jinn, Prophets, saints, or other human beings—all have
only limited knowledge. One thing or another is hidden from each of the. It is only God
Who knows everything: it is only He from Whom nothing is hidden: it is only He Who
knows the past, the present, and the future.

The word ghayb [Unseen] means hidden, covered, conceal. As a term, it means all
that is unknown and is not accessible to man by the means of knowledge available to
him. There are numerous things in the world which, as we are aware, are known to some
individuals but not to others. But there are also a number of things which have never been
known to the human species as a whole, and which will never be known in the future.
The same is true for the jinn and angels and certain other species of beings. There are
things which one species knows and the other does not: and there are things which are
known to none of them. All these are various forms of ghayb and they are all known only
to God; nothing is hidden from Him, instead to Him, all is apparent.

Therefore,…it is left to the reflecting mind to decide whether there could be any other
who shares with God in the Knowledge of the Unseen. Can there be any other who
knows all that was, all that is, and that will be? If not—and the answer surely is in the
negative—then is it possible that those deities that have no knowledge of the innumerable
conditions and states through which people pass, be in a position to fulfil the
requirements of all those people or answer their prayers and supplications? [ vol. 7,
pp176-177]…

…After all, how can it be possible for any human being to know all the conditions
and states of all human beings—from their conception to their last breath—and these too
of all those who have been created until now and who will be created until the Day of
Resurrection? How can any human being know all that? Is he the creator of these
countless people? Did he fashion them in the wombs of their mothers? Did he arrange
that they be born as living beings rather than as the dead? Has he determined the fate of

28
anyone of these millions? Is he the one who decides about their life and death, their
health and sickness, their prosperity and adversity, their rise and fall? And since when has
he assumed this role? Did he assume it before or after he was born? And is it possible that
this responsibility is merely limited to human beings? He Who is administering the whole
Universe and the affairs of all human beings, He Alone can be responsible for their life
and death, their prosperity and adversity, and for the making and marring of their fates.
[ vol. 7, p. 178]

Hence, one should know “that God Alone is the Knower of the Unseen World. He
Alone decides how much of His Knowledge He wants to impart to each individual and
which of the Unseen He makes available to one particular individual but none else. But
Knowledge of the Unseen has not been given to any human being in its totality: it is only
God Who is the Knower of the Unseen.” [ vol. 7, p. 178]

He has the keys to the realm that lies beyond the reach of human
perception; none knows them but He. And He knows what is on
the land and in the sea; there is not a leaf which falls that He does
not know about… 6: 58-59

Allah is He Who has the Knowledge of the Hour, and it is He Who

sends down rain: it is He Who knows what is in the wombs [of the
mothers] and no living being knows what will be earn tomorrow
nor in which place will his death overtake him. 31: 34

He knows what lies before men and what is hidden from them,
whereas they cannot attain to anything of His knowledge save what
He wills them to attain. 2: 225

He knows both what is visible and what is not visible. 23: 92

Allah is not going to disclose to you what is hidden in the realm

beyond the reach of perception, but He chooses from among His
Messengers whom He wills [to intimate such knowledge]. 3: 179

Did I not say to you that I know everything about the heavens and
the earth which are beyond your range of knowledge and I know
all that you disclose and all that you hide. 2: 33

…it may well be that you dislike a thing even though it is good for
you, and it may well be that you like a thing even though it is bad
for you. Allah knows and you do not know. 2:216

The Quran not only categorically denies the possibility of acquisition/possession of

knowledge of the Unseen by created beings, but also specifically states that the Prophets,
including the Prophet Muhammad [peace be on him], are not the “Knowers of the
Unseen”. [ vol. 7, p. 179]

29
4. Knowledge is the Basis of Human Understanding

The second important question of ethics according to Islamic ethics is the method of
understanding or rational search. No doubt man has the faculties of reason and sense
perception but in spite of these faculties he requires knowledge and guidance as we have
discussed earlier to understand anything or to form any correct idea of this world.
Without guidance and knowledge man’s faculties cannot work properly. This is proved
by empirical realities of our world. Hundreds and thousands of experts and intellectual in
spite of their intellectual excursion fail to solve the problems of human life. In spite of
the claim that with the development of scientific method human beings will be able to
understand the true nature of man and society. But the existing phenomenon of crisis,
crimes, chaos, corruption, confusion, confrontation, conflict, catastrophe, calamity,
consumerism, competition, congestion, confusions are all empirical manifestations of the
failure of man for understanding metaphysical realities. The Quran declares:

