This article is actually a translation by Mr Saeed
Ahmad of a transcription of few lectures delivered by Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi
on this topic. (Editor)
`What is good and what is evil?'; Philosophers
of all ages have thought over this question. Each reckoned that he had
solved the question once and for all, yet within a few years the problem
would re-emerge with new dimensions. In fact, most of the answers would
be later found inadequate or unsatisfactory. Religious thinkers also joined
in presenting a solution in this regard but only added confusion. The Qur’an
also offers a solution to this question and an effort will be made to explain
it later in this dissertation.
A few basic questions need to be answered
in order to arrive at some satisfactory answer. They are:
(i) Are good and evil absolute or
are they relative to the conditions associated with time and place? Do
conditions surrounding a particular situation make an act good and at another
time make it evil? Does an act appear to be good in the overall perspective,
but when torn away from its environment appear to be evil?
(ii) Is the concept of good and evil
imbued in the nature of man or has he been given divine guidance? If not,
how are good and evil identified? If reason is the only guide, is there
some criteria to determine what is good and what is evil?
(iii) If good and evil are independent,
do they have the same creator? Or is God the Creator of good alone? If
so, who has created evil?
(iv) If the knowledge of good and
evil is instinctive, there should be uniformity of thought between various
nations, religions and groups; but there are vast differences among them
in almost every aspect. What are the reasons?
These questions have been thought
over by philosophers and thinkers of all times. I will now briefly discuss
their views. However, I will mention only those philosophers whose views
left a deep impact upon philosophical thought. Later on, I will present
the guidance provided by the Qur’an
in this regard.
HERACLITUS (535-475 BC): The
Greek philosopher believed that good and evil are two notes in a symphony.
He found that many things change into their opposites: for example, hard
ice melts into water which is soft. This led him to believe that the combination
of opposites resulted in a harmonious whole. In music, harmony results
from the combination of low and high notes, while in the universe harmony
flows from the combination of opposites: good and evil.
DEMOCRITUS (460-370 BC):
He believed that the goal of life is happiness.
What is conducive to happiness is good, otherwise evil. According to him,
happiness is an inner condition or state of tranquility. He thought that
one should not depend upon material things alone as these are transient
and a lack of them causes unhappiness. Goodness, to him, was not only a
matter of action but depends upon man's inner desire. A good man is not
one who does good, but who always wants to do good.
SOPHISTS PHILOSOPHY:
The sophists confused the problem of good and
evil. An important sophist, Pythogoras, considered man as the standard
of all things, and so the standard of good and evil. Everybody has the
right to determine for himself what is good and what is evil. Some other
philosophers of this school such as Thrasymachus and Callicles went a step
further and said that there are no moral laws, no all-inclusive principles
of right and wrong. Good or evil are a matter of mere tradition and habit.
Man is not bound by moral codes, he is free to live as he desires and to
get what he wants by any means possible and to frame his own code of life.
However, since the outcome was moral anarchy, pure individualism and selfishness,
Callicles went as far as saying: `To Hell with morality, this has been
propounded by the weak to debilitate the power of the strong.'
SOCTRATES (470-390 BC):
This great Greek Philosopher thought that the
most important question before man is the determination of good and evil.
According to him, knowledge of good and evil and its criteria are imbued
in man and he can differentiate between the two if he desires so. With
sustained thought and guidance of nature he is in a position to know what
is good and what is evil. His well known saying `O man! Know thyself' also
points to the fact that the basic principles of good and evil are innate
in man and can be discovered by deliberation. Socrates was firmly of the
view that there should be basic principles independent of individual desires
and beliefs for measuring good and evil and right and wrong. According
to him, the greatest good is knowledge and the treasure of knowledge is
hidden in man and it can be discovered after thoughtful deliberation. Socrate's
emphasis on self-realization was due to his belief that it is the innate
knowledge which man cannot disregard. Knowledge alien to him does not have
a significant impact on him. Self-realization brings real happiness. Other
sources of happiness are not real. If someone acts contrary to his knowledge,
it is only transitory just as a clean and holy person happens to soil himself
but he does not live with it and cleanses himself at the earliest opportunity.
Socrates said, `No man is voluntarily bad. He turns bad when he does not
know what is good and what is evil. If he knew what is good, he was sure
to choose it.'
PLATO (428-348 BC): He
thought that man is endowed with the knowledge of good and evil before
coming to this world. This knowledge existed in his soul but during the
period between his creation and his descent in this world, he forgot most
of the things. These forgotten things can be recollected either by wise
sermons or through meditation on nature. Experience also helps in recollection
of the forgotten. All good and evil is innate in man. To Plato, the life
of reason and good behaviour is a happy life. Good itself is happiness
and the soul's paradise. It is its own reward.
ARISTOTLE (384-322 BC):
He thought that reason is the greatest bounty of God,
and called it the `Divine Spark'. If man uses his reason and other capabilities
properly, he can attain self-realization after which he hardly needs any
measure for good and evil. The position of self-realization is sufficient
for his guidance. Aristotle also considered reason and nature to be sufficient
for human guidance. He said that goodness is in harmony with nature and
its principles have been set by reason which a wise man can easily find.
EPICUREAN AND STOIC PHILOSOPHY:
Epicureans thought that the goal of all human activity
is pleasure and that happiness is the supreme good of all. But the focus
should be on ultimate pleasure instead of immediate pleasure. An excellent
meal is a pleasure to eat but its excessive consumption will bring discomfort.
