Rafed English

Contemporary Man and The Social Problem

Contemporary Man and The Social Problem

Author : Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir Al-Sadr


We express our gratitude to Allah, the Glorious, the One Who can grant us success in publishing this book entitled "Contemporary Man and the Social Problem" (al-Insan al-ma`asir wal'-mushkilah al-ijti- ma`iyyah) written by the great scholar, witness and Islamic thinker, as-Sayyid Muhammad Bagir as-Sadr, and translated by Mr. Yasin T. al-Jibouri. This is his third book, after "The Revealer, The Messenger, The Message" (al-Mursil, ar-Rasul, ar-Risalah) and "A General Look at Rites" ( Naz ara `ammah f i 'l- `ibadat), whose publication and distribution our Organization has undertaken.

In the preface to the translation of The Revealer, The Messenger, The Message, we wrote a biography of the eminent author; and in the foreword to this

book - Contemporary Man and the Social Problem - the author himself discusses its subject matter. Therefore, there is no need to repeat what we have written before about the author or what the author himself has written (in his foreword) about this book.

And from Allah, the Almighty, we seek help and we rely upon Him for accomplishment, success and support; surely He is the best Lord and the best Helper.

WORLD ORGANIZATION FOR ISLAMIC SERVICES,
(B oard of W riting, Translation and Publication).
Muharram 1, 1400 A . H. November 26, 1979 A. D. Tehran - IRAN,



Three years ago, we attempted a humble under- taking: studying the deepest bases on which each of Marxism and Islam stands, and the book Our Philos ophy interpreted our attempt. That was a starting- point for a successive strain of thought trying to study Islam from base to top!

So was Our Philosophy, then, published to be succeeded, after about two years, by Our Economy; and the two intellectual brothers (meaning books) are still waiting for other brothers to join, so that the whole intellectual series, which we aspire to present to Muslims, may be completed.

From the very beginning, we noticed that - in spite of the unmatchable welcome with which the series was met till the copies of Our Philosophy were sold out within only few weeks - there is a considerable paradox between the high Muslim intellect and the general intellectual atmosphere wherein we, today, have been living. It is even very difficult, for many, to live upto this high standard of Muslim intellect without exerting a great deal of hard effort. It was inevitable, then, to initiate successive series of books whereby the reader ascends higher steps of Muslim intellectualism that may en- able him to appreciate its supreme standard.

Thus emerged the idea of The Islamic School:

an attempt to use a scholastic procedure in intro- ducing the Muslim intellect through successive series parallel to the main series; (i.e., Our Philos- ophy and Our Economy), sharing it the burden of carrying the Muslim intellectual message and agreeing with it in mutual and main purpose, although it differs in degree and level.

While we were contemplating upon issuing The Islamic School, we difined the characteristics of the Muslim intellect composing the general outlook and intellectual taste of the presumed School.

These characteristics may be summed up thus:

1. The direct aim behind establishing The Islamic 2 0 S chool is to supply conviction, more than annovation; therefore, it derives its intellec- ctual topics from Our Philosophy, Our Econ- omy and their intellectual brothers, displaying them all within a specific scholastic framework, without confining itself to ideas presented for the first time.

2. The Islamic School does not always restrict itself to the proving form of any particular idea. Such form here is less clearly highlighted than in Our Philosophy and her sisters - all this according to the degree of simplification ex- pected from scholastic series.

3. The Islamic School deals with a broader in- tellectual horizon than that of Our Philosophy and her sisters, for it does not only deal with the major aspects of the general Islamic intellect. It deals with the different philosophical, histori- cal or Qur'anic topics which affect the growth of the Islamic awareness, the building and com- pletion of the -Muslim character, from both intellectual and spiritual stand-points.

Allah Almighty has decreed that the idea of The Islamic School meets another idea derived from the Introduction to Our Philosophy, and that both ideas get inter-mingled with each other and see the light in the form of this book! The other idea came out of the dear readers' persistence that we must reprint Our Philosophy , and to attempt broadening and simplifying the topics in Our Philosophy before we reprint the whole book for the second time, the matter that requires a leisure which I do not possess at present time.

