Recently I have been thinking about the Golden Rule. It was reading Karen Armstrong’s stunning autobiography, “The Spiral Staircase”, which started me thinking. It reminded me of a TV program on Britain’s Channel Four not long ago when they sought out to determine the modern equivalent for the Ten Commandments. The verdict was overwhelming, one value more than any other summed up British thinking on morality: “Treat others as you would like to be treated.” This is a contemporary wording of the Golden Rule, as stated by Jesus: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
I didn’t know it was called the Golden Rule, or that it was attributed to Jesus until I read Karen Armstrong’s book. I had always thought of it as a universal value, a principle applied by people the world over. How many times and in how many languages have I heard a mother tell her children: “How would you feel if someone did that to you?” It was certainly the way we were brought up, something both my parents drummed into us. For my father in particular, it encompassed so much of his thinking on what should govern relations not only between people but between nations. And it is true; if only we all applied this principle in its fullest meaning, how much more peaceful our lives would be.
If there is a universal value, then this one concept is possibly the closest we have. Almost all the main religions of the world have an equivalent. I love the story recounted to Karen Armstrong in her book of the Rabbi Hillel who lived just before Jesus and who, when he was challenged by a group of unbelievers to recite the whole Torah whilst standing on one leg, replied to them by standing on one leg and saying: “Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you. That is the Torah. The rest is commentary.”
It is easy to see why this principle lends itself well to universality. It covers so much ground in one elegant sweep. It tells you not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to hurt others, not to do anything which you would presumably not want done to you. It preaches compassion and empathy, the foundation stones of tolerance. Its fundamental principle is reciprocity, the most basic moral code. It really is a one-size-fits all kind of principle.
When I viewed it as a religious principle, I asked myself: What is the Muslim equivalent of the Golden Rule? Of course the principles underlying this rule are core beliefs in Islam, but the specific equivalent comes in the form of a Hadith (the saying of the Prophet, peace be upon him): “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself”.
It fascinates me how the same idea can be conveyed differently across cultures. Christianity states: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, while the Jewish tradition uses the negative wording: “Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you”. The Buddhists also word it negatively but speak of not hurting others: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” The Hindus specifically mention pain: “Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you”.
The Muslim wording is interesting because it does not speak of “others”. The Muslim world is not split into us and them, but viewed as a global brotherhood of mankind. And rather than focus on deeds it goes one step beyond and looks at the intent behind the deed. It is not treating others but desiring for others what you desire for yourself. As a concept it is incredibly powerful.
The problem of course is how it is applied. The very word “brother” can all too easily be misread. If you read it literally you can end up applying it solely to male-kind. From there it is a short step to say you will only apply it to Muslims and then only to those whom you consider to be good Muslims. It is a slippery slope, the definition becomes narrower and narrower until eventually it encompasses only a small subset of your community. A concept which preaches tolerance, generosity and compassion ends up doing the exact opposite.
You do not need to go very far to see that the Golden Rule is something most of us do not apply in its truest sense. Think of the millions of foreign workers in Saudi Arabia — are they treated how we would like to be treated? Do we desire for our Indonesian brothers what we desire for ourselves?
Even if you treat people well — as most of us do — are you treating them as you would like to be treated or are you applying one standard for others and another for yourself?
That is the problem with the Golden Rule. It sounds so straightforward. I bet most of us would claim to abide by it, whatever our religious background or nationality. But the reality is that we apply it selectively.
There are two elements. The first is that rather than treating others as we would like to be treated, we often treat people as we think they ought to be treated. Hence we may treat prisoners in a jail not in the same way as we would like to be treated, but in the way we think prisoners should be treated. But more importantly we group people into those who are like us and those who are not. Most of us will try to treat our own kind in the same way that we would like to be treated, but how many of us can say that we genuinely do that to people whom we think of as different?
It all boils down to the concept of brotherhood. If you think of the world in terms of us and them, if you believe that people are either with you or against you, you move away from the principle of the Golden Rule. By viewing people not only as different but as adversaries you lose sight of the notion that we are all essentially the same and all worthy of empathy and compassion. Suddenly it becomes possible to class people as “enemy combatants” or to decide that you can hold foreigners on detention without trial.
Just as the Golden Rule is a universal principle, so is its misapplication. Wherever you go in the world, you will find ample examples of people not treating others with compassion and empathy. From mundane examples of how we treat those less fortunate than ourselves to extreme examples of pain and humiliation: Think of the Jewish settlers in the occupied territories, the guards at Abu Ghraib prison, the killers in Iraq.
When I first started thinking about the Golden Rule, I was struck by how people from different backgrounds use different routes to reach the same conclusions. Whether you use religious teachings or secular thinking, you often end up with the same guiding principles. The Golden Rule is the best example of something most of us believe in and yet we manifestly do not apply it. The moment we decide that some people are less worthy than others we start treating people according to our own imperfect moral judgments. We move away from treating people with compassion to treating people with arrogance and condescension. The result is the polarized world in which we live. Maybe the time has come to remember that we should desire for all of humankind what we desire for ourselves and that we should treat everyone as we would like to be treated.
— Iman Kurdi is a Saudi writer living in London. “mailto:[email protected]”
