-
Secularism – The Role of Church in Medieval Europe
Ever since the decline of the Roman Empire in 3 CE, the Church began gaining more power. The first Christian Roman Emperor (Constantine) combined government of the state with the Church’s affairs. This led to Christianity being implemented as mandatory rule in certain aspects of life (i.e. the rituals involving state delegations, private and public worship, etc.). Around 476 CE, kingdoms began to emerge in Europe. The Monarchs who governed the kingdoms had dealings with the Church which by now had amassed quite considerable wealth and power. As many of these rulers were really puppets placed in position by the Church (they were usually from large wealthy families who were considered to be the Church’s benefactors), their principles/criteria for ruling were also dictated by the Church. However, if we examine the Christianity of the day (or even that of today), we find that it lacks certain systems by which to govern. Where in Islam we may find comprehensive descriptions of the ruling system, the education system, the foreign policy, the economic and the ritual systems, in Christianity we may only find vague and scant references to how these principles should become a way of government. Therefore, the Roman Church had to look elsewhere for its policies, and turned to many of the traditions of the old pagan Roman government.
Although the papacy ruled directly over only the small regions around Rome, and from time to time over England, Sicily and Jerusalem, it had more political power than any other government in Europe. It was the Church (and therefore the Pope) which was responsible for levying taxes, introducing judicial rulings, and the Pope was believed to be infallible and in direct contact with God. So, the Church used its supremacy over the masses in a barbarous and brutal manner: many women were tortured and killed when the Church declared them to be witches; scientists who disagreed with the teachings of the Church were imprisoned, exiled or executed; the Church appropriated much land and power which was never used for the benefit of society but rather distributed amongst the privileged or else hoarded. Innocent people were exploited with promises of intercession when they died. A great source of income was the sale of the ‘Keys to Heaven’ to a person on his deathbed wanting to be absolved of all his sins; or to wealthy families with many sins on their neck would be convinced that if they commission artists to portray religious propaganda art, they would be forgiven.
People at the time did not want to speak out against such atrocities for fear of recrimination – such was the fear they had of their ruling body. This form of governing continued till the beginning of the 14th century when huge signs of discontent became apparent. This frustration came about due to the anger of the European thinkers, humiliation of the Crusaders at the hands of the great Muslim State, and because the Church was seen as a total disaster when it came to solving the problems of the people (due to Christianity’s lack of systems).
The 1500’s brought about much theological debate and controversy in Europe. Each state also saw the Church as a useful tool to gain control of others, make deals, etc. 1618 resulted in much violence and bloodshed over much of Europe. It was the time of the 30 years war after which most kingdoms were left in ruins. A third of Europe’s population died either in battle, plague or malnutrition. France and Spain continued fighting till 1659.
Then, along came the Reformers to call an end to the violence. They were Martin Luther and John Calvin – Reformers of the Church – and they declared politics as something of an embarrassment, and that one of the main duties of the Christian man was to obey the constituted authority no matter how wicked it may be. The question of man-made rule or divine rule remained unanswered.
As mentioned earlier, the state turned to Ancient history (i.e. Roman Empire) to fill in the gaps in advocating new laws, but the basis of the teachings of the Roman Empire came from ancient Greek philosophy. This is what the Humanists began to make references to in the late 1500’s, to find solutions to their problems. This led to a split into 2 groups:
1. Those who studied Greek philosophy and called for ‘Naturalism’, and believed in human beings natural reason in solving all problems.
2. Those in favor of the Church who advocated ‘Realism’ and the divinity of the teachings of the Church.
In Italy, these two groups were the Gulfs and the Ghibellines, and they were in constant battle against each other for leadership. The result brought about a victory in secular thought. This new society whose basis was the idea of either abolition of religion altogether (the basis of communism), or the separation of religion from life’s affairs (basis of capitalism). This left the society in obscurity when it came to the meaning and significance of life and the universe, and led to a boom in the philosopher population throughout Europe. Examples of the confusion which this led to may be seen in the teachings of Rene Descartes who said: ‘The reality is different for different people, depending upon the individual’s consciousness, thus leaving belief in God on the individual’s consciousness’; and Immanuel Kant who said: ‘The human mind is responsible for the existence of things as we perceive them’.
Soon the reign of the Medieval Church came to an end. Europe’s secular institutions began to emerge in the form of a new ideological base (Capitalism). Nations began to think that their citizens were superior to others by race or innate genius and thus began to see themselves as guardians of their national freedom. This led to the idea that geography or climate selected these frontiers, and within men was a natural will to be ‘free’ – to govern themselves and to dominate others. Thus, they would feel superior and more perfect than those of other races. Just as the Germans praised their peoples’ ability to rule others (their monarchy), in England John Fortescue claimed that English free law and constitution was superior to an existing law.
These new thoughts became popular thought and hence left the Church to withdraw and mold itself to a new set of laws based on the secular states (there were reform groups working within the Church to accomplish this). So now the Church could no longer manipulate the monarchs, it was a tool in the hands of the secular governments to manipulate the people; e.g. the declaration of the Church that secular people who lived faithfully and worked honestly were as good in front of God as the religious people. This was a complete turn around from their threatening gestures made earlier towards anyone who said anything that challenged the Christian doctrine.
Machiavelli is today considered to be one of the founders of modern-day political thought. He wrote two books: ‘The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy’, and ‘The Prince’. His political thought was: “Politics is purely secular. It is the combat of men in search of power. Men are all alike, brutal, and therefore, all selfish politics must follow universal rules which are the same for all men. Therefore, the successful ruler must have studied history, must observe his contemporaries and be willing to exploit their weaknesses”.
Many modern-day parliamentary systems are based on Machiavelli’s teachings, and many draw upon the example of 1790 – the French Revolution.
Starting with the reign of Napoleon in France, other Western countries began colonization of the other parts of the world, to export the Capitalist ideology and to gain economically. We still see this exploitation being carried out today, through more effective forms.
So, if we look at today’s Capitalist society, a politician is very similar to Machiavelli’s ideal politician. The Church no longer rules Europe; her place has been taken over by the corporations and banks. Just as an artist performs for the sake of art and not for the people, a writer writes for the sake of freedom of expression and not for the benefit of society, their intellectuals/thinkers are experts only at making compromises instead of solutions. Their governments are like tools at the hands of the corporate businesses and the wealthy. Each member of this society lives for the sake of their individuality, and not for society. Therefore, to conclude, we must say that Secular/Capitalist thought is built upon the shallow and the reactionary and it is not a rational basis of thinking.
-
The West’s Scientific Obsession
Science, since the industrial revolution era, has risen to such a stature that today it is the deen of many in the Western world. For many, questions such as creation, God and life can only be accurately studied, concluded and deduced through the scientific method of experimentation and deduction. Western thinkers today use science to explain many problems and issues and only accept conclusions when scientific studies have proved so. Whilst science has existed since the dawn of the world, its reverence as seen in the West is unprecedented.
Whilst the West’s expansion of science initially began with the application of chemicals, metals and weapons, this today has expanded to human behaviour (psychology), society, (sociology) and then legislation and even thought itself.
Science against certainty
The West’s embracement of science and almost fundamentalist defence of it, is due to the historical situation Europe faced. The Christian Church was Fidel – in that religious beliefs must be based on faith rather than the mind. A direct reaction to this was the development of the scientific method, which launched what has come to be known as the Enlightenment in the late 17th Century. The ultimate aim of the Enlightenment was freedom, in particular the liberation of people from the influence of religion. It was widely known that the Church had hindered progress in all fields of life socially, economically and scientifically via the intolerance to inquiry it had imposed upon the continent. The intellectual elite of Europe saw this as backward superstition and hoped their own project would smash the domination of the Church and lead to ‘modernity’. The European scientists and philosophers felt reason was the most central human faculty so they argued to be allowed to exercise it by questioning everything through scientific endeavour. They sought to challenge ideas that were held in a dogmatic manner i.e. were questioning was not allowed. This led them to clash directly with Church leaders and the political establishment who both maintained that some things were absolutely certain, sacred and should not be questioned.
Whilst modernists were determined to replace emotion with reason the ‘modernist’ trend went further. Anything that was claimed to be certain (i.e. claimed to be divine), had to be confronted and opposed via reason, questioning and scientific enquiry. The commitment to use reason in all cases was hostile to any idea on life that did not originate from the human mind, this included issues from religion. Enlightenment philosophers refused to give anything an amnesty from the debate and called for people to be brave enough to do without ‘belief’.
Enlightenment philosophers felt being certain was never a possibility. They equated certainty with dogma and felt compelled to fight it. After they won their intellectual clash in Europe, they set about introducing secularism at state level. Secularism is not the absolute denial of religion, as long as religion is prevented from taking part in societal decisions and denied a role in public life. When this was done, the secular liberal democratic nation state had a new model for organising society.
This gave rise to empiricists such as Locke, Berkeley and Hume They saw Science as the height of knowledge since it never left itself open to dogma. Science challenged everything and never ‘lapsed’ into certainty and absolute truths.
Hence from this brief timeline we witness the development of an agenda deep within the modernist project that has filtered through to today’s scientific and philosophical establishments; there is a hatred for absolute certainty. The secular fear of certainty does not prize certainty and as a result it asks an unending, ever-increasing list of questions instead.
The scientific method
The scientific method in its simplest is a hypothesis followed by the design for an experiment, then through testing and observation a conclusion can be deduced. This also means that subjectivity cannot be completely eliminated e.g. linguists argue that the words with which we set out a scientific project reveal inevitable preconceptions. Also any result is speculative due to the probability of error, this is why ensuring samples are representative was exist to minimise such possibilities. Also it is a requirement for identifying a variable so it can be isolated from other variables, subjected to new conditions and observed.
The fundamental issue here is that the scientific model cannot be applicable in all times and places, where no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed? This would conclusively disprove that the scientific model is capable of answering every query or even that science is the most evolved form of thinking. This would necessarily lead us to conclude that science is a branch of thinking applicable only in certain instances.
We could ask, for example, how to construct experiments based on the scientific model, was Islamic Spain the most tolerant place on Earth during the 13th Century? To answer this query a single variable that leads to tolerance would have to be identified and scientifically defined. We would then need to be capable of subjecting other societies during the period to laboratory conditions in order to isolate the variable leading to tolerance. A criterion for evaluation, comparison and measurement would be required and the experiment would have to conclude objectively. The scientific model is clearly not built for such types of enquiry.
Scientific theories or laws are formed through repeated observations to predict some as yet unobserved events. Such a process (of making inferences from the particular to the general) is known as induction. An example is to repeatedly observe that the sun rises and sets daily and to conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow.
This means that a scientific idea could never be proven true, because no matter how many observations seem to agree with it, it may still be wrong, If it is never possible to infer the course of the future by examining past regularities then the very basis of the scientific method is in doubt.
The Scientific Question
It is also important to note that the scientific model is concerned with questions of how things work rather than why. So science would be interested in answering how the universe began, not why the universe began. How does a scientist begin to answer why the universe began? The questions of how and why are completely different but scientists unable to answer why often answer how instead. They then expect it to be sufficient.
Science can answer how things rust, not why and how we see the colour orange. Take an example of grass. Why is it green not bright blue or deep red? The scientific answer is that chlorophyll absorbs blue and red light while reflecting green. Of course, this is an answer for how but we are expected to accept it as the answer for why as well.
All of this shows that science has a place and cannot be used to answer every question. The scientific method is fantastic when dealing with technology which must always be challenged. Imagine no entrepreneur ever sought to build safer motorcars since they were certain they had the safest or if attempts to eradicate all known diseases ended in hopelessness and despair. The scientific model provides us with the framework necessary to deal with these and other inconclusive matters. However it has definite limitations that render it incapable of tackling other questions. Science could never answer why we are here why are we here? The scientific model cannot apply in a discussion of “why we exist?”
Rational Method
Emotional faith and the scientific model have both been found wanting when answering the greatest question. This is since emotion confirms absolutely nothing and the scientific method does not apply to questions of why things happen, only how and only in instances where the subject matter is tangible, variables can be isolated, manipulated and repeated testing can take place.
What is needed is an alternative method of thinking. If anyone looks around themselves the images of what you see transfer into your head. Reach out and touch an inanimate object such as a wall, a chair, a desk, a PC, a book. Your senses are transferring impressions into you so you can ponder over them.
What stages of the process of thought can we determine from this?
Sensation took place, without which one could not ponder over things. There is also a need for reality as our senses can only be aware of things if they exist in a tangible form. There is definitely some transfer of the sensed reality, as the sensation must get to your mind so you can ‘think’ about the sensed reality. Lastly, there’s a judgement.
However, something intrinsic is missing from the steps outlined thus far. This is so as sensation alone is not enough to understand a reality. One could sense a new reality forever and still move no closer to comprehension if one had no information on the issue to explain the reality. Both sensation and some degree of information are necessary.
The following examples should illustrate this. Let us begin within an example of language. If one were to pick up a book in classical (fusHa) Arabic and stare at the letters, word after word, page after page without having some understanding of Arabic (the previous information) it would not matter how much sensation took place. Reading and understanding Arabic would be impossible if one did not have the slightest appreciation of the Arabic language. Sensation alone is not enough.
Let us imagine one who had never left a primitive village and had absolutely no idea of life outside of the rural sphere. What would a complete newcomer to a big city make of simple things like road double yellow lines, zebra crossings and post boxes using sensation alone (i.e. without having any previous information on them)? Completely alone on the street at night a set of traffic lights could be sensed but would make no sense. The sensation of the sequence (red man, green man for pedestrians and red, amber, green, amber, red for vehicles) would take place but what next? In order to comprehend them the villager would be forced to look elsewhere for information either by asking others or by attempting to collect some information. Observing (sensing) the response of pedestrians and traffic to the lights would provide the information. What happens when the lights go red? Why do some stop and others go? What was the flashing light when a car speeds through a red light? What was that loud, beeping sound from that angry driver?