A temporary enjoyment cannot be called happiness because its ultimate result
may not be good. Epicurus (341-270 BC) considered mental pleasure as the
real one in contrast with physical pleasure. The intellectual field is
the one where man should search for happiness. According to the stoics,
man is a part of the universe and therefore he must live in harmony with
the laws of nature: this is the greatest good.
PHILO (50-30 BC):
In the early ages, religious movements in philosophy,
of which the Babylonians and the Assyrians are well known, a sharp distinction
was made between the principles of good and evil. Philo thought that the
spiritual part of man, his mind or soul, is the seat of good, and his body,
the material part, is the seat of evil. Consequently, when the soul is
incorporated in the body it suffers a fall from divine perfection and becomes
predisposed to evil. Thus the goal of man is freedom from matter and a
return to God who is perfect goodness.
SAINT AUGUSTINE
(354-430 BC): The early Christian thinkers thought that God had given
man a good nature, but he had turned away from God to the flesh ie, the
body. The sin of Adam has been transmitted to all men as the original sin
and will continue to harass him throughout his life unless he seeks salvation
through the divine grace of God. For salvation, they invented the doctrine
of `contempt for family-life' or Monasticism. For this they prescribed
nerve-racking meditation to get rid of the sin of Adam through self-attrition.
Saint Augustine, the greatest of the Christian thinkers, thought that God
is all good, all perfection. He cannot be the creator of evil. `How then
to account for evil in a world created by an all-good God?' To solve this
problem, Saint Augustine said that everything in the universe is good;
even that which appears to be evil is actually good inasmuch as it fitted
into the whole pattern of the universe. Flowers of different colours are
necessary to the beauty of a garden and every flower is good in its own
place adding to the beauty of the garden. For example, in a painting, shadows
and dark spots add to its beauty. An attractive and beautiful painting
is made up of different colours. Similarly, the evil which is found in
the world is there to make the whole good. It looks evil only when one
sees the dark spots broken away from the whole picture but when seen in
the picture they add to its beauty. If we fit evil in the whole system
of the universe, it would look good and beautiful.
PETER ABELARD (1079-1142
AD): In the middle ages, a Christian
thinker, Peter Abelard, added a new dimension to the problem. He thought
that an act itself is not good or bad but it is the intention of the doer
that makes it good or bad. If a thief commits a theft intending it as something
good, it is thereby good. God considers only the spirit in which an act
is done. If one acts in terms of what he deems right but errs and does
wrong, the act will remain good. According to him, goodness and morality
are a matter of conscience and intention to do wrong. An evil done with
good intention is not sinful.
THOMAS AQUINAS (1227-1274
AD): Another Christian thinker,
Thomas Aquinas, also thought that the goodness or evil of a particular
action depends upon the aim or purpose of the doer. But he did not share
Abelard's view that a bad act if done with a good intention becomes good.
According to him, good is that which is done with good intention and with
the knowledge that the results would be good. He said that God has created
all things including man for good. To achieve goodness is the highest good,
and the greatest good for man is to realize God's purpose in the creation
of man. The best way to attain goodness is to abandon worldly things and
seek communion with God like a saint in a monastery devoting himself entirely
to the service of God. For Aquinas, evil is the negation of good. Where
there is no good, there is evil. For him, evil is the absence of good.
All things created by a good-God aim at goodness. When an object fails
to achieve good results, evil comes into being.
MEISTER ECKHART (1260-1327
AD): He propounded the mystic theory
of good and evil. He says that a good and perfect life is not one of deeds
but one of merging with God. Separation from God is evil. Therefore, to
achieve real good, man must annihilate himself and unite with God. Thus
Eckhart propounded the theory of pantheism.
THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679
AD): He considered good and evil
to be relative. According to him, they change not only with time but also
with every individual; that which pleases man is good, and that which causes
pain or discomfort is evil; also, that which pleases one may not please
another. Therefore, there is no absolute good or evil.
DESCARTES (1596-1650 AD):
He regarded God to be the perfect good who, therefore,
could not be the creator of evil. The power gifted by God to man to distinguish
truth from falsehood is not complete. Man goes astray due to the pressure
of his desires and sentiments. Due to lack of accurate judgement, he fails
to distinguish between good and evil, and treads the wrong path by mistake.
Error lies not in God's action but in ours, and this is due to our poor
judgement which is based on insufficient knowledge.
SPINOZA (1632-1677 AD):
He also considered good and evil to be relative. In fact,
there is neither good nor evil in the universe nor is it necessary. Our
knowledge about things is incomplete. In spite of this, we want that every
thing should be according to the demand of our reason, and when it happens
otherwise it looks to be bad. What appears to our intellect to be evil
is not so according to nature's law: it is evil according to the laws that
relate to us. Similarly, everything that helps man to achieve the goal
of his struggle is good and that tending to block this struggle is bad.
According to him, an act can be good and bad at the same time and be devoid
of the both as well. For example, a happy man enjoys music but a grieved
and sorrowful man does not like it. For the dead it is neither good nor
bad. To Spinoza good and evil, piety and guilt are prejudices and cannot
be recognized as fundamental truths.
JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704 AD):
He held that the principles of good and evil are
imbued in man's nature. Man finds and feels them as if nature had written
them on his mind from the very beginning. Locke said that pleasure and
pain are innate in man. It is in our nature that we enjoy happiness and
seek to avoid pain. Therefore, things which bring happiness are good and
those which cause pain are evil. As the same act will not bring happiness
to everyone, there must be certain laws to keep others happy. Through experience
we learn what is good and what is evil: by experiencing pain, if we do
evil and pleasure, if we do good.
RICHARD CUMBERLAND (1631-1718
AD): He was the first philosopher
who propounded the utilitarian theory. He said that man is not totally
selfish but is basically sympathetic towards his fellowmen. Thus, the welfare
of the society is the criterion for good and evil. Lord Shaftesbury also
shared his views.
FRANCIS HUTCHENSON:
He was also of the same general opinion and coined
the phrase, `the greatest good for the greatest number' and made it the
criterion of good.
LIEBNITZ (1646-1716 AD):
He suggested that there are certain innate principles
sufficient to determine what is good and what is evil. Because of passions
and impulses man disobeys these principles and generates evil. One of these
principles is that one should seek pleasure and avoid pain and it is this
criterion which decides the question of good and evil. He also held that
evil served to make good really good. It is like shadows in a painting
that serve to bring the colours into bolder relief and greater beauty.
IMMANNUAL KANT (1724-1804
AD): He held that the principles
of good and evil are well known since eternity and the moral laws are inborn
in man's nature and intellect. One of these laws that serve as a criterion
for distinguishing good from evil is that one should like for others what
he likes for himself. According to Kant, the principle that an act is good
if its result is good is wrong. Consequences of an act do not determine
the characteristics of an act. If the act is performed with good intentions
out of respect for moral laws it is thereby good. Kant said: `always do
what every body would like to follow.'
JOHANN FICHTE (1762-1814
AD): He followed the views of Kant.
He said that the basic principles of good and evil are innate in man's
nature. These are the criteria for good and evil. It is not sufficient
to respect these laws, rather essential to put them into practice. Morality
and goodness is not a state to be attained once only, but a constant struggle
to act in every situation according to the requirements of moral laws.
ARTHUR SHOPENHAUER (1788-1860
AD): This German sceptical philosopher, said that man's
will to live is his greatest and fundamental desire and the cause of all
the struggle in the world. This is the root cause of all evil and suffering.
A world where wild desires are struggling with each other, where the more
powerful kill and devour the less powerful, is a world of evil; there is
no goodness in it. If, however, one, through self-sacrifice, acts sympathetically
with others and lives for them, happiness and peace shall prevail in this
world.
JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873
AD): According to the modern philosophers,
the principles of good and evil are not inborn, innate, but continue to
change according to social conditions. They, therefore, propounded the
theory of relative utility of good and evil. An act can be good in certain
circumstances but can be evil in different circumstances. J.S. Mill who
belonged to the utilitarian school said that the greatest good of the greatest
number is the highest good and the criterion for good and evil. If an act
is beneficial to the greatest number, it is good.
JEREMY BENTHAM (1874-1832
AD): He is also the follower of
the utilitarian school of thought. He said that good and evil are determined
on the basis of social benefits. For him, morality is relative for which
there are no innate or inborn principles enjoined by God involving His
pleasure or wrath.
HERBERT SPENCER (1820-1903
AD): He dealt with the problem from
the scientists’ point of view and made the evolution theory the basis of
his thoughts. He held that man's conduct was developing and continued making
adjustments. The most developed conduct which made living richer for the
individual and for the society is the best. In other words, Spencer also
believed in the relative theory of good and evil, also maintaining that
the achievement of happiness is not the absolute good. The absolute good
is to establish a society where man is able to live happily, individually
as well as socially.
WILLIAM JAMES (1842-1910
AD) & JOHN DEWEY (1859-1952 AD): They
represent the pragmatic school of thought. In their time, democracy held
a sway over contemporary thought. They attached great importance to the
group benefits and the individual's rights. To them, individuals and groups
are tied together and man's identity is due to his membership of a group.
According to them, good is that which enriches the life of both the individual
and the group. The social unit is the individual and a good act must hold
his welfare uppermost along with the welfare of the society. The individual
and social results of an act are the basis for good and evil.
|
Critical Examination of Philosophical Views
|
The foregoing discussion summarizes the
views of philosophers and thinkers who thought over the problem of good
and evil and tried to answer the questions mentioned earlier. A critical
examination of these views follows:
(i) Philosophy
of relativeness: Philosophers who uphold this philosophy are those
who have exemplified good and evil with musical notes or dark and red shades
of a picture. Heraclitus and St Augustine are in this category. For them,
the high and low notes in a symphony or shades in a picture increase its
attractiveness. Similarly good and evil are essential for the world's beauty
and charm. Obviously these philosophers assumed good and evil as material
things and this assumption misdirected their thoughts. Good and evil relate
to morals. The question is not of good or bad things but that of moral
good or evil. There is no question of good and evil in material things.
Every thing has its own benefits; even garbage has its own value and is
beneficial in its own place and so is the case with diamonds and ornaments.
But are truth and falsehood, mercy and tyranny all alike or do falsehood,
heresy, fraud, infidelity and banditry become good in certain circumstances?
