Most people would agree that the fundamental difference between humans and animals is the ability to reason. In Islam, we learn that this is indeed the case. Animals act out of instinct as opposed to calculated analysis or a rational concern for the well being of others. What may be considered an inferior trait is quite arguable, however. After all, animals are less capable of acting out of malice or against moral law or din, as such, whereas humankind is accountable to God for each and every action committed. As it relates to the Day of Judgment, Yawm al-Din, Allah ta’ala informs us: “…whoever has done an atom’s weight of good shall see it, but whoever has done an atom’s weight of evil will see that.” (99:7)
Free will, as it were, elevates humankind to an unparalleled level of a accountability insofar as the choices made in this life. Divine Law, Shari’a, has in fact, been formulated as a result of and a response to this freedom. Within it exists absolute right, encompassing of all creation- as opposed to what Thomas Paine called The Rights of Man, for example, which by definition, is limited to the discussion of mankind alone. As someone in whose youth gravitated in the direction a kind if anarchist/libertarianism, like many others, I misunderstood the meaning of freedom, imagining it to be unbridled insofar as the rights of others were not infringed upon. As a student of Islam, I have learned the inherent flaw in this line of thought which actually boarders on a kind of atheism wherein one has no gods or masters; where one is completely governed by the self.
Almost as if by definition, subscribers to atheism are at considerable risk of being in a state of spiraling confusion, for they have chosen to leave the path etched by the Divine in an attempt to find their own. In discussing The Art of Choosing, Dr. Sheena Iyengar, observed that without faith, the individual is confronted with a constant obsession of having to decide the difference between right and wrong, whereas the believer can access the answer through revelation or rulings derived therefrom. When taken objectively, one can analyze any societal ill and compare the outcomes offered by those found in the divine law with those in secular law and conclude that in all cases, the success demonstrated by applying the former will far outweigh the success of later. Applying the divine formulation, however, requires learned authorities and cannot be deduced from rogue individuals lacking credentials no more than the average American attempting to issue a legal ruling without the authority (or formal training) to do so.
Free will as we understand it, is the ability to respond to our environment. Inherent in our actions is a certain element of freedom, albeit to a limited extent. (One cannot, for example, run across the surface of a raging river despite the desire to do so or act in a way beyond his or her capacity.) While ideally we understand that with freedom comes responsibility, we also tend to assign this idea to ourselves only out of convenience. Take for example, driving while texting- the new "thing-to-do" it seems. Nearly everyone agrees to do so invites unnecessary risk, yet, not a day passes that I don’t see someone looking down from behind the wheel, their eyes fixed on the tiny screen below, with their thumbs smacking away at an even smaller keypad, seemly unaware of the time it takes to refocus between the road in front of them and the screen in their palm. So while we admit the risk this behavior invites, we tend to ignore it out of convenience.
If we were to examine this action through the lens of the Shari’a, it could be argued that it is a violation as to invite unnecessary risk upon ourselves or others is irresponsible and the consequences of an accident occurring as a result of driving while texting could be dire. Unfortunately, with the cult of secularism, owning the ultimate judgment of enforcement through monetary penalties, negates the moral and ethical concepts of consideration; until we get slapped with a substantial fine for our actions, we are unlikely to amend our behavior and then only out of resentment for being held accountable by the court.
While most would agree that we are not guaranteed the right of texting behind the wheel, the real controversy arises when the course of action one chooses takes place in the arena of what is culturally acceptable. In the context of the Bill of Rights, for example, drug use− legal or otherwise −is perfectly acceptable. Consuming alcohol is part of the social norm in western culture, so long as one does not become belligerent or a threat to public safety. Under these circumstances it is somehow assumed that despite intoxication, people will comply with social mores related to alcohol consumption. As it relates to unnecessary risk, however, I would argue that the vast majority of those who consume alcohol have, at one time or other, been guilty of driving while under the influence, perfectly aware of the dangers involved; State Superintendent of Washington, Randy Dorn’s recent arrest for driving under the influence is a case in point.
The assumption, as it relates to freedom, is that actions taken on an individual level do not necessarily impact society in general. To use the example of alcohol consumption, an attempt could be made to argue that a person who decides to drink in the privacy of their home, does not effect those around him− it may even make a person feel at ease and more confident engage people socially. This may be true on the surface but as in the case of a person who turns to alcohol to forget their problems, people who drink to become more sociable will continue experiencing difficulty without alcohol to aid them in the future, just as the problems that existed in ones life before drinking remain after the fact.