Once the information was collected the villager could face the reality (lights go green), sense (see the green light), transfer the sensation to the brain, link it to the information already held (green man means walk as the vehicles are not free to go) and would lead to judgement (the villager would cross the road).
What about a grown man who had been kept in a cave from birth, had never even seen daylight and only been subjected to the most rudimentary ideas and information on life. He would surely struggle in the cockpit of a Boeing 747 or operating the safety controls of a nuclear power plant as without previous information no thought could take place.
What is missing from all the examples above is the previous information that explains the reality. Linking this previous information to the sensation is what leads to thinking. Sensation alone is not enough. This is also solves the problematic question of what the mind is. The mind is the previous information. From this, we can now place the five stages of the method of thinking in correct order.
1. Reality
2. Sensation of the reality
3. Transference of the sensed reality to the brain
4. Linking the sensation with the previous information, this is the mind. The linking is the actual process of thinking leading to thought
5. Judgement upon the realityThis is the process we use to think about things. We would not utilise emotion or the scientific model to read a magazine, visit the WC or work out if the car was out of petrol. We would use the five-stage process outlined above and it is necessary to use this rational method to answer the greatest question.
The rational method is the basis of all thinking, even science. No experiment could be constructed without previous information (e.g. how to operate a bunsen burner, how to read and write etc.). In fact, the rational method can be found directly in many of the social sciences such as sociology and psychology. Science is incapable of testing human behaviour, as it requires tangible matter to experiment on. Social scientists either resort to prescribing Prozac for depression or follow a model of observation. Psychologists and sociologists make multiple observations of subjects over set periods without attempting to scientifically subject them to new conditions. An example of how to do so would be to take the human being out of the natural environment into a controlled environment and attempt to isolate what makes the human behave in certain ways. Periodic observation leading to a conclusion, without any manipulation, is a part of the rational method not the scientific. This coincidentally solves the issue of induction mentioned earlier and proves why we assume the sun will rise tomorrow. Specific elements of the social sciences are also not scientific. Psychoanalysis (studying dreams etc.) fails as a science as its answers can never be verified and depend upon repeated observation.
The rational method is clearly the natural thinking process at the base of other forms of thought (logical, philosophical, legislative etc.). It is the only method of thought that leads to certain knowledge, definite answers and truth.
Creation
When we examine everything within the range of our sensations we come to the following two conclusions:
1. We cannot sense (see, touch, hear, smell or taste) a Creator
2. Everything we can sense is dependent on something else and has a limit of some kind that it cannot surpass
We must be clear on the first point. We cannot sense a Creator. Some would have us believe in aliens or in ‘mother nature’ but this cannot be accepted as we have already denied emotion and blind imitation a role in this endeavour. Others would have us end the discussion here since no Creator can be sensed. Such people cite the phrase ‘seeing is believing’. The predicament with this is that this implies the opposite (i.e. ‘not seeing equals nothing to believe in’). This is blank, vacuous and weak.
Sensing a Creator is not a prerequisite to prove a Creator exists and never has been. We see many things in our daily lives without knowing who exactly is responsible but the result leads us to believe something definitely was responsible e.g. a sculpture requires a sculptor etc. The material cause of the sculpture would be clay but the efficient cause of the artwork would be the sculptor.
The proof of a Creator is in whether we can find evidence of creation.
This can only be proved or disproved by applying rational thought. So far the first conclusion (cannot sense a Creator) is of little help. So any answer will have to come from the second conclusion which is the enlightened view on all we sense i.e. everything is limited and dependent.
Something is limited if it is contingent and requires something peripheral to it in order to bring it into existence i.e. a cause. It is limited if it depends on something else. Whatever is limited has a dependency somewhere or how. It cannot sustain itself forever and deteriorates accordingly. We can find or deduce either a beginning or end point or both. The space it occupied can be measured. It has boundaries it cannot exceed and obstacles it cannot overcome. It is conditional; unable to prevent itself from being affected and swayed by external factors. It can be contained and is subject to constraints and thresholds. It is limited since its constituent parts are limited as they can be measured. In addition it can produce or reproduce but cannot create something else out of nothing. It can be increased and/or reduced. In short, it is finite since its restrictions are inherent and unavoidable. Such a thing can be marked out as limited.
We human beings are limited as there are actions we cannot undertake (e.g. we cannot fly), see into the future or escape death. Space, and the entire universe, consists of limited things such as planets, stars and comets which themselves are measurable and we know the sum of limited things must be limited.
This leaves us with the conclusion that that limited things were bought into existence by an unlimited first cause (Creator). This cause has to be eternal, without bounds otherwise it would be limited and dependent. The Creator is something unlimited and independent that every other thing ultimately depends upon. For this independent force to exist then it must be other than limited, i.e. other than quantifiable and definable. Therefore this independent thing must be unlimited. This necessitates that this unlimited, independent force chose to create and was not forced to create. Choice signifies will and intelligence. As a result we come to the rational conclusion that a limitless, infinite, intelligent force created the universe.
This is the proof that there is a Creator. Which is can only be proven through the rational method, which is the only method that gives decisive results on creation. Whilst science is a very useful model of thought, its lacks the certainty provided by the rational method.
-
It is not allowed that the Ahkam (rules) change as the time and place change
This is from the book “Islamic Thought”
It dominates over the minds of the majority of Muslims nowadays a belief that Islam is flexible; and it adapts with the social, economical and political situations in every time and every place; and that it changes to comply with, in terms of its ahkam (rules), the needs of the recent situations, and with the requirements of what the people, nowadays, liked and used to.
They support this claim they advocated by a principle (qaa’idah) they describe as legal (shar’i) which says: “There is no obligation that the ahkam (rules) change as the time changes.” Based on that, you find them adjust their conduct with the reality (al-waaq’i) and adapt their behaviour in accordance with what is requires. If you reminded them with the ahkam of the Shar’, they said they (the ahkam) were for a specific time; and Islam obliges men to go along with his time; and to act in accordance with what suits his time and place!! So, they justify the presence of banks based on interest (usury) and the share companies and dealing with them as a practical interest (maslahah). So Islam must be twisted to as to agree on them, for it is flexible as they forge. Women’s show-off their charm, and their mixing with others without a need approved by Shar’, and their entertainment with the foreigner men in the (night) parties; all of these must be permitted and accepted, because they are the time necessities. How then Islam disagrees with the age when the divine principle says: Islam changes as the time and place change? That is what they claim. They also say polygamy has finished as a rule because the time no more finds it pleasant. Similarly amputating the thief ’s hand and stoning the adulterer or lashing him must not be discussed, because they do not suit the taste of our current time. Thus, the principle and its examples proceed so as to be concentrated in the minds of the Muslims. This is at the time they totally disagree with Islam; they rather destroy its principles and details, demolish its legislation and obliterate its features. These ideas appeared only at the end of the nineteenth century, at the time of the worst intellectual decline. Imperialism came later on to nurture this concept till it prevailed in this harsh form.
Ahkam shar’iyyah in Islam came as systems to treat man in regards the satisfaction of his organic needs and instincts. The Legislator has addressed us with these ahkam in the Kitab and the Sunnah, which are the only source in Islam for deducting the ahkam shar’iyyah. The hukm shar’i is the Legislator’s speech related to the action of men. This hukm shar’i must be proved by evidence (daleel) that it is the speech of the Legislator. In other words, it must be derived from the text, which is the ayah or the hadeeth; or what is proved by the test, such as ijmaa’ us-Sahabah and the qiyas (analogy) based on a divine reason (‘illah sharee’ah). Accordingly, there is only one source for the ahkam shar’iyyah, which is the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace be upon him). From these two sources, the treatments are deduced for solving the problems of people and settling the disputes amongst them. So, are the time and place considered Book or Sunnah? On what basis man is allowed to treat his problems, and the Ummah to organise the relationships of her society, according to the time and place, when Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala has obliged that the reality be treated by the ahkam deduced from the Kitab of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace be upon him)?
When the Islamic sharee’ah treats man, it requires studying the reality of his problems, then discovering the hukm of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala on them, by deducing it from the Kitab and the Sunnah, or from what they alluded to. So it is a duty upon every Muslim, when he applies the sharee’ah on the society, to study the society accurately, and then treat it by the Shar’ of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala and change it radically based on the ideology of Islam, without giving any account to the circumstances and situations in disagreeing with the Shar’. So everything that disagrees with Islam must be removed; and everything Islam commanded of must be enforced and put in application. The reality of the society must be restricted with the orders and prohibitions of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala. It is not allowed for Muslims to adjust in accordance with the reality of their time and place. It is rather duty upon them to treat that with the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.
-
How Muslims Study Islam Today
This is taken from the book “Way of Thinking” by Hasan Abdullah
Examining Muslims today shows that the Muslims acquire Islam through three principle methods:
The Scholastic, or Academic, Method
This method emphasizes delivering Islam as a curriculum in a scholastic format in which information, and not concepts and thoughts, is the substance. The student-teacher relationship is the approach of this method, and giving instructions constitutes its style. If the student graduates, he will resemble a book that carries information and spits it out, and Islam would consist of nothing more than information dictated to him. Such a person would repeat quotations from scholars and their works without any critical thinking or consideration to the evidences and arguments simply because he cannot do so. His capability would be confined to relaying the information that was handed to him just as a database would download information when programmed to do so.
Studying Islam in this erroneous method will produce neither a thinker based on Islam nor a mujtahid, but will produce human textbooks whom the extent of their contributions will be limited to copying the works of others and writing some commentaries on them. Such a method could be useful in studying an information-based discipline such as geography or history. However, it cannot be taken as a method of studying the Aqeedah and the thoughts because the Islamic Aqeedah and its thoughts must be acquired intellectually through a dynamic process of relating the thoughts to the situation until they become firmly-rooted thoughts and not just theoretical information carried by the person like the words on the pages of a book.
The Emotional Method
The essence of this method entails bringing stories and preaching Islamic personalities. It depends on the emotional approach and not the thinking process in order to push a person to function. Because this approach realizes that emotions by their intrinsic nature can get out of control, it depends on programming the individual in a specific way. The individual who acquires Islam through this method will start learning that discipline and obedience towards the shaykhs and the mas’ooleen is a part of Islam.
This method is, relatively speaking, a new method because it was influenced by the psychological based sciences that came with disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and education. This approach does not regard man, life and the universe as the subject of thinking and research but instead places the human psyche and its development as the ultimate objective. The scope of thinking and research remains restricted to the psyche of the individual through promoting its positive aspects and treating its negative aspects. Also, it connects such individuals with the mas’ooleen and the shaykhs emotionally in the same manner that a person is connected with his father or therapist. As a result, those who acquired Islam in this way are attached to certain personalities whom they regard as holy and follow as examples without any thinking.
Such a method does not produce intellectuals, thinkers, or mujtahids, nor does it claim to produce them. It could be used in dealing with the young children or with those who do not think and therefore look forward to those who would think on their behalf and relieve them of the burden of thinking. This approach could also apply to those who do not think and are seeking a group of people to associate with in order to enjoy the social environment and activities that this group or tribe provides them, such as friendship, visits, and collective activities involving ibadat, trips, and sports. Therefore, this method cannot initiate the revival of the Ummah, nor can it provide the Ummah with the thought and the awareness needed for such a revival.
The Sufi Method
This approach is influenced by the notion that the human being consists of two components – the spirit and the material aspect – that are mutually antagonistic. Thus, the human being has a spiritual momentum that must be elevated, and the only way to do so is to deprive the body of its physical needs. This process continues until the person attains a level where he merges with God and he sees God in himself. From the vantage point of this method, Islam and its rules as mere signs and symbols guiding the person in his path towards God. The value of these rules and symbols lay in comprehending their concealed or hidden meanings, what the Sufis call the “Haqiqah” or the reality. This “Haqiqah” is distinct from what they refer to as the apparent meaning, which they use to denote the Shariah.
Sufism upholds the idea of Fatalism in which everything is predestined and man has no will of his own. Thus, the Sufis claim that a person must surrender to his situation and cannot change it. Furthermore, Sufism encourages the human being to live in seclusion and give the natural phenomena in the universe a metaphysical interpretation. The Sufis also encourage passiveness, total surrender to the reality, and being careless about the reality because, according to their claim, these qualities characterize the one who suppresses himself, his desires, and his physical inclinations. These qualities are needed for the one who wants to conceal his mind because they constitute the first step towards evanescence and merging into God’s entity.
Some people who either failed in the life or who just look to the Deen as an escape from the current situation may use this approach as an outlet of contentment or solace. This is an extremely dangerous approach because it kills the awareness and the thinking in the Ummah and propagates passiveness and total surrender to the status quo without any attempt to change it.
-
Socialism and Communism
This is taken from the book “Our Philosophy” by Bakir al-Sadr
There are many schools of socialism. The best-known of these is chat which teats on Marxist theory, or dialectical materialism, which expresses a specific philosophy of life and a materialistic understanding of it along dialectical lines. Dialectical materialists have applied this theory to history, society and economics; and thus, it became a philosophical doctrine concerning the world, a method for studying history and society, a school of economics and a plan in politics. In other words, it shapes the entirety of humankind into a specific mold, according to the kind of thinking they have, their outlook on life and their practical actions. There is no doubt that the materialistic philosophy, as well as the dialectical method, are not the creation and innovation of the Marxist school. The materialistic tendency existed in philosophical circles thousands of years ago, revealed at times, while concealed ac other times behind sophistry and absolute denial. Similarly, some points of the dialectical method of thinking have deep roots in human thought. All its points were formulated at the hands of Hegel, the well-known idealist philosopher. After that, Karl Marx adopted this [dialectical] method and chat [materialistic] philosophy. He tried to apply them to all fields of life, and achieved two things. First, by the dialectical method, he explained history from a purely materialistic perspective. Second, he claimed to have discovered the contradictions of capitalism and the surplus value that the possessor of money steals from his employees in accordance with his doctrine.
