Posts Tagged ‘Faith’

Behavior—Martyr/Damned-Sinner!

May 1, 2018

 

Image result for pic of a flame

A candle flame is a source of light and Charm. Its charm (light) continues spreading oblivious to the presence or absence of the lover—a moth. A moth under the spell of charm embraces it and gets annihilated; providing a momentary ecstasy (flare-up) to the beloved—flame, but fails to impress upon a change in its innate character. A moth, in the absence of the charm, however, gets relegated to the level of an ordinary insect. The one, who shows respect and reverence from a distance; without being burnt, unfortunately, would never attain the esteemed martyrish status of the moth.

This “Martyrish” status of a moth, however, would transform into that of a “sinner” when his behavior is replicated by a human being. “The one who; embraces the Hell-fire; releasing the grip of the Prophet’s (PBUH) hand on his belt, would be a damned sinner”(Hadith).

shakir2.wordpress.com

Praying Silently?

March 31, 2018

 

 It is very important for Muslims to know the difference between praying-silently and praying-in-the-head.

Reciting silently; means one’s lips must move, the tongue must move and the breath must be exhaled with subdued voice (like whispering). What is being recited silently must be audible to the reciter.

Zuhar and Asar Prayers *1 are a good example when both, the Imam and those praying behind him, are reciting silently for it is the peak-time of the day when minds are usually pre-occupied with a host of things/thoughts and a loud recitation even by Imam may not suit the bustling mood of the day and may distract those reciting silently behind him.

In other three prayers, the serene ambiance under the cloak of darkness seems suitable for louder recitation.

*1–Zuhar and Asar Prayers are called “sirri” (silent/subdued) while other 3 prayers are called “Jahri” (loud or audible).

Reciting in the head (without the movement of the above-mentioned facial-parts is not a “recitation” but “imagination”.

It does not constitute a valid recitation in the prayer.

In Islamic Fiqh, the terms “jahr” and “khaft” are used when describing the way one should recite. Linguistically “jahr” means “to be loud, clearly audible” and “khaft” means “to become inaudible, low, and soft”.

Muslim Scholars, however, have resorted to the technical meanings of these terms; based on the linguistic definition, by adding limits to them.

Technically, as explained by the scholars, “jahr” means to recite out loud; the minimal whereof being the recitation in a way that the next person in line can hear. “Khaft” means to recite quietly, the minimal whereof being that the person reciting hears himself. What constitutes “Recitation” is the movement of the tongue, breathing in and out to produce sound. Just “thinking” it in one’s mind does not constitute recitation.

There is a strong position taken in all the schools-of-thoughts (Madahabs) that in a minimal “khaft” (silent) recitation correct pronunciations of the Arabic words of the verse being recited, must be murmured, without exuding sound.

 

shakir2.wordpress.com

Scientific rationalism, reason vs. Religious Faith

January 6, 2018

Related image

These are two different fields of knowledge and inquiry. It would be naïve to compare them on any logical basis, for they are not compatible and human logic and reasons, including scientific knowledge; restricted to tangibility, empiricism, and repeatability, cannot transcend into the realm of spirituality.

Such questions are generally raised by those who are staunch believers in the material/tangible world only. They fail to even imagine or entertain the idea that; there could exist another realm beyond their area of comprehension; despite the fact that they invariably acknowledge the limitation and fallibility of human knowledge, reason, and logic, including taken for guaranteed scientific knowledge. They also talk about many dimensions of the Universe but exclude the spiritual one due to ingrained anti-faith arrogance and rigidity.

Most often a misunderstanding of the earlier religious figures or even nonreligious figures; who laid some kind of claims in the name of religion; which turned out to be false are being exploited to justify the incorrigibility of reason, logic and scientific knowledge, which in itself is deceit and treachery. There are, on the other hand, numerous claims made by scientist community; being transient and tentative — as per the Pierce Doctrine of “Fallibilism”–turned out to be false, should they not then be used similarly to validate the religion/faith?

The good news, however, is that there is a growing breed of people; who have the capacity and will to traverse both the realms with equal ease and certainty. This approach is the only approach which will augment and extend, the understanding and the ensuing benefits of both the realms, to the human race.

