Qualities of virtue and vice
Is it a praiseworthy quality to pay for a group of young men’s drinks at a bar?
Qualities of virtue and vice cannot be viewed from outside of a system of morality.
Let’s take an example.
Is it a praiseworthy quality to pay for a group of young men’s drinks at a bar?
Most people outside of Muslims will say, yes, because you’re being generous and giving to others. But Muslims will disagree because they believe that alcohol is morally bad and so providing and paying for alcoholic drinks would not be praiseworthy.
Is it a praiseworthy quality to slaughter a goat, make a meal, and feed a poor family when there are vegetarian options just as easily available?
Most people will say yes, because according to them, animals can be consumed and as long as it's not wasteful, you're welcome to eat meats or vegetables and feeding a poor family would be good so one is not necessarily better than the other. But vegetarians such as Hindus will disagree because they believe that taking animal life for human consumption is a morally reprehensible thing to do.
People in the past understood that different people have different things that they hold valuable. It was also easier because we didn't live together in societies where your neighbor could hold an entirely different framework for morality.
It's only now in the modern world where people separated virtues and vices away from entire frameworks of morality that they now ask questions that are independent of those systems.
Is it arrogance to say that Islam is right and all other religions are wrong?
Well, it depends who you ask.
According to Muslims, no, this is not arrogance at all. There's nothing arrogant about acknowledging the truth. And yet, an outsider who doesn't view qualities of virtue and vice from within a system of morality may not think this is a true. Someone like Jordan Peterson may hear that statement and laugh, because for him this is arrogance because the framework through which he views virtue and vice is different than that of a Muslim. For him, it's not possible to know what the truth is.
Muslims in the modern world have fallen into a specific trap that people of previous times were able to avoid for a number of reasons; and that is confusing the fact that just because there may be overlaps within two moral systems that both of those moral systems are the same.
Both Muslims and Hindus for example can agree that taking a human life is wrong, that feeding the poor is good, that defending the honor of your family is praiseworthy, but they disagree on one major aspect and that is that Muslims would deem idol worship reprehensible and a sin far worse than any other sin a person could commit.
Similarly Muslims and Secular Liberal Humanists can agree that taking a human life is wrong, that feeding the poor is good, and protecting your property is praiseworthy, but they disagree on a number of things, to name one, Muslims believe that consent isn't the only necessary requirement for sexual fulfillment, but rather a nikkah contract.
Many in today's time confuse the idea that just because two separate systems of morality have overlaps, that they are the same.
Jordan Peterson recently said in an interview with Mohammad Hijab when asked if he believes in God, "What do you mean you, what do you mean believe, what do you mean God?". In a strange way, Peterson actually does have a point even if he is incorrect. Peterson doesn't buy into a concept of God the way a Muslim would.
As my friend Naz said, "he thinks that God is the word we use to describe the prime point in a hierarchy of values and knowing exactly what that is, is unknowable. But humans must align themselves with that hierarchy of values otherwise suffer. Faith for him is purely practical and it has nothing to do with truth with a capital T." He doesn't believe in "God" the way Muslims do and so for a Muslim, our answer to does Peterson believe in God, would be no, because we do have defined concepts of 'you', 'believe', and 'God'. He doesn't agree with the framework.
This is the mistake the modern edgelord skeptic makes and I see many Muslims falling victim to the same mindset.
These types of people are not willing to submit to a framework of defined virtues and vices. And as my friend Saad aptly put, "they sympathize with the skeptical and philosophical question of 'what is anything' which has caused many a philosopher to lose their minds. It scratches an intellectual curiosity and they play devils advocate for these positions not because they are logically and rationally rigorous but because there is a little kernel of what we call ego/nafsy rebellion in it like a student trying to prove the wisdom of the teacher wrong and they get caught up in it."
This is why people are so up in arms about Qatar not allowing public displays of affection because they have a hard time understanding the idea that there can be a system of virtues and vices that are defined outside of the framework which they believe to be true.
As Muslims we have to be careful not to fall into these traps ourselves because it's easy to get confused by the idea that just because we may have some overlapping things we agree on, the reasons why we agree are completely different.
And Allah and his Messenger ﷺ know best.