On the basis of these two achievements, Marx based his faith on the necessity of abolishing the capitalistic system and erecting, instead, the communistic and the socialistic societies which he considered as humankind’s [first] step toward a full implementation of communism.
In this philosophy, the social field is one of struggle among contradictions. Every social situation that pervades this field is a purely material phenomenon concordant with the rest of the material phenomena and circumstances, and influenced by them. However, at the same time, this social situation caries its own contradiction within itself. Then struggle erupts among the contradictions within its contents, until the contradictions accumulate and create a change in this situation and the construction of a new situation. Thus, the battle continues, until all people become of one class, and the interests of every individual become represented in the interests of this unified class.
At that point, harmony prevails, peace is realized, and all the bad effects of the capitalistic democratic system are removed, because such effects were produced by the existence of multiple classes in society. This multiplicity of classes was, in turn, produced by society’s division into producer and employee. Therefore, it is necessary to put an end to this division by means of terminating ownership.
In this respect, communism differs from socialism in some of its principal economic ideas. The communist economy is based on the following. First, private ownership must be canceled and fully obliterated from society. All wealth must be appropriated by everyone and handled by the state, since it is the legal trustee over society, so that the state manages and exploits this wealth for the welfare of the whole population. The belief of the communistic school in the necessity of this absolute nationalization was a natural reaction to the complications of private ownership in the capitalistic democratic system. Such nationalization was justified on the ground that its purpose was the cancellation of the capitalistic class and the uniting of people in one class, in order than to end the struggle, and to prevent the individual from employing the various tactics and methods for enlarging his wealth, in an attempt to satisfy his greed and appease the motive that drives him after personal benefit.
Second, goods produced must be distributed in accordance with the individual need for consumption. This point is summarized in the following text: ‘from everyone, in accordance with his capacity, and for everyone, in accordance with his needs’. This is to say that every individual has natural needs deprived of which he cannot survive. He devotes all his efforts to society; in return, society satisfies the necessities of his life and supports his living.
Third, this must be carried out on the basis of an economic plan put forth by the state. In this plan, the state reconciles the needs of the whole population with the quantity, variety and limit of production, in order to prevent afflicting society with the same illnesses and difficulties that occurred in the capitalistic society when absolute freedom was allowed.
Deviation from the Communist Operation
The leading authorities of communism who called for this system were unable to implement it with all its features when they seized power. They believed that, in order to implement this system, a development of human thought, motives and inclinations was necessary. They claimed that there would come a time when personal interests and individual considerations would disappear from the human soul, replaced by a social mentality and social inclinations. With that, a human being would think only of the social welfare, and would be motivated only for its sake. Because of this, it was necessary, according to the tradition of this social doctrine, to establish prior to that a socialistic system in which people could rid themselves of their present nature and acquire the nature which is consistent with the communistic system.
In this socialistic system, important revisions of the economic aspect of communism were made.
Thus, the primary point of the communist economy – namely, the annulment of private ownership – was changed to a more moderate stand. This stand called for the nationalization of heavy industry, foreign trade, and large domestic trade, as well as the imposition of government restrictions on all of them. In other words, it called for the elimination of large capital to help the advance of simple industries and trades, and to give individuals power over these industries and trades. This is because the main point of the communist economy clashed with actual human nature to which we have alluded earlier. Individuals began to neglect performing their jobs and activities at work. They also avoided fulfilling their social duties. This was due to the fact that [under this system, they were only] supposed to secure an orderly life and a satisfaction of their needs. Also, under this system, one was not supposed to perform any work or make any effort for more than this, regardless of its intensity. Why then should the individual make any effort, work hard and earnestly, as long as the result for him is the same whether he is lazy or active? Further, why should he be motivated to make happiness available to others, and to bring comfort to them by his own sweat and tears and by the sap of his life and capacities, as long as he does not believe in any values of life except in those that are purely materialistic? Thus, the leaders of this school felt obliged to freeze absolute nationalization.
They were also obliged to amend the second important point of communist economics. They did this by creating differences among salaries, in order to motivate the employees to become active and to carry out their jobs – apologizing at the same time that these were temporary differences which would disappear when the capitalistic mentality was abolished and when humankind undergoes further development. Due to this, they applied continual change, in accordance with their economic methods and socialistic tactics, so that they could avoid the failure of any one method by introducing a new method. However, until now, they have not successfully eradicated all the basic principles of the capitalistic economy. Usurious loans, for example, have not been completely eliminated, even though in reality they are the basis of social corruption in the capitalistic economy.
But none of this means chat those leaders were failures or that they were not serious about their teachings or sincere about their doctrine. Rather, it means that they clashed with reality when they came to apply [their ideas]. They found their way full of the contradictory elements that human nature imposes in the face of the revolutionary method of social reform that they preached. Thus, reality forced them to retreat with the hope that the miracle would be accomplished in some near or distant future.
Politically, communism, in the long run, aims to eliminate the state from society when the miracle is accomplished and the social mentality prevails among all people. At that point, everyone will think only of the material interests of the whole society. But before that, when the miracle is not yet accomplished, when people are not yet united in one class and when society is still divided into capitalistic and labor forces, the government must be purely chat of the labor force. This would be a democratic government within the limit of the labor circles, and dictatorial with regard to the general public.
They tried to justify this by claiming that a dictatorial labor government was necessary at every stage experienced by humankind with the individual mentality. This is so, for the protection of the interests of the labor class, for the stifling of the breath of capitalism and for the prevention of capitalism from reappearing on the scene.
In fact, this school, which is represented in socialistic Marxism and then in communistic Marxism, is distinguished from the capitalistic democratic system in that it is based on a specific materialistic philosophy which adopts a specific understanding of life that does not admit any of the moral ideals or values of life. It also explains life in a way that leaves no room for a creator beyond the limits of nature, nor for expected retributions beyond the boundaries of the limited material life. This is contrary to capitalistic democracy which, even though a materialistic system, is not established on a definite philosophical basis. Materialistic communism believes in proper linkage between the issue of actual life and the social issue, but capitalistic democracy does not believe in such a linkage, or does not attempt to make it clear.
Thus, the communistic school was in reality the outcome of philosophical study. It was tested by experiencing the philosophy on which it was based, and from which it branched out. Judgement of any system depends on the extent of the success of that system’s philosophical notions in understanding and portraying life.
From the first glance one casts on the communistic system, it is easy to notice that, whether this system is diluted or complete, its general characteristic is to destroy the 0individual in society and make him an instrument to be manipulated for the purpose of 0realizing the general standards that this system presupposes. Therefore, it is exactly the opposite of the free capitalistic system that considers society for the sake of the individual and subjugates it to his interests. It is as if the individual personality and the social personality were destined in the traditions of these two systems to clash and to struggle against each other. The individual personality was the winner in the system whose legislation was based on the individual and his specific benefits. Thus, society was afflicted by economic tragedies that shook its existence and malformed the life of all its people.
The social personality was the winner in the other system, which tried to avoid the errors of the former system. Thus, it supported society, and sentenced the individual personality to disappearance and death. As a result of this, individuals were exposed to severe ordeals that abolished their freedom, their personal existence, as well as their natural rights to choice and thinking.
Flaws of Communism
In fact, even if the communistic system treats a number of the maladies of the free capitalistic system by means of abolishing private ownership, yet in one respect, this treatment has natural complications that render the price of treatment much too high.
This is in addition to difficulties that one encounters in the method of applying this treatment. One cannot employ this method, unless all other methods and procedures fail. In another respect, this treatment is incomplete and does not ensure the end of all social corruption. This is so because it is not accompanied by a correct diagnosis of the illness and the specification of the point from which evil proceeded and conquered the world under the capitalistic system. That point continued in the communistic school to retain its position with regard to social life. With this, humankind did not win a decisive solution for their big problem, nor did they obtain the remedy that heals their fits of illness and uproots their bad symptoms.
The complications of this treatment are enormous indeed. Its concern is to terminate individual freedom, in order to establish communist ownership in place of private ownership. But this enormous social transformation is, at least until now, contrary to general human nature – as admitted by its leaders – since the materialistic human being still thinks in terms of himself and considers his interests from his limited individual perspective. Further, to put forth and try to fulfill a new design for society in which individuals completely melt away and personal motives are totally eradicated requires a firm power that holds the reins of society with an iron hand. Moreover, this power quiets any voice that grows loud, stifles any breath of freedom that circulates in society, monopolizes all the means of propaganda and publicity, imposes limits on the nation that the nation cannot exceed under any circumstances and punishes on the ground of accusation and speculation, so that it does not suddenly lose its grip on the reins of power. This is natural in any system one seeks to impose on a nation, before the mentality of that system matures in that nation, and before the spirit of that system prevails.
Indeed, if the materialistic human being begins to think in a social manner, to consider his interests with a social mentality and to be free of all personal sentiments, private inclinations and psychological effects, is would be possible to erect a system in which individuals melt away. With that, nothing would remain at the scene except the huge social giant. But the realization of this in a materialistic human being who does not believe in anything except in a limited life, and who does not perceive any sense of life except chat of material pleasure requires a miracle that creates heaven in the present life and brings it down from the highest to earth. The communists promise us this heaven.
They await that day in which the factory will put an end to human nature, recreate ideal humankind in thinking and acting even though they do not believe in any idealistic and moral values. If this miracle is realized, we will then have some words for them.
For the time being, to put forth the social design that they seek requires confining individuals to the limits of the idea of this design and ensuring its execution by setting the group that believes in it in charge of protecting it and by taking precautionary measures for its sake, through silencing human nature and psychological effects and using any means to prevent them from bursting forth. Under this system, even if the individual acquires full insurance and social security for his life and needs because the social wealth supplies him with all of this at the time of need, nevertheless, it would be better for him to obtain this insurance without losing the breath of righteous freedom, without melting away in fire as a person, and without drowning in a stormy social sea.
How could a human being aspire to freedom in any field when he is deprived of the freedom of his life, and when his nourishment is fully linked to a specific organization – considering that economic freedom, as well as freedom of life, are the basis of all kinds of freedom?
The defenders of this system apologize while asking: ‘What would a human being do with freedom, with the right to be critical and to express his views, when he suffers from an abominable social burden? Again, what benefit would he derive from debate and opposition, when he is more in need of good nourishment and a secured life than of the protests and clamor with which freedom provides him?’
Those who put forth such questions do not pay attention to anything other than capitalistic democracy, as if it were the only social cause which rivals theirs on the battleground. Thus, they diminish the value and rights of individual dignity, because they see in it a danger for the general social trend. However, it is the right of humankind not to sacrifice any of their essentials or rights as long as it is not necessary for them to do so. Humans had to choose between dignity, which is one of their moral rights, and satisfaction of need, which is one of their material rights. Thus, they lacked the system that combines both sides and succeeds in resolving both issues.
A human being whose capacities are the objects of extortion by others and who does not enjoy a comfortable life, a fair salary, and security in times of need is one who is deprived of the delights of life and has no access to peaceful and stable living. Similarly, a human being who lives continuously under threat, who is judged on any movement he makes, who is exposed to detention without a hearing and to imprisonment, who is exiled or executed for the slightest mistake he commits is indeed scared and alarmed. Fear steals away his good life and alarm disturbs its pleasures.
The third type of human being, who enjoys a tranquil life and is confident of his dignity and safety, is the pleasant dream of humankind. But how can this dream be realized, and when will is become an actual reality?
We have stated above that the communist treatment of the social issue is incomplete, in addition to having the complications to which we have already alluded. Even though it represents human sentiments and emotions that were stirred up by the general social tyranny – thus attracting a group of thinkers to the new solution – nevertheless, these thinkers did not grasp the cause of corruption so that they could eliminate it. Rather, they eliminated something else. Therefore, they were not successful in their treatment and in achieving a cure.
The principle of private ownership is not the cause of the absolute evils of capitalism that shook the happiness and peace of the world. It is not, for example, what imposes unemployment on millions of workers, in order to utilize a new machine that will destroy their industries. This is what happened at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Again, the principle of private ownership does not impose a despotic control over the salaries of employees with disregard for their efforts. Further, it does not require the capitalist to damage large quantities of his products for the protection of the price of commodities and the preference for squandering these commodities instead [of using them] to satisfy the needs of the poor. Further still, it does not call upon the capitalise to turn his wealth into profitable capital, multiplying it through interest and through the absorption of the efforts of those who are in debt, and not through producing or working. Moreover, the principle of private ownership does not drive the capitalist to purchase all the consumer’s goods from the markets, so that he can monopolize them and then raise their prices. Finally, this principle does not require that the capitalist open up new markets that may infringe upon, or abolish, the freedom, rights and honor of nations.
None of these fearful tragedies was the result of private ownership. Rather, they were the product of personal, materialistic interest that was made the standard of life in the capitalistic system and the absolute justification of all managements and dealings. A society based on such an individualistic standard and personal justification cannot be expected to do other than what it actually did. It is from the nature of such a standard that those evils and afflictions proceed to fall upon mankind as a whole, rather than from the principle of private ownership. If such a standard is changed, and a new, rectified objective of life in accord with human nature is put forth, the real treatment of the big problem of mankind will have been accomplished.
