In searching the literature on the understanding of virtue in Islam I found “The Duties of Brotherhood in Islam” by Ih.yā’ of Imām al-Ghazālī. Translated by Muhtar Holland and published by the Islamic Foundation in 1975.
Material used here is from the Kindle Edition published by Kube Publishing, Ltd.
In an earlier post I commented on the chapter titled “The Golden Rule in Islam” by Th. Emil Homerin of the University of Rochester, which appears in “The Golden Rule: The Ethics of Reciprocity in World Religions” edited by Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton and published by Continuum International Publishing Group in 2008.
Al-Ghazali was among the influential voices in Islam that Homerin cited.
Homerin identified the following hadith as “the most often quoted in major hadith collections of sound tradition and, subsequently, in other Muslim religious literature.” (p102)
“None of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”
Homerin cites several instances that appear to limit the range of this love to other Muslims but notes that not all references do so. He quotes al-Ghazali as saying:
“Whenever you interact with people, deal with them as you would wish yourself to be dealt with by them, for a worshipper’s faith is incomplete until he wants for other people what he wants for himself.”
The basic conclusion Homerin presents is two-fold:
-
That the statements found in the Qur’an, the hadith and the commentaries represent “a call to self-examination and religious transformation aimed not at reciprocity so much as humility by acknowledging the humanity of other human beings,” (p104), and
-
“The issue, then, is not so much treating everyone the same, but rather treating each person appropriately, as noted by the Chinese philosopher Confucius.” (p108)
Homerin identifies this version of the “hadith of the Golden Rule” in “its most popular and general form” as:
“None of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”
He says that it “may be understood to apply to all humanity” but he cites the Muslim ethicist Miskawayh, about whom we’ve recently written, as believing that it (the concept of brotherhood referred to in that text) “represented a rare, ideal friendship between equals…”
So, the question of the meaning of “brother” and “brotherhood” is an important one. Just as in other traditions we’ve seen that the meaning of “neighbor”, “friend” and “fellow” affect the interpretation of ethical admonitions, in Islam the word “brother” is key.
The Sufi scholar al-Qusharyri, in his discussion of the Qur’an 83.1-6 says:
“For if one does not want for his Muslim brother what he wants for himself, he is not fair.”
And the famous poet Rumi, is quoted in a footnote to Homerin’s text as writing:
“That which you don’t find agreeable for yourself, O Shaykh of Religion
How can you find it agreeable for your brother, O trustworthy one.?”
The text of Al-Ghazali’s “The Duties of Brotherhood in Islam” confirms the view of Miskawayh that the most common form of the Golden Rule admonition in Islam does not suggest a universal concept but rather one that is quite restrictive.
The opening of this section of Al-Ghazali’s work makes that clear:
“Know that the contract of brotherhood is a bond between two persons, like the contract of marriage between two spouses. For just as marriage gives rise to certain duties which must be fulfilled when it is entered into, so does the contract of brotherhood confer upon your brother a certain right touching your property, your person, your tongue and your heart – by way of forgiveness, prayer, sincerity, loyalty, relief and considerateness.”
While the more general concept of the brotherhood of all Muslims exists and is applicable in many instances, the brotherhood that Al-Ghazali is discussing here is different. It is a contract between two people. Here we are not even talking about actual blood brothers but rather the sort of “rare, ideal friendship” cited by Miskawayh.
This idea of a contract between two men is illustrated in this passage:
“Once a man approached Abu Hurayra (may God be pleased with him!) and said:
– I wish to take you as my brother in God.
– Do you know what brotherhood entails?
– No.
– That you have no greater right to your pounds or your pence than I have.
– I have not yet reached that stage.
– Then begone from me!”
And here…
“Al-Hasan used to say:
– Our brothers are dearer to us than our families and our children, because our families remind us of this world while our brothers remind us of the Other.”
In the section of the al-Ghazali’s text regarding the duties of the tongue; that is, when to speak and when to be silent in relations with a brother, he cites one of the Golden Rule formulations.
“You must know that a man’s belief is incomplete so long as he does not wish for his brother what he wishes for himself. The lowest degree in brotherhood is where you treat your brother as you would wish to be treated yourself, and there is no doubt that he would expect you to veil his shame and keep quiet about his misdeeds and faults.”
It is interesting that one of the current formulations of the Golden Rule; that is, “treat your (neighbor or fellow or brother)…” is found here as the “lowest degree” in brotherhood. That makes a strong statement about the concept of brotherhood.
There are many references that expand upon this idea of the unique character of the concept of brotherhood in al-Ghazali’s writing on brotherhood, but they essentially just refine the point, which is that a “brother” in the context used in early Islamic texts is quite different from the typical Western one.
It is restrictive, not expansive. It is explicitly contractual, rather than primarily moral or ethical, as we see again here:
“When I speak of its being more penetrating, I mean that brotherhood is a contract on the same footing as kinship; once it is contracted the duty is confirmed, and that which the contract entails must be fulfilled.”
While language similar to that in other Golden Rule texts can certainly be found in Islamic literature, those that refer to one’s “brother” cannot necessarily be interpreted as we would a similar admonition in a different religious or cultural context.
©Charles R. Lightner