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.).