The Correct Explanation of the Problem
In order for us to reach the first part of the explanation of the social problem, we must inquire about the personal, materialistic interest that the capitalistic system established as a criterion, as a justification and as an objective. Thus, we ask: ‘What was the idea chat validated this criterion in the capitalistic mentality, and what was the source of its inspiration?’ For it is this idea which is the real basis of the social afflictions and failure of the capitalistic democracy to achieve human happiness and dignity. If we are able to kill this idea, we will put an end to all conspiracies against social comfort, and to the unions against the rights and real freedom of society. We will also succeed in exploiting private ownership for the sake of the welfare and development of mankind and for their progress in the industrial fields and areas of production. What then is this idea?
This idea can be summarized in the limited materialistic explanation of life on which the West erected the powerful edifice of capitalism. If every individual in society believes that his only field in this great existence is his personal material life, if he also asserts his freedom of managing and exploiting this life and in his inability to achieve any purpose in this life other than pleasure which is made available to him by material factors; further, if he adds these materialistic beliefs to self-love which is intrinsic to his nature, then he will follow the same path trodden by the capitalists, and will fully carry out their procedures, unless he is deprived of his freedom by an overwhelming power and barred from selecting this path.
Self-love is the most general and the oldest instinct we know; for all other instincts, including the instinct for life, are branches and subdivisions of this instinct. The selflove that human beings have – by which is meant their love of pleasure and happiness for themselves, and their hatred of pain and misery for themselves – is what drives them to earn their living and to satisfy their nutritional and material needs. That is why a human being may put an end to his life by committing suicide if he finds that bearing the pains of death is easier for him than bearing the pains with which his life is full.
Therefore, the true, natural reality that is concealed behind all human life and chat directs life with its own hand is self-love, which we express by our yearning for pleasure and hatred for pain. It is not possible for a human being to carry freely the burden of the bitterness of pain and forgo any pleasures just so that others may have pleasure and comfort, unless his human nature is stripped away from him and he is given a new nature that does not yearn for pleasure and detest pain.
Even the wonderful forms of love which we witness in human beings and about which we hear in their history are in reality subjugated to that principal moving force – the instinct of self-love. A human being may love his child or friend over himself, as he may make sacrifices for the sake of some ideals or values. However, he would not perform any of these heroic acts, if he did not derive from them a specific pleasure and a benefit that outweighed the loss resulting from his love for his child or friend, or from his sacrifice for the sake of some of the ideals in which he believed.
Thus, we can explain human behavior in general, [as being well-grounded in] the areas of selfishness and [self]-love alike. In human beings, there are many propensities for taking pleasure in a variety of things, such as taking pleasure in material things exemplified in food, drink, the various kinds of sexual pleasures, and similar material pleasures. Other examples of similar pleasures are those of the soul, such as moral and emotional pleasures in moral values, in a spiritual companion or in a specific doctrine.
These pleasures are felt when human beings find that those values, that companion, or that doctrine are a part of their specific existence. Such propensities that prepare human beings for enjoying those various delights differ in degree from one individual to the other. They also vary in the extent of their effectiveness, in accordance with the difference in human circumstances and in the natural and educational factors that affect people. While we find that some of those propensities mature in human beings naturally – as does their propensity for sexual pleasure, for example – we find, at the same time, that other forms of propensities may never appear in people’s lives. Rather, they await the educational factors that help their maturation and blossoming.
The instinct of self-love, working behind all these propensities, determines human behavior in accordance with the extent of the maturity of those propensities. Thus, it drives a human being to give himself exclusive access to food when somebody else is hungry. And it is the same propensity that drives another human being to deprive himself of food in order to give someone else exclusive access to it. This is because the propensity of the former for taking pleasure in the moral and emotional values that drives him to this love was latent. The educational factors which help this propensity focus and grow were not open to him. The latter, on the other hand, has acquired this kind of education. Thus, he takes pleasure in the moral and emotional values, and sacrifices the rest of his pleasures for their sake.
Whenever we wish to create any change in human behavior, we must first change the human notion of pleasure and benefit, and then place the behavior desired in the general frame of the instinct of self-love.
If the instinct of self-love occupies in the present life of humankind the position [already mentioned], if the self, according to the view of people, is an expression of a limited material power, and if pleasure is an expression of the delights and joys that matter makes available, then it is natural for people to feel that their opportunity for profit is limited, and that the race for their goal is short, and that their goal in this race is to acquire a certain amount of material pleasure. Further, the way to this acquisition is, as a matter of fact, confined to the nerve of the material life – that is, to money – which opens the way for human beings to realize all their objectives and desires. This is the natural succession in the materialistic notions which leads to a complete capitalistic mentality.
Now, do you think that the problem can be decisively solved if we reject the principle of private ownership and retain these materialistic notions of life, as did those thinkers? Again, is it possible for society to be delivered from the tragedy of such notions and to attain secure happiness and stability by the mere elimination of private ownership? Take into consideration that securing its happiness and stability depends, to a great extent, on securing the non-deviation of those personalities in charge of carrying out their reformative programs and objectives in the fields of work and execution. Those who are in such positions are supposed to uphold the same purely materialistic notions of life on which capitalism was established. The difference, though, [between them and the capitalists] is chat they laid these notions in new philosophical molds. [In accordance with their teachings], it is reasonable to assume that quite often personal interest stands in the way of social interest, and that the individual fluctuates between a loss and a pain which he bears for the sake of others, and a profit and a pleasure which he enjoys at the expense of others. What security would you estimate there is for the nation and its rights, for the doctrine and its objectives, under such trying times as the rulers face? Personal interest is not represented in private ownership only, so that the cancellation of the principle of private ownership would destroy our above-mentioned assumption. Rather, personal interest is represented in [various] procedures, and takes on different forms. The evidence for this can be seen in the revelations made by the present communist leaders concerning acts of treason committed by earlier rulers and the consolidation of these earlier rulers around the objectives they had adopted.
The capitalistic group controls the wealth [of the nation], under the auspices of economic and individual freedom, and manages this wealth with its own materialistic mentality. [Similarly], when the state nationalizes the whole wealth and eliminates private ownership, the wealth of the nation is handed to the same state organization which consists of a group adopting the same materialistic notions of life and imposing on people the priority of personal interests, by virtue of the judgement of the instinct of self-love which denounces a human being’s renunciation of personal pleasure or interest without any compensation. As long as the material interest is the power in control due to the materialistic notions of life, it will ignite once again the battleground of struggle and competition, and expose society to various kinds of danger and exploitation. Thus, all the danger for mankind lies in these materialistic notions and in the standards of goals and actions that proceed from these notions. Unifying the capitalistic wealth, be it small or large, into one large unit of wealth whose management is handed to the state – without any new development of the human mentality -does not alleviate this danger. Rather, it makes all people employees of one and the same company, and ties their lives and dignity to the directors and owners of that company.
Admittedly, this company differs from the capitalistic company in that the owners of the latter are those who own its profits, and spend them in any manner dictated by their desires. The owners of the former company, on the other hand, do not own any of this, according to the teachings of the system. However, the fields of personal interest are still open to them, and the materialistic notion of life, which posits this interest as a goal and as a justification, is still upheld by them.
-
Capitalistic Democracy
This is taken from the book “Our Philosophy” by Bakir al-Sadr
Let us begin with the capitalistic democratic system. Thin system puts an end to a kind of injustice in economic life, to dictatorial rule in political life, and to the stagnation of the church and its ideational life. Capitalistic democracy tightened the reins of power and influence for a new group of rulers that replaced earlier ones, and adopted the same social role played by their predecessors, but used a new style.
Capitalistic democracy is based on unlimited confidence in the individual, and in the fact that the individual’s personal interests naturally ensure the interests of society in various areas. The idea of such a state is that it seeks to protect the individuals and their personal interests. Therefore, it is not permissible for it to go beyond the limits of this purpose in its activities and in the fields of its operations. The capitalistic democratic system can be summed up in the declaration of the four types of freedom: political freedom, economic freedom, ideational freedom and individual freedom.
Political freedom dictates that the words of every individual be heard, and that his evaluation of the general life of the nation be respected, [as in] laying down the nation’s plans in its legislation6, and in assigning the powers entrusted with its defense. This is because the social system of a nation and its ruling organization is a maser directly related to the life of every one of its individuals and has a great influence on his happiness or misery. It is, therefore, natural that every individual has the right to participate in constructing the system and government.
If the social condition is, as we have already stated, a matter of life and death and a matter of happiness and misery for the citizens to whom the laws and general systems are applied, it is then also natural not to evolve its responsibility upon an individual or a specific group of individuals, regardless of circumstance, as long as there is no individual above emotions and errors because of his unblemished intentions and his weighty mind.
It is necessary, therefore, to advocate complete equality of political rights among all citizens; for all citizens are equally subject to the effects of social conditions, and equally submit to the requirements of legal and executive powers. It is on the basis of this [equality] that the right to vote and the principle of a general election were established. These ensure that the ruling organization, in all its powers and members, comes from the majority of citizens.
Economic freedom relies on confidence in a free economy, and is determined to open all channels [of opportunity] and to prepare all fields. In the economic field the citizen is permitted ownership of both consumption and production. This productive ownership, from which capital is formed, is available to all people equally, without limitation or restriction, and to all of them equally. Thus, every individual has the full freedom to pursue any approach and to take up any path for acquiring, enlarging and multiplying his wealth in accordance with his personal interests and benefits.
Some of the defenders of this kind of economic freedom make the following claims. Firstly, the laws of political economy that are naturally concordant with general principles insure the happiness of society and the retention of its economic balance. Secondly, personal interest, which is a strong incentive and a real goal of the individual in his work and activity, is the best insurance of the general social welfare. Thirdly, the competition that takes place in the free market as a result of producers and merchants exercising their equal right to economic freedom is alone sufficient for realizing the spirit of justice and fairness in the various contracts and deals. Thus, natural economic laws almost mechanically intervene – for example, to conserve the normal price level. That is, if the price becomes higher than its normal and just limits, the demand falls, in accordance with the natural law that dictates that a rise in price affects the fall in demand, and that the fall in demand leads, in rum, to a lowering of the price, in order that another natural law is satisfied. The fall in demand persists in this fashion, until it brings the price down to its previous level. With this, deviation is eliminated [in the long run].
Personal interest always requires the individual to think of ways to increase and improve production, while decreasing its cost and expenses. This fulfills the interest of society, when at the same time it is also considered something proper to the individual.
Competition naturally requires the fixing of the prices of goods and the salaries of employees and service personnel justly, and free from wrongdoing and prejudice. For every salesman or producer is weary of raising the price of his goods or lowering the salaries of his employees, because others, including salesmen and producers are competing against him.
Ideational freedom dictates that people must have a life of ideological and doctrinal freedom. That is, they must be able to think in any manner that they see fit and that appeals to their intellects; and uphold whatever [views] they have arrived at as a result of their own efforts or the inspiration of their desires and inclinations, without being hampered by the government. It also dictates the freedom of expressing one’s thoughts and doctrines and of defending one’s points of view and interpretations.
Individual freedom expresses the liberation of the personal conduct of a human being from various kinds of pressures and limitations. Thus, he has control over his will and its development in accordance with his own desires, regardless of the complications and consequences that may occur as a result of his exercise of this power over his personal conduct, as long as his power does not conflict with others’ powers over their conduct.
Hence, the final limit on the individual freedom of everyone is the freedom of others. Thus, unless the individual misuses this kind of freedom, he will not be harmed by living in any manner he pleases, and pursuing the various habits, traditions, slogans and rituals that he seeks to enjoy, because it is a matter of his existence, his present and his future. As long as he has this existence, he has the power to manage it as he wishes.
Religious freedom in the opinion of capitalism that calls for it is nothing but an expression of ideational freedom in its doctrinal form, and of the individual freedom in the practical form, that is related to slogans and conduct.
One can conclude from this exposition that a major ideological point in this system is that, as mentioned, the interests of society are embodied in the interests of individuals. Thus, the individual is the basis on which the social system must be established. The good state is that organization that can be used for the service and for the sake of the individual, and that is a strong instrument for preserving and protecting his interests.
These are the basic principles of capitalistic democracy due to which a number of revolutions have occurred, and for whose sake many people and nations struggled under leaders who, whenever they spoke of this new system and enumerated its advantages, it was [as though] they described the heavens with its paradise and its happiness, as well as the liberty, well-being, dignity and richness that it promises.
Later on, a number of amendments were added to this kind of democracy, but they did not affect its innermost substance. Rather, it continued with its most important principles and fundamentals.
The Materialistic Tendency in Capitalism
It is clear that this social system is a purely materialistic system that people adopted, separating themselves from their source and final end, and limiting themselves to the beneficial side of their material life. People adopted [this system] along these lines.
But this system, which was at the same time full of a tyrannical materialistic spirit, was not established on a materialistic philosophy of life and a detailed study of it. Life in the social atmosphere of this system was separated from any relation external to the limits of material things and benefits. However, setting up this system did not assume a complete philosophical comprehension of this process of separation. I do not mean by this that the world did not have schools of the materialistic philosophy and defenders of it. Indeed, an advent of the materialistic tendency resulted from the influence of the empirical mentality that had prevailed ever since the Industrial Revolution. Its prevalence was due firstly to the intellectual spirit of doubt and confusion that was caused by the change in opinion concerning a number of notions chat were considered among the clearest and most sound truths; and secondly the spirit of rebellion and anger against the alleged religion that caused thoughts and intellects to stagnate, appealed to wrongdoing and power, and supported social corruption in every battle is waged against the weak and the persecuted.