It is impossible to prove that these acts would become good or beneficial
at any stage or time. At the most, these acts may, perforce, be ignored
under certain conditions. For example, falsehood is always bad, but if
you were asked by a tyrant, who intended to murder someone, about the whereabouts
of his intended victim and you, knowing well, lied to him to save the wanted
man, then such a lie may be excused as you did it under compulsion to save
a life. Similarly, to escape the death of hunger one is allowed to eat
prohibited edibles but this will not affect the prohibition and make these
permissible for others. While it is possible to say about material things
that the dirtiest of these can be beneficial to the crops as manure, the
same cannot be said about immoral acts. These can be excused only under
compulsion. Therefore, the views of the philosophers regarding this theory
of relativeness of good and evil are absurd, or at the most mere poetical
jargon.
(ii) Criterion of Intention: Similarly,
the views of the philosophers who maintain that an act is neither good
nor bad in itself but intention makes it so are equally incorrect. Mere
intention cannot make a bad act good. At the most, a bad act performed
in good faith can be excused but it cannot be classified as a good act.
Therefore, intention cannot be made the basis of determining good and evil.
This view is without a rationale.
(iii) Criterion of Pleasure and
Happiness: The philosophers who consider pleasure and happiness to
be the criterion of good are also far from the truth. The criterion of
pleasure and happiness is baseless. No single measure can be laid down
for pleasure and happiness. The measures and standards differ from man
to man. For example, likes and dislikes of the rich and the poor widely
differ. Sometimes the objects of pleasure for the poor are uncomfortable
to the wealthy, a loud note of music may upset a civilized man but others
may at the same time enjoy it. Also, there is lot of difference between
the standards of enjoyment of human beings: some like playing hockey while
others enjoy cricket and still others are least interested in any game.
Therefore, if an act pleases one, it is essential that it will also please
others as well; it may be uncomfortable, inconvenient and despicable for
others. The criterion of an act to be good when it is a source of pleasure
and happiness for the majority also does not seem to be correct. For example,
benefits of the television are most common but its harmful effects are
equally widespread. Moreover, conditions of an era also affect the majority's
viewpoint. In an age, an act may be a matter of pride for the majority
but with the passage of time it may lose its charm and become abominable.
For example, in primitive ages, slavery was a symbol of pride while now-a-days
it is despicable. Also, the measures of pleasure and happiness differ from
society to society. A society may enjoy eating frogs and serpents but to
others this could be altogether unthinkable. In fact, pleasure and happiness
relate more to man's inner self rather than to outward conditions. A deeper
study would reveal that pleasure is not connected with the outward disposition
of man. Rather it is more close to his mind and heart and inner self. If
you offer good music to a sad person, he will not be able to enjoy it.
Similarly, if you serve a sumptuous meal to a grieved person, he will not
be attracted towards it. Only a person endowed with a peaceful disposition
of mind will enjoy his meals, whether it may be simple food or fried fish
or roasted chicken.
(iv) Criterion of Utility: In
the utilitarian theory, whatever benefits the individual and the society
is good. But if the beneficial things are examined more closely, many of
them may be found to be destructive. For example, the benefits of the Banking
System cannot be disputed but the whole world is groaning under it as it
has engulfed the society with the curse of `interest'. Similarly the benefits
of scientific inventions are indisputable but at the same time science
has invented highly destructive bombs and lethal weapons, and piled these
up in such quantities that the whole world is on the brink of destruction.
Even a small incident may bring about complete disaster. The theory of
utility is therefore disputable and dangerous.
(v) Descartes Theory: Descartes
described God to be all-good and at the same time thought that the intellect
bestowed by God on man was insufficient to handle the problems of life.
Due to man's failings evil comes into being. God placed man in a very difficult
situation but did not give him sufficient wisdom to come up to the task.
His physical desires and ambitions were too strong to be controlled by
the wisdom gifted by God. Descartes glorified God by saying that He bestowed
man with such sublime capabilities as intellect and wisdom and at the same
time he blamed Him for not providing a sufficiently balanced mind to face
the problems of life. Descartes perhaps failed to appreciate this self-contradiction
in his reasoning.
vii) Spinoza's Views: Spinoza's
point of view that God is above good and evil which concern only the human
beings, is revolting. This position is contrary to his own belief in pantheism.
For him, God is not a person; the motion and energy in the overall system
of the universe is God and we being all parts of the universe are also
God. His saying `when we love ourselves we love God because we are God
is well known.' Therefore, when he relates good and evil to man alone,
this negates his own thinking.
(vii) The theory of Divine Intuition:
Great philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, John Locke
and Liebnitz, all of them, considered good and evil to be independent.
The foundation, of both already exists in man's nature. Conception of moral
laws is innate in man; There is a Divine Spark within him to guide him.
Man often forgets the moral laws and needs to be remained. Self-realization
is the real knowledge that guides man to the path of the highest good.
If man realizes his own self, he treads the path of virtue and avoids evil
and ultimately achieves perfection. The views of these philosophers appear
to be founded on strong grounds and are nearer to the Qur’anic
concept.
