These two religions, stemming from the same monotheistic tradition, are similar in many ways. But, they have certain key differences that separate them and demonstrate one to be more ethically commendable than the other. This key difference is shame. Christianity, especially in its Protestant forms, emphasizes the necessity of guilt, shame, and self-loathing as a value. Islam, while it recognizes the importance of guilt as an element of human ethics, does not hold it as a value. It is for this reason that Islam is ethically a better religion than Christianity in general and Protestantism in particular.
The best ethical system is that which leads to happiness. But what is happiness? Is it momentary physical pleasure? Is it intellectual pleasure, which one might get from reading a good book? Or is it something else? To begin to answer this question, we must first take an entirely different look at the problem, and we must do so by trying to recognize the opposite of happiness. I posit that the opposite of happiness is not pain, and it is not even sadness, as a person may cry at the death of a loved one yet still be considered a “happy” individual generally speaking. An opposite of happiness is shame. It is the quality of feeling bad about one’s self and towards one’s self. It is the view of the self which is loathing and hateful. This is a primary ethical vice not only because it negates happiness, but also because it can negate ethical action if it is sought as a value. That is, a person who seeks to avoid shame will avoid actions which are shameful and bring him guilt. A person who seeks shame as a value will not be motivated to remove his guilt through positive action, nor take the necessary steps of self discipline in order to regain his sense of healthful pride. Ethical behavior, above all, takes a degree of personal fortitude and self discipline. It enables people to pursue their positive ends and to resist the negative influence of irrational authorities. It allows them to do what is necessary for themselves as individuals, and what is necessary for their society. In short, healthful pride is an element of personal and ethical fortitude necessary to survive, both as a living being and as a happy being. To seek shame instead of pride is to negate these elements and turn people into docile, dependent, and ultimately despicable characters.
Ibn Khaldun presents a wonderful insight into the effects of shame on personal fortitude, and its devastating effects. He described the negative effects sedentary culture and laws have on the fortitude of people, writing, “When laws are (enforced) by the means of punishment, they completely destroy fortitude, because the use of punishment against someone who cannot defend himself generates in that person a feeling of humiliation that, no doubt, must break his fortitude” (p. 96). Here, he argues that the end of outside punishment is to foster humiliation, or shame, in the recipient of the punishment. As Western Christian theory argues, this is actually the best way to keep people in line. Such an argument stems from the Christian emphasis on shame and guilt in order to obtain salvation. If a person feels badly enough, say the Christians, then God will forgive him. Indeed, Christians even invented an idea of “original sin,” which never existed in Islam (or Judaism), in order to keep people in a state of perpetual guilt over a crime they never committed. Protestant Christians especially argue Martin Luther’s point that forgiveness is a gift from God that cannot be obtained through positive action. Instead, they say that forgiveness is only given out to those who feel bad enough about themselves, and that this is the sole method of obtaining forgiveness. Thus, shame and self-hate are essential values of Christianity, since they are either necessary or sufficient for salvation, if not both. Islam would never uphold such a position, and in fact it would be deplorable to a Muslim like Ibn Khaldun, who clearly had distaste for shame and its effects on people.