These three factors helped materialism arise in many Western mentalities. All of this is true, but the capitalistic system does not center on a materialistic philosophical notion of life. This is a contradiction and a failure; for the social consideration of life is linked to the reality of life, and is not case in a sound form unless it is established on a central basis that explicates life, its reality and its limits. The capitalistic system lacks this basis. It involves in its innermost spirit deceit and misguidance, speed and impatience, since it freezes the actual situation of life, and studies the social conditions in isolation from it. This is so, in spite of the fact that the essence of the ideological standard for the
system [was] from the very beginning defined by its view of the reality of life that supplies society with social material – this being the relations exchanged among people – of the method of its understanding this reality, and of discovering its secrets and values. Thus, if humankind existed on this planet due to the skill of a governing and protective power who knew of their secrets and mysterious affairs, their expressions and details of their lives, and took charge of organizing and guiding them, it is then natural that in orientation and style of living, they would submit to this creative power, since it is more discerning of their affairs, more knowledgeable of their reality and with loftier intentions, and is more moderate than they are.
Further, if this limited life is the beginning of an attempt to reach an eternal life that proceeds from this present one, is colored by its style, and has standards that depend on the degree of moderation and loftiness shown in this life, then it is natural to organize the present life in a way [befitting] to the initial stage of a life free from destruction, and to establish it on both spiritual and material principles.
Hence, the issue of faith in God and life’s origin in Him is not a purely intellectual issue unrelated to life and isolated from the fields of life, nor is it something for which separate methods and rules must be enacted, while ignoring and setting aside the issue of life. Rather, it is an issue related to the mind, to the heart and to life together.
Capitalistic democracy itself offers evidence for the relation of faith to life in the idea that this system is presented on faith in the absence of an individual or a group of individuals who have attained a certain degree of infallibility with respect to their intentions, inclinations, opinions and interpretations that makes it possible to entrust them with the social affairs [of the people] and to rely on them for establishing a good life for the nation. But there is no room for this basis [of faith], nor does it make any sense, except if it is grounded in a purely materialistic philosophy chat does not admit the possibility that the system proceeds from anything other than a limited human mind.
Thus, the capitalistic system is materialistic in every sense of the term. It either internalizes materialism, while lacking the courage to declare its being linked to it and based on it; or it is ignorant of the extent of the natural link between the actual and social situations of life. Due to this, capitalistic democracy is devoid of the philosophy on which every social system must rest. In a word, it is a materialistic system, even though it is not based on a dearly outlined materialistic philosophy.
The Position of Ethics in Relation to Capitalism
Because the capitalistic system was filled with the spirit of materialism, morality was removed from the picture. It was nowhere to be found in the system. Put more correctly, its notions and criteria underwent a change. The individual interest was declared as the highest objective, and all kinds of freedom as means for fulfilling that kind of interest. This resulted in most of the severe trials, catastrophes, tragedies and misfortunes that the modern world has experienced.
Supporters of capitalistic democracy may defend this system’s perspective on the individual and his personal interests by saying that the individual’s aim is in itself a fulfillment of the social interest, and the results that morality achieves by its spiritual principles are achieved in a capitalistic democratic society, yet not by way of morality, but by way of having and serving individual motives. For when a human being performs asocial service, he also fulfills a personal interest, since he is a part of the society for whose sake he works. Moreover, when he rescues the life of an individual in danger, he, too, derives a benefit from chat, since the [redeemed] living individual will perform a service for the social organization. Thus, the rescuer regains a portion of this service. Hence, the personal motive and beneficial sense are sufficient for providing and securing the social interests since, in the last analysis, these interests are reduced to personal interests and individual benefits.
This defense is closer to vivid imagination than to evidence. Imagine for yourself if the practical criterion in life for every individual in the nation ware the fulfillment, on the largest scale and for the longest term, of his benefits and personal interests, and if the state provided the individual with freedom, glorified him without reservation or limit, how would these individuals define social action? Further, how could the linkage of social welfare to the individual suffice for directing an individual to the anions called for by ethical values when many of these actions do not benefit the individual? If, on the other hand, it happens that such actions involve some benefit (to the individual) since he is a member of society, that slight benefit, which is not grasped by a human being except by means of analytical scrutiny, is often rivaled by the absence of immediate benefits or personal interests that find their assured attainment in freedom. Thus, the individual abolishes any ethical scheme or spiritual consideration for their sake.
The Tragedies of the Capitalistic System
If we wished to present the links in the chain of social tragedies that resulted from this system, which is neither well studied, nor philosophically based, there would be no room for doing so in the space designated for the present discussion. Because of this, we will [only] make a brief allusion to this point.
The first of these links is the following. The majority governed the minority, their vital interests and affairs. Political freedom meant that the majority had the prerogative to lay down the system and its laws, as well as their management. Let us imagine that the group which represents the nation’s majority seizes the reins of power and legislation, and adopts the capitalistic democratic mentality which is purely materialistic in its orientation, inclinations, purposes and desires. What then would be the fate of the other group? Or what life would you expect for the minority under laws legislated with the majority and the preservation of its interests in mind? Would it be strange for the majority to legislate laws, particularly in light of its own welfare, to neglect the welfare of the minority, and to turn toward fulfilling its desires in a manner unjust to others? Then who would preserve the minority’s vital structure, and defend it against injustice, if personal interest is the [sole] concern of every individual, and if the majority’s social mentality lacks the notion of spiritual and moral values? It is natural that under (this) system, the despotic rule continues as before, and that the phenomena of manipulation and neglect of the rights and interests of others persist in the social atmosphere of this system as they did in the old social atmosphere. Put briefly, the difference [between the
present and the old systems] is that neglect of human dignity arose [in the older systems] because of individuals in the nation; while in the present system, it arises because of groups that represent majorities in relation to minorities. [But] the totality [of these minorities] constitutes a large number of people.
I wish the matter ended there. (Had it not gone beyond that) the tragedy would have been less and the stage would have witnessed more laughter than tears. However, the matter became more grave and intense after that, when the economic issue arose in this system. Thus, it determined the economic freedom along the lines discussed earlier. It allowed various methods and kinds of [acquiring] wealth, regardless of how exorbitant the wealth is, and regardless of how deviant it is in its methods and reasons. It also secured the realization of what it had advocated at the same time as the world witnessed a great industrial revolution, and when science became the product of the birth of the machine that changed the face of industry and swept away manual labor and the like. Thus, bountiful wealth came to a minority of the nation’s individuals who were given the opportunity to utilize the modern means of production, and who were supplied by unlimited capitalistic freedom that provided sufficient assurances for exploiting these means of production and benefiting from them to a great extent, as well as for destroying many groups in the nation whose industry was swept away and whose lives were shaken by the steam engine, and who found no way to stand steadfast in the face of this storm, as long as the lords of modern industries were armed by economic freedom and the rights to the glorified freedom of these industries. The scene became the sole province of an elite of the lords of industry and production. The middle class became smaller and grew closer to the general lower class. This left the destroyed majority at the mercy of that elite whose thoughts and considerations were consistent with the capitalistic democratic method only. It was natural for this wealthy elite to withhold compassion and charity from this large group of people, in order to keep them in the abyss and deny them a share in the elite’s own exorbitant profits. Why should the elite not do so, as long as the ethical criteria are benefit and pleasure; as long as the state secures for them absolute freedom of action; and as long as the capitalistic democratic system has no room for a moral philosophy of life and its specific concepts?
The issue must, therefore, be studied in a manner inspired by this system. These powerful persons exploit the majority’s need for them, and their life supports. Thus, those who were capable were required to work in the elite’s fields and factories for an extremely long time; and for salaries sufficient only for the necessities of life.
This is the pure reasoning of benefit. It was natural for the elite to adopt it, thus dividing the nation into a group of immense wealth and a majority in the deep abyss.
Here, the political right of the nation is crystallized once again in a different form. Even though equality of political rights among individual citizens, for example, was not erased from the records of the system, nevertheless, after such tremors, it was nothing other than a figment of the imagination or a mere thought. For when economic freedom records the results that we have presented, it leads to the abominable division, Mentioned above. Further, it would itself be in control of the situation and of the reins of power, and would overcome the political freedom confronting it. Thus, by virtue of its economic position regarding society, its capacity for utilizing every means of propaganda, and its ability to buy defenders and aids, the capitalistic group has the upper hand over key positions13 in the nation. It assumes power in order to exploit it for its own welfare and for the pursuit of its aims. Legislation and the social system come under the control of capitalism when, according to democratic notions, they are the right of the nation as a whole. Thus, in the last analysis, capitalistic democracy is reduced to rule by a privileged minority, and to power used by a number of individuals to protect their existence at the expense of others. This they do by means of the benefit mentality which they derive from capitalistic democratic thought.
We arrive now at the most abominable link in the tragedy played by this system. Those gentlemen in whose hands the capitalistic democratic system places full power and to whom it supplies every force and capacity, will extend their vision -inspired by the mentality of this system – to wider horizons. Also, inspired by their welfare and aims, they will feel in need of new areas of power. Two reasons account for this. First, the availability of production depends on the extent of the availability and abundance of raw materials. Thus, he who has a large share of such materials also has productive capacities chat are large and strong. Such materials are spread all over the vast, God-given earth. If it is necessary to obtain them, it is necessary to control the land that has them, in order to absorb and exploit them.
Second, the intensity and strength of the movement of production motivated, on the one hand, by the protection of profit and, on the other hand, by the fall in the standard of living of many citizens due to the materialistic ambitions of the capitalistic group and its domination over the rights of the general public through their self-interested methods which make the citizens incapable of purchasing and consuming products create big producers who are greatly in need of new markets to sell the surplus products existing in the markets. Finding such new markets means chinking of a new country. Thus, the issue is studied with a purely materialistic mentality. It is natural for such a mentality whose system is not based on spiritual and moral values, and whose social doctrines admit no ends except those that bring pleasure to this limited life in various delights and objects of desire, to see in these two reasons a justification or a logical formula for assaulting and dishonoring peaceful countries, in order to control their fate and their large natural resources, and to exploit their wealth to promote surplus products. All of this is reasonable and permissible, according to the notion of individual interests on which the capitalistic system and the free economy are based. From there, gigantic materialism proceeds to raid and fight, to restrict and shackle, to colonize and exploit in order to please the appetites and to satisfy the desires.
Reflect on how much the human race has suffered from the calamities of this system due to its materialistic spirit, form, tactics and purposes. This is so, even though it does not center on a well-defined philosophy which is in agreement with that spirit and form, and concordant with such tactics and purposes, as we have pointed out.
Estimate for yourself the lot of a society established on the basis of this system and its conceptions of happiness and stability. In this society, mutual love and confidence, real merry and compassion, as well as all good, spiritual tendencies art totally absent. Thus, in it the individual lives feeling that he is responsible for himself alone, and that he is endangered by any interests of others that may cash with his. It is as if he is engaged in a constant struggle and a continuous fight, equipped with no weapons other than his personal powers, and provided with no purposes other than his personal interests.
-
Emergence of Secular thought in Europe
The capitalist countries are embarked upon a mission to consistently attack Islam and Muslims and to impose their political and social values over us. The recent trips of American foreign secretary of state James Baker, to the predominantly Muslim inhabited areas of the former Soviet Union, in order to make sure that they do not return to Islam, was also a part of the same mission, which is, to export the secular and capitalist ideas and institutions to the whole world in general, and Muslims in particular. In this article, Ar-Raya tries to show the process of development of secular thought in Europe. We hope that the article will help us understand how the secular/capitalist thought is built upon the shallow and reactionary, and not the rational basis of thinking.
During the 18th century, a revolution in thought took place in Europe in all aspects of life. This revolution was the result of a long struggle between the church and the intellectuals in which the Church suffered a defeat and lost all of its ruling power over the people who had become disgusted by its oppressive and manipulative style of Government. The revolution also changed the way people used to interpret the Universe and life. Throughout Europe, people started to abandon ideas and rules about life imposed on them by the Church. Some of the thinkers and philosophers lost so much confidence in the Church and Christianity due to it being used as a tool in the hands of the monarchs to oppress and manipulate people that they decided once and for all to demolish this institution. These thinkers later split mainly into two branches; one stream of thought as mentioned already, advocated the complete abolition of the Church while the other called for a compromise based on the principle of separation of religion and state. The former category of philosophers founded the basis of another ideology or a way of life which was later known as Communism while the latter category put the basis of modern day Capitalism which is the champion of secular democracy. In order to get a clear picture of the whole process, we need to take a brief look at the history of the role of the Church in the medieval European life.
ROLE OFTHE CHURCH:
As the Roman Empire started to decline from the 3rd century AD, the Church started to play a far greater role in the affairs of the sate than ever before. After Constantine, church and state officially allied. This point in history proved to be the start of endless misery and sufferings of the European people at the hands of the coalition between the Church and monarchs. At the same time, the Church and the Roman Empire started to suffer grave divisions. By 476 CE several kingdoms started to emerge in Europe in which the Church continued to play a major role in state affairs.
Christianity lacked a system by which it could run the affairs of the people, so the Roman Church absorbed some of the traditions of the old Roman government in order to fill the gap. The Church had absolute monopoly over literacy and law because the new kingdoms were engaged in defending themselves from the invasions by outsiders. As a result, Church was the only place the monarchs could turn to when it came to equip themselves with legal systems and the state constitutions.
The Church was Europe’s greatest government. Although the papacy directly ruled only the small regions around Rome and from time to time over England, Sicily, or the Jerusalem, it possessed more political power than any other government in Europe. In almost all of the kingdoms, the monarch called, Church’s prince, who was chosen by the cardinals (Rome’s local clergy). These cardinals in turn were used to be directly appointed by the Pope. The Pope had the ultimate power to install bishops and other clergy or to tax the churches or to give judicial rulings concerning all aspects of life and was believed to be in direct contact with God. The Church used its supremacy over its subjects in such a barbarous and brutal manner the example of which is difficult to be found anywhere in history. Innocent people were exploited inthe name of religion and the promises of heaven. A great source of the Church’s income was the sale of the keys to heaven to the financially sound Christians. The Church owned much of the useful lands and had accumulated most of the wealth in Europe. A great number of women were tortured and executed after the Church declared them witches. Scientists who dared to disagree with the church and tried to introduced new scientific ideas were executed. People, although living under great misery and hardships, did not dare speak or act against the will of the Church for the fear of severe persecutions. The list of the atrocities committed by the Church is endless and the details can be found in any history book dealing with what the Europeans call middle ages or the “dark ages.”
The situation continued until the beginning of the 14th century when the first signs of discontent started to show against the Church’s rule. Western historians call this period in history the ‘late middle ages”.
One of the factors for this rebellion against the church was the frustration among European thinkers that resulted due to the continuous humiliation of the crusaders at the hands of the great Muslim state. Also the church had proved to be a total disaster when it came to solving the social problems of the people because of Christianity’s lack of a system to govern all aspects of life. These factors and others combined, led to seal the fate of the church and Christianity in Europe.
The Thirty Years War:
During the 16th century, Europe was seething with theological debate and controversy. Each state considering the church as a useful tool to gain control over the other states moved to monopolise the institution of church. The violence broke out in 1618 and soon extended all across the continent. It was much more brutal than any of the previous feudal conflicts. The war went on for thirty years after which much of Germany and rest of Europe lay in ruins, the towns devastated and their industries destroyed. One third of the population had died either in battle or from plague, malnutrition, or similar war-related catastrophes. The war between France and Spain continued even until 1659.
The Compromise:
The conflict seemed endless. So, the thinkers finding no other way out, decided to make a compromise. The result of the compromise was the separation of religion from state affairs. The reformers of the church like Martin Luther and John Calvin declared politics as something of an embarrassment; and one of the primary duties of the Christian men was to obey, the constituted authority, no matter how wicked it might be. The great question who should rule, man or God?-was left unanswered and declared irrelevant; A whole new ideology was developed without thinking.
A Retreat to the Greek Philosophy:
The vacuum in the Western thought that seemed inevitable to result in case the church was removed from life, left Europe with no other choice but to retreat to thousands of years back in history-to the Greek philosophy- to find the solutions to their problems (accompanied by their stubborn resistance to accept Islam-the ultimate truth). This issue split the contemporary philosophers mainly into two groups; Those who were for the Greek philosophy, promoted “naturalism” and believed in the human beings natural reason to solve all of their problems, while the other group which was in favour of the church, advocated “realism” and the divinity of human institutions. This struggle resulted in a victory of the secular thought.
This new society whose basis were on the ideas of either the abolition of the religion or the separation of religion from life affairs left the society in obscurity when it came to the meaning and significance of life and the universe. This situation led to a boom in the philosopher population throughout Europe. Everyday philosophers came up with new theories to explain the origin, the meaning, and significance of life. Some of those philosophers like Rene’ Descartes – a Frenchman- suggested that the reality is different for different people, depending upon individual’s consciousness, indirectly leaving the belief in God on the individuals consciousness. Another species of philosophers of which Immanuel Kant was a part, claimed that the human mind is responsible for the existence of things as we perceive them.
Initial Signs of Capitalism:
As the reign of the medieval church came close to an end, Europe’s secular institutions started to emerge in the form of a new ideological base- the capitalism. Nations started to think of their citizens-,as superior to others by virtue of race and innate genius, began to view themselves as guardians of their nation’s freedom. The idea became common that geography , climate, or even heavenly determination selected those frontiers within which men were naturally endowed with a will to be free, to govern themselves, or to dominate others. Each people felt a sense of perfection and superiority to other nations in its character or institutions. Fourteenth century German publicists praised their people’s ability to rule others and saw in their elected monarchy a proof of the peculiar freedom of the German spirit. The idea of the natural franchise of all things French and of all Frenchman was equally popular across the Rhine river in France. England did not want to be left behind in this race for superiority as John Fortescue- an English thinker claimed English free law and constitution to be superior to any existing law. Most of these ideas were the by-products of Aristotelian thought of particularism.
With the rising tides of capitalism, the church was left with no other choice but to mould itself according to the new laws and institutions of the emerging secular states. The church was not in a position to manipulate the monarchs anymore, but now it was a tool in the hands of the secular governments to manipulate people. An example of this was the declaration by the church that the secular people who lived faithfully and worked honestly were as good before God as the religious people. By the 16th century, a number of reform movements had started in order to enable the church to coexist in the secular society.
Political Thought of Capitalism:
Macchiavelli, a pagan, from Florence Italy, founded the basis of the modern day western political thought through two of his famous books: The discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy and The Prince.
According to his political thought, politics is a purely secular affair. It is, quite simply, the combat of men in search of power. Since men are all alike-all brutal, all selfish-politics must follow universal rules which are the same for all men. The successful ruler therefore is the man who has studied his fellow men, both by studying, history and observing his contemporaries, and is willing to exploit their weaknesses.
Later at the end of the 18th century, France experienced a revolution in which the institution of monarchy was abolished and the modem day parliamentary system was adopted. It is known as the French revolution that took place in 1790. Almost all of the western countries including the United States were influenced by this revolution and later, starting with the reign of Napoleon, France, and other western countries embarked upon a policy of colonising other parts of the world in order to export the capitalist ideology and in return, to gain economically. Today, this policy is still prevalent in somewhat modified, but more effective forms.
In today’s capitalist society, a politician is exactly according to Machiavelli’s ideal of a politician; an artist performs just for the sake of art, not the people; a writer writes for the sake of freedom of expression, and not for the benefit of the society; their so caged intellectuals or thinkers are experts only at making compromises, instead of giving solutions; their governments serve as a tool in the hands of the corporate businesses and the 0. I% rich of the society who are trying to snatch the remaining world’s resources from the possession of the poor peoples around the globe; and each member of their societies lives for the sake of its individuality, not for his or her family or the society.
It is true that the Church no longer controls the Europeans anymore, but today this position has been taken over by the corporations and the banks. Another conflict is about to start. We hope that this time they use their minds instead of compromises. This is what the west or the capitalists are inviting the whole world, including the Muslims, to. We, the Muslims reject this invitation to Jahiliyah (utter ignorance) comprehensively, because we possess Islam- The system given to mankind by Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala)- and strive to make Islam dominant so that the whole world is invited towards the light of Al-Haq.
This article is taken from Ar-Raya Magazine, April 1992 edition
-
Interfaith dialogue
This is a chapter from the book “Dangerous Concepts”
Inviting non-Muslims to Islam is a matter that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala has made obligatory on the Muslims. The Muslims have been doing this for fourteen centuries, and continue call others to Islam whether they are from the People of the Book or not. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“Invite (O Muhammad) to the Way of your Lord with Hikma (clear proof) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better.” [Al-Nahl: 125]
And he Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said in his letter to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor: “Verily, I invite you with the call of Islam. Embrace Islam and you shall be safe and Allah will grant you the reward twice. If you turn away then upon you will bear the sin of the people under your rule.”
Thus, our call to the non-Muslims is an invitation to have conviction in Islam and to abandon Kufr.
As for the idea of interfaith dialogue that is being circulated nowadays, it is a foreign, evil and Western idea that has no basis in Islam. This is because it calls for mutual relationships between different religions. It calls for a new fabricated religion which the Kuffar want the Muslims to embrace instead of Islam, because the advocates and followers of this idea are the Kuffar themselves.
Internationally, this idea started in 1932 when France sent representatives to confer with the scholars of al-Azhar University about the idea of uniting the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. This was then followed by the Paris Conference of 1933 attended by orientalists and missionaries from every university in France, England, Switzerland, America, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey and others. The Conference of world religions in 1936 was the last conference of religions before the Second World War, which distracted the Europeans from these conferences.
In 1964 Pope Paolo VI sent a letter in which he called for dialogue between the religions. The Vatican then published a book in 1969 with the title: ‘Guide to dialogue between the Muslims and Christians.’
During the 1970’s and 1980’s more than thirteen interfaith and intercultural meetings and conferences were held, the most prominent of which was the Second World Conference of Religion and Peace held in Belgium attended by 400 delegates from various world religions. Another conference was held in Cordoba in Spain attended by Muslim and Christian representatives from 23 countries. These two conferences were held in 1974 followed by the Christian-Muslim assembly in Qurtaj, Tunis in 1979.
It was in the 1990s that those calling for interfaith dialogue became most active. Thus they held the Arab-European Conference in 1993 in Jordan, followed in 1994 by the Khartoum Conference for interfaith dialogue. In 1995 two dialogue conferences were held, one in Stockholm and the other in Amman, both of which were followed by the Conference “Islam and Europe” at the University of Ahl al-Bayt in Jordan in 1996.
Justifications for dialogue:
One of the most significant justifications presented by delegates at the interfaith conferences is standing firm in the face of the disbelief and atheism represented by the Soviet Union before its collapse. Communism was depicted as a danger to the divine religions, which would threaten their cultural achievements. Then they pretended to weep for humanity and to fight for the defence of all believers in the world. They sought to define truth in relative terms, emphasising that no individual and no religion could claim sole ownership of the truth, but it should be subject to the democratic process where the majority opinion is closest to the truth.
Recommendations of conference participants:
The following were the most important recommendations of the conferences held in the name of interfaith and intercultural dialogue and between Islam and Europe:
1. Devising and adopting new meanings and provisions for words such as disbelief, atheism, polytheism, belief, Islam, moderation, extremism and fundamentalism to ensure that these words would not become factors of division between people of different religions.
2. Identifying shared elements in the three religions, which would include creed, morals and culture, and to place emphasis on positive cooperation between the religions and cultures, since all the people of the Book were accepted as believers, and worshippers of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala.
3. The formation of a joint document on human rights to permit peace and co-existence between the followers of different religions. This would be achieved by eliminating the feeling of barriers of blood between the religions and by removing the concept of the cultures of different peoples and policies of different states.
4. A comprehensive review of the history and education curricula, so that they become free of any incitement or hatred. Religious education would be considered part of basic humanitarian studies that aim to create personalities open to human cultures and with mutual understanding of others. Therefore, the study of certain beliefs and worships had to be disqualified.
5. Raising interest in studying the following subjects and formulating unified concepts for them: justice, peace, women rights, human rights, democracy, work morals, pluralism, freedom, world peace, peaceful co-existence, cultural openness, civil society etc.
The means and styles of interfaith dialogue:
After the failure of the Western Kuffar in distancing the Muslims from their Aqeedah via the missionaries, orientalists, cultural works, the media, intellectual and political deception, they resorted to government authorities in their countries and in the countries of their agents. They began to hold conferences and seminars, formed joint work teams and established centres of study in their countries and in the Muslim lands, such as the Oxford Centre for Islamic studies, the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Durham University, the American college of the Holy Cross, the Muslim League, the Royal Academy for the study of Islamic Culture, the University of Ahl al-Bayt and the World Council of Churches etc.
They deliberately used terminologies and pretentious general expressions with undefined meanings to create deception and delusion. For example, terms such as renovation, openness to the world, human civilisation, universal sciences, the need for peaceful co-existence, renunciation of partisanship and extremism, globalisation etc., were all examples of this.
They mixed the concepts of science and culture, and the concepts of Hadharah (civilisation) and Madaniyya (material progression) to justify attacking those who hold to their specific way of life. They claimed that such people opposed science and technology and the civilisation arising from them, and accused them of being reactionary and backward, even though this is not the case in Islam. Islam opens its gates to science and to the technology that is derived from this science, but closes them in the face of any Thaqafa (culture) or Madaniyya from other than the Thaqafa and Hadharah of Islam. This is because these thoughts and concepts are related to the behaviour of the human being, which has to be controlled by the Islamic concepts about life.
They painted certain capitalist thoughts in glowing tones to the Muslims and promoted them by claiming that they do not contradict Islam to such an extent that some Muslims considered them as part of Islam, such as democracy, freedom, pluralism, socialism and others. On the other hand, they denounced certain Islamic thoughts and described them as uncivilised and out of date, such as Jihad, the Hudood, polygyny and other Shara’i rules.
They subjected the study of the Islamic texts to the Capitalist way of thinking, which makes the reality the source of the rule and not the subject of the thought. It makes benefit the criterion in adopting or leaving the rule rather than the Halal and the Haram. This incited some Muslims to invent certain principles, which did not rely on the Shara’i texts to understand Islam. This is like the Fiqh of reality, the Fiqh of balances, necessity permits the prohibited things and others. This resulted in the dilution of certain rules of Islam and non-differentiation of the foreign rule from the original rule, and even between what constitutes Kufr and what constitutes Islam. For example, Riba (usury) has become acceptable and martyrdom is now portrayed as suicide.
The Kuffar who initiated this dialogue are now generalising and widening its scope. It will no longer remain restricted to the few who participate in conferences and seminars. Rather it will include all sections of society from men, women, the educated and labourers. This is done via the universities, institutes of study, parties and associations. It is, as some conference delegates have described, joining the western Hadharah in economics, social relations, politics, education etc. Thus, Capitalism – according to their claim – is humanity, rationalism, freedom and democracy. It is the new and successful Hadharah. As for Islam, it is seen as blind faith, despotism and heritage and depicted as the sovereignty of religion, slavery and polygyny. It is thus an uncivilised religion!
One of the styles used to blind the Muslims to the real objective of these conferences is to invite those belonging to certain beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism to attend alongside the Muslims, Christians and Jews. This happened at the World Conference for Religion and Peace in Japan and in a seminar in Beirut in 1970, to ensure that Muslims would not suspect they were the only targets of the dialogue. How could so-called Muslim scholars allow Islam to be placed on an equal stage with Buddhism and other religions?!