Needless to stress the reality, that the Creator of the science is also the Creator of all the universe (s) dimensions including spiritual one. We cannot go too far by just acknowledging and depending only on one of the dimensions of—materiality, tangibility, empiricism and repeatability. We ought to learn to transcend and traverse both (and all) the realms to better understand and benefit fully.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/epistemological-theology/

For further reading:- May GOD be dispensed with?

shakir2.wordpress.com

Reality

January 6, 2018

 

Image result for pictures of nebula

Reality is subjective and perceptive in a spatial-temporal world. It has as many shades as seekers. it entails priori (analytical) and posteriori (synthetic) justification resting on innate ideas. It transforms into a new dimension when experienced through spiritual wisdom–beyond the realm of space-time. It remains available to the one witnessing it from priori and posteriori justification standpoint and also to believer, follower, adherent out of sheer devotion and reverence through posteriori knowledge only. The first one could be Gnostic, saint, Sufi, Mystic and the later one, a follower, devotee, faithful. believer, or a seeker of reality and truth. It is not however yet a destination but a state/stage/rank in the Quest for Ultimate reality!

Read: https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2019/03/14/why-philosophy-is-incapable-of-apprehending-god-the-ultimate-reality/

Comment/Feedback/Like/Share/Follow.

shakir2.wordpress.com

Do animals feel pain? [have intellect?]

December 24, 2017

Image result for Pic of an emotional reunion with an animal

“All living beings roaming/crawling/walking the earth and winged birds soaring in the sky are Peoples/communities like yourselves…” (Q, 6:38)

Animals, plants, everything created is endowed with consciousness, intellect and sense perception.

Pain is a complex experience involving sense and emotion. It is not simply how it feels, but how it makes one feel, be that a human or an animal? As far as domestic animals are concerned, we may, up to a certain extent, gauge their pain and feelings but that may not be so with the birds of prey. The Pain of the animals; who do not or cannot communicate, ought to be sensed/observed by an observer. Therefore, a rational being, who took responsibility, is responsible to do that and take care of the pain and suffering of the non-human sentient-beings.

In my opinion, things having been endowed with any level of consciousness (cognizable or not) ought to have a sense of joy and gloom. Empirically conclusive evidence of this is difficult to come by unless a sustained scientific study is carried out. This is a tedious process. Qura’an, on the other hand, however, categorically declares that the entire—non-human– creation is created with the sense of obedience/praying to its Creator, and they are people/communities like us, {endowed with certain level of consciousness, intellect, sense of feelings, obedience and worship} although their mode of expression/communication may not be understandable by us. 

Here is the scientific research; which will shed more light on the above assertions.

The report was published in Current Biology by researchers Dr. Sara Letzer and Prof Dr. Onur Gunturkun in collaboration with Prof Dr. Christian Beste. Cognitive ability was assumed to be the anatomical cause of cerebral cortex. In birdshowever, there is no presence of such cortical structures. Therefore, according to this assumption, birds are incapable of performing complex functions like multitasking.

(Future Planning).

To demonstrate how smart an octopus can be, an octopus will be pulling two halves of a coconut shell together to hide inside. Later the animal may also stack the shells together like nesting bowls — and carts them away. “It suggests that the octopus is carrying these tools around because it has some understanding they may be useful in the future,”

For decades, researchers have studied how certain animals evolved to be intelligent, among the apes, elephants, dolphins and even some birds, such as crows and parrots. But all the scientific theories fail when it comes to cephalopods, a group that includes octopuses, squid and cuttlefish. Intelligence comprises sophisticated cognitive skills that help an animal thrive. That may include the ability to come up with solutions to the problem of finding food, for example, or a knack for planning for some challenge in the future. Intelligent animals don’t rely on fixed responses to survive — they can invent new behaviors on the fly. To measure animal intelligence, scientists observe creatures in the wild — watching a dolphin stick a sponge on its beak to avoid getting cuts from sharp rocks and coral, for example. Or they bring animals into the lab and offer them puzzles to solve, such as rewarding crows when they learn to rip paper into strips of just the right size

Following examples would testify to their consciousness, sense perception and intellect.

“The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts [Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way of] exalting. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and Forgiving”. (Q, 17:44)

“See you not that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the mountains, and the trees, and “Ad-Dawab” (moving living creatures, beasts, etc.), and many of mankind? But there are many (men) on whom the punishment is justified. And whomsoever Allah disgraces, none can honor him. Verily! Allah does what He wills”.      (Q, 22:18)

Raven/Crow–Able and Cain–and his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the ­losers”. “Then Allah sent a crow searching in the ground to show him how to hide the disgrace of his brother. He said, ‘O woe to me! Have I failed to be like this crow and hide the body of my brother?’ And he became of the regretful.” (Quran 5:30-31)

“All living beings roaming/crawling/walking the earth and winged birds soaring in the sky are Peoples/communities like yourselves. We have left nothing out of the Record. Then to their Lord, they will be gathered all together” (Q, 6:38)

Ababil (Swallows)

Ababil (A bird أبابيل‎, translitabābīl) refers to the miraculous birds (identified as swallows) mentioned in Sura 105 of the Qura’an that protected the Ka’ba in Mecca from the Aksumite elephant army of Abraha, a self-styled governor of Himyar, by dropping small clay stones on them as they approached.

