Th. Emil Homerin, Professor of religion at the University of Rochester, wrote the paper on the Golden Rule in Islam for the Neusner-Chilton conference and volume.
Professor Homerin opens his paper noting that “pre-Islamic Arabs regarded the survival of the tribe, not the individual, as most essential”. The influence of that tribal primacy is echoed in the discussion of the Islamic approach to Golden Rule ethics.
As preface, Homerin brings examples from the Qur’an of teachings on the importance of forgiveness, right action, kindness and fairness to others. He then cites the Qur’an at 83.1-6, which Islamic commentators point to as “an implicit statement of the Golden Rule”. It reads:
“Pay, Oh Children of Adam, as you would love to be paid, and be just as you would love to have justice!”
But the text that is the one cited as being a definitive Golden Rule statement is from the hadith of the prophet Mohammed; a hadith being an act or saying attributed to the prophet with a high level of confidence. It reads:
“None of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”
Several sources are brought for accuracy of this hadith, which Homerin does appear to accept as having a “Golden Rule” meaning.
He also cites a source for what he calls a version of the “negative Golden Rule” which provides that:
“…one (should) loath for one’s brother what one loathes for oneself as evil…”
A key issue relating back to the tribalism question is brought out by reference to two other statements in the early literature of Islam:
“No worshipper believes until he loves for his brother and neighbor what he loves for himself!”
“No worshipper believes until he loves for his Muslim brother what he loves for himself of good things!”
For the commentator, Ibn Hajar “this last version clarified that Muslims were intended by the word ‘brother’ as those to be loved as oneself.”
Ibn Hajar’s commentary, according to Homerin, “generally treats the Golden Rule as a moral principle to desire sincerely for others the exact material and spiritual good that one desires for oneself.”
But these statements are not really equivalent to the Golden Rule statements that we’ve seen in other religions or philosophies.
a) The reference to “worshipper” seems clearly to refer to one who is Muslim, so these are particular rather than universal.
b) The question at issue appears to be a test of belief.
c) No action is necessarily attached to the “love” enjoined upon the believer.
Homerin points out that:
“Interpreted in this light, Muhammed’s statement of the Golden Rule is a call to self-examination and religious transformation aimed not at reciprocity so much as humility by acknowledging the humanity of other human beings.”
It is clear that to “love for” or to “want for” does not necessarily imply responsibility for any action.
Homerin brings several sources that reinforce the idea that any responsibility that might be suggested is responsibility on the part of one Muslim for another.
There are Sufi sources brought that speak to interactions among a broader population but a statement attributed to several influential sources makes the point clearly:
“…the Golden Rule does not nullify all difference in a universal equality so much as it operates among groups of similar members.”
Homerin brings material from the Persian philosopher and ethicist Ahmad Miskawayh to illustrate a key point:
“the issue is not so much treating everyone the same, but rather treating each person appropriately…”
Miskawayh “noted that love is the key to being fair and just. Yet social relations must be carefully observed and taken into account.”
Miskawayh is very concerned that
“one should know the ranks of the various kinds of love, and what each person deserves to get from the other…if one does not discriminate among these obligations confusion and corruption will affect them and reproaches will take place.”
Homerin’s reading of Miskawayh suggests that “For Miskawayh, then, true friendship as embodied in the Golden Rule is very rare indeed.”
Except for some allusions from Sufi scholars, there is nothing that proposes action be taken on the idea that one should “love for” or “want for” one’s neighbor what one loves for or wants for oneself. And there is a strong suggestion of limitation of these concerns to others in the Muslim community.
In the closing section of the paper Homerin brings another saying ascribed to the prophet that he suggests might broaden the scope of the concern:
“One should look after one’s neighbors to the extent that one considers them his legal heirs.”
Homerin comments:
“As with many examples of the Golden Rule found in Muslim sources, this hadith, too, proscribes for the actor that he treat others with kindness, dignity and respect by placing their needs before his own”
That comment is puzzling. It seems to expand significantly on what is actually said.
He writes further:
“For many Muslim scholars, and especially the mystics, the Golden Rule was not primarily a call for reciprocity or retaliation, but a means to cultivate humility, selflessness and altruistic behavior.”
Professor Homerin is a distinguished scholar and an author of many highly regarded works on Islam and related topics. I am confident that he will have brought the most definitive examples available of Golden Rule thought in the literature and thought of Islam.
In the end, however, while some sources within the Sufi community come close to espousing the sort of universality and active altruism that are found in the Golden Rule thinking of other traditions, none of the more mainstream Islamic sources appear to do that.
I cannot find in the material brought by Professor Homerin a commonly understood injunction to Muslims to either act or refrain from acting in any particular manner except perhaps within a family or tribal context.
Even the frequently cited hadith that one should “love for” a brother or neighbor or fellow Muslim “what one loves for oneself” insofar as it is not attached to a behavioral injunction, is really not an ethic as much as a passive moral principle.
That principle is a laudable one and a person might well act on it as he might act if it also enjoined upon him a specific rule of behavior. But that would not, it seems to me, change the character of the statement itself.
©Charles R. Lightner