|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
This has been taken from the book “The Social System in Islam”
Introduction to Social System
Many people go beyond the meaning of the term “social system” and apply it to all systems of life. This is an erroneous usage; given that the systems of life are better expressed as the “systems of society” because that is what they are; they organise the relationships that arise between the people living in a particular society, regardless of whether they meet or not. It is not the meeting of people but the relationships (‘alaqaat) which should be taken into consideration. Consequently, these relationships will be diverse and different. They would include economics, ruling, politics, education, penal code (‘uqubaat), societal transactions (mu’amalaat) and the rules of (testimonial) evidences (bayyinaat) etc.
Thus, the application of the term “social system” to all of these relationships is meaningless and inapplicable. Additionally, the word ‘social’ is a description of a system, thus the subject matter of this system should be the organisation of the problems arising from the meeting of people and the relationships that arise from people meeting together. The meeting of a man with a man and a woman with a woman does not require a system because no problems arise from it, and nor do relationships arise which require a system. Only the organisation of their interests requires a system in view of the fact that they live in the same country even if they did not meet. As for the meeting between men and women, it is from this meeting that problems and relationships arise which need to be organised by a system. Thus, this meeting (ijtimaa’) is better referred to as the social system, because in reality it is this system which organises the meeting between men and women, and the relationships which arise from such meetings. That is why the social system is confined to the system which demonstrates the organisation of the meeting between men and women, and organises this relationship. Thus the social system addresses the relationships that result from men and women meeting and not from their interests in society and it clarifies all that branches out from this relationship. Thus, trade between men and women pertains to the systems of society and not to the social system, because it falls within the economic system. As for the prohibition of seclusion (khalwah) between men and women, or when a woman has the right to instigate divorce for herself, or who has the right of custody of a child, all of these issues pertain to the social system. Therefore, the social system is defined as: the system which organises the meeting between men and women and organises the relationship which results from their meeting and all that branches out from this relationship.
The perception of many people, especially the Muslims, of the social system in Islam became extremely confused. Their understanding became far removed from the reality of Islam due to their alienation from its thoughts and rules. They went to extremes, holding the view that a woman has the right to be in seclusion with a man as and when she wished, or that she can go out with her ‘awrah uncovered wearing whatever she pleased. Whilst others went to the other extreme taking the view that women do not have the right to engage in trade or meet with men under any circumstances, and viewed the whole of the woman’s body as „awrah including the hands and face. Due to these extreme positions there was a degeneration of morals and a stagnation of thinking. The result of all this was the break-up of the social aspect, unrest within the Muslim family, the prevalence of dissatisfaction and discontent amongst family members, and numerous disputes and divisions between them.
The need to unite the family and to ensure its happiness was felt by all Muslims, and the search for a solution to this serious problem occupied the minds of many people. Different attempts of various sorts appeared to present solutions. Many publications were written demonstrating the societal solution and amendments were made to the laws of the Sharee’ah courts and electoral systems. Many tried to apply their views on their families, on their wives, sisters and daughters. Changes were made to the school system with regards to the mixing of boys and girls. Such attempts at addressing the situation continued to appear in these and similar guises. However, none of them succeeded in finding a solution, or bringing forth a system, or finding a method to implement what they perceived as reform. This is because the issue of the relationship between the two sexes became obscure in the minds of many Muslims. They were unable to comprehend the way in which the two genders can co-operate with each other, even though the well-being of the Ummah stems from this co-operation. They were completely ignorant of the thoughts and rules of Islam, which relate to the meeting of the man and the woman. This led them to discuss and debate the means of treatment, avoiding the study of its reality until, as a consequence of their attempts, anxiety and confusion increased. A chasm came to exist in society which gave rise to concerns for the entity of the Islamic Ummah, in its capacity as an Ummah with distinct characteristics. It was feared that the Muslim household would lose its Islamic character, and the Muslim family would lose the guidance of the enlightened thoughts of Islam and stray from valuing its rules and thoughts.
As for the cause of this confusion, and deviation from the correct understanding, it was due to the crushing onslaught of the Western culture. Western culture completely dominated our thinking and tastes; it changed our concepts about life, the criteria for things and our convictions which used to be deeply rooted within us, such as our fortification of Islam and our veneration for our sanctities. Thus, the victory of Western culture over us was comprehensive – encompassing all sectors of life, amongst which was the social aspect.