The bird (Hoopoe) informed Prophet Soloman about the people of Saba (Sheba of southern Arabia) and their Queen Sheeba, who used to worship Sun.

Whale-Fish

Prophet Jonah was thrown into the sea and swallowed by a big fish (whale)who was instructed to keep the Prophet safe in her stomach for few days, so that he may reflect, learn to be patient and ­repent. He was then regurgitated onto the shore as ordered by God.

AHADITH.

Hungry Camel.

Muslim transmitted that one day the Prophet (PBUH) along with some of his companions, entered the gardens of al-Ansar. A camel approached the Prophet with eyes filled with tears. The Messenger of Allah caressed his back and wiped his eyes and the camel calmed down. The Messenger then asked about his owner. When he showed up the Messenger said, ‘Don’t you fear God? This animal you own has complained to me that it is hungry and tired because you abuse him and don’t feed well.

Grieving Palm Tree Trunk

Hadith narrated by Ibn Umar: The Prophet (PBUH) used to deliver sermons while standing beside or leaning against a Date Palm tree trunk. When he had the pulpit made and started using it instead, the Palm tree trunk started crying/weeping/grieving out of love for the prophet. So, Prophet approached rubbing it with his hand. It stopped crying/weeping/grieving. –Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 783-

Imam Qurtabi said: The person in whose house his cat is not fed and taken care of, whose caged birds are not attended to as due, cannot be counted amongst the–(Mohsinin)–doer of good.

Adultery by female-monkey

Sahih Bukhari] Vol, 5 – Book 58 – # 188                                                           

Narrated by Amr bin Maimun: During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance, I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too stoned it along with them.

guarding/companion Dod

The Islamic version of the story of “Seven sleepers of Pegasus” includes mention of a dog, who accompanied them into the cave and appears to keep watch. In Islam, these youths are referred to as the People of the Cave.

Research Finds That Pigeons Are Better at Multitasking Than Humans.

Honey-Bee

Honey-bee–Consider how your Lord has inspired Honey-bee “make your hives [geometrical masterpiece of the hexagonal honey-comb which is most economical, rational, as regards space and material] in the mountains, trees and higher places and in what people construct (for apiculture)” (Q, 16:68)

Mosquito Miracle! 

The mosquito, although weighing only one-thousandth of a gram, is a tiny creature with an extremely complex structure. It has about one hundred eyes, three complete hearts, a heat detector, a vaccine working as an anesthetic, an instrument for blood testing, a liquefying system, six knives in its nose, a digital X-ray machine to distinguish human skin in the dark, etc. Its development from egg to adult passes through three complicated stages with a change in color to avoid predators. It is a very good example of the complexity of some creatures. It is said in the Holy Qura’an: ”surely Allah is not disdainful to give an example of the smallest thing (such as Mosquito) or something above that,  and as for those who disbelieve, say: What is it that Allah means by this parable: By such a similitude Allah confounds many and enlightens many. He confounds none except the transgressors” (Q, 2:26) 

Plants

Prophet Jacob’s leprosy-ridden body was covered (for shadow) by a creeper and a goat used to come morning and evening to feed him, under the command of God (SWT).

Plants have a far greater ability to sense their world than appearances might suggest, has led to some remarkable claims about “plant Intelligence”, and even spawned a new discipline. Electrical signaling in plants was one of the key factors in the birth of “plant neurobiology” (a term used despite the lack of neurons in plants), and today there are plant researchers investigating such traditionally non-plant areas as memory, learning and problem-solving. These plants are moving with purpose, which means they must be aware of what is going on around them.

 Despite lacking eyes, plants such as Arabidopsis possess at least 11 types of photoreceptor, compared to our measly four. Plants seeing, smelling, feeling and, indeed, knowing to have echoes of The secret life of Plants.

 

Shakir2.wordpress.com

Note: originally published on Dec, 24th 2017 now updated and republished on 03/01/2019

Tazkiyyah-a-Nafs, (Self-Control).