Accordingly, the dear readers' wish started to make a direction towards the Introduction to Our Philosophy itself, because reprinting such intro duction would not take as much effort as reprinting the entire book would. The pouring requests left no room to suspect the necessary of responding to them.

There did both ideas meet: why should not the Introduction to Our Philosophy be the first series of The Islamic School? So it was!

But we were not satisfied with printing the Introduction only; we also introduced some sig- nificant adjustments, giving some of its concepts a broader explanation, such as the concept of the egoistic instinct. We added to it two important chapters: one is "Contemporary man and his capac- ity to solve the social problem", which is the first chapter of this book, dealing with the human capac- ity to establish the social system that guarantees happiness and perfection. The other chapter is "Islam's standpoint regarding freedom and security". It is the last chapter of this book. In it we attempted a comparative study between the standpoint of each of Islam and capitalism towards freedom, and that of Islam and Marxism towards security. Thus did the Introduction multiply, taking a new name: Contemporary Man and the Social Prob- lem, as the first series of The Islamic School; verily, only Allah grants success.

Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr
an-Najaf al-Ashraf - IRAQ.

 



THE ACTUAL HUMAN PROBLEM

The world problem that occupies peoples' minds now, affecting the heart of their present existence, is the social-problem which can be summarized by giving the most frank answer to this question:

What is the system that befits humanity, the one whereby humanity achieves a happy social life?

Naturally, this problem occupies a prominent and dangerous position. In its complexity and diver- sity of suggested resolutions it poses as a source of danger to humanity itself, for system is included in the calculation of the human life, affecting the core of its social entity.

This problem is deeply rooted in the distant epochs of the history of the human existence. Man faced it ever since it had sprung up in his social life. The human social entity sprung up from several in- dividuals tied to each other by common bonds and ties. These bonds, naturally, need general directions and organization. Indeed, it is upon the extent of the harmony between this system and the existing human reality and its benefit that both social stability and happiness depend.

This social problem has pushed humanity, in its intellectual and political arenas, to wage a long battle and engage in a struggle full of different sorts of combat, and by different codes of the human mind, aiming at erecting and engineering the social structure, trying to sketch its plans and lay down its pillars. It was a tiring struggle, crowded with miseries and iniquity, full of laughters and tears, one wherein happiness was espoused to misery. All this occurred because of all the different colours of abnormality and deviation that characterized those social systems. Except for glimpses shone during moments of the history of this planet, the social existence of man would have lived in continu- ous misery and dived in tumultuous waves ...

We do not want to display, now, the rounds of the human struggle in the social field, for we do not want, by making such type of research here, to nar rate the history of suffering humanity, showing the different spheres through which it revolved since time immemorial; instead, we want to partake in humanity's present living circumstances and in the rounds it reached, so that we may know the desti- nation that a round is expected to reach, and the natural shore towards which a ship should make its way and embark at, so that it reaches peace and goodness, coming back to a stable life of justice and happiness after a long struggle and tiring en- deavour, after journeying long in different places and directions.

In fact, contemporary man's awareness of today's social problem is stronger than any past epoch of ancient history. Today, he is more con scious of his relationship to the problem and to its complexity, for modern man has come to realize the fact that the problem is of his own making, and that the social order is not imposed on him from above, the way natural phenomena operate, for these phenomena govern man's relationship to na- ture. Man now stands contrary to ancient man who often used to look at the social order as though it were an order of nature, facing it without choice or power. While he could not develop the law of earth gravitation, by the same token, he could not change his social relations. Naturally, when man starts to believe that those relations are but one aspect of behaviour while man himself chooses without losing his own will within their sphere, the social problem then starts to reflect in him - in man that lives it intellectually - a revolutionary bitterness, instead of the bitterness of yielding!