Say O Muhammad, the truth is now manifest: untruth is confuted, as it

should be [17: 81]

Truth has become [by this revelation] manifestly distinct from error [2:
256]

Al-Faruqi says the claim of Islam is to all. It is addressed to reason, seeking to convince it
of the truth, rather than to overwhelm it with the incomprehensible, to coerce it into
surrender. [tawhid41] Indeed, in Islam, the cognition is the first principle of reason, that
is to say, it is related to knowledge, without knowledge no understanding and no
reasoning. Divine Knowledge acts and illuminates human mind with its light to see truth
and reality. For true understanding of anything along with data and facts we need divine
light which puts all other data and facts in proper perspective. Divine knowledge and
guidance provide solid grounding for a rational interpretation of any thing or idea. The
need of divine knowledge and guidance by itself is the prime principle of reason, hence,
cannot be non-rational or irrational. Indeed, the need of divine knowledge and guidance
is the first principle of rational understanding. To ignore or oppose it is to tantamount to
lapse from being reasonable. The Quran says:

This is the book of Allah, there is no doubt in it, it is the guidance for the
pious. 2:2

Praise be to Allah, Who has revealed to His servant the Book shorn
of all crookedness. 18: 1

This means that there is nothing in the Quran which, being intrinsically complex and
enigmatic, defies understanding. Likewise, there is nothing in the Quran which is
repugnant to truth and righteousness making it difficult for any truth-loving person to
believe in it [vol. v ,p.87]

Verily We have sent down for you revelations which clearly

30
 expound true guidance, and examples of those who passed
away before you, and an admonition for those
who fear ]Allah] 24” 34

We have revealed the Quran in your tongue and made it

easy to understand that you may give glad tidings to the
God-fearing and warn a contentious people. 19: 97

He has revealed this Book to you, setting forth the truth and confirming
the earlier Books…for the guidance of mankind; and He has also
revealed the Criterion [to distinguish truth from falsehood] 3:3-4

We have revealed to you this Book with the Truth 4:105

We revealed the Book to you with Truth 5:48

We have revealed the Quran with clear Signs.

Verily Allah guides whomsoever He wills 22: 16

Surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the universe 26: 192

[O Muhammad], you are receiving the Quran from the

Most Wise, the All-Knowing. 27: 6

These are not imaginary things that are mentioned in the Quran, nor are they mere
figments of the human imagination. Rather, such things are being revealed by a Wise
God Whose Knowledge encompasses everything; by One Who is perfect in His
Knowledge and Wisdom. Who is fully aware of the affairs of His creation and is ever
making plans for the good of His creatures. [vol.7, p. 138]

This Book, beyond all doubt, was revealed by the Lord of the
Universe…It is the Truth from your Lord 32: 2-3

It is declared right away that the Quran is not a product of the human mind; rather, it is
the Word of God. This declaration instantly places a grave question before man: should
he believe [accept] this claim as true, or should he reject it as false? If one affirms its
divine origin, one has to surrender oneself to it in obedience. In this case, one no longer
enjoys the freedom to act as one pleases. On the other hand, if one rejects it, one exposes
oneself to serious hazard. For, if the Quran indeed is the Word of God, one’s wilful
rejection of it will lead to eternal perdition. In this respect, this opening declaration puts
one on high alert, impels one to pay full heed to the discourse, and, thereafter, prompts
one to decide whether it is the Word of God or not.
Here, however, it has not simply been stated that the Quran was revealed by the Lord
of the Universe. Instead, the assertion is couched in highly emphatic terms: “This Book,
beyond all doubt, was revealed by the Lord of the Universe”, a statement that leaves no
room for uncertainty about its Divine provenance. Was one to consider this assertion in

31
the circumstantial setting of the Quran’s revelation and in the overall context of the
Quran’s teaching, it is evident that the claim contains within itself is its own supporting
evidence. [Vol. viii, p. 156]

This Book has been revealed in truth by your Lord 6:114

It is the truth that has come to you from your Lord 10:94

So be in no doubt about it [the Quran] for this indeed is the truth

from your Lord 11:17

This is a Book which We have revealed to you that you may bring
forth mankind from every kind of darkness into the light 12: 1

We have sent down the Book that you may explain to them
the truth concerning what they are disputing and that the Book
may serve as a guidance and mercy for those who believe in it 16: 64