Ibn Khaldun further describes shame as it pertains to fortitude, this time examining Arab Bedouin culture. He writes, “It is no argument that the men around Muhammad observed the religious laws, and yet did not experience any diminution of their fortitude, but possessed the greatest possible fortitude.” He explains that this is because, “the restraining influence came from themselves” (p. 96). Essentially, Ibn Khaldun argues that it was the internalization of the truth of the Qur’an that inspired their ethical behavior without diminishing their fortitude. This is set up in contrast to sedentary people who have external laws forced upon them. Since those external laws rely upon shame, it necessarily breaks their will. Ibn Khaldun continues on with a clear preference for the ethical expressions of Bedouin Arabs, because those expressions come from an internal sense of honor and rightness rather than an enforced sense of shame. This is quite in contrast to the Christian idea of “spare the rod, spoil the child.” Indeed, Ibn Khaldun would find such a practice deplorable. And, the Bedouin Arabs would agree: it has been observed that Bedouin refuse to spank their sons too often, especially after the early years of childhood, because they believe it breaks the child’s will. Christians, on the other hand, have long supported spanking children as a primary method of discipline specifically because it produces shame. In fact, many Christians still advocate spanking today for all types of children, even teenagers. It is telling, though, that many have changed their positions to seem more “modern.” That is, many of these modern Christians emphasize the difference between spanking and beating, and urge the use of spanking “lovingly” and without the need to cause too severe pain. What were once brutal whippings are now supposed to be loving swats with the open hand. It is perfectly logical for these Christians to reduce the pain of a spanking, because the shame and humiliation effectively remain the same. And, that is exactly what they wish to engender in their children: shame. Many Muslims would find the idea despicable, and at the very least, should find it despicable.
Now that we have described the differences between the religions’ approaches to shame and the ethical terms relating to it, let us now examine the effects of shame.
As mentioned above, Christianity would tend to agree with using shame to foster ethical behavior and with seeking it as a value. Islam would not. On this issue, Islam is correct. This is because ethical behavior requires healthful pride, not shame. Shame may motivate a person to seek that which is not shameful, but only if shame is viewed as something to be avoided, not embraced. Christianity teaches one to embrace shame.
This attitude produces devastating effects on ethical behavior. A person who believes that shame is sufficient, and even necessary, to gain forgiveness will not be motivated to do good works, nor improve himself as a human being. Christianity, by doling out forgiveness, removes the burden of responsibility to make amends for wrong deeds. If a person already has the forgiveness of God, what need is there to seek the forgiveness of others by making amends or doing what is good? This has the temporary effect of removing a burden, something for which many Christian leaders insist. They argue that they can offer solace to people who are suffering from guilt. However, they do not remove the guilt. Instead, they tell the person to embrace it. Indeed, they stress that a person cannot truly be forgiven unless he truly feels badly. So, what these priests and pastors only remove the burden of activity otherwise necessary to remove guilt. The removal of shame and guilt is a painstaking process of good works and ethical deeds in which one restores one’s sense of self worth. Christianity, especially Protestantism, says there is no need for that. Feeling badly is enough. Can one rationally expect ethical behavior from a person who thinks it is enough to simply feel bad about what he does?
What is worse is that this feeling of shame remains. It never disappears; the self-loathing is perpetual. Thus, though Christianity may produce a temporary catharsis, it does so by ensuring long term misery which necessarily breaks the fortitude of a person. Such a person becomes docile, easy to manipulate, and, in essence, a slave to the churches. This person constantly needs the drug of forgiveness in order to temporarily relieve his pain, and the churches are more than happy to distribute this drug. Thus, instead of performing self-initiated good deeds to restore his pride, a person is compelled to spend his time in churches, prayer meetings, and so forth, where he submits himself passively to indoctrination and manipulation. And yet, the shame remains in all its misery. Eventually, a person is no longer negatively motivated by shame. He does not seek to avoid shameful acts because they bring him shame. Rather, he accepts the shame, seeks it out, and then ignorantly returns to his religious authorities for forgiveness.
By supporting and encouraging guilt, shame, and self-loathing, Christianity in fact produces perpetually miserable people. And, these people do nothing to redeem themselves or restore their pride through ethical virtue or moral action. Instead, they continue to be immoral. A creature of misery will act in ways which are miserable. This is the truth of human nature. Christianity, by supporting shame, is complicit in this immorality. It destroys the ethical fortitude of an individual, and damages his ability to act ethically towards others. Christianity declares that pride is a sin, and champions shame as salvation. This is nothing less than the negation of all virtue and ethical standards. For this reason, Christianity is morally detestable.
