This is a horrifying and detestable situation indeed and it is extremely painful for me to delineate upon it. The glaring moral vices I have referred to above are sufficient to show the depths of the abyss of moral degradation to which we have stooped.. In fact the entire humanity is suffering from the festering sores of moral depravity. The virus has spread all over the body-social, and governments and parliaments, courts and chambers of law, radio and the press, universities and educational institutions, banks and commercial combines have, in different degrees, become infected with its venom. The greatest tragedy of all is that even knowledge, learning and science, which are the most precious assets of mankind and its common heritage, have been poisoned and are being callously harnessed for the very annihilation of mankind. ^{[2. How Biology was used by the Nazis and demography is being used by many for purposes of power-politics is a sordid story. "So much evil use has been made of knowledge that our imagination does not readily rise to the thought of the good uses that are possible." Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics, ab. cit., p. 238.]} Resources which Providence has bestowed upon mankind are being frittered away in mutual wrangles and feuds and the noble qualities of courage, sacrifice, generosity, patience and resolution, have been yoked to the service of vicious ends.

It is obvious that social evils make their appearance on a vast scale only when moral degradation of the individuals is steep, when the grip of the moral values becomes lax and when fidelity to the standards of discipline is shattered. You cannot conceive of a society possessing a majority of morally robust individuals and collectively exhibiting signs of moral corruption. It is inconceivable that a community of virtuous people should entrust its leadership to a group of unscrupulous persons and remain passive spectators when their communal, national and international affairs are conducted in flagrant violation of moral principles. Therefore, if the peoples of the world are exhibiting on a large scale the seamy side of human nature through their collective institutions and policies, that can only lead us to the view that, in spite of all its intellectual and material progress, mankind is passing through a period of intense moral decadence which has gripped by far the greatest majority of human beings. It is better to frankly confess about this situation than hide our heads, ostrich-like, in the deceptive hey of polished phrases, varnished words and meaningless platitudes. No amount of prankish prattle or window-dressing can hide the rot. Nay, that will do positive harm. For, if this state of affairs persists, the time is not far off when humanity will meet with a colossal disaster and will plunge headlong into an era of all-pervading darkness. ^{[3. "Are we to continue entrusting our affairs to men without sympathy, without knowledge, without imagination and having nothing to recommend them except methodical hatred and skill in vituperation? (I do not mean this as an indictment of all statesmen; but it applies to those who guide the destinies of Russia and to some who have influence in other countries). When Othello is about to kill Desdemona, he says, "But yet the pity of it, Iago. Oh Iago, the pity of it". I doubt whether Malenkov and his opposite number, as they prepare the extermination of mankind, have enough pity in their character to be capable of this exclamation, or even to realize the nature of what they are preparing. I suppose that never for a moment have they thought of man as a single species with possibilities that may be realized or thwarted. Never have their minds risen beyond the daily considerations of momentary expediency in a narrow contest for brief power……The future of man is at stake." Bertrand Russell, ibid., p. 238.]}

Now, if we do not wish to make a blind rush for that evil day, we should look for the primary source from where the present evil is emanating with all the fury of a flood. And since it is a moral crisis it must obviously be traced in the contemporary moral systems, followed to by the people of the world. Attitude and behavior have their roots in the ethical beliefs and moral concepts of the people. In the final analysis the ultimate forces responsible for the malaise will be found only there.

The question, therefore, arises: What are the contemporary moral systems which are fashioning the life-pattern of the individual and the society? When we analyze this question closely we find that all these systems broadly fall under two categories:

1. Systems which are based on belief in God and life-after-death; and
    

2. Systems which are devoid of any idea of God and arise from secular sources.

There is another group of religious people who are free from the above mentioned perverted notions, who hold sincerely to the belief in God, and harbor no false illusion about life-after-death. Such people are blessed with undoubted moral purity and a high and noble character, but, generally speaking, their narrow conception about religion and spiritual life have made them ineffective. They adopt an attitude of indifference to the practical problems of life, and either confine their activities to a few specific acts which engross them in cleansing and purifying their souls so that they may be able to hear voices from the Unseen and catch glimpses of the Divine Being in this world of matter. They think that the path of salvation lies not through the rough and tumble of life but somewhere on its outskirts, so that they may just touch it and escape without coming into full contact with it. According to them, the only way of attaining proximity to God is to mould a few outer aspects of life in the pattern furnished by religion, to purify the soul by using some useful methods, and to pass their lives in meditation and contemplation, in religious exercises and so-called spiritual practices, as if God wanted them to develop extra-sensory powers and to grow into something super-human, and as if He has sent to this earth human beings equipped with all the moral and material qualities to live here not as human beings made of flesh and bones and inspired by moral and social ideals but like jinn or angels renouncing the world in toto. This attitude is in radical violation of the entire scheme of nature and is a virtual revolt against the Will of God as immanent in His Creation. The greatest harm done to humanity by this wrong concept of religion is that it has removed from practical life some of those individuals whom God had endowed with high moral qualities, thus leaving the field or worldly affairs mostly for persons of inferior moral caliber. ^{[5. See: Henry Hazlitt, The Foundations of Morality, D. Van Nostrang Company, Inc., Princeton, 1964; Chap. 22.]}

This, in brief, is the situation obtaining in the religious world. The greater part of humanity has been deprived of the moral force which comes from belief in God and life-after-death. As against this the minority which is in possession of this force, has voluntarily withdrawn itself from the leadership and guidance of mankind, presenting the spectacle of a battery which has exhausted itself through misuse.

(b) Morality Without Religion

The ethical code adhered to by most of those persons and nations which wield power and are directing the affairs of humanity today is devoid of any conception of God and life-after-death. This is not accidental, for the ethical values of humanity have been deliberately divested by these people of the idea of God and the life-hereafter. Indeed, they have openly refused to accept the guidance of God in ethical matters. Although the greater part of them do profess one religion or the other, they have reduced their religious faith to a few norms of individual and personal life, a sort of private belief which every individual should carefully keep to himself alone. They believe that religion should have no concern with the collective life of humanity. There is no need, therefore, for them to turn to any supernatural .guidance for the direction of human affairs. This view began to influence the life and thought of the people and social movements emerged during the nineteenth century to organize life on a morality without religion. Dr. Flex Adler of Columbia University was one of the pioneers of the movement. The movement was initiated in America in 1876. The basic creed of the ethical movement was expressed in the following words in the statement of objectives of the American Ethical Union, a federation .of six ethical societies of America:

To assert the supreme importance of the ethical factor in all relations Of life, personal, social, national and international, apart from any theological or metaphysical considerations." ^{[6. Vide Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 8, p. 757.]}

Now we shall try to review briefly the ethical philosophies and standards which the leading western philosophers have developed after freeing their thought from the grip of religion.

A Rapid look at the Secular Moral Philosophies

(a) The Highest Good or the Ultimate End of Human Conduct

The first basic question of ethical philosophy is: What is the supreme good the attainment of which should be the life purpose of man, the goal of all his endeavors, the summum bonum to which human conduct is to be directed and in the light of which it may be judged as to what is good or evil, right or wrong, virtue or vice?

Man has not been able to find an agreed ethical standard. With some this standard is happiness, ^{[8. The school of thought which subscribes to this view is known as "Eudemonism" its important shades being "Egoistic Eudemonism", "universalistic Eudemonism" or "Utilitarianism" and "Altruistic Eudemonism" or "Altruism".-Editor.]} with others perfection ^{[9. "Perfection" is the name of this school which maintains that the highest good of human conduct is the fullest development of all the capacities of man in so far as these can co-exist in an harmonious whole.--Editor.]} and with yet others duty for the sake of duty. ^{[10. The founder of this school is Immanuel Rant.-Editor.]}

If we take "happiness" as the highest good, a number of questions arise. What kind of happiness is it that is sought? Is it the happiness that follows the gratification of bodily and sensual desires, or that which a man feels when he is engaged in self-adornment from the viewpoint of art, aesthetics or spiritualism? Whose happiness is to be sought: the happiness of the individual, or of the society of which the individual is a member, or of the entire mankind, or simply the happiness of others?

Similarly, several questions arise if we take "perfection" as the supreme end. For example, what is the conception and standard of perfection? Whose perfection is to be sought: of the class or group to which one belongs, of the individual, of the society, of the nation or of the whole of humanity?

Similarly those who adhere to the view that `duty for the sake of duty" constitutes the moral standard cannot avoid certain searching questions: What in fact is this imperative? Who has laid it down? What is the rationale for its obedience?

Different answers have been given to each one of these questions by different groups of thinkers, and the answers are different, conflicting and even contradictory, in theory as well as in practice. Those who are at the helm of affairs in the modern world-may they be rulers and administrators, generals of armies, judges of courts of law, legislatures, teachers engaged in training new generations, business magnates controlling the economic machinery, etc.-have no agreed standard of values. Instead, every individual or group has its own separate standard and although working within the framework of the same culture each is wedded to a different ideal. There is no uniform and accepted summum bonum. With some it is personal happiness and it is this which determines their entire social conduct (Egoistic Eudemonism and in its crude form simple Hedonism). In spite of this, we are deceived by their cultured appearance and fall into the delusion that they can suitably serve as administrators, judges, ministers, teachers, or as other similar public functionaries. Side by side with these people there are others who regard as their objective the happiness and well-being of the specific group with whom they are bound by ties of affection and interest (Utilitarianism). For them this is the supreme good and to strive for it constitutes real virtue. This viewpoint makes them dangerous for the rest of mankind. And yet their outward decency induces us to take them for gentlemen. Similar situations confront us when we consider the cases of those who regard `perfection' as the ultimate good or those who believe in `duty for duty's sake.' Their dignified appearance hardly bears any affinity with their moral values and this misleads the people. The result is that despite loud protestations of morality, these conflicting notions and the dual-standards employed by the leaders of the modern civilization have wrought havoc inhuman life. And the root lies in the confusion of moral values and concepts and the lack of a universally accepted standard which is in keeping with the realities of human existence.

(b) Knowledge of Good and Evil

The next important problem of moral philosophy is to discover the means whereby we may distinguish the good from the evil. What are the real means to obtain knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong?, How to end out virtue and vice? What is the correct source of this knowledge? Mankind has no agreed answer to this question either. Everybody plays a different tune. Some say that human experience is the only reliable source of our knowledge of good and evil, ^{[11. This is the view-point of Empiricism.-Editor.]} that this source consists of the knowledge of laws of life and conditions of existence; others say that it is intuition, ^{[12. This school of thought is known as Intuitionism.-Editor.]} and still others claim that it is reason. ^{[13. Rationalism is the name of the school which presents this `view'. 3t is represented by philosophers like, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hegel etc.-Editor.]}

This chaos, to which I have been referring, is not confined to learned treatises and philosophic discourses only, but is fully reflected in practical life, in the civilizations and cultures of the world. [16. See Pitirim A. Sorokin, The Crisis of Our Age, E. P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1951, Chapters I, III and IV. Editor.] People who are actively engaged in building up human civilization, whether as leader or as followers, are all turning to these diverse sources to know what is good or evil, and which is right or wrong, with the result that the good of one individual or group is in conflict with the good of other individuals or groups. This chaos has left human morality without any solid basis. Things which the world had always held to be morally reprehensible and those which were, for ages, regarded as crimes and sins have now become either absolute or relative virtues, at least with some groups of human beings. Similarly, what mankind once considered to be meritorious acts of virtue are laughed at today as crass stupidity. Several groups are going against these, not only without any sense of guilt or shame but rather with boastfulness. In days gone by, if anyone told a lie, he still believed that truth and no falsehood was the standard of morality. ^{[17. This is what Lenin says: "we must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, towards those who disagree with us." quoted by Henry Hazlitt, The Foundation of Morality, op. cit., p. 340.-Editor.]} But certain modern ideologies have turned lying into a virtue and have given it the august name of propaganda. A whole science of broadcasting falsehood has been developed and many a nation is practicing it on a large scale in the sacred name of diplomacy. Similar is the case with other evils, which have all along been recognized as evils but have now, thanks to new fangled philosophies, been raised to the dignity of virtues, either in an absolute or a relative sense.

(c) Sanction Behind Moral Law

The third fundamental question of ethics is: What is the sanction behind the moral law? In response to this problem the advocates of the theories of happiness and Perfection state that the virtues leading to happiness or perfection are self-enforcing and the vices making for sorrow or imperfection are repugnant to human nature, and that, therefore, the ethical law does not stand in need of any external authority. Another group also arrives at the same conclusion but through a different line of reasoning. It says that the law of duty is the self-imposed law of "practical reason", and hence it does not need any force external to itself. A third group holds that political power is the real sanction behind moral law and vests all those powers and functions to the state, which originally belonged to Almighty. A fourth school assigns this status to society. All these replies have created and are still creating disorder and confusion in the life of humanity. The first two carried individual liberty to such irresponsible extremes that the very fabric of corporate and social life was threatened with subversion. The reaction. came with the appearance of new social theories which either elevated the state to the status of an absolute divinity and reduced the individual to the position of an abject slave or a cog in the lifeless machine of social organization, or left to society as a whole the decision of what is morally good and bad for an individual. In reality, however, neither the state nor the society as a whole is free from imperfections and susceptibility to error.

(d) Motive of Moral Conduct

We are confronted with a similar situation when we come to the question of the motive which induces man to obey moral law even against his natural inclinations or personal interests? One school of thought says that desire for pleasure or fear of pain are sufficient to act as motives for this purpose; another group thinks that longing for perfection and a natural distaste for imperfections form the motive force. A third group relies on man's inborn respect for law; while a fourth group gives expression to the hope that the state constitutes the proper agency to reward acts virtuous and to punish acts contravening moral law. A fifth school lays emphasis on the rewards and punishments awarded by the society in the form of esteem or denunciation. Each of these answers to the basic question of motives finds a prominent place in one or the other contemporary ethical system. But even a cursory examination shows that all these motives can serve equally well as inducements to moral vice or moral good. In fact they may be more effective for evil than for good. In any case, they are wholly inadequate as basis for higher morality.

The foregoing brief and rapid survey ^{[18. Those interested in a thorough discussion over these problems of moral philosophy may read the following with profit: H. Sidgwick, Method of Ethics and History of Ethics; J. Martinean: Types of Ethical Theory; H. Rashdall, Theory of Good and Evil (2 Vols.); C. D. Broad, Five Types ofEthical Theory; Henry Haziitt; The Foundations of Morality; Jacques Maritain, Moral Philosophy: An Historical and Critical Survey of the Great Systems, New York, 1964. Editor.]} of the contemporary moral scene makes it evident that the world is faced with widespread moral confusion. Having made himself independent of God, man has not been able to discover any alternative basis for building up his moral life with any degree of satisfaction. All the basic ethical questions have become insoluble for him. He has neither been able to discover that supreme good which could serve as the object of all his endeavors and enable him to judge the right from the wrong, the virtue from the vice; nor he has discovered a satisfactory source for his knowledge of moral values. He has not even succeeded in securing for himself that sanction on the basis of which some noble, comprehensive and universal code of morality could be enforced; nor has he put his finger on that motive which could induce human beings to follow the path of truth and virtue and abstain from falsehood even in the face of adversity. Having rebelled against God, man tried arrogantly to solve these questions without His guidance, and he thought he had solved them. But it is precisely a result of this escape from the Lord that he is faced with a crisis which is threatening the very existence of human civilization.

This is the situation with which humanity is beset today. Has the time really not yet come when we should search for that true basis on which moral life might be happily built? This kind of search is not merely an academic one but is also a practical necessity and one of the most pressing needs of our times. The critical times through which we are passing have added infinitely to its importance. It is in view of this consideration that I am making my own submissions on the problem and I hope that those who are conscious of this need will give some deep thought to them.

(IV) Islamic Viewpoint

After years of thought and reflection I have reached the conclusion that there is only one correct basis for morality and that is presented by Islam. Here we get an answer to all the basic ethical questions; an answer free from the weaknesses and fallacies from which the viewpoints expressed by secular and other religious philosophies alike suffer. The fundamental weakness of all these systems of ethics religious or secular-is that they fail to build up simultaneously a firm and integrated moral personality of the individual and a sound and healthy organization of the body-social. The situation is altogether different in respect of Islam. Here we find such comprehensive moral guidance as can ensure our progress to the highest pinnacle in every sphere of human life and activity. Islam gives us basic moral norms and values to guide and control the entire gamut of man's life. It gives a comprehensive code of behavior for the individual and shows him the way to the highest possible moral excellence and also gives ethical principles on which the edifice of a truly righteous society can be raised and which, if accepted as the basis of individual and collective conduct, can save human life from the chaos and anarchy that have overtaken it today. Let us now make an effort to appreciate the Islamic viewpoint.

(a) First Questions

The first grave mistake which secular philosophers have committed in connection with ethics and moral values lies in starting their enquiry from the wrong place. Instead of beginning with first questions, they have jumped into the middle and lodged themselves into a muddle. They have disturbed the sequence in which the question of the basis of morality should have been discussed. And once the order is disturbed nothing but confusion results. The question, what is the criterion of right and wrong for purposes of human conduct and what is the ultimate good for the realization of which man should direct his efforts is, in reality, a question which arises much later. The first problem to be settled is that of man's place and status in the universe. This problem enjoys priority over all others, because it would be meaningless to build up any ethical system without first deciding as to the real position of man in the universe. The question about standards of conduct will defy all solutions unless the status and the position of man are correctly determined. For example, if you have to determine your conduct in relation to a commodity and to decide how far and in what way it is rightful for you to utilize it for your benefit, you must, in the first instance, ascertain your legal status, vis-a-vis, the said commodity. If it belongs to another person and your position is merely that of a trustee, your conduct must, of necessity, be different from what it would be if you were the owner of it and had full proprietary rights over it. And that is not all. Not only the question of status is decisive in determining the nature of your conduct vis-a-vis the commodity in question but on this very point will rest- another very fundamental question; who would be the proper authority to determine your conduct in relation to it, i.e., whether ,you yourself enjoy this authority, or it would be enjoyed by the person whose agent you are.

Islam takes up this very question before anything else and tells us clearly that the status of man in this world is. that of an `abd (God's servant arid slave) who is also Khulifat-ul-Allah (Allah's deputy and vicegerent). All things in the world with which he comes in contact belong to God. Even his own body and the capacities with which he is endowed are not in fact his own, ^{[19. That is why suicide is a moral crime in Islam: .Editor.]} but are a trust from the Lord.

God has appointed him as his vicegerent giving him the power to use these objects for his benefit. And in this lies his test and trial. The final results of this test will not be declared in this world but only at the time when individuals and nations and, indeed, the whole of mankind shall have finished their career on the earth and the consequences and effects of their actions and strivings shall have become fully manifest: It is then that God will examine the account of each human being and will decide as to who has duly carried out the duties of His stewardship and who has not. And this examination will not be confined to any one thing or one department of life, but will cover the entire range of a person's individual and social conduct. It will be an examination of all the faculties of his mind and body with which he has been endowed and also of every kind of authority and power over external objects which has been delegated to him. ^{[20. For a detailed study of this point see Maududi, Foundations of Islamic Faith and Culture, Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore.]}

This being man's real position in the world, it logically follows that he is not the master-but the agent and the deputy. His power and authority are bound to be limited. Sovereignty belongs to God alone; man is His vicegerent and the only moral course open to him is to fulfill the task which the Sovereign has assigned to him. He is not totally free to determine his own behavior, the standards of right and wrong must be taken from the Sovereign. Man has no absolute right to determine the course of his own conduct-the course of conduct has been laid down by the Lord. Man's job is to faithfully and scrupulously pursue the mission assigned to him. The code of conduct is not to be formulated by man, he has to take it from God and follow it. Creator is the law-giver; man has to act within that framework which the Sovereign has laid for him. Once this position is accepted and the nature of God-man relationship is clearly understood all ethical questions which have been agitating the minds of philosophers from time immemorial find appropriate solutions. These solutions are clear, precise and definite. And they are based on reality. They are universal and eternal.

(b) Foundations of Morality

If the position assigned to man by Islam is accepted by him, then it becomes automatically settled, that:

(i) to emerge successfully from the test prescribed by God and to attain His pleasure constitute the supreme good and the ultimate objective of human life;

(ii) the criterion of right or wrong for human conduct lies in determining how far it helps or hinders man in the attainment of this supreme good;