The
need for a normative standard
I was talking with my friend about the need
for us to return to Islamic faith, legislation, values, behaviour, culture and
civilisation, so that we can be happy in our life on earth and so that we earn the
hereafter. Upon that he spoke with frankness and said: "The truth my friend is that
we experience hesitation and bewilderment in the face of the numerous and various calls
and principles; some of which draw us to the right, others to the left, yet others to the
east and others to the west. So, some advocate Islam, others advocate nationalism and yet
others socialism.
Amongst those who advocate Islam, we find
narrow-minded ones and we fmd more lenient ones. As to those who advocate nationalism
there are those who are broad-minded and those who are narrow-minded. As to the ones who
call for socialism, there are extremists and there are moderates.
Each one of these trends coats his ideas
with the best attributes, and frees them of all flaws. Those who read or listen to all
this are uncertain about all the books, theses and articles they read and all the
lectures, presentations and discussions they hear. So tell me by God: what can man do in
the face of these principles and ideas, and these right-wing and left-wing trends? "
I said: "What do people do when they
disagree about the length of a piece of cloth, or about the weight of a piece of cake, or
the volume of some quantity of wheat?" Then my friend replied: "They refer to a
standard they have agreed upon, such as the meter for the measurement of distances and
lengths, the kilogram or the pound in the evaluation of weights, the litre and the keddah
in the weighing of grains etc. As a result the disagreement is dissipated and the quarrel
is resolved.
Then, I said: "This is what we need to
do also in what concerns moral matters; that is, we need a reference to agree upon and
which we can refer to for our ideas, opinions and values. Only then can we claim to be
together and for our view to be united. Then, my friend said: "The problem lies in
who is going to design this magical standard which weighs sayings and ideologies, which
measures beliefs, which helps distinguish maturity from temptation, and differentiates
being on the straight path from being astray. Who can pretend to be able to set this
standard? And who will accept him when he pretends that? "
I said: "As for us Muslims, we, in
fact, have such a standard in hand. It has not been set up by humans. Human beings are
incapable of setting such a standard. It is a standard that has been set by Allah, it has
been sent from the Creator to the subject: "(This is) a
Scripture the revelations whereof are perfected and then expounded. (It cometh) from One
Wise, Informed" (Surah 11, Verse 1) "I have
left you with that which if you cling to it you will never err: The Book of Allah and my
Tradition". The basic responsibility of the Prophets is to set these standards for
the humans, so that they can refer to them when they disagree, and to return to when they
deviate. In the Glorious Qur'an, it is said: "Mankind were one
community, and Allah sent (unto them) Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners,
and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might judge between mankind
concerning that wherein they differed" (. Surah 1, Verse
213) "We verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs,
and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance, that mankind may observe right
measure )'(Surah 27, Verse 25) Most surprisingly we do
not refer to this heavenly norm, to the Islam which Allah Almighty has bestowed upon us,
and has approved of as the appropriate religion for us. We discarded it, and we set out to
seek formal advice and reference elsewhere, "Whoever wants guidance elsewhere (than
the Qur'an), will be misled by Allah".
My friend said in surprise: "Do we have
to refer to Islam and the Qur'an for all our ideas and opinions?" I said: "Yes,
that is as soon as you become a Muslim and believe in Allah and his Prophet. This is the
meaning of: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His Prophet'9. Therefore, as
soon as you accept Allah as your God, and Mohammed as His Prophet, the Qur'an as your
leader, then it is your duty to refer to Allah, His Prophet and Book in matters that are
difficult for you to resolve, or in matters that people disagree with you about. No faith
is accepted without this condition. "And it becometh not a
believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair
(for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair" (. Surah 22, Verse 32), "But nay, by thy
Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make ihee judge of what is in dispute
between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which thou decides", and
submit with full submission" (. Surah 5, Verse 65.) .
Then, my friend said: "Does
this mean that we have to refer to Allah's commands in all our matters, be they social,
political or economic. It makes sense to refer to Allah's commands in religious matters,
in faith, worship and morality. As to the changing and evolving life matters, why should
we not use our human logic, or extract it from the experience of others". I said:
"The division of what Allah commanded into what is religious and what is not
religious, is an erroneous division, and is not founded on any sound basis. Do you want us
to obey Allah, when He says, "establish worship" (. Surah 74, Verse 20), since prayers are matters of religious
concern; and when He Says: "and pay the poor-due" (Surah 74, Verse 20), we then say "Pardon us God, but this is
a money and worldly matter, so let us deal with it alone, without your guidance and your
revelation, oh! God."
And when Allah says: "Lo, your God is
one and the same, so be honest to Him and repent to Him", then we say "we have
heard you and are obeying you". Then when He Says: "Strong
drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's
handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed" (Surah
5, Verse 90), we respond: "We have heard you and we are disobeying. Oh! God,
the forbidding of the consumption of wine is dangerous for the tourist activity, and is a
restriction on the freedom of the individual, so let us be free in drinking it."
When Allah says:
"And guard yourselves against a day in which ye will be brought back to Allah"
(Surah 2, Verse 281), we would say, what a piece of advice!.
When He states two verses earlier than the previous one: "Observe
your duty to Allah, and give up what remaineth (due to you) from usury, if ye are (in
truth) believers. And if ye do not, then be warned of war (against you) from Allah and His
messenger'' (.Surah2, Verse278, 279). Then we would
say: "As to this one, no! Our era cannot do without usury, and the wheel of economics
cannot turn without the usurious interests. And when God Says: "O
ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you" (.Surah
2, Verse 183 ), we say, "we have heard you and are obeying you"; and when
He States in the same Surah and in the same context: "O ye who
believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered" (Surah 2, Verse 178), we say there is neither hearing nor obeying
in this case, since the decision of punishment should remain of our prerogative and not
yours, so let us decide in these situations according to our judgements and not yours,
since we are more cognisant of our interests than you are.
No my friend! Everything that Allah has
Decreed as religion must be followed, respected and executed. Ignoring part of it harms
all of it. It is similar to the fine doctor's prescription to the patient, which is a
complementary set of medicines. The omission of one of the medicines makes the harm of the
rest of the medicines greater than their beneficial effect. So Allah has Warned against
disregarding some of the commands and wisdom that we find in His Holy Book. As a result of
the luring of the people of the Scripture, atheists and idolaters, Allah Almighty said: "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow
not their , but beware of them lest they seduthee from some part of that which Allah hath
revealed unto thee'' (Surah 5, Verse 49). So He Warned
against seduction away from some of the commands that came from Allah. Allah Has Cursed
the hypocrites who have backed down after they had become aware of the right path and
Satan persuaded them and dictated to them, so He Said in the explanation of what happened
to them: "That is because they say unto those who hate what
Allah hath revealed: We will obey you in some matters; and Allah knoweth their secret
talk" (.Surah 47, Verse
26).
My friend exclaimed: "What you
are saying is correct, but not all people are Muslims, so that they can refer to the
standards of Islam to resolve their disagreements".
I said, "As to the non-Muslims, there
is a specific argument concerning them. I am now speaking about the people who have
adopted Islam as their religion, and are still declaring that they are Muslims, but
consider themselves above the commands of Islam. I am speaking to those who read and hear
Allah's Message as it is stated: "And in whatsoever ye differ,
the verdict therein belongeth to Allah" (. Surah 42,
Verse 10). "And if ye have a dispute concerning any
matter, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and
the Last Day" (. Surah 4,
Verse 59)
I am speaking to those who have read in
the Glorious Qur'an: "Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah
hath revealed: such are disbelievers'' (Surah 5, Verse 44.).
"Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are
wrong-doers " (.Surah 5, Verse 45) "Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are
evil-livers'' (. Surah 5, Verse
47.)
I would like you to realise that
these verses do not address themselves only to the governors and judges, but also to all
those who have used in their thinking and their behaviour a faith other than Islam, a book
other than the Qur'an, and a guide other than Mohammed (PBUH) as a standard. Such people
will have to choose from one or all of the attributes mentioned in the three verses of the
Qurtan to describe themselves: disbeliever, wrong-doer and evilliver:
Had it been only one
arrow I would have avoided it,
But it is one arrow, and a second and a third.
Are these rites..., or new faiths and
religions?!
My friend said: "We have accepted
Islam as a standard for our thoughts and values, and the Qur'an as a reference in all our
affairs, so what does Islam say about these new theories and ideologies, whose advocates
have become quite active recently? Such theories wear the stamp of innovation, liberation,
rebirth, progress, revolution and rebellion. Can Islam be open enough to tolerate these
ideologies and sign with them a treaty of peaceful coexistence? Or will Islam refute and
deny them, and refuse to coexist with them? Is it acceptable for the Muslim individual or
group to adopt one of these ideologies, or use it as his guiding light and become an
advocate for it? How can all these questions relate especially to an ideology such as the
one known as 'Revolutionary Socialism'?
I said: "You have just asked about a
very serious matter, towards which every Muslim has to define his personal stand, and
every Muslim scholar has to clarify the judgement of Allah and His Prophet about it,
without any ambiguity or flattery." I will not discuss now the content of these
ideologies and calls, the ideas and theories, and the correct or wrong rules that it
contains. The objective discussion of all ideas and ideologies has been undertaken
elsewhere. Suffice it here to discuss the general form and essence of all these
ideologies.
These theories and ideologies are
essentially new religions, which discard the content of religion, but keep its shape. They
ironise the unseen that has been mentioned by Islam, and the mentality of the Muslims and
their overwhelmingly warm faith which make up the essence of Islam, and at the same time
has all the characteristics of a religion.
What are the characteristics of Islam? They
reside in Islam being a revolution over pre-Islamic ideals and values, whose aim is to rid
humanity from them. They also reside in faith in a set of ideas whose validity cannot be
subject to discussion and a set of values whose fairness cannot be subject to doubt. It is
loyalty to an idea which does not accept a partnership, and an allegiance which does not
accept competition, a pride which does not allow flattery, a sacrifice which does not
accept restraint and firmness which does not accept backing down.
These are the main characteristics of the
traditional religions, and what they require from their worshippers. This is also what the
secular revolutionary ideologies require from their supporters.
They all consider that religion is
ignorance that we must free ourselves from and that its ideas, ideals and values are
nothing but reactionary and old matters that we must rebel against, and that we must weigh
against the new ideas. Anything that agrees with the new ideas will be integrated as part
of their ideology, and will be used to militate for its objectives, and anything that does
not will be crossed with a red pen.
These ideologies do not accept to take one
aspect of life or society and reform and improve it. They consider themselves
comprehensive, absolute and universal, exactly like religion. So they call for a radical
and revolutionary change, which destroys what is old, and changes the concepts and sets
new values for people, as well as a new code of behaviour, new concepts and new systems.
One of the scholars and frank supporter of
these ideologies says, after a detailed explanation: "Thus, when the revolutionary
ideologies want to undertake a complete revolutionary movement, they find it necessary to
turn the whole society into a crowd, i.e. individuals who no longer have roots or
traditions. They also find it necessary to contradict the current social
organisation, and
encourage any destructive movement or attitude which contributes to the tearing apart of
its values. These ideologies also have to support every change that may lead to uprooting
all old traditions, systems and values. When they take up power and start to run the
state, they use all political means, and all available technological and scientific means
to achieve the complete destruction of all social structures, systems and relations. All
this is done under the assumption that if the individual loses all his links with the old
values and systems he becomes revolutionary" (The Revolutionary Ideology by
Dr. Nadiim Baitar).
Some people have named these ideologies,
'secular religions', 'atheistic religions', or 'religious secularism'. It is in this
context that Julian Huxley wrote his Religion without revelation.
The advocates of these theories and
ideas were frank when they referred to them as faiths, thus they refer to the socialist
faith, the communist faith, the nazi faith, the Ba'th faith, the nationalist faith. Faith
is a lighter way of expressing the concept of religion. Had we wanted to achieve greater
frankness we would have referred to 'the socialist religion', 'the Ba'th religion', 'the
nationalist religion', etc.
There are authors who try to explain these
convictions in such a way as to make them palatable to the religiously practising peoples.
For instance, socialism has a mere economics ideology which it relates to a humanistic
philosophy which requires the intervention of the state in order to organise the social
and economic relations according to a particular system. The socialist writers who are
objective did not accept this accommodation or shall we say falsification. They described
it as a complete conviction, which organises all instinctive and practical human and life
matters.
Dr. Munif Razzaz, who was elected as
Secretary General of the Arab Socialist Ba'th Party for several years, states in his book Studies
in Socialism, which was published in 1960: "It is wrong to construe Socialism as
a mere economic system. Socialism provides economic solutions for various matters. These
solutions are only one aspect of many of Socialism. So, to usocifrom this point of view
only is an erroneous understanding which does not reach the depth the ideology, nor does
it acquaint itself with the bases upon which socialism is founded, nor does it aspire to
the distant hopes that Socialism aims at.
Socialism is a life ideology, not an
economic ideology. It is an ideology which deals with economics, politics, upbringing,
education, society, health, morality, literature, science, and history. It covers all
aspects of life, big and small. To be a socialist means that you have a socialist
understanding of all these matters, and that you are a socialist militant in all these
aspects."
The author insists that this comprehensive
view is not limited to socialism; it is the basis of the other social ideologies. The
author motivates the comprehensive view of the social ideologies and the width of its
extent, in the sense that it applies to all domains and has solutions to all problems, as
follows: "... The reason behind this comprehensive view is that life itself is one
whole matter and is a single current, which does not recognise the divisions that our
minds create in order to make the understanding of the realities of life easier. While
doing this, our minds forget afterwards that these divisions are of their doing and think
that life was divided in such a way since infinity. Life does not know such a thing as
economics which is isolated from such a thing as sociology, and such other thing as
politics. Life is completely linked, but our incapable mind, which is infatuated with
analysis and study, will not be able to undertake such analysis and study if it had to
face life as one undivided entity. It has to divide life into aspects and states, and into
kinds of relations, and calls part of it economics, another part politics, and other parts
sociology, morality, religion, history and literature, science, and so forth to the end of
this chain, if it does have an end... Life, is like a river, is one continuous and related
entity. The same can be said about the life of any society, be it small or big, be it a
nation or a family, be it a government or a political party. The attitude of a society
towards political freedoms influences its attitude towards economics and economic systems.
It will also influence its attitude towards political freedoms, and colonialism, and
behaviour, education, literature, history and so forth to the end of this chain which
never ends".
The author concludes by stressing this
comprehensive characteristic of socialism and writes: "In this sense, the word
'socialism' becomes one that is not limited to reforming a particular economic situation
only, but it conveys the notion of a complete outlook on life with all its aspects. In
such case, socialism is not a particular economic situation, and does not only aim at a
particular economic situation, but it is a socialist understanding of all aspects of life.
Thus, when I say that I am socialist, I have stated my attitude not only towards the
economic situation within which I am living, but also towards all aspects of life which
affect me and which I affect."
It is this same line of thought that was
followed in the book entitled The Socialist Call in Egypt during Nasser's period. They
proclaimed it as a complete faith which organises all aspects of man's life, and guides
his thoughts, behaviour, philosophy of existence and history.
We may take here the example of Kamal Ad
Diin Rif at, the 'Secretary of Promotion and Thought' in the Arab Socialist Union, whose
words were considered at that time, as the official view coming from the official
leadership. He states in an article published by the Akhbar Newspaper of 18/31]962:
"Socialism is not a fixed system, in other words, it is not a mere economic system,
or a social system, or a political system. All these complete each other and make up the
socialist thought or socialist system."
Dr. Jamal Sa'id, confirms this meaning in
his book Arab Socialism and its Place in the Socialist Systems that "It, i.e.
Arab socialism, is not characterised as an economic movement only, but as a human ideology
and system, which aims at erecting a new society. It does not merely aim at the removal of
the ownership of the means of production from the individuals to the state or the society
as a whole. It is not merely control over the national economy and its orientation towards
the interest of the overall population. It is not a mere social or economic reform, but it
surpasses all of this to the extent of the theoretical and practical solutions to the
problems of the individual and those of the society. It is the construction of a society
in which all guarantees are insured, it is the society of self-sufficiency and justice,
the society of work and equal opportunity, the society of productivity and services".
Some of the Arab authors explained what was
meant by "Socialism as an ideology of life", and "a style of life" or
"a philosophy which links all aspects of life"; so they said: "The meaning
of this is that socialism deals with the life of the human in its totality, because it is
a total philosophy as far as the issue of the universe and that of existence are
concerned".
Another statement that was made in such
context is as follows: " Arab socialism is a whole revolutionary theory, it does not
only define the relationship of man with society, but it deals with his life as a whole.
It constitutes a complete philosophy towards the issue of the universe and that of
existence, assumes that man does not live on bread alone, is not satisfied by simply
resolving the issue of his life with people, but aspires to the resolution of the issue of
his existence and that of his fate. The socialist theory does not only constitute a
solution to the problem of bread or that of freedom, but that of existence in general"
( This was quoted by Protessor Mohammed
'Usfuur A1 Muhaamii in an article which referred to Egyptian newspapers and magazines.)
Then my friend said: "Don't we
often hear these people declaring that they respect religion or that they, at least, do
not oppose it. So, how do we explain this when we see that they adopt another view or
faith that pretends to include life in its totality, in the same way as religion
does?"
I said: "The believers in these faiths
and ideologies may say that they do not snub religion or deny it, but then, what is the
religion that they do not snub? It is not a revelation from Allah that He has sent to
command His subjects and to which they respond: "We have heard and we are
obeying?" They never say that. It is referred to as 'the spiritual heritage',
'traditions', or 'the noble ideals' of the nation, or such shallow and flexible
expressions which do not add anything to truth. The religion which is acknowledged by such
people is one which obeys their theories, and toes their line, and whose advocates obey
them, and which defends their faiths and ideas. That is how the hypocrisy of such people
is uncovered, and how their strong enmity to religion appears clearly when religion
opposes one of their principles or one of their beliefs. That is when they attack religion
and declare war upon it and upon its advocates, by campaigns of false statements and
disgraceful publicity sometimes, and by campaigns of assassinations, torture and
separation. They want a religion that is tame, and one which plays the role of the
obedient servant, not the obeyed commander. As to the true religion, they are as far from
it as the sky is from earth.
The view of these people of existence is
not similar to that of religion, their view of life is not that of religion, their view of
man is not that of religion, and their high ideals are not those of religion. Their real
god is matter, their heaven is luxury and their code of behaviour is selfishness.
As to what religion emphasises in terms of
worshipping and fearing Allah, and relying upon Him and submissiveness to Him, and
aspiring to His paradise, and tearing His punishment, are considered by these 'liberals'
and 'revolutionaries' as 'reactionary' behaviour which should not be allowed to remain.
Theseideologies donot approve of the existence
in their societies of those people who were described in the Qur'an as obedient: "Those who say: Our Lor! Lo! We believe. So forgive us our sins and guard
us from the punishment of Fire; the steadfast, and the truthful, and the obedient, those
who spend (and hoard not), those who pray for pardon in the watches of the night" (Surah 3, Verses 16-17 ) "And who
spend the night before their Lord, prostrate and standing, and who say: Our Lord! Avert
from us the doom of Hell; lo! The doom of hell; lo! The doom thereof is anguish, lo! It is
wretched as abode and station" (Surah 25, Verses 64-66 ).
Therefore do not be betrayed by what you hear and what you read about the faith of these
people in religion and about their lack of enmity towards it. They only say that to
flatter the religious crowds and win their hearts while awaiting for the opportunity that
will allow them to break the neck of religion, following the adage which advises one to
pretend that you are of your enemy's faith until you take hold of him.
This is the typical attitude of any
revolutionary ideology towards any religion. It may be useful in this context to bring up
the example of what happened in Germany and Italy between nazism and fascism and the
catholic religion. This example will allow one to know what happens and what might happen
in our country between Islam and the new revolutionary ideologies. In this case I am only
quoting, and not deducing.
Nazism and fascism wanted to use religion
in the service of revolutionary ideologies, and make it obedient of their commands. In
each one of them, the ideology made a new claim, which overshadows everything and makes
everything take a secondary role in comparison to it. All this is stated clearly in the
writing of both ideologies, but especially in the writings of the Nazis.
An agreement was signed between the church
and the Nassau government in 1933, after it had been impossible to link between the two,
because the country, and any country for that matter, could not have two absolute faiths.
So it was not easy for that agreement to draw the curtain on the fascist war between the
two sides, in spite of the several attempts which both sides made to keep it discrete.
On the basis of the nazi propaganda, the
young German generation used to grow believing in the absolute priority of the nation, and
in the state being more important and greater than any religion, and that allegiance to
the nation and the state takes priority over anything and any other religious allegiance
(contemplate!).
Hitler used to be very careful of opposing
or fighting against religion in an open fashion (contemplate carefully), but he gave the
theoreticians of the party the freedom to express their opposition and their fight against
religion.
Rosenburg, the nazi philosopher, drew a
clear picture of the attitude towards religion of the new regime in his sayings:
"When the national socialist puts on his shirt, and becomes one of the soldiers in
Hitler's army, he discards his religion by his faith in his master". Knut also wrote:
"Catholicism is one of the old remains of a decadent culture which time has
excused".
The enmity of fascism and nazism towards
religion was unclear at the beginning, because at the time they were fighting Communism,
the open atheist. This is what misled many, and made many of the heads of the Catholic and
Protestant church leaders stand in their side: because they saw in them a new meaning of
religion. But the matter was the exact opposite of that. At the beginning they both
followed a policy which was very far from the atheism of the Communist movement. Soon it
became obvious to the observers that they only tolerated the existence of religion and the
keeping of the churches as an instrument to serve the objectives of their new beliefs.
Thus, we see that the fight arises between them and religion, when the latter tries to
hold onto something which contradicts their faith.
Strategic political considerations may
impose on the revolutionary movements - as it did on the fascists and the nazi - and to
some extent on the communists - to make some settlements with the current religions. This
strategy cannot, however, be compatible for a long period of time with their basic rule of
opposition to religion. For these revolutions to take place, it is necessary for them to
be opposed to religion, which itself claims comprehensiveness. There is no possible
agreement between the two; and each agreement can only be temporary while waiting for the
final battle, which must end in the absolute victory of one of them. The revolutionary
ideology, is itself a new religion which competes with the other religions in the control
of the souls of people. Thus, its life itself is linked with its final victory which it
may be able to achieve over the religions (Adapted from "The Revolutionary Ideology" by Dr. Nadim Al
Baytar, pp.
742-746.)
Is it possible after all this for a
religion which respects itself, to accept to coexist with these ideologies, or yet these
new religions? How can this coexistence be if they do not accept to coexist with religion,
and approve of its existence only as a servant, follower or instrument?
The original question is no longer valid if we
discuss it in the following fashion: Is it possible for the Muslim individual or society
to adopt a new religion such as socialism, or secular socialism. The answer is clear and
known. Allah Almighty said: "Allah hath not assigned unto any
man two hearts within his body" (. Surah 33, Verse 4.).
"And seeketh as religion other than the surrender (to Allah) it
will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter"
(. Surah 3, Verse 85.).
|
