Understanding the Abrahamic Ethic

An excerpt from What' s Right with Islam: a New Vision for Muslims and the West, by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:

The monotheism that Abraham taught was not only theologically radical, in that it decried the plurality of gods as false, it was also socially radical. The idea that God is one implied two significant things about humankind.

First, it implied that all humans are equal, simply because we are born of one man and one woman. "O humankind," God asserts in the Quran, "surely we have created you from one male [Adam] and one female [Eve] and made you into tribes and clans [just] so that you may get to know each other. The noblest of you with God are the most devout of you" (Quran 49:13).

This meant that all of humankind is a family-brothers and sisters, equal before God, differentiated only by the nobility of our actions, not by our birth. Showing preference for one human over another on the basis of accidents of birth, like skin color, class structure, tribal or family belonging, or gender, is unjust and therefore has no place in a proper human worldview.

Although it grossly violates reason and ethics, showing preference on the basis of these categories is the very way people traditionally judged others and structured their societies.

Second, because we are equal and have been given free will by our Creator, we have certain inalienable liberties. The most significant liberty we have been given is to accept or reject God, our Creator. Every other choice is a distant second to this, from the liberty to choose between a host of right and wrong actions to the liberty to choose our spouse or profession instead of being born into them.

Because we are free to think for ourselves, thought control is anathema to this ethic of free will. Even today, in many parts of the world people are still socially coerced into a certain religious belief, job, spouse, or way of thinking. Our delight in movies that depict the love story of a prince who wants to marry a poor farmer's daughter demonstrates how much this commitment to free will is embedded in us-how we sympathize with those prohibited from marrying "outside their class" by such social rules of propriety.

"There shall be no coercion in religion; the right way is clearly distinct from error," asserts the Quran (2:256). In verses such as "The Truth is from your Lord; so let whomever wills, believe, and let whomever wills, disbelieve" (Quran 18:29, italics mine), the Quran asserts that God created us free to choose to believe in or reject God: "Had God willed He would have made you into one community (ummah); but [it was His will] to test you in what He gave you. So compete with each other in doing good works. To God you are all returning, and He will inform you about how you differed" (Quran 5:48).

Human free will, the liberty to make our own individual choices-and our own mistakes-is essential to human dignity. Only if we have free will can we be held individually accountable for our choices and actions. Only then can we grow and mature, learning to be responsible agents. Without the freedom to choose, how could we be held responsible?

But because individual humans can and do freely exercise their will in ways that sow inequality and limit the liberties of others, an ethic of free will judges such violations as wrong, unjust, and tyrannical. Jews, Christians, and Muslims therefore have a particularly strong sense of social justice; they are keen to seek retributive justice.

We shall call this cluster of monotheism's core ideas and its concomitants of human liberty, equality, fraternity, and social justice the Abrahamic ethic. These ideas constitute the essential core of Abrahamic religion and the later iterations and reformations of the Abrahamic religion known today as the faith traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

It was therefore no accident that the cry of the French Revolution was for human "liberty, equality and fraternity," essential components of the Abrahamic ethic. Neither was it an accident that the authors of the American Declaration of Independence expressed the Abrahamic ethic as "self-evident Truths: that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," a Creator whose laws of creation are by definition the laws of nature.

And since nature is a manifestation of God's creation, nature's laws are therefore God's laws: natural law is divine law. So, the argument goes, what you feel in your heart as good and right is the very foundation of divine law.

The monotheistic principle is enshrined in the Hebrew Shema, which the Prophet Moses taught his followers: Shma yisrael adonai elohenu adonai echad: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One."

Although Moses addressed the Children of Israel, it is a call that is in fact addressed to all humanity-that the Lord our God, the Lord is One. The human response to this call is cogently expressed in the Arabic declaration of faith (shahadah) that the Prophet Muhammad taught his followers: Ash hadu an la ilaha illallah: "I declare that there is no god but God."

The challenge of maintaining the pure monotheism and ethical principles of the Abrahamic faith required a succession of prophets to remind and restate the primordial message of Abraham. Why the reminder? Because, as the Quran says, humans are forgetful. If there is anything in the Islamic view that approximates the Christian idea of original sin, in the sense of something that can be described as the universal human flaw, it is that humans forget. It does not mean a lapse in memory as much as a lapse in applying what we know. We know better, but we do what we know to be wrong anyway-and perhaps even delight in doing it.

Generally, although we recognize the commandments we are given as ethically correct, we have a strong tendency not to follow them. And loving someone "like a brother" is not very helpful if you love your brother the way Cain loved Abel, by killing him. That's why I advise my congregation to probe the one who tells you, "I love you like a brother." The prophets understood this very well, which is why the golden rule is to love others as we love ourselves.

Anything less just won't do. Knowing that loving your fellow human being as a brother or sister wasn't quite enough, and perhaps because we sometimes treat our neighbors more generously than our own siblings, the Prophet Muhammad phrased the second commandment by saying to his companions, "None of you is a believer (mu'min) until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself."

Ironically, the closer we are to someone, the stronger the tension and the conflict. This certainly raises the bar. How many of us feel happiness and not envy when others succeed or when others receive something not given to us?

One factor contributing to the challenge of fulfilling the Abrahamic ethic is the difficulty humans have in understanding something unless they can relate it to themselves, individually and/or collectively.

For example, the word Jesus evokes different images for different people. European Christians often depict him as blue eyed and blond haired; Mexican Christians depict him as black eyed and black haired. Obviously, Jesus could not have been both, but the point is that humans tend to create in their minds their own image of what something is; often this image is inaccurate, imposed upon the object of their understanding. If European and Mexican Christians, however, decided that this was important to the truth about Jesus and something worth fighting for, then this example would not be so harmless.

More significant issues arise in how Christians regard Jesus spiritually. Catholics regard Jesus as the "unbegotten son of God." Those who denied the divine sonship of Jesus disputed this, and until the 1600s they were burned as heretics for this difference in opinion.

When it comes to religion, each of us holds in our mind an image of what our religion and our God is. We're not that different from little Johnny, who was drawing something on the school chalkboard. His teacher asked, "What are you drawing, Johnny?" "God," he answered." "But," his teacher retorted, "nobody knows what God looks like." And Johnny proudly puffed up his chest and exclaimed, "They will after I'm done!"

Because God created us in His image, we can't seem to help returning the favor, creating God in ours, and in spite of knowing that our idea does no justice to divine reality, we can't resist the urge. If someone debates us on our understanding of God, we get quite upset about it, but when prophets come to correct our understanding, we tend to treat them worse-like Abraham or Jesus, seeking to burn or crucify them as heretics.

The Quran points out this human tendency, asking, "Do you propose to teach God what your religion is? While God-Knower of all things-fathoms what is in the heavens and the earth?" (Quran 49:16).

Whereas the Prophet Muhammad was sent to revive the Abrahamic ethic in the cultural mind-set and language of the Ishmaelite branch of the children of Abraham, most people have come to regard the Prophet Muhammad's mission as conveying a different message from that of Jesus and Moses, seeing it as a distinct and separate religion.

The Quran never tires of repeating that its task is to reestablish the Abrahamic ethic and that Muhammad and all the prior prophets came to do just that: "The nearest of people to Abraham are those who follow him, and this Prophet [that is, Muhammad] and those who believe" (Quran 3:68).

Islam, as we shall see later, defines itself as the latest version, or reformation, of the Abrahamic religion. It is not so much the religion of Muhammad (which is why Muslims reject the name Muhammadanism, a name given to it by outsiders), but the religion of God, originally established by Abraham, cleansed by Muhammad of pagan and polytheistic encrustations that had accrued over the intervening centuries.

To recapitulate, the Abrahamic ethic embodies the fullest and most balanced individual and social institutional expression of these two commandments whose core ideas are:

1. A radical monotheism, expressed in loving the one God with all of one's being
2. Human liberty, equality, and fraternity, expressed in loving for others what we love for ourselves (that is, social justice) and in ensuring and protecting these principles

Whenever each religious tradition, Muslim or non-Muslim, has honored these commandments, it has contributed to humanity's growth and progress. When one has failed, it has contributed to conflict and disease both within its own society and between its society and that of others.

www.asmasociety.org

Abraham: 'The First Monotheist' & Other Absurdities

Here, we are exploring the tragicomic fate that befell Abraham as a legend and his Monotheism--and accordingly what may befall those who consider themselves his grandchildren, who are trying to come to grips with his simple yet so profound of a perception.

In our times, Abrahamic monotheism does not fair well, neither in Europe and America nor in its home of origin, or elsewhere in the world.

Billions of humans are born in the Abrahamic traditions yet sel­dom initiated in its proper perceptual training. “Monotheist” is a mere logo for the average Muslim, Jew and Christian to be proud of or disgusted with, as the case may be.

Let's give a suggestion and refer to an absurdity that may help the reader to understand the issue here.

The suggestion is a quiz simple enough for anyone who wishes to do--yet complicated enough to crack brains on end, so watch out ~ alright:

Let he or she turn to oneself or to another and ask:

Why God? - Why not No-God?

Why One? - Why not Many?

Now, what is the percentage of "educated answers" to the above one will get out of all the millions upon millions of Abraham's children living on this planet today?

