Mauao Man

Moral Superiority or Selective Blindness?

Can Muslims Claim Ethical High Ground While Upholding Problematic Texts?

Introduction

Islam is frequently presented as a religion of justice, compassion, and ethical perfection. Muslims are taught that the Qur’an is a moral guidebook from a flawless deity, containing timeless principles superior to any man-made law. In debates, this often translates into the confident claim that Islam holds the ethical high ground over secular systems or other religions.

But is this claim intellectually and morally sustainable? Can a worldview rooted in 7th-century Arabian texts — containing verses that sanction violence, inequality, and tribal warfare — rightfully claim moral superiority in the 21st century?

The answer, upon rigorous examination, is no. The ethical assertions of Islam collapse under the weight of its own source material. What emerges is not a universal code of morality, but a selective ethic shaped by historical contingencies and later rationalizations.

1. The Problem of Foundational Texts

The core sources of Islamic morality are the Qur’an and Hadith. Both are considered divinely guided by most Muslims. Yet these texts contain multiple teachings that, by today’s ethical standards — and even by basic logical consistency — are deeply problematic.

Examples from the Qur’an:

Wife beating – Qur’an 4:34 grants husbands the right to strike their wives if they fear disobedience.
Slavery – Not condemned, but regulated (e.g., 4:3, 23:6, 70:30).
Polygyny – Permitted up to four wives (4:3), with sexual rights over female war captives (4:24).
Apostasy – Qur’an 9:66 and Hadiths (e.g., Bukhari 6922) imply death for leaving Islam.
Religious intolerance – Qur’an 9:5 ("Kill the polytheists wherever you find them"), 9:29 (fight People of the Book until they pay tribute and feel subdued).

These are not obscure verses. They are cited in major tafsir (commentary) traditions, taught in classical jurisprudence, and implemented in Sharia-based legal systems to this day.

2. Selective Application and Deflection

When these texts are brought up, the typical apologetic responses include:

"It was contextual."
"You have to understand Arabic to appreciate the meaning."
"This verse has been misinterpreted."
"Look at the good parts too."

These responses betray a double standard:

Verses promoting charity or kindness are taken as timeless.
Verses promoting violence, inequality, or coercion are treated as historical footnotes.

You can’t have it both ways. Either the Qur’an is universally applicable — and morally deficient by modern standards — or it is context-bound and therefore not universally applicable.

3. The Illusion of Ethical Consistency

Islam claims a divine moral compass. But its ethical rulings often reflect expediency and tribal politics, not transcendent justice. For instance:

In early Meccan verses, tolerance and peace are emphasized (e.g., 109:6 – "To you your religion, and to me mine").
After Muhammad’s migration to Medina and gaining political power, the tone shifts: conquest is glorified, non-Muslims are demonized, and violence is sanctioned.

This moral duality — peaceful when weak, aggressive when strong — is known in Islamic jurisprudence as asbab al-nuzul (occasions of revelation). But that just underscores the point: Islamic morality is circumstantial, not absolute.

4. The Modern Dilemma: Redefining or Denying?

Modern Muslims face a critical choice:

Redefine: Attempt to reinterpret or recontextualize the problematic verses. This leads to Qur’an-only (Qur’anist) movements or liberal reformist strands that reject large portions of Hadith and classical jurisprudence.
Deny: Maintain the orthodoxy, affirm all the texts, and justify them as divine — even when they clearly contradict modern ethics.

The first option sacrifices consistency with traditional Islam. The second sacrifices moral credibility.

5. Double Standards in Criticism

Muslims frequently criticize Western societies for:

Sexual immorality
Materialism
Lack of spiritual values

Yet they ignore or excuse:

The permissibility of child marriage (Aisha at 9, per Bukhari 5134)
Gender inequality in inheritance and testimony
Legalized slavery and concubinage
Death for apostasy and blasphemy

This is not moral high ground. It is selective blindness — excusing systemic injustice when it exists in one’s own scriptures while decrying it in others.

6. Moral Superiority Requires Moral Accountability

You cannot claim ethical superiority:

While supporting texts that deny equal rights to women and non-Muslims.
While defending a prophet whose actions include marrying a child and authorizing assassinations.
While appealing to a legal tradition (fiqh) that justifies wife-beating, corporal punishments, and religious coercion.

Any moral claim must be subject to scrutiny, coherence, and universality. If Islam’s ethics fail under these tests — as the source material shows — then it cannot claim the high ground.

Conclusion: Integrity Over Identity

Ethical credibility doesn’t come from religious identity. It comes from consistency, rational coherence, and willingness to reject injustice — even when it’s found in one’s own tradition.

If moral superiority means defending the indefensible, then it is no moral superiority at all — it is dogma.

Until Muslims confront the ethical failings in their sacred texts honestly — without deflection or denial — any claim to ethical high ground remains not just questionable, but fundamentally invalid.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------About the Author

Mauao Man is a blog created by a New Zealand writer who believes in following the evidence wherever it leads. From history and religion to culture and society, Mauao Man takes a clear, critical, and honest approach — challenging ideas without attacking people. Whether exploring the history of Islam in New Zealand, the complexities of faith, or the contradictions in belief systems, this blog is about asking the hard questions and uncovering the truth.