The true viewpoint of the West towards Islam:
The West, which calls for dialogue with the Muslims and heads conferences of dialogue, views Islam as the enemy. This viewpoint is the motive for such dialogue and governs and directs this dialogue. For example, the encyclopaedia of French culture, which is a renowned point of reference, states that the Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) is: ‘a killer, the Antichrist, kidnaps women and the greatest enemy to the human mind.’ Likewise most of the textbooks in Western Europe describe the Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islam and the Muslims with the most ugliest of descriptions. Recently, the following has been mentioned in the book ‘The End of History’ written by the American thinker Fukuyama: “The Capitalist system is the eternal salvation for man on earth. Islam, despite its weakness and disintegration, threatens this new victorious way of life (i.e. capitalism).” The former General Secretary of NATO, Javier Solana, said: ‘Fundamentalist Islam is the danger which threatens the geopolitics of the future.’ The orientalist Barnard Lewis said about Islam and Capitalism: ‘They are contradictory. There is no scope for dialogue.’ And Samuel Huntington, professor of political science at Harvard University and the Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies said: “The clash between civilisations (Hadharah) will dominate foreign policy. The dividing lines between the civilisations (Hadharah) will be the battle lines in the future.” Then he says: “Religion vehemently distinguishes itself and it is clear to the people. A person can be half French and half Arab…but it is difficult for a man to be half Catholic and half Muslim…”
Where is the dialogue they call us for from this enmity?
When these statements are compared with the hostile actions which have come from the West against Islam and the Muslims, such as the Crusades, the extermination of Muslims in Spain, the destruction of the Khilaafah State and afterwards the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, and the portrayal of Islam and the Islamic movements as
terrorist and extremist. When we compare these statements, we realise the meaning and the aims of the dialogue that the Kafir West is conducting with the Muslims.The aims of the Dialogue:
The primary aim that the capitalists are working to achieve from the dialogue between religions and Hadharah is to prevent the return of Islam to life’s affairs as a comprehensive system. This is because it threatens the survival of their ideology and Hadharah and will destroy their interests and influence.
As for other partial aims that serve their primary aim, these are various. Thus the West aims to paint the world according to the colour of the Capitalist civilisation, especially in the Muslim lands, in order to replace the Islamic Hadharah. This will make it easy for them to remove the Islamic Thaqafa (culture) from the minds of the people. They aim to achieve that by shaking the confidence of Muslims in the Islamic Thaqafa (culture) and in its sources and principles. They aim to neutralise Islam in the clash of civilisations by stripping it of its most important characteristics which distinguish it from other religions, namely the political aspect with which the Khilafah would be established to look after the affairs of the people according to the rules of Islam and carry it to the whole of mankind.
The Capitalists also aim to reshape the personality of the Muslim anew such that he finds no shame in leaving the duty (Wajib) and doing the prohibited (Haram). Then they aim to corrupt the Islamic desires and values and destroy in the Muslim the zeal for Islam such that he no longer hates Kufr and the Kafireen, and he no longer enjoins good and forbids evil. With this they will remove the cultural immunity of the Islamic Ummah with which she resisted all external elements, and will remove the emotional and intellectual barriers that threatened the presence of Capitalist civilisation in Muslim lands. Thus, preserving their influence and interests becomes easier and they guarantee their survival and continuance.
The intention behind this dialogue, which the Kuffar and their agent rulers guard in the Muslim countries with an entourage of scholars and thinkers, is to create a new religion for the Muslims. It is based upon the creed of separating religion from life, and in which man is the Legislator instead of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, the Creator of mankind. They are as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala describes them:
“And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your Deen.” [Al-Baqarah: 217]
And as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad) till you follow their religion.” [Al-Baqarah: 120]
Since the basis of the Islamic civilisation is the Islamic ‘Aqeedah and the basis of Western civilisation is the Capitalist ‘Aqeedah, then merging them is impossible. So the intention behind the dialogue led by the Kafir West is to make the Muslims abandon their Islamic concepts to the advantage of the Capitalist concepts. This is because they realise that the combination of two contradictory beliefs is impossible.
Thus the dialogue between religions and civilisations for establishing common factors and manufacturing a new human civilisation is unrealistic. There must be an intellectual struggle between religions and civilisations to know truth from falsehood, ugly from pretty, and good from evil. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“Then, as for the foam it passes away as scum upon the banks, while that which is good for mankind remains in the earth.” [Ar-Rad: 17]
As for the dialogue they call to, it is a dialogue represented by the enemies of Islam with the aim of destroying Islam, the Islamic civilisation and the Islamic Ummah. Therefore the Muslims must adopt and perfect the necessary tools of struggle, which are manifested in the re-establishment of the Khilafah State that will embark on an intellectual and material struggle to spread the sublime Islamic Hadharah and remove the false and corrupt Hadharahs.
The statement regarding the sons of Abraham:
This viewpoint has come to strengthen the dialogue between the three religions because these three divine religions were brought by the Prophets Muhammad, Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them). They all derive their ancestry to one father and he is Abraham (peace be upon him). Therefore, it is incumbent on the followers of these religions to live together in peace because they are descendants from one origin in lineage and religion.
This is from one angle. From the other angle this viewpoint supports the so-called peace process in the Middle East and the normalisation of relations with the Jews. This is to accept one part of the Jewish and Western conspiracy against Islam and the Muslims by usurping Palestine and al-Masjid al-Aqsa; and by implanting a poisoned dagger in the heart of the Islamic Ummah. This also justifies the participation of the Jews, Christians and Muslims in their guardianship over Jerusalem (Al-Quds), which contains the holy sites, in their capacity as Muslims who all belong to one religion – the religion of Abraham (peace be upon him), the father of the Prophets.
To highlight the error of this viewpoint and to refute it we need to clarify three issues:
(1) The linguistic issue
The word ‘Aslama’ in its linguistic meaning means ‘Inqaada’ (i.e. to submit). The Noble Qur’an has used it with this meaning in the stories of the Prophets and in describing their followers who submitted to the Order of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala. He said on the tongue of Nuh (peace be upon him and he came before Ibraheem):
“My reward is only from Allah, and I have been commanded to be one of those who submit (Muslimeen).” [Yunus: 72]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said on the tongue of Ibraheem and Isma’eel (peace be upon them):
“Our Lord! And make us submissive (two Muslims) unto You and of our offspring a nation submissive (Muslimatan) unto You.” [Al-Baqarah: 128]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said regarding the people of Lut (peace be upon him):
“But We found not there any household of those who submitted (muslimeen) except one (i.e. of Lut and his two daughters).” [Az-Zariyat: 36]
And on the tongue of Musa (peace be upon him):
“Then in Him put your trust if you are those who have submitted (to Allah’s will [Muslimeen]).” [Yunus: 84]
And on the tongue of the Hawariyyoon, the followers of ‘Isa (peace be upon him):
“We believe in Allah, and bear witness that we are those who have submitted (muslimoon).” [Al-Imran: 52]
So the word ‘Muslimoon’ found in the Ayats means ‘those who have submitted’ (Munqaadoon). It does not mean that they professed one Deen, which is Islam as revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam was not known to them and they were not addressed with it. Rather, each people had a particular Messenger who called them to a specific Shari’ah. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“To each (Ummah) among you, We have prescribed a law (Shari’ah) and a clear way (Minhaaj).” [Al-Ma’ida: 48]
After the revelation (Wahy) came down to Muhammad (peace be upon him), the revelation took up certain Arabic words and transferred them from their conventional linguistic meanings to Shara’i meanings. The Shari’ah texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah have clarified this. One of these transferred expressions is the word ‘Islam’ which linguistically used to mean ‘submission’ (Inqiyaad), and became a Shara’i meaning – the Deen revealed by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala to His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him). Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said, addressing the whole of mankind until the Day of Judgement:
“I have chosen for you Islam as your Deen.” [Al-Ma’ida: 3]
And Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“And whosoever seeks a Deen other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him.” [Al-Imran: 85]
And the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Islam has been built on five.” Other religions are not based on these five.
After the divine transference of the meaning of the word ‘Islam’, the words derived from it, such as the verb and active participle (Aslama and Muslim), if used without a Qareena (context), indicate the Shara’i meaning only. If the conventional linguistic meaning is intended this would then require a Qareena to change it from the Shara’i meaning.
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala for example says:
“Ibraheem was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one who truly submitted (Musliman) (to Allah’s will).” [Al-Imran: 67]
This does not mean that Ibraheem (peace be upon him) was on the Deen that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather it means that Ibraheem (peace be upon him) had submitted to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala regarding that which Allah revealed to him, unlike the Jews and Christians who fabricated the Deen of their Prophets.
As for the statement that Muhammad (peace be upon him), ‘Isa and Musa (peace be upon them) were on the Deen of Ibraheem (peace be upon him), it means that they believed in the same ‘Aqeedah, which is the foundation of every Deen revealed from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala.
This is what is meant from His Subhanahu wa Ta’ala saying:
“He (Allah) has ordained for you the same Deen which He ordained for Nuh, and that which We have inspired to you (O Muhammad), and that which We ordained for Ibraheem, Musa and ‘Isa saying you should establish the Deen and do not become divided over it.” [Ash-Shura: 13]
So the word ‘Deen’ in the Ayah means the foundation of the Deen, which is the ‘Aqeedah. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala specified this when He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“To each (Ummah) among you, We have prescribed a law (Shari’ah) and a clear way (Minhaaj).” [Al-Ma’ida: 48]
(2) The Shar’i issue
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala sent Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the seal of the Prophets and the Messengers to the whole of mankind. He ordered them to leave whatever religion they were following, whether divine or not, and called on them to embrace Islam as a Deen. Whoever responded to the call became a Muslim and whoever rejected committed Kufr. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“And say to those who were given the Book (the Jews and Christians) and to those who are illiterates (Arab pagans): ‘Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah in Islam)?’ If they do, they are rightly guided; but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message; and Allah is All-Seer of (His) slaves.” [Al-Imran: 20]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) and among the Mushrikeen (polytheists), were not going to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence, a Messenger (Muhammad) from Allah.” [Al-Baiyinah:1-2]
They are not separated from the Kufr except by their embracing of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “By the one in whose Hand lies Muhammad’s soul! No one from this Ummah, whether Jew or Christian, who hears about me and then dies without believing in what I have been sent with, except that he will be from the inhabitants of the Fire.” So the people are all called to gain conviction in Islam, and whoever does not profess Islam after the matter has been proven to him, then he is definitely a Kafir. After Muhammad was charged with prophethood, if the Jews and Christians continued to hold to their religion, they are considered Kafir according to the Quranic text. It is forbidden to describe them as Muslims, and whosoever believes that they or others are Muslims, he is a Kafir. This is because with this belief of his he has rejected clear Shara’i texts that are definite in meaning and authenticity. If they die on this belief then they will be from among the inhabitants of the Fire.
(3) The issue concerning the sons of Ibraheem (Peace be upon them)
This is a call to the bond of nationalism. It is a bond arising from the survival instinct and is shallow and emotional in nature. It is not suitable for man because it cannot bind one human being with another if they differ in lineage.
The bond of the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) has been negated by time. It does not exist today because the descendants of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) and his offspring have mixed with other peoples through marriage, social intercourse, migration and wars. Today it is impossible to separate them from other peoples. Since the followers of the three religions can be found among all peoples and tribes of the world, they have mixed on the basis of religion and not on the basis of ethnicity. Therefore, applying the claim regarding the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) on the Muslims, Jews and Christians and on those who live around al-Masjid al-Aqsa or any others is a pointless exercise and is incorrect. The intention is to fight Islam, justify the peace process and normalise relations with the Jewish entity of Israel that exists on the usurped land of the Muslims; all of this to give legitimacy to the terrible crimes committed by the treacherous rulers of the Islamic lands under the orders of their masters, the Kuffar of the West.
The family or nationalist bond is like the bond of the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him). It is rejected by the Shari’’ah as a basis to organise the relationships of the people. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“Say: If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the wealth that you have gained, the commerce in which you fear decline, and the dwellings in which you delight…are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving hard and fighting in His Path, then wait until Allah brings about His Decision (torment). And Allah guides not the people who are Fasiqoon (disobedient).” [At-Tauba: 24]
Thus, the order of Allah is above every nationalistic, family or benefit bond. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala clarified the shallowness of this bond to the previous Messengers. He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“And Nuh called upon his Lord and said: ‘O my Lord! Verily, my son is of my family! And certainly your promise is true, and You are the most just of the judges’. And He said: ‘O Nuh! Surely, he is not of your family, indeed his work is unrighteous.’” [Hud: 45-46]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said about Ibraheem:
“He said to him: ‘Verily, I am going to make you a leader of mankind’, (Ibraheem) said: ‘And of my offspring (to make leaders).’ (Allah) said: ‘My covenant includes not the Zalimeen (wrongdoers).’” [Al-Baqarah: 124]
Thus, the son of Nuh (peace be upon him) according to the Shara’i criterion is not from his family, because he did not believe in what Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala revealed to his father. And the Zalimeen (wrongdoers) from the offspring of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) are exempt from the covenant of leadership made by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala since they did not follow what Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala revealed to their father Ibraheem (peace be upon him). So the call to the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) today is Jahil (ignorant) and a politically motivated call. It is forbidden to call for it and invite eople to it. This is because the intention is to fight Islam, divert the Muslims from their Deen, justify the treacherous peace treaty with the Jews and concede to them what they usurped from the blessed land of Palestine, so that relations with them may be normalised and Israel can be accepted as a state in the Middle East.
-
Tawakkul (التوكل على الله) upon Allah
Reliance upon Allah
As regards the issue of putting trust on (at-tawakkul ‘ala) Allah (swt), the first Muslims understood that very well, and they put their full trust on Allah (swt). Therefore, they performed the great tasks, and plunged themselves in the severest difficulties. This is different to the Muslims who came after them, particularly when the material dominated the souls, and the Muslims were afflicted with the short vision and weak understanding. So, they became alienated from the true tawakkul, which became futile words that has no reality in their life and nor in their mind. What encouraged on that is that the thought of the scholars focused on explaining the tawakkul as being taking the means. So, once the word of tawakkul was mentioned it immediately meant the noble hadeeth: ‘tie it and make tawakkul’ (narrated by at-Tirmidhi). Thus, the hadeeth started to be used for weakening the meaning of tawakkul in the souls, and not for refuting what might be thought that tawakkul means neglecting the means. In other words, they made the hadeeth part of the tawakkul, and not a way detached from it. Consequently, the zeal waned, the will weakened, and the horizon of the outlook to life narrowed. So, they started to feel with inability, believe their power is limited, and they can’t achieve more than they did. Therefore, Muslims will not return to take the seat of glory, and plunge in life to achieve superiority unless they fully understood the meaning of tawakkul on Allah, and they fully made tawakkul on Allah. This is because men can’t realise the great missions if they limited their power with their human power only. If man looked at these human powers only, and he acted according to that outlook, he felt impotent from realising even the ordinary tasks, not to mention the extraordinary ones. However, if man believed there are powers beyond the human power that help him in realising his ambitions, then he would undoubtedly rush to what is more greater than his power, by depending on those powers.
If we look at the powers of man alone, we find them limited; so, man would restrict his actions according to that outlook. However, if he had wider view to his powers, he finds no limit to them. He would then be able to realise the great tasks, and undertake what he thought before he would not be able to do. Thus, the power of man has no limit if he believed there is a power beyond his power that helps him to achieve what he endeavours to do. Even those who do not believe in Allah, and nor have tawakkul on Him; they believe in a power beyond their power, which they call the nature or other names; and they undertake great tasks. How is the Muslim then, who believes in Allah (swt) with definite evidence, and has decisive trust in the existence of Allah (swt) that agrees with reality and based on evidence? Without doubt, he can realise, by his tawakkul on Allah, very much more than other than Muslims can achieve. Hence, tawakkul on Allah is one of the most important elements of the Islamic Ummah, and of the most important thoughts of Islam.
Tawakkul on Allah is proved by the definite (qat’ee) text of Quran. Allah (swt) says:
“If Allah helps you, none can overcome you. If He forsakes you, who is there, after that, that can help you? In Allah, then, let believers put their trust.” [Aali ‘Imran: 160]
“Then, when you had taken a decision, put your trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (on Him).” [Aali ‘Imran: 159]
“Say: ‘Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us. He is our protector.’ And on Allah let the believers put their trust.” [At-Tawbah: 51]
“Allah! There is no god but He, and on Allah, therefore, let the believers put their trust.” [At-Taghaabun: 13]
“But if they turn away, say: ‘Allah is sufficient to me. There is no god but He. On Him is my trust. He is the Lord of the Supreme Throne.’” [At-Tawbah: 129]
“Say: ‘Sufficient is Allah for me. In Him trust those who put their trust’” [Az-Zumar: 38]
“But if any trust on Allah, behold! Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.” [Al-Anfaal: 49]
“Indeed, the believers are those who, when Allah is mentioned, fell a tremor in their hearts; and when they hear His revelations rehearsed, find their faith strengthened, and they put (all) their trust on their Lord.” [Al-Anfaal: 2]
“To Allah do belong the unseen (secrets) of the heavens and the earth, and to Him goes back every affair (for decision). So, worship him, and put your trust on Him. And your lord is not unmindful of what you do.” [Hud: 123]
“And put your trust on Him Who is alive and does not die; and celebrate His praise.” [Al-Furqaan: 58]
“And lower your wing to the believers who follow you. Then, if they disobey you, say: ‘I am free (of responsibility) from what you do.’ And put your trust on the Exalted in might, the Merciful.” [Ash-Shu’araa’: 215-217]
All of these aayaat are definite in their meaning that tawakkul on Allah is obligatory. They are explicit in commanding tawakkul on Allah; and the command has been linked with an indication of decisiveness (jazm), which is the praise of Allah (swt) to those who make tawakkul, by loving them.There are also many ahaadeeth that are explicit in indicating tawakkul. Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn Abbas that the prophet (saw) said: “Seventy-thousands of my Ummah enter jannah without being accounted; they are those who do not use magic, do not see evil omen (in things) and put trust on their Lord.” In another narration to Al-Buhkari also: “They are those who do not use magic, do not see evil omen (in things), do not burn their skins and put their trust on their Lord.” Ahmad and At-Tirmidhi also narrated that the prophet (saw) said: “If you truly put your trust on Allah, he would provide you (sustenance) as He provides the birds; where they leave in the morning with empty stomach and return back with full stomach.” These evidences do not leave any space to a Muslim to be reluctant, for a moment, regarding the tawakkul, because they are explicit evidences, particularly the aayaat of the Quran are definite evidences, and the one who rejects them would be kafir. This makes the tawakkul on Allah one of the greatest obligations on Muslims.
Commanding the tawakkul on Allah in all these evidences is not linked with any condition, and nor any action of it came stipulated. Rather, the evidences came absolute (not restricted) in commanding the tawakkul. Thus, the obligation is the tawakkul on Allah without nay restriction, and in every matter. So, we must make tawakkul on Allah in every action.
The evidences indicate that, when we decide on a matter, or carry an action, we must make tawakkul on Allah; and they do not indicate anything else. There is no any evidence that restricts these evidences; they are rather absolute (unrestricted). Therefore, tawakkul on Allah is obligatory on every Muslim, without any constraint or condition. As for the hadeeth: “Tie it and make tawakkul”, [At-Tirmidhi] it is not a constraint to these aayaat and ahaadeeth, and nor even elaboration to them, for they are not ambivalent (mujmal) that requires elaboration. It is rather in another subject, which is taking the means. It is education to the Bedouin, when he understood tawakkul meant neglecting the means. So, the messenger (saw) instructed him tawakkul does not mean neglecting the means. The hadeeth did not come to abrogate the evidences of taking the means; it is rather something else. Thus, the prophet ordered him to take the means together with the tawakkul. The hadeeth is from Anas bin Malik, who said: “A man said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, should I tie it and make tawakkul, or let it go free and make tawakkul?’ He (saw) said: “Tie it and make tawakkul.’” [At-Tirmidhi] Thus, the hadeeth is teaching to the Bedouin to tie his she-camel i.e. to take the means, explaining to him that tawakkul does not negate taking the means, and commanding him to take the means and make tawakkul. Thus, the hadeeth is not, by any means, a constraint to the evidences of the tawakkul. Therefore, tawakkul on Allah is obligatory, regardless of the means. The means are not a constraint to the tawakkul, and nor an elaboration to its Hukm. This is because the evidences of the tawakkul came as absolute and not restricted by any text. Its evidences are also not ambivalent that requires elaboration. The issue of taking the means is different to the issue of tawakkul. It is another issue, and its evidences are different to the evidences of the tawakkul. So, it is not correct to squeeze it into the tawakkul, or make it a constraint to it. The Muslims are obliged to take the means, as the shar’ee evidences prove it. They are, similarly, obliged to make tawakkul on Allah (swt), as the shar’ee evidences established it. Any one of these two issues is not a constraint to the other, and nor a condition to it.
Therefore, Muslims must make absolute tawakkul on Allah. Whoever does not make tawakkul on Allah is sinful, and whoever denies tawakkul on Allah is kafir. This is because the definitely proved evidence proves tawakkul on Allah, which is of definite meaning. Though there are no Muslims who believe in Islam that deny tawakkul, however their masses understand tawakkul wrongly. They understand it as act and make tawakkul; but it is truly different to that. It is to make trust and act. There is a great difference between the two meanings. The meaning of ‘act and make tawakkul’ makes the tawakkul just formal. Therefore, this understanding does not have an effect in the soul of the one who claims he made tawakkul. However, the meaning of ‘make tawakkul and act’ makes the tawakkul fundamental; so, it would have great effect in the soul, and make in it outstanding power capable to assuming the great tasks.
-
The Personality (الشخصية)
This is the chapter one from the book “Islamic Personality”
The human personality in every man consists of his Aqliyyah (mentality) and his Nafsiyyah (disposition). His physical characteristics and all other aspects have no bearing on his personality – these are only superficial. It would be pointless for anyone to think that such aspects have any relevance or bearing upon the makeup of the human personality. This is because man has a discerning mind, and it is his behaviour that indicates his progression or decline in life’s affairs. As man’s conduct in this life is driven by the concepts he holds, thus his behaviour is closely linked with his concepts. Human conduct relates to those actions performed by man to satisfy his instincts and organic needs. He therefore acts in accordance with the inclinations (moyool) that he holds towards satisfaction of these instincts. Consequently his concepts (mafaheem) and inclinations (moyool) are the backbone of his personality. One may ask questions such as “What are these concepts? What makes them? What are their results? What are these inclinations? What causes them, and what effect do they have?” These can be answered as follows.
Concepts are the meanings of thoughts, and not of statements. A statement denotes a meaning that may or may not exist in reality. For example when the poet says, “there is amongst men some who, when attacked, are found to be robust and sturdy, but when you throw a truthful argument at one of them, he instantly flees the fight worn out.”
The meaning conveyed by the poet does exist in reality and can be understood through sensory perception, though understanding this meaning requires enlightened thought. However when the poet says, “they wondered, does he indeed penetrate two horsemen with one strike of his spear and find this not a grand act?” and he answered by saying, “if his spear was one mile long, the same length of horsemen he would penetrate with his strike.”
The denotation of these lines is non-existent in reality. The warrior praised in this verse never penetrated two horsemen with his spear in one strike, no one asked the question answered by the poet, and the warrior is incapable of penetrating a mile of horsemen with a single strike of his spear. The meaning of these sentences and their component words are explained. On the other hand, the meaning of thought is as follows: if the meaning denoted by the statement exists in reality and can be deduced through sensory perception or if perceived by the mind as something sensed and thus believed in, then we can say this meaning is a concept for the person who senses it or the person who visualises it and believes in it. It is not a concept for anyone who does not sense or visualise this meaning, although such a person may understand the meaning of the sentence that has been said. Accordingly, a person must perceive discourse in an intellectual manner, whether it be written or spoken word. That is, he must understand the meaning of sentences just as those sentences express that meaning, not as the producer of these sentences or what he wants the sentences to mean. At the same time, the person must comprehend the reality of that meaning in such a manner that he can readily identify this reality so that the meaning becomes a concept. Concepts are those meanings whose reality can be understood by the mind, whether it be a tangible reality existing beyond the limits of the mind or a reality accepted as existing outside the mind, provided this acceptance is based on tangible reality. Apart from these ideas, the meanings of words and sentences are not called concepts; they are mere information.
Concepts are formed by the association of reality with information or vice-versa, and as a result of the crystallisation of this formation according to the criterion against which information and reality are measured when this association occurs. So concepts are formed according to the person’s understanding of the reality and the information when he links them together, i.e. according to his comprehension of them. Thus a person acquires the mentality for understanding words and sentences, comprehends the meanings and their reality, and then makes a judgement on this reality. The mentality is the tool used for understanding things; meaning it is the mode for linking reality with information; this being done by measuring it against one standard or a number of specific standards. From this stem different types of mentalities, such as the Islamic mentality, the Communist mentality, the Capitalist mentality, the anarchist mentality or a monotonous mentality. Thus it can be said these concepts determine the conduct of man towards the comprehended reality. They also determine his position in terms of inclining towards the reality or turning away from it. In addition they provide him with a particular inclination and a specific taste.
The inclinations are the desires that motivate man to seek satisfaction alongside the concepts he holds about those objects he believes that will provide satisfaction of his desires. These inclinations are borne out of the vital energy that pushes man to satisfy his instincts and organic needs, and the link between this energy and his concepts. It is these inclinations that constitute man’s Nafsiyyah (disposition or behaviour). The Nafsiyyah is the method for satisfying man’s instincts and organic needs i.e. the manner in which the desire or drive to satisfy these needs are combined with the concepts. It is a combination of the relationship (inside each human being) between his desires and his concepts about life, and the concepts he holds about those material objects that will satisfy his instincts and organic needs.
The Shaksiyyah (personality) is composed of the Aqliyyah (mentality) and Nafsiyyah (behaviour). Although the capacity for comprehension is innate and definitely existent within every human being, the development of the Aqliyyah and the Nafsiyyah comes from man himself. The existence of a standard against which information and reality are evaluated before being linked is what clarifies the meaning so that it becomes a concept; and the combination that occurs between man’s desires or drives and the concepts he holds about these is what crystallises the desire so that it becomes an inclination. Thus the criterion against which man measures information and reality before being linked is the most important factor that affects the development of the Shaksiyyah. If the criterion according to which the Aqliyyah is formed is the same as that according to which the Nafsiyyah is formed, then man will hold a particular Shaksiyyah. However if the criterion for Aqliyyah differs from the criterion for the Nafsiyyah, it follows that this man’s mentality will be different from his disposition or behaviour. This man would then measure his inclinations against deep-rooted criteria that he holds, thus linking his desires with concepts other than those which have formed his Aqliyyah. The result is that he develops a Shaksiyyah that lacks distinctiveness, is full of contradiction and discrepancy, and is a human being whose thoughts are different from his inclinations. He understands words and sentences, and comprehends events in a manner different from his inclination towards things.
Consequently, the formation and treatment of the Shaksiyyah can only be achieved through establishing a single standard for both the Aqliyyah and the Nafsiyyah. The standard against which man measures information and reality when he links them together should be the same standard basis according to which his drives and concepts are associated. The result of this is the formation of a unique and distinctive Shaksiyyah.