December 24, 2017

“And keep yourself patient [by being] with those who call upon their Lord in the morning and the evening, seeking His countenance. And let not your eyes pass beyond them, desiring adornments of the worldly life, and do not obey one whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance and who follows his desire and whose affair is ever [in] neglect” (Q,18:28)

Improvisation

Keep your-self (Nafs) restrained/subdued by being in the company of those, who keep busy remembering their Lord, day and night (morn, eve) seeking His pleasure/approval/mercy. Do not let your-self (Nafs) evade their company by being attracted to the adornments of fleeting life (temporary worldly life). Do not be in the company of someone whose heart, We have rendered, barren of Our remembrance. The one who is the slave of his desires and, his disposition is utter neglect. 

 

(This may have also provided a justification (deduced) for   “Majalis” & “Halaqa”— group chanting, Mahafil—e–Sama’a etc—for ordinary people and the people of Sufi orders)

Needless (Poor) king of the Kings!

December 24, 2017

The one who is, selfless and sincere to the purpose of life; goodness towards others and, obedience to the Creator. He would never have to question anyone’s intention or motive for he is free of the expectations and needs. Sin (covetousness) is the destruction of the station of the needless. Needless (Poor) is the king of the Kings; for the covetousness and expectations are his slaves, and the Kings are slaves of their covetousness and expectations.

He (PBUH) said, “Have no desire for this world, Allah will love you; have no desire for what people possess, people will love you.” [Ibn Majah]

In the world of selfishness and materialism virtue becomes too feeble to even register.

shakir2.wordpress.com

How to maintain focus while praying?

October 19, 2017

 

Related image

It is not unusual. This happens to most of the people.

One may, however, imagine either, 1) God is watching him OR, 2) He/She is standing in front of Allah(SWT), or He/She is watching Allah (SWT).

Seek help in patience and prayer; and truly it is hard save for the khaashi-oon, Who know that they will have to meet their Lord and that unto Him they are returning. (Q, 2: 44–45)

Successful indeed are the believers. Those who in prayer are khashi-oon. (Q, 23: 1–2)

Note: Khusu is not “mandatory” as is generally assumed, for it is not in the control of human being. The requirement in above verses is advisory only. In the first verse, its achievement is acknowledged to be difficult for a common man, but one should try his/her best to achieve it.  “Allah does not encumber anyone beyond his capacity” (Q, 2:286)

In Surah Al Aaraf, V-199 The Prophet has been asked by Allah (SWT) to “take to forbearance”.  Interpretation:- Accept what people can do easily and do not demand a high degree of performance in religious affairs.

Khushu Khuzu (submission and humbleness) this degree of veneration cannot be expected from everyone, as it is achieved by very few fortunate ones. This situation, therefore, According to the interpretation reported in Sahih Al Bukhari on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Zubair, falls under the purview of this verse (7:199).

Good News is that; when one struggles in such a situation to concentrate on his salah, gets rewarded doubly. Once for praying and once for struggling to concentrate. (H).

In Islamic parlance, it is called “Ehsan”. A concerted effort is required to attain this position/state. A few and far between really achieve it—-called Muhsenoon or khaashioon.

{(I seek refuge in all merciful Allah (SWT)}

 

Which Morality—Modern or Virtuous–is Right?

September 1, 2017
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (by Shakir Mumtaz January 2017)

(Morality based on common sense! Can common sense be trusted? Ethical Egoism says that “One person’s common sense may be another person’s naïve platitude” It is also called “revisionist theory” for it declares that “our common sense moral views may be mistaken, therefore, need to be changed”)

Morality predicates every facet of human life. It has always been, fervently, debated by the scholars and thinkers of almost all the societies, as to what constitutes morality, what should be its source and how its parameters should be determined and so on. I have therefore embarked on this interesting but multifarious topic to explore; by consulting various perspectives and sources, and present a cogent picture for the readers; to make up their own mind, after weighing for and against reasons and arguments.

Modern morality (or moral philosophy) has a rich and fascinating history. A great many thinkers have approached the subject from a wide variety of perspectives and have produced theories that both attract and repel the thoughtful people. Almost all the classical theories developed by philosophers of undoubted genius are, however, vulnerable to crippling objections. Hence, one is left wondering what to believe?