If you are in doubt concerning what We have revealed to you [10: 94]
If that is so, bring ten surahs the like of it of your composition, and
call upon all [the deities] you can other than Allah to your help.
Do so if you are truthful.’ Then if [your deities] do not respond to your
call for help then feel assured that this Book was revealed with
the knowledge of Allah, and that there is no true god but Him. Will
you, then, surrender [to this truth]? 11: 13-14

Surely, if men and jinn were to get together to produce the like of
this Quran, they will never be able to produce the like of it,
howsoever, they might help one another. 17: 88

Human reason and sense perception are, however, important means of understanding.
The Quran invites man to ponder over the whole system of the Universe. The Quran
gives the repeated invitation to man to reflect and observe on each and everything of the
world. “Who is it Who creates in the first instance and then repeats it?” [27: 64] If
anybody reflects on it will find several reasons and proofs in favour of existence of God.
“Look at the art of creation itself: Man, despite his knowledge, has not been able to
discover how and from where life originated. The only scientific certainty that we have
so far is that the mere arrangement of inanimate matter does not produce life. True,
atheists believe that life originated as a result of the accidental combination in right
proportions of the elements required to produce life. This, however, is no more than a
hypothesis which in scientific and rational terms, is untenable. For, were we to apply the
Law of Probability to this situation, we would find that the probability of the emergence
of life by itself is no more than zero. All efforts to produce “life” in laboratories have
failed and what could be produced so far is merely the re-arrangement of DNA which is
present in living cells, which is the essence of life, not life itself. Life is still a miracle

32
which cannot be explained except by attributing it to the Command, Will and Plan of the
Creator.” [vol. 7, pp. 174-75]

People simply know the outward aspect of the worldly life but are
utterly heedless of the Hereafter. Do they not reflect on themselves? 30:
7-8

Have they not travelled through the earth, that they may observe, what
was the end of their predecessors who were far mightier and tilled the
land and built upon it more than these have ever built?

And of His Signs is that He has created mates for you from your own
kind that you may find peace in them and He has set between you love
and mercy. Surely there are Signs in this for those who reflect. 30: 20-21

And of His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the
diversity of your tongues and colours. Indeed there are Signs in this for
the wise. 30: 22

And of His Signs is that He shows you lightning, arousing both fear and
hope, and sends down water from the sky and revives the earth after it is
dead. Indeed there are Signs in this for those who use their reason. 30:
24

5. No Place for Skepticism or Blind Faith in Human Understanding

Al-Faruqi, a former professor of Philadelphia University, contends that: “In today’s

world, and specially, in the West, scepticism has grown to very grave proportions. It is
the dominant principle among the “educated” and is found quite often among the
unlettered when emulate the “intelligentsia” in their societies.” In Islam from an ethical
point of view there is no place for untruth, falsehood, probability, doubt, suspicion,
conjecture, speculation, assumption etc. Islamic way of rational inquiry is based on truth
and those propositions that are true, in fact drawn from the true and authentic knowledge
that is revealed [divine] knowledge, hence, have been appropriated, examined, analysed,
understood and accepted by human mind, as argued by al-Faruqi. “Whoever
acknowledges them as true is reasonable; whoever persists in denying or doubting is
unreasonable.”[tawhid, p.41] There is no place for conjecture or speculation. The Quran
instructed mankind thus:

[O Muhammad!] If you obey the majority of those who live on earth, they
will lead you away from Allah’s path. They only follow idle fancies,
indulging in conjecture. 6: 116

One need not follow the way of life of the majority, for the majority tend to follow their
conjectures and fancies rather than sound knowledge. Their beliefs, their ideas and
concepts, their philosophies of life, the guiding principles of their conduct, their laws—

33
all these are founded on conjecture. On the contrary, the way of life [of Islam] was
revealed by God and hence is based on true knowledge rather than conjecture. Instead of
trying to discover the way of life of the majority, a seeker after truth should, therefore,
persevere in the way prescribed by God, even if he finds himself to be a solitary traveller.
[vol. 2, p. 268]

Many indeed say misleading things without knowledge, driven merely by

their lowly desires. But your Lord knows well the transgressors. 6: 119

Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge. Surely, the hearing,
the sight, the heart—each of these shall be called to account. 17: 36