Existence of Evil
Consider the question, `if good and
evil were independent, are their creators also independent?'. Most of the
philosophers have not discussed this question. Those who thought good and
evil to be relative, dumped the question itself. Polytheists consider gods
of good and evil to be independent of each other. Christian thinkers known
as Apologists also answered the question as the polytheists did. According
to their representatives, Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, God is pure
good and He cannot be the Creator of evil. The nature of man as created
by Him is good but man being matter is attracted towards evil. The devil
allures him to worldly pleasures and thus evil comes into being. These
views expressed by these Christian thinkers suggest that the devil may
be the creator of evil or at least a means of creation of evil. Who created
the devil is a question that the Christian thinkers have not been able
to answer. Also they could not justify the existence of the devil. If the
devil was the source of evil and enjoyed the power to bedevil anyone into
evil why did God create this evil when He Himself is perfect good?
Are Good and Evil of Divine Command?
A few Muslim theologians are of the
view that Muslims obey moral laws because God and His Prophet (sws) have
so ordained. Since the Prophet (sws) has said that falsehood, avarice,
cruelty, injustice, and ostentation are bad traits, Muslims consider these
bad. Similarly, the Prophet (sws) cherished truth, sympathy, justice and
mercy as good traits and commanded these to be followed, therefore the
Muslims consider them to be good. Had the Prophet (sws) declared falsehood
to be good Muslims would have cherished it. These thinkers did not care
to ponder that pronouncing some acts as good and others as bad has no rationale.
Why is it in the nature of man to love truth, justice and mercy and hate
falsehood, tyranny and such other evils? If there is nothing innate in
man's nature, what did the Prophets endeavour to ‘remind’ mankind? If good
and evil emanate only from a divine order, there is no rationale for repeated
exhortations in the Qur’an
to use reason, intellect and wisdom. Had the arguments of these thinkers
been true, God would have ordained mere obedience. On the contrary, God
has exhorted man to ponder on his own self and the universe surrounding
him so that by reasoning he can find the truth. Hence, the views of those
who thought good and evil to be merely divinely ordained are not correct.
The Qur’anic
philosophy of good and evil is based on man's nature. It is the Qur’an
assertion that it has provided knowledge and guidance for all moral virtues
and beliefs. It has exhorted man to be virtuous and avoid vices, the knowledge
of both being inherent in him and not imposed from outside his personality.
It has reminded man of things which are innate in him, which he often ignores
for the immediate accomplishment of his worldly desires.
Highest Good: The unity of God
According to the Holy Qur’an,
the highest good is the belief in the unity and providence of Allah and
this belief is the pre-requisite of Islamic commandments. This concept
is the fountainhead of good conduct and morality. It is the divine sanctuary
of all good without which no good or virtue is safe and incorruptible.
The Holy Prophet (sws) explained its importance when he was asked `which
act is the best?'. The reply was ‘Belief in Allah’. When another Companion
of the Prophet (sws) asked ‘which sin is most the heinous in the eyes of
Allah?’, the Prophet (sws) named the act of setting up another god beside
Allah although the latter had created man. As all the messengers of Allah
were inspired by the same divine source, Christ also gave a similar reply,
as is contained in the Bible. When one of the scribes asked him, `which
is the first commandment of Allah?' he answered:
The first of all the commandments is `Hear! O Israel;
The Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength;
this is the first commandment. (Mark 12:29-30)
The highest good has so thoroughly permeated
man's nature that the Holy Qur’an
says that Allah created the souls of the sons of Adam and got a solemn
pledge from them that they would accept Allah alone to be their Lord, the
Bounteous. This was done lest man may put up an excuse on the Day of Judgement
that he was not aware of it. Surah
Aa’raf reads thus:
And when thy Lord took from the children of Adam, from
their loins, their seed, and made them testify upon themselves, ‘Am I not
your Lord’? They said, ‘Yes we testify’ lest you should say on the Day
of Resurrection, ‘As for us, we were unaware of this’. (7:172)
Thus the concept of the unity of God is
the first of the fundamentals of human nature and an irrefutable fact for
every human being. Allah will not entertain any excuse against this innate
evidence. One may argue that he does not remember such a testification.
Forgetfulness or ignorance of an incident does not affect its veracity.
The survival of the signs or remnants of an incident is a sufficient proof.
So is the case of the testification held before Allah by the progeny of
Adam. Polytheists and monotheists of all times subscribe to the belief
that God's existence does not need any proof or philosophical arguments.
Arguments are required for polytheism. The Holy Qur’an
has therefore asked them consistently to produce proof for existence of
the alleged partners of Allah.
Intuitive Knowledge of Good and Evil in Man’s Nature
The preceding testification about
the Almighty encompasses all the attributes and imperatives of His unity.
All good emanates from this highest good and is in fact an offshoot of
this mainstream. Evil is an opposite and independent permanent fact. The
Almighty has endowed the knowledge of good and evil in human nature. The
Holy Qur’an says:
According to a group of philosophers man
was born with a clean slate. All the shades that came up later were the
results of the surroundings on his gaining experience and knowledge. The
Holy Qur’an regards this to
be a misconception. The environment is all made up of man's right or wrong
actions. Only good, justice, rightfulness spring from the real source of
his nature and every believer or disbeliever knows this. Evil, cruelty
and falsehood result from man's submission to his immodest desires and
everyone holds them to be undesirable. The knowledge of good and evil is
one of the capabilities bestowed by the Almighty on man to enable him to
face the ordeals of life. God has, therefore, mentioned this knowledge
as His special bounty. The Holy Qur’an
says:
Have we not blessed him with two eyes and a tongue, and
two lips and guided him on the two highways' of right and wrong. (90:8-10)
Allah bestowed on man two eyes for the
observation of the surroundings and a tongue and two lips for speech and
explanation. He also granted the knowledge of good and evil to follow the
righteous path.