Derek Parfit, “Reasons and Persons” 1984 put it very aptly as “Non-religious ethics (Morality) is the youngest and least advanced” Thomas Hobbs, foremost British philosopher of 17th Century tried (unsuccessfully) to provide an alternative to Divine Philosophy*1 by arguing as follow. “Suppose we take away all the props for morality. We assume, first, that there is no God to issue commands and reward virtues; and second, that there are no moral facts built into the nature of things. Moreover, we deny that there is any sort of universal altruism built into human nature—we see people as essentially motivated to pursue their own interests. If we cannot appeal to God, moral facts or natural altruism, is there anything left on which morality might be found? After all this, he suggests an alternate, in the form of “Social contract” and commonly accepted mechanism (Govt.), to enforce the terms of the contract. Then he conjectures an untenable “state of nature”, insinuating absolute chaos, to support his hypothesis. “State of nature”*2 is governed by “the Laws of Nature” and Laws of Nature not only describes “how things are” but also “how things ought to be” as well. Things are always as they “ought to be” solemnly serving their natural purposes (Theory of the law of nature). He replaced God with altruism and moral facts and His command and control by an indispensable Government. Mundane and temporal end-result suggested was— “the gain of the benefits of social living”. This outrageous endeavor could simply be classed as a “Blatant Hobbesian Intellectual Egoism”{Dishonesty/Arrogance). After close scrutiny of this hypothesis, Thomas Hobbs is also found to be guilty of defying “the minimum conception of morality”. (By the way, Islamic theology makes use of “minimum conception” with respect to the performance of basic obligatory rituals, ensuring the salvation of the believers in the hereafter).

It might be of interest for the readers to know, that morality is not an issue as such in most parts; especially in predominantly monotheistic and polytheistic societies, of the world at all. Centuries-old religious ethos shaped their cultural traditions and social practices in consonance and the life goes on smoothly. The issue of morality, for the most part, arises when an equitable and just resolution is sought in the face of conflicting interests. It is generally thought that formulation of morality started from the Greeks. This treatise, therefore, would start from there; foregoing the issue of the actual origin of morality, which according to some sources goes back to Prophet Adam. Greek philosophers such as Pluto, Aristotle and Socrates and some other eminent scholars resorted to reason in formulating the moral laws of their time; while counting on the character to establish the virtuous traits of a man. Questions were framed as “What is the good of man?”, “What traits of character make one a good man?” This was happening 400 years before the time of Jesus Christ. With the spread of Christianity however, a new idea of “Law Giver” and “Obedience to His commands” was introduced. St Augustine, the most influential and prominent thinker of 4th Century, however, “distrusted the reason” and taught that virtuous life rests in the unwavering subordination to the commandments. From here on when the Christian Scholars, philosophers discussed the issue of virtues; it was within the context of “Divine Law”, and theological virtues including “Obedience” occupying the central place. On the contrary, Greeks gave “reason” the center stage. They viewed the “reason” the source of practical wisdom. Virtuous life for them was inseparable from the life of reason.

After renaissance, however, morality took another turn and Philosophers stopped turning to the Greek way of reasoning or Christian way of obedience to “Divine Law” but to its secular equivalent called “Moral Law”. “Divine Fiat” was replaced by “Human reason” and by following its directive would decide which actions are right? The question was changed from “what traits of character make a good person” to “what is the right thing to do?” “Virtue” was replaced by secular ‘rightness of actions” & “obligations” thereby promoting the element of individualism and self-interest (selfishness). Human reason gave rise to the conception of Hubristic “ought” as a standard for most advantageous actions; petrifying the Human-reason with inconsistency; hence similar reasoning was acceptable in one situation, but not in the other. Later moral theories from the seventeenth century onward; such as “Ethical egoism”, “Utilitarianism”, “Social Contract Theory”, all were developed and promoted in the same vein of individualism and self-centeredness.

Utilitarianism, in particular, proved to be the harbinger of Religion divested morality. A theory presented by David Hume (1711-1776) formalized by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), vehemently advocated by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and his son James Mill. After the 18th and 19th century’s series of upheavals, America was a newly developing country and traditional morality was up in the air. Bentham’s conception of Religion divested morality; in conscious opposition to Christianity; especially for those escaping the Church of England’s persecution, proved to be a boon. He argued “Morality is not a matter of pleasing God, nor is it a matter of faithfulness to abstract rules. Morality is nothing more than the attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible in this world” Bentham was also given the assignment of reforming the laws and constitution of England along utilitarian lines. Needless to say that despite huge influence utilitarianism had severe flaws. One of its more developed forms, Act-Utilitarianism, recognized it to be a “radical doctrine” “that implied that many of our moral feelings may be mistaken” Ethical Egoism, as a “revisionist theory”, also asserted the same theme.