The societal effect of using alcohol as a crutch to overcome insecurities can be observed in the superficiality with which people engage each other. Often times, relationships between social drinkers are based upon the mutual desire to drink rather than out of an affinity for one another. This is evidenced by the fact that when alcohol (or other mind altering drug) is missing from the equation, people often find themselves becoming disinterested with one another. This is especially true of those unfortunate persons who become alcoholics/addicts and find themselves facing the challenge of sobriety alone.
Illicit drug use, regardless of any particularity, is also be argued to be a personal choice (or as some have dubbed “a victimless crime”), absolutely acceptable in the prevailing eyes of individual freedom. Residents in various states have been attempting for years to downgrade drug offences, for example. Seattle's district attorney, Pete Holmes, has dismissed cases related to marijuana in what already had been law enforcement's lowest priority. Voters across Washington state will likely find a referendum to decriminalize marijuana on this year’s ballot. Proponents argue that the state invests far too much money in the drug war and could use that capital to invest in worthier causes, not to mention the taxes which could be levied on its regulation. Taken at face value, many would agree. The larger issue, however, is not the financial gain the state stands to collect from regulating a controlled substance, rather, to what point ought self degradation should be tolerated? Again, in the age of secular rule one is perfectly entitled to inhale and ingest anything which impairs the ability to reason and act in accordance with moral concern.
According to Shari’a, however, consenting to the use of anything which inhibits the ability to process information and respond to our environment is a condemnable offense. Inherent in the Shari’a is guidance or huda. Inherent to the effect of intoxicants on the rational mind, however, is the rejection of divine wisdom which at a fundamental state, actually reduces ones human capacity to a conditional state of being lower than that of a grasshopper, for an insect does not reason nor does an animal intentionally consume that which would reduce its ability to respond to its environment. In other words, these seemingly less significant lifeforms are limited to acting within the confines of their purpose; to do otherwise is inconceivable. Hence, the concept of what is freedom becomes obscured when misapplied. Allah Ta’ala reminds us: “We created man in the finest state then reduced him to the lowest of the low, except those who believe and do good.” (95:4-6) It is through our actions and the intention behind them through which we can either maintain the natural state or fitrah, in which we were created or reduce ourselves below what is imaginable.
Freedom is not the result of a poor choice made out of free will. The act of freely choosing to make personal decisions governing ones own life can easily be misinterpreted as the outcome itself being what is freedom. Proponents of drug legalization, for example, contend that placing prohibitions on certain intoxicants restricts their fundamental freedom of choice, therefore, to use marijuana, is in itself freedom. In reality, the addictive properties of drugs in general, restrict personal freedom beyond any prohibitions legislated against the use thereof be it legal or otherwise.
Drug users often find themselves wasting significant sums of time in search of obtaining their particular drug of choice, not to mention the potential harm often associated with illicit transactions. Many people knowingly put their livelihood at risk, for example, a person whose career would be destroyed if they were found to be in possession of a controlled substance or a failed urinalysis. Those who reach this point of engagement are likely to be categorized as suffering from addiction, the antithesis of freedom itself for addiction is a form of bondage whether it be to tobacco or methamphetamine. According oneself to be enslaved may be an act of free will, the result, however, is not freedom neither is the end result desirable.
Nor is the assumption that the consumption of substances which impair our reason to be considered “victimless” particularly a society wherein a significant portion chooses to engross itself with such activities. According to the Center for Disease Control, the Alcohol Attributive Death Report for 2001-2005, found that the number of deaths related to the over consumption of alcohol (three drinks per day or more for men and about half that amount for women) is nearly 80,000 annually. The number of years of potential life lost exceeded 2 million. What is so astonishing about these figures is the fact that all of this loss of life is absolutely preventable. Americans are killing themselves by their own free will.
According to Islamic thought, humankind is endowed with the potential to please their Sustainer or Rabb, through actions undertaken with the intention of doing so, therefore fulfilling the intended purpose of their existence. In other words, the age old question: “what is the meaning of life?” is thus solved. Any society which allows itself to be reduced from its fitrah, is in fact condemning itself to moral failure and decay. As Newton’s formulation for the Law of Motion is summerized, 'for every action, there is a reaction' which is to say that no single act can remain inside a vacuum, that regardless of the act, its effect reverberates elsewhere be it in the family, or the society as a whole. In the case of the unnecessary loss of life for example, it should be recognized as the unnecessary loss of potential. Within the human capacity is the potential to cure disease, develop technologies to improve our way of life, and generally make the world a better place. Imagine a world without the lives of Susan B. Anothony, Nelson Mandela, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, or Nikola Tesla. Any one of them could have been the casualty of another’s actions before their time. Imagine the possibility of those whose lives have been lost before reaching their potential due to another’s free will.
The prevailing sentiment regarding illicit drugs in the West no longer includes a moral element, relating the purpose of life. In the early months of this year, NPR has aired at least two stories about new mind-altering drugs which imitate certain controlled substances. In one interview, a seventeen year old girl remarks, “I mean, if people are, like, raving about this thing that was incredible, that gave you a buzz that was bigger than alcohol and made you feel really, like, aware and just made you want to party, then why wouldn't you take it if there were no side effects that you knew of? Why wouldn't you take it?” Sadly, her comment cuts to the reality of someone who has either chosen to ignore the moral teaching of her parents and/or who has never been instructed as to the purpose of life. Absent is the slightest hint of conceptualizing the demoralizing effects of altering the mind. In fact, it is this very lack of conceptualization by which humankind is destroying itself.
Freewill is a gift which defines our very existence and sets us apart from all that exists in the created realm. Used properly, the outcome is the unlocking of unimaginable potential, and a freedom realized by the blessings of living within the divine construct. True freedom is freedom from that which we use to oppress the self, inevitably smothering our emotional, intellectual, and spiritual capacity with which are to recognize the signs or ayat, of the Creator found within the creation itself. Sacrificing what is freedom in exchange for that which is bondage eliminates our ability to comprehend what it means to be human and in so doing, we alienate the self from its very purpose to the detriment of our collective society. The origin of the downfall nations can, in every case, be traced to rejection of the Divine and the embracing of the self over all else, as Allah Ta’ala invites us to consider: “Have they not travelled through the land and seen how those who lived before them met their end? They were more numerous than them, stronger than them, and made a more impressive mark on the land, yet what they achieved was of no use to them at all.” (40:82)
Translation of the Holy Qur’an by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. Oxford University Press: 2005.
Free will, as it were, elevates humankind to an unparalleled level of a accountability insofar as the choices made in this life. Divine Law, Shari’a, has in fact, been formulated as a result of and a response to this freedom. Within it exists absolute right, encompassing of all creation- as opposed to what Thomas Paine called The Rights of Man, for example, which by definition, is limited to the discussion of mankind alone. As someone in whose youth gravitated in the direction a kind if anarchist/libertarianism, like many others, I misunderstood the meaning of freedom, imagining it to be unbridled insofar as the rights of others were not infringed upon. As a student of Islam, I have learned the inherent flaw in this line of thought which actually boarders on a kind of atheism wherein one has no gods or masters; where one is completely governed by the self.
Almost as if by definition, subscribers to atheism are at considerable risk of being in a state of spiraling confusion, for they have chosen to leave the path etched by the Divine in an attempt to find their own. In discussing The Art of Choosing, Dr. Sheena Iyengar, observed that without faith, the individual is confronted with a constant obsession of having to decide the difference between right and wrong, whereas the believer can access the answer through revelation or rulings derived therefrom. When taken objectively, one can analyze any societal ill and compare the outcomes offered by those found in the divine law with those in secular law and conclude that in all cases, the success demonstrated by applying the former will far outweigh the success of later. Applying the divine formulation, however, requires learned authorities and cannot be deduced from rogue individuals lacking credentials no more than the average American attempting to issue a legal ruling without the authority (or formal training) to do so.
Free will as we understand it, is the ability to respond to our environment. Inherent in our actions is a certain element of freedom, albeit to a limited extent. (One cannot, for example, run across the surface of a raging river despite the desire to do so or act in a way beyond his or her capacity.) While ideally we understand that with freedom comes responsibility, we also tend to assign this idea to ourselves only out of convenience. Take for example, driving while texting- the new "thing-to-do" it seems. Nearly everyone agrees to do so invites unnecessary risk, yet, not a day passes that I don’t see someone looking down from behind the wheel, their eyes fixed on the tiny screen below, with their thumbs smacking away at an even smaller keypad, seemly unaware of the time it takes to refocus between the road in front of them and the screen in their palm. So while we admit the risk this behavior invites, we tend to ignore it out of convenience.
