Body and soul food

Balanced growth

man has two aspects: One physical and the other spiritual. His growth in both these directions should be balanced. If he pays his attention only to his soul and forgets his body, he will become weak and will feel run down. He will not only be deprived of physical fitness and material pleasures, but will also be left with no conveyance at his disposal for making the spiritual journey. With feeble body there is very little chance of his soaring very high spiritually.

In the same way a man, whose entire life is devoted to eating, drinking and merry‑making is left with no scope for the manifestation of his humanity. He cannot rise above the level of the quadrupeds.

There are certain ways and means of attaining develop­ment both materially and spiritually. One should identify them and keeping them in view, should chalk out a program of his life so that his development may not cease or become imbalanced. For his physical development man needs a variety of food factors and vitamins within a certain limit. Our excessive consumption of only one kind of food is as injurious to our health as the under‑consump­tion of any food factor.

For the maintenance of health it is necessary to be active and diligent. Inactivity and sluggishness enfeeble the body. At the same time rest is also necessary. Incessant hardwork ruins one's health just as lethargy and prolonged idleness make him dull.

The same is true of spiritual development. Compassion and sympathy are the requisite qualities of man. One must be sensitive to the hardships of others and should always be ready to help them. But his sympathy must not be so excessive as to prevent one from punishing a traitor or giving a blow to the enemy.

To look at things from all angles is one of the most important features of Islam. It calls for all that helps in the all‑round development of man and forbids all that hampers such development. That is why the Islamic morals have a constructive role and ensure complete spiritual health.

Moral criteria

Do the moral principles have any real basis and fixed criteria or are they only a cover to conceal the personal and class objectives of some groups and individuals?

Have the rich and powerful classes of society, with a view to exploit the masses, invented and raised such questions as those of patience, contentment, regard for the rights of others, tolerance etc. so that they may utilize the under‑privileged classes for their own ends, compel them to total submission and keep their mouths shut in the name of adherence to moral principles?

Have the under‑privileged classes invented such moral conceptions as love, charity, justice, modesty etc. with the intention of gaining the favor of the ruling classes?

Or have the moral principles any real basis and firm infra‑structure?

There is no doubt that some of the moral teachings have been and are still being put to misuse in various ways. Those who are bent on self‑aggrandizement, especially if they have power and influence, do not hesitate to employ any possible means to achieve their ends. As scientific research, in spite of its firm basis, is used sometimes for the purpose of oppression, tyranny and torturing the working classes, in the same way moral concepts are also misused. How often freedom is taken away in the name of freedom and injustice is done in the name of justice and equality! Every good and beneficial thing can be put to misuse. Anyhow, there is no doubt that howsoever the name of justice is misused, it cannot become the same thing as injustice. They will always remain two different things. Similarly, howsoever it is misrepresented, true freedom cannot be equal to slavery.

So it is no wonder if the Islamic teachings have been exploi­ted for personal or class interest or have been imposed on the under‑privileged classes in a distorted form. That does not mean that they are spurious or worthless. On the other hand, this position demands a vigilance on the part of society so that it is not defrauded and values are not misused by the exploiters to serve their own selfish ends.

In fact morals are deeply rooted in human nature. In spite of his animal propensities, man by nature wants to possess such qualities as are in keeping with his human dignity. All the exponents of the moral principles such as the prophets and the philosophers have set them forth only for safeguarding the interests of the entire mankind and not for the benefit of any particular class and to the detriment of another class.

Those who hold that the moral principles are only conven­tional, point to the difference of opinion in regard to them and ask, if these principles had any firm basis, how the views differ about them.

In this connection it may be said that the diversity of views about any point does not prove that it has no firm basis. We see that difference of opinion exists in regard to most of the questions. Views differ even about such questions as the freedom of will and the universal human rights. Divergent views exist about the nature of life and the nature of existence. In all these cases there has been a difference of opinion over the ages. But does that mean that in all these cases real infra‑structure does not exist. Even in regard to physical phenomena and medical questions which are perceptional, observable and experimentable, wide differences have existed over thousands of years, although physical phenomena and medical questions are actually governed by decisive and unalterable principles.

Furthermore, the difference between morals and the rules of conduct should not be over‑looked. Morals are related to the discipline and promotion of a quality of feelings, emotions and tendencies, whereas the rules of conduct are the practical rules of behavior which are subject to a number of other considerations and conven­tions, though of course, sometimes they conform to the moral criteria. For example, self‑respect, perseverance, boldness, piety and the like are moral qualities. They were good qualities thousands of years ago and they are still so. On the other hand the conventional rules of eating and wearing dress are mostly local and relative. They are not directly linked to the spiritual and moral systems.

Thus neither the wrong exploitation of the moral teachings, nor the divergence of opinion in regard to them, can be advanced as an argument to prove that they have no firm basis. The same is true of the diversity of the traditions and rules of social life existing among various peoples.

Anyhow, though the moral principles are universal and stable, they are more or less flexible.

For example, truthfulness is an indisputable moral principle of Islam. But in case telling a truth endangers the life, property or position of anybody, that truth should be over‑looked. Anyhow, the existence of exceptional cases when one finds oneself in a moral dilemma does not diminish the value of a principle. On the whole truthful­ness is an excellent moral and spiritual quality. Normally one must not deviate from the rule of telling the truth unless there is a clash with some other moral principle. We all know that prayer is a devotional act obligatory on all. But still its form is reduced and simplified in the case of travel and illness. Fasting is another act of devotion obligatory on all. But there are circumstances when it is no longer binding to keep fast.

If some such thing is meant by the relativity of morals, it may be said that Islamic moral teachings are also relative. Anyhow, that does not mean that on principle morals have no firm basis, and that they are merely conventional.

Morals have been defined as good thinking, good saying and good doing. Is this definition adequate?

Many acts are moral and desirable from the view‑point of certain schools, but they are immoral and undesirable from that of others. For example, a moral school recommends submission in the face of force and regards it a moral duty. It says that if anybody slaps you on your right cheek, turn the left one to him. But there is another school which says that if anybody does you any harm, check him and give him tit for tat. Both the schools regard the action suggested by them as good. In spite of all the divergence of their views, every school calls the attitude or quality recommended by it as `good saying' or `good doing'. Hence if moral action is defined by `good doing', that definition will not be self‑explanatory.

Sometimes it is said that it is the moral qualities on which human perfection depends. But still the question remains what constitutes human perfection?

Does man gain perfection by acquiring wealth and material comforts? Does he gain perfection by attaining physical power, by acquiring knowledge, by obtaining social position, by securing personal pleasures or by doing social service? Or does he gain perfection by having all these things together? Or does perfection mean something else?

That is why the most important point discussed by ethics is the determination of criteria and the true infra‑structure of morals.