We say "educated answers" not "right answers" to avoid dogmatic issues for now. In other words, we are concerned with the level of "understanding" here, not "belief" or "faith" which by definition pertains to other sides of the human consciousness.

As for the absurdity, we select two impressions about the man Abraham:

First, in almost all the literature about Abraham, one is told that the worship of the One True God started with him, that he was the "first monotheist."

Now how could that be?

What about Melchizedek?

How about Noah and his Sons?

Enoch?

Adam?

Were they not Monotheists?

Just whence this *POP!* and there was Abraham the first Monotheist?

Second, we go to the “Patriarch of the Desert” nomadic image that a lot of people hold in their minds, yet at the same time we are told that he was from “Ur of the Chladeans,” which de­notes city dwelling, and that latter on he settled in Canaan which is not a desert.

So whence this “Patriarch of the Desert” image? . . .

Furthermore,

Was Abraham from “Ur of the Chaldeans” or “Ur of the Sumerians”?

According to historians, he lived before the times of the Assyrians, who are chronologically centuries before the Chaldeans.

So whence this “Ur of the Chaldeans” thing? . . .

Abrahamic Politicus

The political bottom-line of Abrahamic Monotheism is this:

That without the proper 'understanding' of the Mystery of the One God and how one relates to that God, there is no sense in following the Law or the Way or the Shariah and trying to build anything upon them, for it will be building on sand.

That's the whole gist of the Abrahamic quest and we all are deeply enmeshed in it for evident historical reasons.

Any monotheist, who is aware of the political knowledge and wisdom contained in the traditions of old, knows that the Ancient City was centered around the Temple--as was the case in Ur of the Sumerians, Ur-Salem (Jerusalem) of of the ancient Israelites, and other cities elsewhere in the ancient near east and rest of the world.

And there, in that temple, is to be found the knowledge of how to relate to the Sacred in all aspects of life: the political, the social, etc.

Also, that monotheist should be able to discern the fact, through ample evidence of recorded history, that when the City was centered around the Palace (politics) or the Market (economics) or the Camp (war), it fell into disintegration. For those are not the right centers of balance, neither for the group nor for the individual.

Moreover, to maintain being Faithful as a monotheist is to be disciplined in per­ceiving the One God-One Adam principle of unity, unity of Source and unity of Mankind; is to be trained in conceiving what is to be done accordingly, so one can keep in line within the monotheistic perception; is to be educated as to why we are doing it and what is the wisdom behind it all.

So, how can one expect any citizen in any city that claims to be for the Sacred, who is a member of the human race hence endowed with the faculty of Reason, to accept the hypothesis of One God Creator and Ruler of everything that he/she can see, touch, smell, taste and what have you, without questioning how could that all be of One God only, why not many, and what is God any­way, etc.?  These are all legitimate questions.

Now, who is going to answer that cit­izen who is being "asked" to follow a sacred Law, tread a sacred Way and join a sacred Community in the name of the One God of Abraham?

What kind of an absurd God would this God of Abraham be, if He did not expect His human creatures to pose those questions by their created intel­lects?

In our understanding, no one can answer those questions satisfactorily except the ones who are well trained: the Elders, i.e. the people of knowledge and wisdom. And one should find them where they should be: in the Temple, which is designated to that purpose, be it a mosque or church, synagogue or a designated school for that matter.

However, his­tory tells us that the Temple had to submit time and again to inner and outer games of power-politics which ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Thus, the City has been and still is a house divided unto itself.

Still:

No civilization worthy of its name survived the day without the Principle of Unity: One God and One Adam = Unity of Source and of Mankind, and the proper training the citizen should be provided with according to them.

If humans start demarcating boundaries among themselves based on belonging to this or that "God", this or that "Adam", then civil war is not faraway from their sight.

Belonging to higher and lesser "Gods", higher and lesser "Adams", destroyed Polity once too many in human history.

So a modern day "Child of Abraham" should remember that:

No Law, No Way, No Shariah can be implemented without One God-One Adam first. The contours of the tragicomic history of the Abrahamic legacy were shaped through out the centuries according to that simple yet so profoundly elusive principle.

Beside, these Law, Way and Shariah are things of divine origins by definition. And divine things require divine guides by their own logic.

Do we have divine guides around? ...

No we do not. We have elders, yes. But no divine guides.

Hence, and for a finale, on his and her part, a child of Abraham should approach the world as a Monotheist first, now more than ever. Being a Muslim, Jew, Christian should come second to that.

He and she should understand that their journey in life is part and parcel of the quest imprinted on the Patriarch, whether they are aware of it or not, whose journey was that of a Solo Monotheist.

His children are blessings to no one if they do not perceive and conceive the way Abraham perceived and conceived of God, the Universe, and Man. And walked his talk accordingly.

Peace.