The purpose of this Quranic verse is that people should be guided by knowledge rather
than conjecture both in their individual and collective lives. In an [Islamic] ethical
society, this directive found its reflection in ethics and law, in politics and administration,
and in arts, sciences and education; in short, in all spheres of human life. This perspective
ensured that human thought and action were made safe from the many evil consequences
which ensure from relying on guesswork and conjecture instead of knowledge. In matters
of conduct and behaviour, people are asked to abstain from entertaining misgivings about
others and to avoid levelling unfounded charges against both individuals and groups.
Similarly, Islamic law prohibited both the consigning of people to prison or their
manhandling merely on the grounds of suspicion. Additionally, in their relations with
other nations, Muslims were prevented, by law, from taking steps against them merely on
the grounds of unsubstantiated misgivings. Rumour-mongering based on unsubstantiated
suspicions were also proscribed. In the field of education, disciplines based on sheer
speculation and conjecture were discouraged. Above all, a blow was struck against all
superstitions in matters of religious belief since believers were asked to accept only that
which had any basis in the knowledge vouchsafed by God or His Messenger [peace be on
him]. [vol 5, p. 43]
Shun all words of falsehood. 22: 30

Conjecture is prohibited because it leads to falsehood instead of truth. Hence, the above
verse seems to have a general import and signify that every kind of falsehood, slander
and false testimony is also forbidden. However, in the present context, these words are
specifically aimed at denouncing the false beliefs, norms, practices and superstitions
which are rooted in unbelief and polytheism. To associate others with God in His
Divinity and to hold any of God’s creatures as His partners in His essence, attributes,
rights and authority is the greatest conceivable falsehood and this is denounced here. This
denunciation also embraces the falsehood that had misled the polytheists of Arabia into
believing that it was unlawful to kill bahirah, ham, etc., for human beings have no right
to declare, of their own accord, anything to be lawful or unlawful, as the Quran says:
‘And do not utter falsehoods by letting your tongues declare: “This is lawful” and “that is
unlawful”, thus fabricating lies against Allah’ [al-Nahal 16: 116].

Likewise, the interdiction contained in this verse also covers false oaths and false
testimonies. This point is further elaborated in the following hadith: ‘False testimony

34
amounts to associating others with God in His Divinity.’ The Prophet [peace be on him]
said so and supported it by reference to the above verse. According to Islamic Law, false
testimony is a cognizable offence. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani
are of the opinion that if anyone is convicted of false testimony by a court, this should be
made public and the person so convicted should be sentenced to a long term of
imprisonment. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab also held this opinion and applied it. According to
Makhul, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said: ‘He [i.e. the culprit] should be flogged, his head
should be shaved, his face should be blackened, and he should be subjected to long-term
imprisonment.’ ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amir narrates from his father that once a person was
convicted by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab of false testimony whereupon he got him to stand in a
public place and had it proclaimed that the person concerned, the son of so and so, was
guilty of false testimony, and that he should be known as such. Thereafter, he imprisoned
him. In our time, this purpose can be served by publicizing the same in newspapers [and
via electronic media--]. [vol. 6, p. 32]

6. Man as Vicegerent of God is Crown of all Creatures.

Islamic ethics elaborates that in spite of shortcomings and inabilities of man to

understand the metaphysical truth, man is appointed as vicegerent of God on earth. He is
appointed vicegerent of God because he alone is capable to understand the divine
knowledge and guidance. He alone has accepted this responsibility of vicegerency. As
vicegerent it is his duty to maintain on earth, on one side, the purity of existence of each
and every creation, and on the other, he is bound to bring further development. Peace,
security, prosperity and happiness are guaranteed if man as vicegerent thinks and acts in
accordance with the knowledge and guidance of God. If he does not fulfil his
responsibilities individually and collectively, he will cause on this earth destruction,
crisis, chaos, crimes, conflicts, wars, and all that which is referred to in the Quran as
fasad. Man becomes ignorant of himself, his purpose and mission of life. He loses
meaning, direction and destination in his life. He becomes materialistic and turns into a
being of lust and greed of power and wealth. It is said in the Quran:

Men are naturally tempted by the lure of women, children, treasures of

gold and silver, horses of mark, cattle and plantations. These are the
enjoyments in the life of this world; but with God lies a goodly abode to
return to. Say: ‘Shall I tell you of things better than these? For the God-
fearing there are, with their Lord, gardens beneath which rivers flow; there
they will abide for ever, will have spouses of stainless purity as
companions, and will enjoy the good pleasure of God.’ [3:14-15]