An Australian philosopher J.J.C Smart (1961) published a monograph, challenging the common sense (morality) as it cannot be trusted. His assertion challenges us to rethink matters that we have taken for granted. To accentuate the point further, here is the opinion of a Swedish Sociologist Gunner Myrdal which he gave after his classic study—American dilemma in 1944 ”There must be still other countless errors of the same sort that no living man can yet detect, because of the fog within which our type of Western cultures envelops us…”

Bentham and Mill were leading a revolution as radical as Marx and Darwin of 19th Century. To understand the radicalness of their theory an excerpt is quoted as “Gone are all references to God or to abstract moral rules written in the heavens. Morality is no longer to be understood as faithfulness to some divinely given code or to some set of inflexible rules” The concept of individualistic worldly happiness—known as “Hedonism”– was promoted. Mills introduction of the notion “Individual is sovereign” pushed it even further.

Kantian morality although, hovers around religious lines but; he seems to have circumvented God and religion; probably to prove that besides; all- encompassing God’s commands notion; there are rational and logical grounds on which Divine Morality could be asserted with the same potency. Kant however, abjured the serpent-windings of the Utilitarian theory because, he said, the theory is incompatible with human dignity. (God confers “dignity” to human—Qua’an 17:70). His formulation of “hypothetical Imperatives” VS “Categorical Imperatives” exposes the vainness of Modern Morality. It can, therefore, safely be deduced that most of these Religion-Divested Moral theories provide only plausible answers to the difficult questions, but lack the potency and conviction of Divine Morality– providing definitive solutions built in the rigor of observance of its rules and rituals. (All classic theorists, needless to say, hold not only opposing but critical views about Divine Morality).

Recent thinking on morality is ready to take yet another turn. Philosophers are debunking the ”Moral Law” theory as bankrupt and advocating radical idea to go back to virtue based Aristotelian Morality to salvage the subject. This idea was first floated by a British Philosopher G.E.M Anscombe in 1958; suggesting that modern moral philosophy is misguided because it rests on an incoherent notion of “law” without a “Law Giver” She further elaborated that the very concepts of obligation, duty, and rightness, on which the modern philosophers have concentrated their attention, are inextricably linked to this nonsensical idea. Therefore, she argued, we should return to Aristotelian approach, and virtue should once again take the center stage.

Philosophers in this camp share the opinion, that virtue-based morality is 
superior to the other kind of (Religion divested) morality because of the 
following reasons. 

1) Moral Motivation. Virtuous Morality is appealing because it provides a natural and attractive account of moral motivation while the other kind of morality falters on this account. It can be explained in terms of an example quoted, in Journal of philosophy in 1976, where the value of merit of morality was juxtaposed duty. In this case, a patient was visited by some friend; that made patient delighted but: when he found out that the visitor was just doing his duty and did not really come for him, the visit turned cold and bereft of moral value. The desire to do the right thing for the right reason and doing it out of an abstract sense of duty is not the same. 2) Ideals of Impartiality. Virtuous morality can accommodate partialities very well since it recognizes that some virtues are partial and some are not. It also recognizes that love of family and friends is an inescapable feature of the morally good life. Ideals of Impartiality in modern moral philosophy, however, do not add up. John Stewart Mill put the point very succinctly when writing about Utilitarianism that “Utilitarianism requires (the moral Agent) to be as strictly impartial as a benevolent and disinterested spectator”. A mother loves her children and cares for them in a way that she does not care for other children. “She is partial to them through and through”. Same is the case with friends and family members.

3) Divine Morality provides a pleasing practical “fit” between; – a) Impartiality of reason. b) Adherence to set rules for life, serving everyone’s interest. c) Fulfillment of our natural inclination and moral duty to care about others. Making morally behaving a natural dispensation. 4) An Anthropocentric view of Aristotle (and of many philosophers of ancient); which modern philosophers and scientists vehemently refute, has been categorically asserted in Qura’an. This assertion, in the same vein, also refutes the accusation of the human being as “vein-species”. https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/the-anthropocentric-character-of-the-universe-special-status-of-man-and-yet-his-denial-of-god/ Conclusion A trajectory of traits of both the schools of Philosophy has been presented above, making it easy for the readers, to weigh and decide for themselves.

  • 1Divine Philosophy—means virtue/religion based philosophy.
  • 2Always serving their purpose regardless of our favorable or unfavorable understanding of their operations.
  • 3 Moral philosophy and Modern Morality are interchangeably used.

%d bloggers like this: