audiobook Muslim Ethics: Emerging Vistas by Amyn B. Sajoo in History

Review

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful. Soft-peddled Islamist apologeticsBy Spencer Case"Muslim Ethics: Emerging Vistas" was for me a very disappointing book. The title suggests that this book takes up all sorts of new; cutting edge moral issues. The first chapter does; indeed; deal briefly with bioethical issues like abortion and cloning; but there is no real surprising information here; or detailed discussion of differing views within Islam. Islam; predictably; places less emphasis on self-ownership than does the contemporary West; and this makes active euthanasia somewhat harder to justify.The rest of the book; as I understand it; is basically an extended argument in favor of the idea that the Islamic umma; which fuses together the sacred and the secular (or din and dunya; for world and religion; in Arabic); is preferable to the liberal secular status quo that exists in West; especially in Europe. Sajoo points out that there have been a lot of philosophers in the West; such as Michael Walzer in his book; Spheres of Justice; who have become dissatisfied with the idea that civic society is nothing more than a system of restrictions on harm that make atomic individuals free to pursue the good according to their own conceptions. Instead; society needs a shared conception of the good. This is the communitarian critique of liberalism; and Sajoo appropriates it to push the umma the Islamic community -more accurately translated as nation - as a more "holistic" alternative.Red lights should be flashing at this point. Shouldn't we be suspicious of the combination of religion and state? Sajoo assures us that these worries are misplaced; based on Orientalist bigotry against gentle Islam; which assumes Islam is monolithic and unchanging. In fact; the umma is more about a shared ethical framework than a legal system. But if that is so; why is it in conflict with liberal secularism to begin with? Secularism in the public sphere doesn't preclude a shared ethical framework. Indeed; one might argue that it presupposes a shared commitment to pluralism. This is what John Rawls had in mind with his idea of the "overlapping consensus."Oddly; after criticizing Western secularism; Sajoo downplays differences between her favored alternative and the system she is criticizing. Sajoo writes:"If the point of civic culture is to trump differences of ethnicity; culture; religion; political ideology and what have you; in favor of common citizenship; then pluralism is an inherent objective - whether in the secular Western or Islamic perspective." (Page 75).This statement blithely elides the differences between citizenship in a modern Western nation state; and membership in the umma; a status clearly connected with -perhaps synonymous with - acceptance of the Islamic faith. Laughably; Sajoo claims:"Pluralism is hardwired into the Qur'an; which time and time again proclaims that an inclusive umma is the only legitimate community of the good; and the very idea of 'Islam' encompasses the Judeo-Christian heritage; and that there can be no compulsion in religion." (Page 76).I say laughably for two reasons. First; it comes after Sajoo dismisses the critics of Islam as "essentialists" who insist it the religion unchanging. Whenever anyone criticizes Islam; it becomes a sort of ethereal multicultural vapor that you can't really make any generalizations about. Then Sajoo says that pluralism is "hard-wired" into the Qur'an. I guess you can only "essentialize" in good ways. Second; to describe the umma as pluralistic is laughable. Yes; Jews and Christians were recognized as dhimmis; as protected peoples; but the pluralism does not extend beyond this. Wiccans and atheists need not apply. Even Christians and Jews must pay jizya or tribute (a word they prefer you leave un-translated.) So is not a relationship among equals.As far as it goes; it's more honest than Seyyed Hossein Nasr's despicable The Heart of Islam; which I have reviewed scathingly elsewhere. Still; I found the author's selectiveness raised questions about intellectual honesty. The book might be of some value for someone interested to know what modern Islamist apologetics looks like. Otherwise; ignore.