‘Khalifah’ or vicegerent is one who exercises the authority delegated to him by his
principal, and does so in the capacity of his deputy and agent. Hence, whatever, authority
he possesses is not inherently his own, but is derived from, and circumscribed by, the
limits set by his principal. A vicegerent is not entitled to do what he pleases, but is
obliged to carry out the will of his master. If the vicegerent were either to begin thinking
himself the real owner and to use the authority delegated to him in whatever manner he
pleased, or if he were to acknowledge someone other than the real owner as his lord and

35
master and to follow his direction, these would be deemed acts of infidelity and rebellion
[against his master]. [vol. 1, p.60]

For He it is Who has appointed you vicegerent over the earth.

6: 165

This statement embodies some important truths: First, that human beings as such are
vicegerents of God on earth, so that God has entrusted them with many things and
endowed them with the power to use them. Second, this is indeed designed to test man.
The entire life of man is, in fact, a vast examination wherein man is being tested about
the trust he has received from God: how sensitive he is to that trust, to what extent he
lives up to it, and to what extent he proves to be competent with it. [vol. ii, p. 299]

The student of Islamic ethics should understand, from the outset, the fundamental claims
that the Quran makes for itself. They are as follows:

1. “The Lord of creation, the Creator and Sovereign of the entire universe,
created man on earth [which is merely a part of boundless realm]. He also
endowed man with the capacity for cognition, reflection and
understanding, with the ability to distinguish between [right and wrong]
good and evil, with the freedom of choice and volition, and with the power
to exercise his latent potentialities. In short, God bestowed upon man a
kind of autonomy and appointed him His vicegerent on earth.

2….Although man enjoys this status, God made it abundantly plain to him
that He alone is man’s Lord and Sovereign [Master], even as He is the
Lord and Sovereign [Master] of the whole universe. Man was told that he
was not entitled to consider himself independent and that only God was
entitled to claim absolute obedience, service and worship. It was also
made clear to man that life in this world, for which he had been placed and
invested with a certain honour and authority, was in fact a temporary term,
and was meant to test him; that after the end of this earthly life man must
return to God, Who will judge him on the basis of his performance,
declaring who has succeeded and who has failed.

3. The right way for man is to regard God as his only [Master] Sovereign
and the only object of his worship and adoration, to follow the guidance
revealed by God, to act in this world in the consciousness that earthly life
is merely a period of trial, and to keep his eyes fixed on the ultimate
objective—success in God’s final judgement. Every other way is wrong.

4. It was also explained to man that if he chose to adopt the right way of
life—and in this choice he was free—he would enjoy peace and
contentment in this world and be assigned, on his return to God, the abode
of eternal bliss and happiness known as Paradise. Should man follow any

36
other way—although he was free to do so—he would experience the evil
effects of mischief, corruption, and disorder in the life of this world and be
consigned to eternal grief and torment when he crossed the borders of the
present world and arrived in the Hereafter”. [ vol. 1, pp9-10]

5. Man is told that he was not granted something [then He duly

proportioned him, and breathed into him of His spirit, and bestowed upon
you ears and eyes and hearts. 32: 9] so immensely valuable as spirit and
other highly noble characteristics merely to enable him to live in the world
like animals, pursuing a scheme of life that befits brutes. Instead, man was
granted eyes so that he might have insight into the truth, rather than being
blind to it. He was granted ears to pay heed to the call of the truth rather
than being deaf to it. He was also granted a “heart” in order to
comprehend the truth and choose the right course of thought and action
rather than to pander to his animal instincts, or to use them to weave
perfidious philosophies and chalk out programmes or rebellion against his
Creator. It is possible that after receiving all these enormous bounties from
God, man might succumb to polytheism or atheism, or fall prey to
deifying himself or any of God’s other creatures, or he may idolize his
carnal desires and immerse himself in sensual pleasures. If he does any of
these, this amounts to his declaring that he is altogether unworthy of the
wonderful bounties he received from God, and further that instead of
having been created as a human being he might as well have been created
as a monkey, a wolf, a crocodile or a crow.[ vol. 8. pp165-66]