If we were to examine this action through the lens of the Shari’a, it could be argued that it is a violation as to invite unnecessary risk upon ourselves or others is irresponsible and the consequences of an accident occurring as a result of driving while texting could be dire. Unfortunately, with the cult of secularism, owning the ultimate judgment of enforcement through monetary penalties, negates the moral and ethical concepts of consideration; until we get slapped with a substantial fine for our actions, we are unlikely to amend our behavior and then only out of resentment for being held accountable by the court.
While most would agree that we are not guaranteed the right of texting behind the wheel, the real controversy arises when the course of action one chooses takes place in the arena of what is culturally acceptable. In the context of the Bill of Rights, for example, drug use− legal or otherwise −is perfectly acceptable. Consuming alcohol is part of the social norm in western culture, so long as one does not become belligerent or a threat to public safety. Under these circumstances it is somehow assumed that despite intoxication, people will comply with social mores related to alcohol consumption. As it relates to unnecessary risk, however, I would argue that the vast majority of those who consume alcohol have, at one time or other, been guilty of driving while under the influence, perfectly aware of the dangers involved; State Superintendent of Washington, Randy Dorn’s recent arrest for driving under the influence is a case in point.
The assumption, as it relates to freedom, is that actions taken on an individual level do not necessarily impact society in general. To use the example of alcohol consumption, an attempt could be made to argue that a person who decides to drink in the privacy of their home, does not effect those around him− it may even make a person feel at ease and more confident engage people socially. This may be true on the surface but as in the case of a person who turns to alcohol to forget their problems, people who drink to become more sociable will continue experiencing difficulty without alcohol to aid them in the future, just as the problems that existed in ones life before drinking remain after the fact.
The societal effect of using alcohol as a crutch to overcome insecurities can be observed in the superficiality with which people engage each other. Often times, relationships between social drinkers are based upon the mutual desire to drink rather than out of an affinity for one another. This is evidenced by the fact that when alcohol (or other mind altering drug) is missing from the equation, people often find themselves becoming disinterested with one another. This is especially true of those unfortunate persons who become alcoholics/addicts and find themselves facing the challenge of sobriety alone.
Illicit drug use, regardless of any particularity, is also be argued to be a personal choice (or as some have dubbed “a victimless crime”), absolutely acceptable in the prevailing eyes of individual freedom. Residents in various states have been attempting for years to downgrade drug offences, for example. Seattle's district attorney, Pete Holmes, has dismissed cases related to marijuana in what already had been law enforcement's lowest priority. Voters across Washington state will likely find a referendum to decriminalize marijuana on this year’s ballot. Proponents argue that the state invests far too much money in the drug war and could use that capital to invest in worthier causes, not to mention the taxes which could be levied on its regulation. Taken at face value, many would agree. The larger issue, however, is not the financial gain the state stands to collect from regulating a controlled substance, rather, to what point ought self degradation should be tolerated? Again, in the age of secular rule one is perfectly entitled to inhale and ingest anything which impairs the ability to reason and act in accordance with moral concern.
According to Shari’a, however, consenting to the use of anything which inhibits the ability to process information and respond to our environment is a condemnable offense. Inherent in the Shari’a is guidance or huda. Inherent to the effect of intoxicants on the rational mind, however, is the rejection of divine wisdom which at a fundamental state, actually reduces ones human capacity to a conditional state of being lower than that of a grasshopper, for an insect does not reason nor does an animal intentionally consume that which would reduce its ability to respond to its environment. In other words, these seemingly less significant lifeforms are limited to acting within the confines of their purpose; to do otherwise is inconceivable. Hence, the concept of what is freedom becomes obscured when misapplied. Allah Ta’ala reminds us: “We created man in the finest state then reduced him to the lowest of the low, except those who believe and do good.” (95:4-6) It is through our actions and the intention behind them through which we can either maintain the natural state or fitrah, in which we were created or reduce ourselves below what is imaginable.
