From: ahmad@ra.cs.umb.edu (Ahmad Hashem)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Reason vs. Morals
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:16:03 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <1992Oct5.220724.23761@trl.oz.au> a.Faris@trl.oz.au writes:
>Well Hobbs is indeed correct. If you consider man as another entity, as part
>of the environment surrounding him, competition will force him to be at war
>with everyone. Every living entity is subjected to that competition.
>
>If Humanity were to be driven by humanitarian forces alone, competition will
>cease to exit and society will struggle. On the other hand, if humanity is
>driven by reason and a moral code, society will have a better chance of
>survival.
> .....

You are making several points in your msg, Aziz.  They are all important, of 
course, and I can refute them all, of course <GRIN>, but due to time 
constraints I will only go over some of them.

It is not an all-or-nothing matter.  Hobbes paved the way for Western 
individualism when, during his account of the human nature, he only saw
the selfish/individualistic side.  Well, there is another side to the human
nature--the communal side, that Hobbes failed to see.  As the Arabs say 
in their proverb "Jannah bala nas ma btindas" [a paradise without company 
is like hell].  Humans find a kind of peace in belonging to a warm family
and a loving community.

Humanistic psychologists (Abraham Maslow, for example) have distinguished
between the individual's "higher" and "lower" needs, and talked about a
hierarchy in which needs have to be satisfied, in this order:

 - Physiological needs (e.g., food, water, sleep, sex)
 - Safety (e.g., structure, security, predictability)
 - Belongingness and love
 - Esteem (e.g., recognition, acceptance, confidence)
 - Self-actualization (e.g., full knowledge, expression of human potential).

Note that belongingness and love occupy an important place--one that Hobbes 
did not think about.

Islam, being revealed by the Creator Himself, takes both sides of our
human nature into account.  It encourages familial, social, communal ties,
and at the same time allows enough room for competition.

>Adherence to reason does abolish morality. The greatest proof is the former
>soviet union. The soviets developed a society that was solely based on
>philosophical reasoning fueled by Communist ideals.

I truly fail to see how this "proves" that adherence to reason does abolish 
morality.  It proves, if anything, that one without the other does not work,
which is precisely MY original point!!!

>[Islam] is not and will never be practiced based on reasoning and morality.

I fail to see how/why.  And I fail to see how the above squares with your
saying the following:

>I think Islam tends to be more idealistic and seems to bond reason and
>morality

I'm not sure I'm following your line of reasoning there.

>I veiw Islam as another religion that attempted to tame the competitive 
>nature of the human race.

Well, as I said above, we seem to have different views on the nature of the
human race.  It's not all-bad, according to my understanding of Islam.  This
is important and is different from other religions' views on the human nature.
For example, the early American preacher Jonathan Edwards wrote:
"we are sinners in the hands of an angry God."  Islam seems to say that
we have our positive and our negative aspects "By the soul, and the proportion 
and order given to it; and its ENLIGHTENMENT AS TO ITS WRONG AND ITS RIGHT;
truly he succeeds that purifies it!" (91:7-9).  Islam aims at helping
us purifying our souls, by taming our competitive nature, if you will, AND,
AT THE SAME TIME, by cultivating the other side of our nature.  Hence, Islam
is the true religion of Fitra (human nature) because it takes both sides
into account.

>A.Faris

Ahmad Hashem
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic