A Challenge to the FREE World

Many political commentators have forecast that Islam has replaced communism as the challenge to the 'free world'. They believe that Islam cannot be absorbed in the comity and thus foresee Islam becoming more and more militant. They conclude that we are going back to the middle ages. Western civilisation, or to be more exact secularism, we are told, equates with progress and enlightenment, thus anything else is a step backwards. By the same token we are told Islam cannot be progressive. Islam is painted as militant and intolerant, and the fundamentalist intent on plunging the world into the middle ages. It is this simplistic thinking, where Islam is portrayed as backward and Muslims as fanatics, that regrettably characterises the West's image of Islam.

But who is to say that secularism with its main tenet of capitalism is progression ! Capitalism with all its inherent iniquities is morally and spiritually defunct. Because of its propensity to create division and inequality in society it gave rise to communism. Capitalism is no more progressive than communism which tried to replace it. Even more strange is the notion that democracy and liberalism, the other bastions of Western civilisation, add up to enlightenment and progress. There is nothing inherently superior to these ideas. Liberal democracies can still crush individuals mercilessly as a system of ruling. According to the ideas being put forward by the liberalists, a ruler who cares little for education, public order, and ethics, and as a result brings about injustice, but who, at the same time, gives his subjects a great deal of personal liberty, would stand for justice.

Western civilisation based on liberal democracies conceives 'good' as simply the product of mans desires and wants. But who is to say that it, i.e., the 'good', is more worthy than the desires it seeks to assess. In liberal democracies, where freedom is sanctified above everything else the greatest dilemma is that not all good things are reconcilable with each other. Man's desire for freedom must be weighed against other values like security, justice and equality.

Islam is opposed to the creed that establishes the sanctity of liberty above all other values and rejects the notion put forward by the liberal democrats that man is the constructor of his own values, ends and purpose to life. The Muslim believes that man inhabits a universe whose definition of justice, good and bad, happiness and purpose in life are all God given. Moreover, the divine law is sovereign in complete contrast to democracy. While the people may choose their leader, his function is to apply the divine law upon them. Why should this equate with backwardness?.

It is a gross misrepresentation to equate the demands and aspirations of the Muslims to resume an Islamic way of life with a desire to go back to the dark ages. No Muslim wants to go backwards. The Muslims are forward looking people who strive to bring about progress and enlightenment. The Muslim history, when the Islamic system was applied, testifies to this. Unlike Christianity, Islam and science has never been in conflict. Those who are at the forefront of the Islamic movements are very often men and women of science who have graduated from modern universities.

Those who call for the return of Islam, believe it to be, in todays terminology, an ideology; not only as a belief, but a source from which springs all the solutions to man's problems.

For those who are not familiar with Islam as an ideological force, the 'fundamentalists' believe that the present Muslim states do not represent Islam in this ideological sense. They are secular states whose population happen to be Muslim and whose laws have some-to varying degrees- affinity with Islam. The 'fundamentalist' rejects the laws, values and ideals that have been adopted by the Muslim countries which are at variance with Islam and seek the establishment of an ideological state.

Those who insist on returning to the pure basis of Islam, are labelled fundamentalists intent on taking mankind back to the seventh century. The argument advanced by the enemies of Islam, or those who are ignorant is that the divine law was revealed in the seventh century and therefore cannot possibly legislate for all eventualities that man will face as he advances. For instance the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) rode a camel and now we are able to travel to the moon. Thus a return to Islam must result in a society at odds with modernisation, science, technology, and civilisation. The truth of the matter is that such an understanding shows a complete ignorance of Islam.

Privatisation

As a final revelation and guidance for all mankind, God did not legislate specifically for man living in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th Century. In other words, the divine law was not revealed specifically for any time, age or place. Quite the contrary, the divine law was revealed both specifically and generally and thus, in the manner of constitutional law, capable of being applied legislatively in any age and location. An example of this is the Prophets statement:
"The people share in three things, that is water, grass and fire."

From this statement, and other evidences, the Muslim jurists have concluded that individuals are forbidden to own articles or resources that are essential for the wellbeing of society. The Prophets (saw) statement is but an example of those things which are needed by society, the individual ownership of which would cause harm. Accordingly the state has no right to grant individuals ownership of things indispensable for the public such as water, electricity, forests, rivers, minerals, fuel etc. On the basis of other incidents the jurists have decreed that gold, silver, iron, coal, copper, gas etc. cannot be owned by individuals. Instead they remain forever as public property administered by the state on the public's behalf. The principle of individual, public and state property can be applied in any age or location. On this basis the conservative governments privatisation of water, electricity, gas, coal etc., is considered to be contrary to Islam.

Taxation

"What God has bestowed on His Messengers (and taken away) from the people of the townships - belongs to God - to His Messenger and to kindred and to orphans and to the needy and the wayfarer, in order that it may not make a circuit between the wealthy among you" [Qur'an 59:7]

The important phrase here is the statement "It may not make a circuit between the wealthy among you". Once again the jurists are again able to extract many rules from this general principle. Wealth must not be confined to a small section of the community. Thus the state should ensure that wealth circulates among all people. The accumulation of wealth by a sector of society at the expense of the whole is therefore shunned by Islam. Taxation is accordingly progressive, reflecting the peoples ability to pay. Blanket taxes, like the initially introduced Poll Tax, makes the poor poorer and the rich richer, reinforcing their already privileged position. Try telling the people who have been lumbered with numerous types of blanket taxes which they cannot afford to pay, like the VAT on fuel which the government tried to introduce, that this principle is outdated.

Numerous other examples can be called upon to illustrate the point that the divine law, although revealed in the 7th Century, remains as valid today as it was then; and will remain valid as long as mankind exists. This is because the divine law addresses man as a human being, and not as a man living in England in 2006, or a man living in Arabia in the 7th Century. The fact of the matter is that mankind whether living today or in the year 3090 is still the same man, with the same instincts and organic needs. His needs are basically the same. Granted, his mode of transport will develop and his style of dress may change, but fundamentally he will remain the same. So when the Prophet (saw) said :
"The son of man has no better right then that he would have a house wherein he may live, and a piece of cloth whereby he may hide his nakedness, and a piece of bread and some water."

It is applicable now as when it was set. Three things are essential for every male and female; food, clothing and shelter. No individual should be deprived of these basic necessities. The Islamic State must guarantee these provisions otherwise Islam considers the whole society at fault. This requirement is not altered because we live in the year 2006. Indeed we notice that in the 1980's and 1990's the western capitalist states have eroded the social measures of the welfare state that sought to redress the inequalities of unrestrained capitalism. With the tide turning, people are calling for a much more just and caring society. We can proceed in the same manner in looking at every facet of our lives. Whilst in Islam the divine law is fixed, in that it is revealed, the task of the Muslim jurist is to extract the divine rule or law from the established texts, and to apply to the new issue that has arisen. This process, which is known as exertion (Ijtihad), is a methodology applicable for any age. It is the process that provides the vitality and dynamism in Islam. The fact that the source of the divine law, the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) are old, in no way diminishes their worth, after all democracy, so revered in the west, is a product of the classical Greeks.

Science and Technology

As for the allegation that Islam is opposed to progress, science and technology, this is an absolute distortion of the truth. Islam is not opposed to pure science or technology, and we would remind the west of Islam's great scientific heritage. Islam is only opposed to science, technology and industry where its application is in a manner contradicting Islam. Pure science that is universal, in the sense that it does not reflect a particular ideology or viewpoint of life, can be studied and adopted by Islam unreservedly.

Science can be political and ideological; we are witnessing in the west a major debate on the ethics of scientific research and the environmental effects of technology and industry. Whether embryonic research is permitted or not is a political decision, not scientific. Islam has an ethical code which is embodied in the Islamic law (Sharia). The existence of this framework does not equate with backwardness. Indeed, it is looked upon with envy by many in the west who are terrified by the way in which science is threatening to run out of control. Likewise the growing environmental awareness, brought about by the damage that is being afflicted on the environment by industry and consumerism, going unchecked, is pointing to the need for greater guidelines on the application and development of science and technology.

However, at the end of the day, the question boils down to whether or not man can be relied upon to be the constructor of his own values, guidelines and law. History tells us that man is unable to reconcile between the competing values in a way that benefits humanity as a whole. Thus we witness in the west, said to be the pinnacle of civilisation, the social cost of the capitalist economic system, the destruction of the noble qualities, the breaking up of the family, and the ever increasing crime and public disorder. But for the wealth generated by the capitalist system, all the by products which weigh so heavily on the people, like alienation, insecurity, class conflict, depression, exploitation and crime would have brought about its demise in a way that brought about the destruction of communism.

Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said:

"It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all other religions, no matter how much the disbelievers detest it." [ 61 : 9 ]


Freelance Activist

02/07/2006