Aristotle's views are nearer to the
Holy Qur’an. He says that there
is a divine spark in man. The Holy Qur’an
has described it as breathing of the Almighty's spirit into man. When Allah
placed the whole plan of creation of man before the angels, He commanded
them to bow before Adam (sws) in these words:
When I have perfected him and breathed My spirit in him,
fall you down unto bowing before him. (15:29)
This spirit is the divine spark. Its realization
helps attain perfection imbued in his nature. The Holy Qur’an
further emphasizes that faith is man's nature but he is prone to forget
it. Allah has been sending His messengers to remind him of this forgotten
faith. The faith commanded by these messengers is in harmony with human
nature. The Qur’an says:
So get thyself upright to your religion. This is the
providential nature in which He created man. There is no altering the creation
of Allah. This is the right religion but most men know not. (30:30)
There is no dichotomy and inconsistency
between Islam and human nature. Both have the relationship of law and its
explanation or commentary. Whatever is innate in human nature, has been
explained through divine revelation. In Surah
Nur (24:35) good nature and divine
inspiration have been described as `light upon light' ie, divine revelation
is not light over darkness but light upon light.
The Human Soul’s Invisible Reprover
The Almighty has not only imbibed
the awareness of good and evil in man's nature but has also placed in him
an invisible guard who reproves him on acts of evil and urges him towards
virtuous acts. The Holy Qur’an
has adduced the existence of this invisible guard as an evidence for the
life hereafter:
Nay, I swear by the Day of Resurrection. Nay, I swear
by the rebuking soul [that the Day is bound to come]. (65:1-2)
Man loses his balance between good and
evil under pressure of worldly desires and succumbs to evil acts. Due to
this tendency of the soul, according to the Holy Qur’an,
it is prone to evil. The Prophet Yusuf (sws) pointed towards this in these
words:
I do not exculpate myself. Lo, the human soul is prone
to evil. (12:53)
The human soul is aware of virtues and
man's nature impels him to follow the path of virtue. So long as he maintains
a correct balance, he repents on committing evil and also resents the evil
stance of others and even admonishes them. This trait of the mind is called
`the soul's self-reproving' by the Qur’an.
To maintain this balance, the Almighty
requires man to keep Him and the Day of Judgement uppermost in his mind
so that he does not fall an easy prey to worldly desires and always stands
up against them. If he stumbles, the soul's `self-reproving trait' at once
reprimands him and he, on receiving the warning, tries to make amends through
penitence and returns to the Almighty's shelter. One who is able to maintain
this balance, enjoys, in the words of the Holy Qur’an,
a `contented soul', the highest position that a believer is expected by
the Almighty to strive for. A contented soul will find the coveted position
in Heaven and this is, in fact, man's highest status in front of Allah.
The Holy Qur’an
while describing the secrets of man's creation has revealed a lot about
man's nature. The discussion in the following sections will show that it
is based on very sound lines.
The Concept of Good and Evil is Inherent in Human Nature
The existence of good and evil in
human nature is so manifest, so evident, and indubitable that it hardly
needs any proof or arguments. Proof is normally needed when it is more
evident than the subject. If the subject is itself more than explicit,
no proof is required. The faith acquired through experience cannot be destroyed
by arguments. Pain in a patients heart or stomach does not need any external
proof. None can convince the patient as he is experiencing it. The existence
of the sun needs no proof, one has just to open his eyes to see it. No
proof can be greater or more acceptable than the sun itself. Similarly,
the mind is a flawless witness to the fact that truth is good and falsehood
is bad; cruelty is bad and justice is good. The traits of goodness, mercy,
honesty, pity, benign conduct are all moral virtues. The human mind is
a standing witness to these; what stronger argument or proof is needed
higher than the mind's own admission.
Consistency and Continuity
The other important truth is the fact
that the soul always reprimands a person on the committing of an evil or
a sinful act. Man's nature is aware of evil. Otherwise, there would not
be uniformity of thought among people of different religions, races, countries
and continents about the basic virtues, particularly in the presence of
a lot of differences in their modes of living, customs culture and civilization
etc. The consensus about the natural awareness of good and evil is evidently
due to the fact that the Creator imbued the knowledge of good and evil
in human nature.
The Holy Qur’an
says:
The virtue of good and the vice of evil
is so well accepted and manifest in human nature that they have been continued
to be acknowledged and their consistency has never been questioned. In
some societies, there may be exceptions to this truth, but humanity never
subscribed to such deviations. For example, the Parsis allowed marriage with sisters, the Spartans used to kill weak children,
or the Arabs before Islam used to bury their daughters alive. Nevertheless,
such conduct always remained very despicable and the common human conscience
condemned such exceptions being against human nature.
A Natural Criterion of Good and Evil
Those who succumb to a sinful life
or cruelty to others do not, however, regard their acts to be good nor
would ungrudgingly yield to a similar treatment by others. Thus, the basic
moral law in man's nature impels him to a treatment of others that he would
like for himself at their hands. This principle is a criterion for discrimination
between good and evil. The Holy Qur’an
has drawn attention to this principle of human nature as follows:
Woe to the stinters who, when they measure against the
people, take full measure but, when they measure for them, do scrimp. (83:1-3)
`Whatever one does not like for himself,
he dislikes it for others' is a principle ingrained in human nature and
it easily determines the correctness or otherwise of an attitude without
any external evidence.
Nature and Free Will
If knowledge of good and evil is in
man's nature, the evil conduct of the majority of mankind needs to be explained.
If it were so, all human beings or at least the majority should have followed
the right path. Unfortunately, however, the majority does not follow it.
The question is answered when we understand a few basic concepts.
There is vast difference between animal
instinct and man's nature. Animals are slave to their instinct and cannot
but follow it truthfully. A cat eats mutton, milk, etc, but will not eat
apples and grapes even if it starves to death. So is the case with other
animals. Man is quite different; he may turn poison into medicine and may
fill his belly with leaves of trees, roots and other similar things. The
nature of man has a freedom of action and desires. The greatest quality
of man is his power to act according to his will. Man's vicegerency of
the Almighty is also due to his freedom to act. One can also use this faculty
to debase one’s nature. Knowing what is good, one can commit evil and on
the top of it and one can also adduce arrangements to justify his action.
In fact, the faculty of intellect granted to man has the capability of
adducing arguments for and against a thesis. Thus man is free to act as
he wills. He knows what is right, virtue, truth magnanimity and self-respect.
He knows the directives of Allah and the requirements of religion. However,
he acts against them under pressure of desires and sentiments and then
sacrifices his conscience with the help of his intellect.
Misuse of Freedom of Will Creates Evil
Desires, sentiments and likings are
essential to human existence; without them man loses his entity. If he
so desires, he can keep them under control or be a slave to them. Man disobeys
the Almighty by misusing his will. The Almighty, in His wisdom, sometimes
leaves a man free to act as he pleases. He does not deprive man of the
free will otherwise man would be reduced to a mere animal and would not
then be accountable for his deeds.
Evidently, man commits evil through
misuse of his freedom of will. A great majority of human beings, under
pressure of desires, get into evil and detract from nature's moral laws,
except a small minority among them.
Who is the Creator of Good and Evil?
The question remains that has one
and the same creator created both good and evil? If these have been created
by two different deities, existence of more than one God will be inevitable.
If Allah is the Creator of both; how can the all-good God be the Creator
of evil? The discussion in the preceding sections makes it clear that evil
is created through the misuse of man's faculty of free will. Man can use
this power for good as well as for evil. This universe is based on natural
laws that are all good. But the knowledge of these laws ie, science can
be applied for mankind's benefits as well as for its destruction. A knife
can be used for peeling fruits and vegetables as well as for killing people.
It has been left to man's discretion to use nuclear power for peaceful
purposes or for destruction. If he wants to use this power for destruction
and tyranny, he has the liberty and freedom to do so. It would then be
a blatant misuse of power gifted by the Almighty.
The freedom of will is a great blessing
granted by the Almighty. This freedom places man above animals and crowns
him with the vicegerency of the Almighty. It cannot be argued that the
evil springing out of the misuse of this freedom could be the creation
of Allah. He is all good. By foolish misuse of this freedom, man assumes
the responsibility for the creation of evil.
Avarice Breeds Evil
Why should man use his freedom of
will for the generation of evil? The reason appears to be that the greed
for quick gain misleads him to evil actions. The reward of evil is immediate
but the results of good acts and compliance of moral laws do not produce
a cash reward; one may have to wait even till the Day of Judgement. This
difficulty is present in the reformation of the society. Although the doctors
continue warning against the evil effects of smoking and drinking but just
for temporal enjoyment and elation, people do not heed the doctor's advice
and continue with the addiction. This is also true of moral evils. By falsehood
and fraud one may achieve his immediate ends forgetting its evil effects.
The temptation may be so strong that one does not care even for the warnings
of the reproving soul within him. A murderer by killing another man derives
some pleasure or satisfies his urge for revenge but its consequential effects
that engulf the society remain a distant reality. On the other hand, the
reward of virtues like truth, honesty, sympathy and other good acts is
hardly immediate; sometimes one may face difficulties and torture for a
virtuous conduct. A long period of waiting is usually inherent in the outcome
of good acts. For these reasons, man disobeys his nature to accomplish
his evil desires immediately.
The Divine Spark
Those indulging in evil acts for immediate
gains gradually debase their nature. Those who heed the reprovings of their
soul and have an eye on the ultimate good instead of immediate gains, are
virtuous people. Allah has exemplified their nature in the Qur’an
(24:35) as pure and transparent oil that lightens upon seeing the fire
short of contact. For people endowed with such good nature, the words of
the Prophet (sws) and his person serve as a miracle. They have the divine
flame ready to lighten up on hearing the revelation. For such people, the
Prophet's call is the voice of their own. If one feels some estrangement
towards the Prophet's guidance, evidently his pilot flame has gone off.
Those who have debased their nature, feel perturbed on the Prophet's advice
as the Holy Qur’an says in
the sermons of the various prophets in Surah
Hud:
He said, O my people; Bethink you, if I rely on a clear
proof from my Lord and there hath come unto me a bounty from Him and it
is obscure from you, should We compel you to accept it when you are averse
there-to? (11:28)
The Devil’s Antecedents
What then is the devil's role in the
spreading of evil? This problem could not be understood by St. Augustine,
an intelligent Christian thinker as mentioned before, and he met his defeat
at the hands of the devil. He accepted the devil as a torch bearer of evil
and an entity independent from God. It gave rise to the belief that there
are two independent domains of God and of the Devil in the universe and
both remain at loggerheads. The Holy Qur’an
does not regard the devil an independent creation: he can be from men as
well as from the Jinn folk. The devil who beguiled Adam was from among
the Jinn folk named Iblis. The Holy Qur’an
says:
The point of view that the devil who beguiled
Adam (sws) is still alive and continues to mislead mankind is childish.
The devil has sought the Almighty's permission for continuation of his
mission to misguide people till the Day of Judgement to establish that
His followers were few. Allah has said:
Respite then is granted thee till the Day of the Time
appointed: [Iblis] said: Then, swearing by Thy power, I will put them all
in the wrong. Except thy servants among them sincere and purified. [God]
said: `Then, it is just and fitting, and I say what is just and fitting.
That I will certainly fill Hell with thee, and those that follow thee,
Every one'. (38:80-85)
The Holy Qur’an
makes it clear that there are both good and bad Jinns. The physical laws
that apply to the Jinn folk are also applicable to Iblis.
When the Jinns are not immortal, how could Iblis
be immortal? Thus the devil is not an immortal creation. The Holy Qur’an
is clear on the issue that there are devils from men in the same manner
as from the Jinns and these devils are perhaps even more cunning than Iblis
himself.
The Devil’s Role
In the human
life, the devil's role is no more than that of a sneaking whisperer. Allah
has not empowered him to forcibly mislead anyone he wishes. He is free
only to whisper evil and he can do nothing beyond that. This role has been
clearly described in the last Surah of the Holy Qur’an:
Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, the King
of mankind, the God of mankind, from the mischief of the whisperer who
withdraws [after his whisper], who whispers into the hearts of mankind,
among the Jinns and men. (114:1-6)
This explains the technique adopted by
the devil. All his effort is directed towards whispering, propaganda and
false promises. With these he entraps people and then absolves himself
of the responsibility, and enjoys the misfortune of these foolish people
who spoil their life in the Herein and Hereafter.
Thus the only power with the devil
is of whispering evil. He has not been armed by the Almighty with any weapon
to mislead them perforce. On the Day of Judgement, he will absolve himself
of the responsibility, addressing those who fell prey to his whispering
in the following words:
Nor had we any authority over you, Nay, it was ye who
were a people in obstinate rebellion. (37:30)
The devil, in addition to false promises,
deceitful talk and kindly advice with veiled warning tries to harass people
through threats. But those of Allah's bondmen who do not yield to his threats
are able to parry his attacks. When the devil threw a challenge that he
would certainly mislead all the progeny of Adam, Allah permitted him in
clear words:
Go, do whatever you like: As for My servants, no authority
shall thou have over them. Allah is sufficient for all manoeuvrings. (17:65)
Those who cherish the help of their Lord
and stand up to face the devil will come up triumphant with confidence
in their Lord and His blessings.
The Holy Qur’an
has drawn attention to another facet of the devil's character: that of
a defrauder and a deceiver. When someone falls into his trap by committing
a sin, he absolves himself of all the consequences and leaves him to suffer
alone. This aspect of his character has been described by the Holy Qur’an
as follows:
This character of Iblis
has been very clearly stated in Surah
Hashr:
Like Satan, when he said to man `Disbelieve', then when
he disbelieved, he said, surely I am quit of you. Surely I fear God, the
Lord of the worlds. (59:16)
Universal Consensus
Despite everything,
mankind's conscience has never commended evil. It has always tried to propagate
good in practice. Ever since the time of social awareness, there has always
been a system to dispense justice and righteousness. Sometimes some evils
did overwhelm a society but such a position has never been tolerated by
the universal conscience of mankind. There have always been such men in
the society who played the same role as that of the invisible adjudicator
in man's soul. Whenever the situation worsened to the extent of extinction
of good or virtue, the divine law came into play and completely wiped out
that society to extinction.
Summary
All the elements of good and evil
are inherent in man's nature. Allah keeps on reminding him lest he may
offer an excuse on the Day of Judgement that he was taken unawares. Through
the prophets and divine revelations all the principles have been explained
in great detail. It is His infinite bounty.
Man will be answerable to God on the
basis of his nature. Those who received the Prophet's message but did not
pay heed, will be doubly guilty. Those who did not receive the Prophet's
message will be answerable on the basis of the natural innate knowledge
of good and evil.
Allah is perfect good. Evil is created
through man's misuse of his own power to act. He gets into evil of his
own. The devil's role is no more than evil whispering to misguide him.
Allah has not given the devil the power to forcibly misguide. Man misuses
his discretion to act under pressure of his desires and satisfaction of
his sentiments. These desires and sentiments are not evil in themselves
as to be destroyed in the manner the monks or nuns do. They prescribe nerve-racking
and self-attritious practice to get rid of desires and sentiments. All
that is needed, is to control the desires and sentiments and confine them
within appropriate limits. Anger, rage, ambition, all are essential for
cultivating virtue and good in human character and are not to be destroyed
altogether. Nevertheless, anger has a limit which, if crossed, will result
in tyranny. It is, therefore, essential that desires and sentiments should
not be completely destroyed but need to be kept under control or civilized
for which the Prophet (sws) has imparted excellent teaching.
|