Islam, on the other hand, has never emphasized shame as a value, to my knowledge. It recognizes shame as a motivating force, but stresses the avoidance of shame by avoiding shameful actions. There is no easy way for forgiveness in Islam. God is merciful, but He is also just, and He will weigh one’s character according to one’s deeds, both good and bad. Thus, a Muslim who commits a misdeed cannot have that sin washed away. He can only make up for it through great moral effort and good acts. This, I argue, tends to remove shame, since it restores a person’s self-pride with tangible activity and results. One may feel shame over a misdeed, but one can also restore pride and honor through positive action. In short, one can refortify one’s self image, and hence himself. For this, Islam is far more morally respectable than Christianity. And though I take many issues with the religion of Islam as well, this is not such a case.
Shame is an opposite of happiness, and happiness is the goal of all ethics, both personal virtue and social morality. Shame, therefore, is an effective negative motivation for ethical behavior, i.e. people naturally seek to remove or avoid it. Healthful pride, then, is the goal of everyone seeking to remove shame, and is therefore a virtue to be sought, not a sin to be condemned. It is the positive motivation for ethical behavior, as it is what is sought through ethical behavior. Pride, in essence, is an attribute of happiness. This can be observed in all pre-sedentary groups, the bulk of whom are known to live without crime. A nomad not only faces excommunication from his group if he offends the group (equivalent to a death sentence among nomads), but is also motivated to maintain his honor by avoiding what is shameful. Ibn Khaldun observed this in Arab Bedouins, particularly as it relates to their families and group feeling (or solidarity). He writes, “One feels shame when one’s relatives are treated unjustly or attacked, and one wishes to intervene between them and whatever peril or destruction threatens them. This is a natural urge in man, for as long as there have been human beings” (p. 98). Ibn Khaldun is correct in pointing out both the power of shame to motivate and that this is a natural urge. To survive as a group, as an individual, both physically and psychologically, one needs to avoid shame and seek happiness. This is the fundamental truth of ethics. Laws, punishments, and ideologies that enforce shame go against this truth. They twist the natural urge away from the requirements of happiness towards immorality, obedience, and complete dependence. Therefore, any ideology which encourages shame is ethically deplorable, and ideologies which do not encourage shame are ethically superior. And thus, Islam is ethically superior to Christianity.
It should also be mentioned that, for much of history, the Christian world relied on shame to produce its logical effects. They wished to maintain their absolutist style of rule by maintaining an ignorant, impotent, and morally weak population. Since the introduction of free societies, however, Western men and women have required that which fosters independence and freedom, and relied upon the ethical fortitude of its citizens rather than the strength of its government. Yet, the traditional Christian reliance on guilt and shame has retarded the efforts of every so-called free nation. These ideas have no place among such nations. Furthermore, many modern religious activists in the Muslim world seek to enshrine their religious principles in political law and policy. Though Islam has never actively supported shame, by giving the state the power to wield religion, they are effectively allowing shame to be inculcated in the name of Islam. Ibn Khaldun argued that those who are better Muslims are those who have the restraining force of religion from within themselves. But, Islamic activists seek the opposite: the restraining force of religion through the external force of the state. This, as Ibn Khaldun predicted and Christian history has demonstrated, can only lead to moral corruption, decay, and the breaking of the fortitude which initially defined Islam. Strangely, the requirements of the Christian world are now different than the requirements of the Islamic world as it pertains to creating free societies. The Christian world must dump Christianity entirely, as it has never been a force for anything but depravity. The Islamic world, on the other hand, needs instead to respect the foundational premises of Islam and avoid, at all cost, formally enthroning the religion in any political power. To do any less would be to subvert Islam entirely, and to drag it down to the despicable level of Christianity.
All references to Ibn Khaldun refer to page numbers in the following book:
Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah. Translation by Franz Rosenthal.
For more information on the idiocy of Western methods of shame-inducing discipline, read Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, as well as any of Nietzsche’s treatises on ethics, including both Beyond Good and Evil and Genealogy of Morals. Furthermore, the writings of Martin Luther are especially indicative of the Christian approval of shameful guilt. Read him at your own risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment