The 3 Questions: Part II
Viewpoints and their error
Communism
As far as Communism, their fundamental error was in the denial in the existence of a creator namely Allah (SWT). All subsequent solutions that are formed from this root error are destined to be in error much like a ‘follow through error’ in mathematics. As this ideology has effectively failed due to its implementation and denail of human nature (as opposed to the Islamic Ideology which failed due to its misapplication) thorough analysis is not required. The fact that human nature is denied by this ideology as far as the rejection of private ownership which is an instinctive need, is sufficient to dismiss it as a credible alternative to the current order.
Secularism
As far as the secular Ideology (Capitalism) is concerned, at the point of the 3 questions, the root error was in mixing two contradictory positions into a compromise solution.
Bringing two contradictory positions into a compromise
To explain this, consider an example:-
Imagine two security guards arguing over a combination lock. Guard A asserts that the 5 digit code is composed exclusively of odd numbers whereas Guard B asserts that it is made up exclusively of even numbers. This position adopted by Guard B’s is based on a discussion he overheard in which he learned that the code was changed from odd numbers to even numbers.
What would you think if they, rather than probe the authenticity of the evidences either way, and instead agreed to compromise and conclude that the code is a mixture of odd and even numbers to satisfy both parties!
Why would you Compromise in this situation?
Nobody would settle for this unless either the implications of not being able to unlock the vault were not considered important or desperation had set in and both parties feared that a conclusion was unreachable and they would end up destroying each other in the pursuit of reaching the correct conclusion. The compromise settlement is made up of a mixture of purity (the correct code) and impurity (the incorrect code) so it cannot by definition be pure and free of error. It establishes a precedent that the pursuit for truth is not the highest goal. In some aspects of life, there is scope to agree to differ however as a society and nation, such fundamental foundations should be rigorously debates and found upon a sound basis which is in conformity with reality due to the fact that all resulting thoughts and ideas will be based on it. If the basic idea is weak, then anything which results from this basic idea will be tainted by this flaw or error.
Can this Compromise be correct?
This compromise would be an invalid response and would certainly be wrong as opposed to guessing in which case there would be a greater probability of being right.
What has the security guard analogy got to do with the Secular Creed?
This is exactly what happened with the two parties being the State and Church on one hand and the common people on the other.
The two views were being expressed by the peasantry on the one hand through calling for the need to remove the influence of the Church from life’s affairs and the Monarchs and feudal lords on the other hand who argued that Allah (SWT) and the afterlife were a reality and could not be sidelined either as a belief or a set of rules for deciding on legislative matters without disastrous consequences in the hereafter.
The former party’s stance was predicated on the implausibility of a good Allah (SWT)’s standing for the corruption that the church has come to symbolise. It was not at the time predicated on the atheist creed which took momentum much later through the Darwinian movement of the later 18th Century. Either way, it was nonetheless a radically opposite stance to the counter view and one needing resolution via the definitive basis of the society at the time (Christianity) and not one requiring settlement upon a ‘middle ground’ solution.
So in essence the 2 views were as diametrically opposed as the view of the code being either odd or even with no room for the middle ground being valid. Yet the middle ground was settled upon to appease both sides. This was tantamount to the code being a mixture of odd and even numbers and hence definitely an erroneous conclusion.
How did this debate between church and common folk arise?
Up until this point, whenever the common man who was oppressed by landowners and kings tried to seek justice, they were told that their actions were against Allah (SWT) and they should be patient as Allah (SWT) would give them great riches in heaven and that it was Allah (SWT)’s will for them to be poor otherwise they would be born into nobility! It is clear why people sought to rise up and target religion given the way it was being used to conceal greed and power hungry monarch and kings.
So one party (common folk) wished for religion to be completely removed from life and those that used it to subjugate the people in its name (Kings and Clergy) sought to maintain the current order.
The final conclusion was to allow it but to restrict its power to the 4 walls of the church and state or governments would be run by and for the people, hence the concept of Democracy, that was written about much earlier by Plato, was adopted as a form of government. Hence the term Secularism which is from the Greek term ‘secular’ which means area outside the temple.
The 2 options defined above, just as choosing either odd or even codes, have 2 distinct implications, either there is a Allah (SWT) and hence his authority needs to be respected else there are consequences in the afterlife, or there isn’t a Allah (SWT) in which case he can be completely removed from every aspect of Life and worships is an unnecessary diversion from what man could be doing instead.
Both goals are antagonistic and in the opposite direction and hence it is not valid to compromise in this situation. However at this critical juncture, Western Europe chose to adopt the pragmatic approach and compromise to preserve order. Hence the notion of pluralism was founded, were people can agree or disagree as much as they like, as long as they believe in secularism and freedom/democracy. I.e. as long as they accept the fundamental viewpoint as their boundary.
This is why Muslims who accept the hijab (female head scarf) on the basis of freedom of choice are acceptable within the secular mindset whereas those that accept it as a command from Allah (SWT) are considered working outside these boundaries and hence a threat to the ideological fabric of the secular society.
Parallels with Security Guard example
Both cannot be correct. To mix both positions into a compromise means that truth and falsehood have been mixed together into a hybrid solution. This is similar to the security guards. It is impossible for anything built on this foundation to be pure and correct.
This is the basis for what is termed pluralism in the West. This is the notion of open society, of acceptance of disparate and varying often antagonistic ideas built upon a common framework. There is great infatuation with the belief that the Secular creed accommodates varying views of different persuasions; it being argued that this is a unique strength of this viewpoint. It is not ironic that when the FIS in Algeria one the election, the election was cancelled because a divine solution contradicts the foundations of the secular creed and viewpoint.
So it is pluralism on the provision that the secular framework is the box within which differences are contained within. However the quest for truth is made secondary in many matters were it should be vital and key for humanity. The issue of the existence of Allah (SWT) being a prime example due to the implications of getting the balance in the 3 questions wrong and the implications of the understanding about life and its fundamental purpose and how to live it.
What would have been the correct response?
The correct action would have been to focus the discussion on why Religion had become a tool of human greed and corruption and not on the validity of Religion per se! And then rescue religion from the shackles of human greed and the power hungry clergy and kings.
(note: in Islam the possibility of this happening is significantly reduced due to the both the order to establish political parties to account the ruler and create a climate were the ruler is heavily scrutinised also a judge specifically with executive powers to remove the ruler or Caliph if he starts to manipulate Religion for his own aims)
This is the fundamental divergence from the root cause analysis of the problem. This would have been the balanced and impartial position and not as happened the emotional and reactionary position to take.
It would have been relatively easy to see how the problem was in the way religion was being manipulated for greed and how the societal mechanisms were setup in a way to protect this exploitation. Consequently the problem was in the forces surrounding religion and not in religion as an entity. Once this was identified, the problem would have been corrected and society would not have en mass turned their back on religion or institutional religion as happened and the legacy of that separation which still exists to this day as a result.
OK, we have decided on Secularism, what next?
Now that religion was separated from life, the question of what would replace Allah (SWT) as the goal to seek in life. This is the origin of freeing man from religion and turning him to his desires as a means of achieving happiness.
As a reaction to the position adopted by Christianity (man is inherently evil and needs laws to constrain his carnal desires that would otherwise tend towards vice), the founders of the Secular solution, as a reactionary response to all that Christianity stood for believed the opposite and said that man is inherently good. However he needs freedom to allow the natural goodness inherent within him to appear through his free will.
The View that Man is inherently good was the basis of Freedom.
The impact of this view is that as much freedom as possible should be granted to the citizens of the state. This it was argued was the key to individual happiness and ultimately collective prosperity. The only restriction to individual freedom should be when one man’s freedom restricts another man’s freedom. So one would not be allowed to steal from another person in the name of freedom as this would infringe or impact the freedom of the victim. The stated role of the state being to regulate this balance.
However, as we have and are seeing, the more free the society is, the more prone it is to corruption, decadence, abuse of the weak, exploitation and greed. This is a direct consequence of misunderstanding the nature of man and having the correct viewpoint.
Does man have a Moral Conscience to decide right and wrong and hence not in need of divine guidance?
One may argue that man has a conscience or inner voice that guides him to the notion of right and wrong. The implication being that man is not in need of divine guidance. There is no evidence for this as the goalpost for this moral arbitrator changes over time and from one place to another. Man does however have the in built propensity for good the way a seed has the propensity for growth. This propensity however, just like the seed, needs to be nurtured towards good by following the commands and prohibitions of Allah (SWT) through his divine instruction through the Prophets sent over time to warn and guide people.
Correct View about Human nature is that he is neither good nor evil but has intrinsic needs and a mind and is born without any idea about good or bad.
Man has 2 sets of needs. The first sets of needs are needs which are biological in nature and failure to meet these needs would result in the person dying. Examples include the need for food, water, oxygen and rest. It is simple to identify whether these needs have been satisfied within a narrow band of acceptable methods as the number of actions that satisfy these needs are very small.
The second sets of needs are more complex as failure to satisfy them does not lead to a person dying, however the person would be miserable and in despair. This includes needs such as the need for reproduction, defence of loved ones, recognition by peers, desire for property and living with a sense of security.
It is not so easy to assess whether the fulfilment of these needs has been achieved through a correct action as there are simply so many ways these needs can be met in a manner which switches off the burning emotional state of agitation associated with the need being triggered.
So, if one didn’t know better, to steal property or to earn it through work would both be actions that would satisfy the need for amassing property. However one would not know which action was correct or necessarily better without an external criterion. There is nothing inherent in the need or its satisfaction that informs a person that the need was satisfied with the right action or method.
As man is inherently unable to assess whether the method used for satisfaction was good or bad, or more accurately right or wrong. He can be defined as being inherently neutral. If he was inherently good, then there is an argument to say that he should be left alone (i.e. religion should interfere with the process of his discovering through trial and error what is the best way to live and find the best methods of satisfaction).
These needs are pre-programmed from birth
Both these sets of needs are built into a baby from birth and the baby needs instructions which define how these needs can be satisfied. As mentioned above, there is nothing within the needs themselves which can teach a child what types of satisfaction are good and bad or right and wrong or which forms of satisfaction cause other problems. The human being is only able to judge when the need has been satisfied (ex when hunger stops) but nothing to tell him innately if the method of satisfaction was right or wrong. This information used to perform the action to satisfy the need comes from the environment. Therefore the correct view about the human being is that he is composed of needs (see 2 types) and a mind which he can use to learn and acquire information through which actions are performed to satisfy these needs.
Therefore the needs and the mind are both neutral. There is no inherent predisposition to being good or bad, just as the attribute of a knife to cut or fire to burn is not inherently good or evil. It is how these objects are used in an action that determines if the action was good or bad.
This is the position taken in the Islamic ideology. In Islam, the needs and mind are guided to the correct forms of satisfaction across all types of needs through the legislative guidance given by Allah (SWT) through prophets and messengers.
This guidance presumes that a person has had an independent and rational approach to coming to the creed of Islam namely in the belief in Allah (SWT), and belief that the Quran is the word of Allah (SWT). One cannot be expected to follow the instructions and guidance of Allah (SWT) until the mind has become convinced that such a deity exists and that the revelation sent to mankind through the last messenger is the correct source of such instructions.
The Islamic creed in essence is settled when a person has answered the 3 questions in an intellectually coherent and consistent way. At that point, the divine guidance takes over to provide the instructions on how to live in a way which is in harmony with mans nature and the rest of Allah (SWT)’s creation with its perfectly harmonious systems. If your laptop breaks down, you would take it to the manufacturer. Similarly who has manufactured the human being? Surely it is only he who is competent to define the instruction manual.
Why the axiom of Freedom is wrong
The fact that the Secular creed asserted that man is inherently good, and hence should be allowed to be free (subject to the restriction mentioned above) relied on a very mistaken assumption that the result of this assumption is unfolding before us.
All the abuses of politicians in power when for instance they place corporate interest above their mandate to serve the wider electorate (See the Silent Takeover), abuse of children, of the weak (nursing homes etc), exploitation of money markets for selfish creed, expense claims etc. The list is endless.
Rotten apple theory?
On a production line in an assembly plant, the same tools and materials will result in a very small number of defects being produced. This would not necessitate a review of the plants systems or design as this is just an inevitable aspect of production and exists in all aspects of manufacturing and for that matter life.
It cannot be argued that the cases of abuse of whatever dimension we hear in the news on a daily basis are similar to the odd defect given the scale of the problem is countries which are ideological in nature and which call for freedom in all the apparatus of the state and society.
Defenders of liberty and freedom would argue that the problem is either in the balance of freedom and laws to restrict freedom being wrong or they state a set of unique factors and circumstances that have made people evil and the exception to the norm of them being inherently good.
Such unique factors include the individual being traumatised in some way through some circumstances such as being raised in a single parent home without receiving adequate love and care or someone who has suffered violent abuse for example. A key solution to avoiding such factors it is argued is the engagement of people in economic activity so as to create wealth and avoid the poverty trap and the social decay that is associated with poverty and unemployment. However freedom is always removed from the radar as far as the root of the behavioural problems associated with so many people in society. Much abuse of power is by people who are wealthy as an example.
These actions are a direct consequence of making the quest for freedom above all else. It creates individuals which cannot see beyond slogans such as “life is short, enjoy yourself” and “you only live once so live life to the max” and similar expressions. There is a built in clash between seeking freedom and laws that restrict it. This inherent conflict doesn’t exist in Islam as freedom is not the goal and hence there is not an inherent battle between goals and laws in society.
Note: This does not mean that Islam restricts valid drives such as Communism restricts mans drive for property. Islam does acknowledge innate drives and provides a method to satisfy such desires and needs in a manner which achieves tranquillity for all citizens irrespective of race and belief and also satisfies the individual in the process.
If man was inherently good, then this would mean that freedom will allow him to manifest his goodness through his free will and choice of actions. The reality of man and his actions however speak otherwise.
Are examples of societal break down really attributable to Freedom?
To measure this consider the incidence of extra marital relationships and associated damage caused to the family unit in the Muslim world now while it is under the influence of Freedom with the equivalent incidence during the period when it was under the rule of the Caliphate system. The magnitude of the difference cannot be attributed to the rotten apples theory but is as a result of the implementation of freedom especially in the area of media and music.
Because the inherent makeup of man is that he is not inherent good or for that matter inherently evil, but instead he is inherently neutral, the foundation of giving him freedom as a goal is fundamentally flawed and a very dangerous concept due to the fallout from freedom in the West. Man will default to his animalistic drives when he is drugged with freedom and over time concepts such as integrity, justice and consideration for the group will only be believed in and upheld when the benefit to do so outweighs the benefit not to do so. Similarly the rich will help the poor only for fear that to not do so would mean that their wealth would be stolen by those in poverty.
Mankind drifts towards uncontrolled greed, lack of accountability, not thinking of others prior to undertaking actions. Since the Second World War we have seen the erosion of Victorian values which were founded in Christianity which were the basis of much of the morality that seems to be increasingly distant from the newer generations that are growing up in an increasingly free and deregulated market environment. Hence the calls for family values and the ‘back to basics’ rhetoric that freedom and the idea of allowing man to drift towards man’s supposed ‘inner goodness’ was so manifestly unable to achieve.
It is worth noting that the level of freedom especially market freedom granted during the increased freedom given to the free market by newly founded alliance between Reagan/Thatcher in the early 1980’s has had a direct relationship on the rapid decline in societal standards especially in the area of corporate and market irresponsibility, anti social behaviour/youth culture and standards in public life. Hence it is inaccurate to assert that increasing freedom will lead to mankind expressing his innate goodness.
Other areas of error within the Secular Creed
All other errors are a by-product of these 2 fundamental flaws in summary the compromise solution and changing the deity to be worshiped from Allah (SWT) to Freedom of the self.
The focus of this booklet has been on the creedal aspects and not a thorough refutation of the solutions that come from this creed. But there is a principle that if the underlying assumptions are incorrect, then the conclusions that are shaped by it will also be incorrect.
Conclusion
The error of the alternative civilisations should be clear from the preceding discussion. This will help explain the basis for the attack on the Islamic viewpoint by vanguards of the civilisations based on the secular viewpoint given the insincere basis of the latter’s formulation.
Note: This does not include the folk who constitute the masses that adhere to the secular creed and civilisation as the majority are unaware of the intricacies of this agenda to quell the alternative vision for humanity and are sadly lead by a lack of objective insight into the alternative vision for humanity which this booklet seeks to present at least as far as an introduction.
Furthermore as the basis of the secular viewpoint was not established on a clear process involving an objective assessment of reality, it is not feasible to use the secular basis to challenge the credibility of the Islamic basis which is based on an objective assessment of reality.
This explains why tactics such as misrepresentation, threats and bribes are used to maintain the status quo as far as perpetuation of the secular system in the Muslim lands and the forced acceptance of the secular values on the Muslim communities in the west.
Questions/Comments/Feedback to
No comments:
Post a Comment