6. Man was told that God did not endow human beings with eyes, ears,
and the faculties of head and heart [It is He Who has endowed you with
the faculties of hearing and sight and Who has given you hearts ‘to think’.
23: 78] so that they might use them in the manner of animals. Do these
faculties have no other purpose than that human beings become engrossed
in scheming as to how they can best employ them in the fulfilment of their
biological needs, and for the constant improvement of their standards of
living? Can there be any greater ingratitude on man’s part than that he
makes himself indistinct from animals, and this despite the fact he was
created as a species distinct from animals? The result is that people are
prone to use their eyes to observe everything except those signposts which
lead to a comprehension of reality. They make use of their ears to hear
everything except that which enables them to comprehend the truth. They
employ their heads and hearts to reflect on literally everything except the
fundamental question of how did they come into being and for what
purpose. What a pity that those who abuse their God-given faculties live in
our midst and are reckoned as human beings rather than brutes!. [vol. 6,
p118]

Just think when your Lord said to the angels: ‘Lo I am about to
place a vicegerent on earth’, they said: ‘Will You place on it one

37
 who will spread mischief and shed blood while we celebrate Your
glory and extol Your holiness? 2: 30

The main cause of the mischief and disorder which arose after people had received true
knowledge through the Prophets, and which were even aggravated into feuds and wars, is
not that God was helpless, and lacked the power to put and end to the fighting, as was
wrongly understood by modern so-called ethicists. Had He willed so, no one would have
had the power to defy the teachings of the Prophets, to take the course of disbelief and
rebellion against Him, and to spread mischief and corruption in His world. But it was not
His will to deprive human beings of their free-will and choice, and to compel them to
follow a particular course. He has created human beings on earth in order to test them and
hence endowed them with the freedom to choose from the various alternative courses of
belief and action. [see, The Quran 2:252-254] [vol. 1, pp. 194-95]

Evil has become rife on the land and at sea because of men’s deeds.
30: 41

And guard against the mischief that will not only bring punishment
to the wrong-doers among you. Know well that Allah is severe in
punishment. 8: 25

The above verse refers to those widespread social evils [and sins] whose baneful effects
are not confined only to those addicted to them, but which affect even those who,
although they might not be addicted to those sins, are a part of that society. For example,
if filth is found at just a few places in a locality it will possibly affect only those who
have not kept themselves or their houses clean. However, if it becomes widespread and
no one is concerned with removing un-cleanliness and maintaining sanitary conditions,
then everything including water and soil will become contaminated. As a result, if
epidemics break out, they will not only afflict those who were responsible for spreading
filth and themselves lived in unsanitary conditions, but virtually all the residents of that
locality.

What is true of unsanitary conditions in a physical sense, also holds true for filth and un-
cleanliness in a [spiritual, ethical and] moral sense. If immoral practices remain confined
to a few people here and there but the overall moral of the society prevents those
practices from becoming widespread and public, their harmful effects remain limited. But
when the collective conscience of the society is weakened to a point whereby immoral
practices are not suppressed, when people indulge in evils without any sense of shame
and even go around vaunting their immoral deeds, when good people adopt a passive
attitude and are content with being righteous merely in their own lives and are
unconcerned with or silent about collective evils, then the entire society invites its doom.
Such a society then becomes the victim of a scourge that does not distinguish between the
grain and the chaff. [vol. 3, p.146]

7. God Consciousness and Righteousness are the basis of Individual and Society

38
Based on the above reality and truth man and his society are expected to think and act.
We are told clearly that consciousness and righteousness of God are the basis of
individual and society. The consciousness and righteousness of God are not limited to a
specific aspect of life or society or they are not confined to conduct only. The individual,
collective, national and international matters are covered by consciousness and
righteousness of God. No aspect of individual or collective life is separated or neglected
from consciousness and righteousness of God. Hence, all those ideologies and theories
which are not based on consciousness and righteousness of God are considered as
unethical or irrational because they are neither based on knowledge and truth nor in line
with reality. This is the reason that rationalism, empiricism, scientism, secularism,
nationalism, modernism, liberalism are all considered as unethical ideologies. They are
the result of intellectual arrogance and metaphysical ignorance which result in the form
of dogmatic philosophies and theories of life and ethics and create crisis, crimes, chaos,
and weapons of mass destruction in societies.

The consciousness and righteousness of God are not something that are related to conduct
alone in a limited sense rather they are integrally related to intellectual and cognitive
mind set in which each step of thinking and action is done. They represent to such a
phenomenon in which neither man is outside the framework of divine knowledge and
guidance nor he goes against truth and reality. Individual as well as collective thinking
and actions are always guided and governed by divine knowledge and guidance. Hence,
they remain within the boundary of truth and reality. Consequently, peace, security,
prosperity, and happiness are guaranteed instead of crisis, chaos and crimes. If we neglect
God consciousness and righteousness we become unethical, irrational, unscientific,
dogmatic and superstitious.

We are advised: ‘Be conscious of your Lord [Sustainer] ’. 22: 1

It is only your God- consciousness that reaches Him. 22: 37

For the future belongs to the God-conscious [they shall have

the best end ]. 28: 83

Hence, remain conscious of God. 26: 110

Will you not be Conscious of God? 26: 124

Be, then, conscious of God and pay heed unto me. 26: 131,151,
163, 179

Do righteous deeds [with God-consciousness]: verily I

have full knowledge of all that you do.
23: 51

Righteousness is not something that is equated with mere conformity to the outward
forms of life. It is said in the Quran:

39
 Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or towards the
west; true righteousness consists in believing in Allah and the Last Say,
the angels, the Book and the Prophets, and in giving away one’s property
in love of Him to one’s kinsmen, the orphans, the poor and the wayfarer,
and to those who ask for help, and in freeing the necks of slaves, and in
establishing Prayer and dispensing the purifying Alms [zakah]. True
righteousness is attained by those who are faithful to their promise once
they have made it and by those who remain steadfast in adversity and
affliction and at the time of battle between Truth and falsehood. Such are
the truthful ones; such are the God-fearing. 2: 177

Turning one’s face towards the east or the west is mentioned here only by way of
illustration. The actual purpose of the verse is to emphasize that the observance of certain
outward religious rites, the performance of certain formal religious acts out of
conformism, and the manifestation of certain familiar forms of piety do not constitute that
essential righteousness which alone carries weight with God and earns His recognition
and approval. [vol. 1, p. 138]

Also tell them: ‘True righteousness is not that you enter your houses from
the back; righteousness lies in fearing Allah. So, enter your houses by their
doors, and fear Allah that you might attain true
success.’ 2: 189

One superstitious custom of the Arabs at the time of the revelation of the Quran was that
once they entered the state of consecration for Pilgrimage they did not enter their houses
by the door. Instead, they either leapt over the walls from the rear or climbed through
windows which they had specially erected for that purpose. On returning from journey,
too, they entered their houses from the rear. In this verse this superstitious custom is
denounced, as are all superstitious customs; it is pointed out that the essence of moral
excellence consists of fearing God and abstaining from disobeying His commands. Those
meaningless customs by which people felt bound, out of blind adherence to the traditions
of their forefathers, and which had no effect at on man’s ultimate destiny, had nothing to
do with moral excellence. [vol. 1, p. 150]

You shall not attain righteousness until you spend out of what you love [in the way of
Allah], Allah knows whatever you spend. 3: 92]

The purpose of this verse is to remove the misconception of the Jews concerning
‘righteousness’. The Jews had inherited an elaborate legal code which had accumulated
as a result of the casuistry and hair-splitting legalism of their jurists. Their notion of
‘righteousness’ consisted of outward, formal conformity to that code and they evaluated
all day-to-day actions, especially the trivial ones, in terms of conformity to that code.
Narrow-mindedness, greed, covetousness, meanness, concealment of the Truth and
readiness to barter with it lay beneath this veneer of formal piety. They were,

40
nevertheless, considered pious in the minds of the people; Jewish public opinion
condoned their conduct because it conformed to its concept of ‘righteousness’.
In order to remove this misconception they are told that the things they considered
fundamental to righteous conduct are of little consequence. The real spirit of
righteousness consists in the love of God—a love which makes man value the good
pleasure of God above all worldly acquisitions. If the love of anything seizes a man’s
mind to such an extent that he is unable to sacrifice it for the sake of the love of God,
then that thing has virtually become an idol, and until he smashes it the door to
righteousness will remain closed to him. If a man lacks this spirit, then his excessively
formal and legalistic approach in religious matters can be considered no more than glossy
paint over a piece of hollow, worm-eaten wood. It may be possible to deceive human
beings by the sheer lustre of the outer paint, but not God. [vol. 1, pp. 271-72]

“The Quran defines precisely the true nature of man and his correct position in the
universe. It also enlightens us to a period of man’s past which is otherwise inaccessible.
What the Quran tells us here, with its practical consequences, is of far greater value than
knowledge derived by unearthing bones and pottery, and piecing together scattered
fragments of information with the help of conjecture.” [vol. 1, p.59]

41