This happened because when the Western culture emerged in Muslims countries, together with its material forms and materialistic advancements, many were dazzled by it. Consequently they tried to adopt this culture because those material forms, produced by the followers and advocates of this culture, were seen as a sign of progress. That is why they tried to imitate Western culture without distinguishing between Western culture and its material forms. They did not comprehend that culture constitutes a set of concepts about life and a specific way of life while civilisation denotes the material forms or tangible objects in life, regardless of the concepts about life or the way of life. They did not realise that Western culture was founded upon a basis which contradicts the basis of Islamic culture, and that it differed from the Islamic culture in its perspective about life and its understanding of the happiness which man strives to achieve. They could not see the inconceivability of the Muslim Ummah borrowing from the Western culture. Nor could they see the fact that it was impossible for any community of the Islamic Ummah, in any country, to adopt this culture and remain part of the Islamic Ummah or continue to be described as a Islamic community.
Their lack of awareness of the intrinsic difference between the Islamic and Western cultures led to transference and imitation. Many Muslims attempted to borrow Western culture without understanding it, like the one who copies a book confining himself just to writing the words and letters. Some began to imitate Western culture by adopting its concepts and criteria, without reflecting on the effects and consequences of such adoption. These people noticed that women in Western societies stood side by side with men, without discrimination and any concern for the consequences. They also noticed the material forms manifested in the Western woman, besides she came out in public life dressed up with Western material forms; so they imitated her or tried to imitate her without realising that these forms agreed with Western culture, its concepts about life, and its depiction of life – which contradict with the culture of Islam, its concepts about life, and its depiction of life. They did this without the slightest consideration for what these forms manifested in her implied, and their connection with a completely different viewpoint of life.
Instead, they witnessed this and consequently believed that Muslim women should stand alongside men in society and meet with them, regardless of the consequences. They thought that Western material forms should be manifested in the Muslim woman, irrespective of the problems and issues that this entailed. Therefore, they called for the securing of personal freedom for the Muslim woman and granting her the right to do whatever she wished. As a result, they called for the mixing of men and women even when no need existed, and they called for women to reveal their charms and beauty, and for women to hold positions of ruling. They viewed this as progress and as a sign of revival.
What made matters worse was that the imitators gave themselves complete free reign over personal freedom, until a woman would directly contact a man just for the sake of contact and for the enjoyment of personal freedom. This was done without a reason which necessitated the contact, and without the need in society for such mixing. This contact between the sexes was made for the sake of socialising and enjoyment of personal freedom. The evil effect that this group of imitators who embarked on applying such ideas had, was that the relationship between a man and a woman became solely restricted to a sexual relationship. The evil effect of this group then spread to the other sections of society. This contact did not produce any form of co-operation between men and women, in any sector of life. On the contrary, what resulted was moral degeneration, such as women displaying their charms and adornment to people other than their husbands or mahram men. Amongst Muslims, other consequences were the deviation from the correct way of thinking, corruption in their tastes, loss of confidence (in the Islamic rules) and destruction of the criteria (for actions). The social aspect in the West was taken as the ideal model and Western society was taken as a benchmark without considering the fact that Western society does not care about extra-marital sex and does not see in it any shame, defamation or a breach of the correct and acceptable behaviour, nor as a violation or threat to morality. They did this without noticing that the Islamic society fundamentally disagrees with it and completely contradicts it. This is because the Islamic society considers the extra-marital relationship as one of the grave sins (kabaa’ir) for which there is a severe punishment; either lashing or stoning to death. It also considers the one who commits this sin as an outcast and a deviant, who is looked upon with loathing and contempt. Furthermore, an Islamic society also sees it as axiomatic that honour should be protected and that this is an issue that is not open to discussion or debate, and in the defence of which wealth and lives should be sacrificed willingly and with zeal, without any excuses.
Indeed, those transferors and imitators did not consider the difference between the two societies and the huge disparity between the two positions, just as they did not consider what the Islamic life made incumbent on them and what the Sharee’ah rules demanded of them. They rushed headlong in the pursuit of transference and imitation until the call for women’s revival became dressed with shamelessness and indifference to morally reprehensible behaviour. In this manner those transferors and imitators continued to destroy the social aspect in the life of Muslims in the name of reviving women and under the pretext of working to revive the Ummah. Initially, such people were a minority and the Ummah did not accept their call. However, after the capitalist system was implemented in the Muslim countries and they were ruled by the disbelieving colonialists and then by their agents who blindly followed their direction, this minority was able to influence and bring the majority of those living in the cities, and some from the villages, to follow their path. They began to transfer and imitate Western culture until the Islamic character was wiped out from many quarters of Muslim cities. There was no difference between Istanbul and Cairo or between Tunis and Damascus. Nor was there a difference between Karachi and Baghdad or Al-Quds and Beirut. All of them followed the path of transference and imitation of Western culture.
It was natural for a group from amongst the Muslims to rise up and struggle against these thoughts. It was inevitable that a large number of people from the Muslims’ countries would set about to fight these ideas. Groups were formed which called for the obligation of protecting the Muslim woman and safeguarding the virtues in society. However, they did this without understanding the systems of Islam and the Sharee’ah rules were unclear to them. They accepted interest (maslahah), as perceived by the mind, as a basis for study and as a criterion for judging ideas and matters. They also called for the preservation of customs and traditions. They called people to hold on to morals, without comprehending that the basis should be the Islamic ‘Aqeedah and that the criterion should be the Sharee’ah rules. Blind fanaticism concerning the Hijaab of women reached the point where they advocated restrictions over women by not giving them permission to leave the house, fulfil their needs, or pursue matters themselves. The later jurists (Fuqaha) ascribed five types of ‘awrah to women: ‘awrah in prayer, „awrah when in the presence of male mahrams, ‘awrah when in the presence of foreign (non mahram) men, ‘awrah when amongst other Muslim women and ‘awrah amongst non-Muslim women. According to this, they called for the total segregation (Hijaab) of women preventing them from seeing or being seen by anyone. They called for barring women from pursuing life’s activities. They maintained that she should be barred from practising the right to vote by excluding her from holding an opinion about politics, ruling, economics or society. They stood between her and life until they thought that some verses had come to address men to the exclusion of women. They gave misinterpretations to the hadith of the Prophet (saw) about his (saw) shaking the hands of women in the bay’ah, his ahadith about the ‘awrah of women and his (saw) societal transactions (mu’amalat) with women, that agreed with what they intended for women and not what was required by the hukm shar’i.
Thus, all of this served to distance people from the Sharee’ah rules and obscure the aspect of social system in the minds of the Muslims. Consequently, their views were not able to stand in the face of the attacking thoughts, or impede the overwhelming flow of Western ideas, or have even the slightest effect in elevating the aspects of the social system amongst the Muslims. This happened in spite of the existence of scholars in the Ummah, who are of the foremost mujtahideen and scholars of mazahib in terms of their knowledge and erudition, and in spite of the existence of an intellectual and legislative wealth at the disposal of Muslims which is unparalleled compared to the wealth of any other nation. This happened in spite of the abundance of books and valuable works in the possession of Muslims in their public and private libraries. None of this had any affect in deterring the the transferors and imitators, or in convincing the narrow-minded of the Islamic opinion which had been derived correctly by a mujtahid, so long as it disagreed with what they wanted women to follow. This is because for the people on both sides, amongst the imitators and the narrow -minded, the scholars and the educated were far from being what one would describe as thinkers. They did not understand the reality, or they didn’t understand the hukm of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala). They did not study the Sharee’ah rules intellectually by accurately applying them to the reality so as to be in full agreement with them. Due to this, the society in Muslim countries continued to oscillate between two notions: imitation and rigid narrow-mindedness. The social aspect continued in a confused state until the Muslim woman became bewildered. On the one side she saw women who were anxious and confused, taking from Western society without understanding it and without being aware of its reality, or knowing the contradiction that existed between it and the Islamic culture; and on the other side she saw narrow-minded women who did not benefit themselves, nor the wider Muslims at large. All of this was due to a failure in studying Islam intellectually and not understanding the Islamic social system.
Therefore, we must study the Islamic social system comprehensively. We must study it deeply until we realise that the problem is the meeting between men and women and the relationship that results from their meeting and that which branches out from this relationship. Also we need to understand that what is required is the treatment of this meeting and the resultant relationship and that which branches out from it. It should be understood that this solution is not dictated by the mind but by the Shar’a. As for the mind, its role is simply to understand the solution. This solution is for Muslim men and women to live a specific lifestyle which Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) has obliged them to live. They are obliged to restrict their living solely to the lifestyle Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) has commanded in the Qur’an and Sunnah, irrespective of whether it contradicts the Western lifestyle or disagrees with the customs and traditions of their own fathers and forefathers.