Freedom is not the result of a poor choice made out of free will. The act of freely choosing to make personal decisions governing ones own life can easily be misinterpreted as the outcome itself being what is freedom. Proponents of drug legalization, for example, contend that placing prohibitions on certain intoxicants restricts their fundamental freedom of choice, therefore, to use marijuana, is in itself freedom. In reality, the addictive properties of drugs in general, restrict personal freedom beyond any prohibitions legislated against the use thereof be it legal or otherwise.
Drug users often find themselves wasting significant sums of time in search of obtaining their particular drug of choice, not to mention the potential harm often associated with illicit transactions. Many people knowingly put their livelihood at risk, for example, a person whose career would be destroyed if they were found to be in possession of a controlled substance or a failed urinalysis. Those who reach this point of engagement are likely to be categorized as suffering from addiction, the antithesis of freedom itself for addiction is a form of bondage whether it be to tobacco or methamphetamine. According oneself to be enslaved may be an act of free will, the result, however, is not freedom neither is the end result desirable.
Nor is the assumption that the consumption of substances which impair our reason to be considered “victimless” particularly a society wherein a significant portion chooses to engross itself with such activities. According to the Center for Disease Control, the Alcohol Attributive Death Report for 2001-2005, found that the number of deaths related to the over consumption of alcohol (three drinks per day or more for men and about half that amount for women) is nearly 80,000 annually. The number of years of potential life lost exceeded 2 million. What is so astonishing about these figures is the fact that all of this loss of life is absolutely preventable. Americans are killing themselves by their own free will.
According to Islamic thought, humankind is endowed with the potential to please their Sustainer or Rabb, through actions undertaken with the intention of doing so, therefore fulfilling the intended purpose of their existence. In other words, the age old question: “what is the meaning of life?” is thus solved. Any society which allows itself to be reduced from its fitrah, is in fact condemning itself to moral failure and decay. As Newton’s formulation for the Law of Motion is summerized, 'for every action, there is a reaction' which is to say that no single act can remain inside a vacuum, that regardless of the act, its effect reverberates elsewhere be it in the family, or the society as a whole. In the case of the unnecessary loss of life for example, it should be recognized as the unnecessary loss of potential. Within the human capacity is the potential to cure disease, develop technologies to improve our way of life, and generally make the world a better place. Imagine a world without the lives of Susan B. Anothony, Nelson Mandela, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, or Nikola Tesla. Any one of them could have been the casualty of another’s actions before their time. Imagine the possibility of those whose lives have been lost before reaching their potential due to another’s free will.
The prevailing sentiment regarding illicit drugs in the West no longer includes a moral element, relating the purpose of life. In the early months of this year, NPR has aired at least two stories about new mind-altering drugs which imitate certain controlled substances. In one interview, a seventeen year old girl remarks, “I mean, if people are, like, raving about this thing that was incredible, that gave you a buzz that was bigger than alcohol and made you feel really, like, aware and just made you want to party, then why wouldn't you take it if there were no side effects that you knew of? Why wouldn't you take it?” Sadly, her comment cuts to the reality of someone who has either chosen to ignore the moral teaching of her parents and/or who has never been instructed as to the purpose of life. Absent is the slightest hint of conceptualizing the demoralizing effects of altering the mind. In fact, it is this very lack of conceptualization by which humankind is destroying itself.
Freewill is a gift which defines our very existence and sets us apart from all that exists in the created realm. Used properly, the outcome is the unlocking of unimaginable potential, and a freedom realized by the blessings of living within the divine construct. True freedom is freedom from that which we use to oppress the self, inevitably smothering our emotional, intellectual, and spiritual capacity with which are to recognize the signs or ayat, of the Creator found within the creation itself. Sacrificing what is freedom in exchange for that which is bondage eliminates our ability to comprehend what it means to be human and in so doing, we alienate the self from its very purpose to the detriment of our collective society. The origin of the downfall nations can, in every case, be traced to rejection of the Divine and the embracing of the self over all else, as Allah Ta’ala invites us to consider: “Have they not travelled through the land and seen how those who lived before them met their end? They were more numerous than them, stronger than them, and made a more impressive mark on the land, yet what they achieved was of no use to them at all.” (40:82)
Translation of the Holy Qur’an by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. Oxford University Press: 2005.
No comments:
Post a Comment