Abraham and the West

We start with these questions for reflection:

Does the European mind rotate around the Absolute?

Did it ever?

Is it centered around it? Was it ever?

Is everything relative to that Absolute?

Everything such as church, family, country, nationality, color of skin, et cetera.

Was it ever the case when everything was relative to the Absolute?

Now, in another way, and it cannot be overemphasized for we are trying to do justice for both Abraham's Monotheism and Western culture, we say this :

The Truth that shalt set everybody free which God entrusted to Abraham before the Law of Moses, the Way of Jesus and Muhammad’s Shariah, that Truth, has it ever been introduced to the West as Monotheism per se?

That is:

God as such and Man as such;

God as the Absolute, the Infinite;

The Beyond Being, Becoming, Existing, Names, Numbers, Images, Space, Thought, Time, Gender, et cetera, yet the Source of them all;

The Mono Theos, the One God Is, Is Not , and beyond any Is-ing all-together.

Known, Un-Known and ultimately Un-Knowable.

Creator of Good and Evil, Heaven and Earth and what lies between and beyond them.

And Man, as Adam, as Anthropos, as God’s Agent of Transcendence in God’s Scheme of Creation.

God’s Steward in God’s Kingdom and the Vice-Regent of God’s Regency over All.

Man (he and she) is a fellow sister and brother human-being no matter how different they may seem to be from “us”.

Has the above been understood and practiced by the West?

Was it even introduced to it?

Unfortunately the answer is a resounding: No.

For judging by history, Europeans had never been adequately trained in this doctrine of Monotheism on a mass scale, neither in its exoteric practical aspect that is the right doctrinal and ceremonial formulation of how to walk the talk within One God-One Adam frame of ref­erence in the world, nor initiated in its esoteric specula­tive one that contemplates the mysteries of God’s Wisdom.

The Jews did not bother to make it their task to preach Love God & Neighbor to the gentiles, for they had already fallen into the Henotheistic trap of monopolizing god and nationalizing prophecy. That is, the One God-One Adam principle of the Greatest Commandments became: My God Yahweh and My Adam the Jew.

And the Council of Nicaea left no hope for Abrahamic Monotheism to reach the European mind unadulterated by equating Jesus with God.

What the Western­ers ended up with in their understanding of Abraham’s vision was a “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not” Law of Moses, which they did not need to follow, for supposedly Pauline teachings had already told them they had a Way to salvation in the “Incarnated God” : Jesus Christ.

Now add to that the troubles that came ashore between the two, Christians and Jews, plus the confrontation between Eu­rope and emergent Islam, then one should be able to construct the background of the past and present absence of the Abrahamic monotheistic perception in the West.

We say Abraham and the West never got a chance for a fair hand­shake. And we stress the fact that the West was left untrained in how to im­plement Abraham’s vision into practice by starting from One God and One Adam.

Hence, returning to our agitators of "Islam and the West," we say they fell short on understanding Islam's legacy as an Abrahamic continuation to what came before it.

In the final analysis, their oversight reflects the whole Western frame of mind about the subject of Monotheism per se, of Abraham's and beyond.

It is in the confusion about Abraham's Monotheism lies the whole issue of why the confusion about Islam in the West.

For it is in Abra­ham's perception that we should start seeking the answer as to what he and his grand­ kids were all about within the context of the Ancient Near East, the area between the Nile and the Euphrates.

And so, we close this post as we started it, with reflections:

Did the West ever get to touch Abraham’s Monotheism without its affiliation with the Judaic Law and the Christian Way?

Was Monotheism-as-such, as a doctrine unto itself, ever introduced to the West?

Is it not the time for the West to ask itself anew:

What is Monotheism?

* * *

There is a third form of human faith [beside polytheism and henotheism] with which we are acquainted in the West, more as hope than as datum, more perhaps as a possibility than as an actuality, yet also as an actuality that has modified at certain emergent periods our natural social faith and our polytheism.

In all the times and areas of our Western history this faith has struggled with its rivals, without becoming triumphant save in passing moments and in the clarified intervals of personal existence.

We look back longingly at times to some past age when, we think, confidence in the One God was the pervasive faith of men; for instance, to early Christianity, or to the church society of the Middle Ages, or to early Protestantism, or to Puritan New England, or to the pious nineteenth century.

But when we study these periods we invariably find in them a mixture of the faith in the One God with social faith [henotheism] and polytheism; and when we examine our longings we often discover that what we yearn for is the security of the closed society with its social confidence and social loyalty.

It is very questionable, despite many protestations to the contrary, despite the prevalence of self-pity among some modern men because "God is dead," that anyone has ever yearned for radical faith in the One God.

H. Richard Niebuhr, Radical Monotheism and Western Culture, p. 31