Modern man, on the other hand, started to be contemporary to a tremendous change in man's con- trol over nature, a change that has never been pre ceded. This growing control, terrifying and gigantic, increases the complexity of the social problem and doubles its dangers, for it opens to mankind new and great avenues of utilization; and it doubles the significance of the social order upon which depends the distribution of each individual's share of those tremendous outcomes that nature today bestows on man with generosity.

Man, after all, inherited from his predecessors, along ages, a broader experience, more inclusive and deep, that resulted from the social experiences which ancient man had had, and in their light he studies the social problem.

HUMANITY AND ITS TREATMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Having acquainted ourselves with the essential question humanity faced ever since it practised its conscious social existence, artistically attempting to answer it along its remote history, we want now to cast a look at what humanity, now and in all other ages, possesses of capacities and essential conditions required for giving an accurate answer to the essential afore-mentioned question, i.e., "What is the system which fits humanity best, whereby it achieves happi- ness in its social life?"

Can humanity provide the answer?

And what is the required amount - in its intel- lectual and spiritual makeup - of conditions necess- ary to succeed in providing the answer?

What sort of assurities can guarantee humanity ultimate success in the test and terseness in providing the answer to the question, in the way it chooses to solve the social problem, in reaching the best system that guarantees humanity's happiness, uplifting it to the highest levels?

In a clearer expression: How can contemporary man perceive, say, that democratic capitalism, dicta- torship, social proletarianism, etc., is the best sys tem? If humanity perceived this or that, what are the assurities which guarantee that it is right and correct in its perception?

Even if it secured all that, will it suffice to per- ceive the best system, knowing it fully well, to put it to practise in order to solve the social problem on its basis? Or will the implementation of the sys- tem depend on other elements which may not be available, in spite of the "knowledge" of its prac- ticality and merit?

The points we have raised now are related to a large extent to the common concept of society and cosmos; therefore, the method to deal with them differs among scholars, each according to his respective common concepts; so let us start with Marxism.

THE MARXIST VIEWPOINT

Marxism sees man to be spiritually and intel- lectually conditioned to the method of production and the type of producing powers. Being independ ent of these powers, he cannot think in social terms, nor can he know the best system ...! The producing powers, according to Marxism, dictate to him such knowledge, allowing him to answer the essential ques- tion we laid out in our Introduction above, and he, in turn, will recur their echo carefully and faithfully.

The windmill (Marxism argues), for example, inspires man to feel that the feudal system is the best system for him. The steam mill that succeeded it teaches man that capitalism is worthier of imple- mentation. Today's electrical and atomic means of production give the society new intellectual concept, believing that the social system is the fittest ...

Humanity's capacity to conceive the best sys- tem, then, is exactly its own capacity to interpret the social outcome of all producing powers, recurring their echo!

As for the old conventional conception, it is now wrong, since a more modern social conception has been invented! What secures the Soviet man his view's accuracy is the belief that such view represents the new aspect of the social awareness, expressing a new stage of history; so, it has to be correct, unlike old views!

It is true, though, that some social views may seem to be new - in spite of their falsehood - such as the Nazi view in the first half of this century, as it seemed as if it were expressing a new develop- ment in history! But how fast are such veiled views uncovered, proving through experience that they are nothing but an echo to the old views, an interpre- tation of outworn historical stages, not new views per se!!

Thus does Marxism assert: the "modernity" of the social view, i.e., its birth as the outcome of newly-formulated historical circumstances, is the guarantor of its accuracy as long as history is in escalating advancement! There is something else, and that is: today, for example, humanity's perception of the social system, as being the fittest, is insufficient, according to Marxism, to put it to practise unless and until the class that benefits from it more than others (this, according to this example, is the proletariat), a vio- lent class struggle will take place against the class that benefits from keeping the old system. This mad struggle interacts with the concept of the fittest system; hence, such struggle will get fiercer as long as that concept grows and becomes clearer and, in its turn, it deepens the concept, helping it grow as it gets more strong and prevalent!

This Marxist viewpoint is based on the material- istic historical ideals which are criticized in our broad study of economical Marxism.'

What we add here is that history itself proves that the social ideals concerning identifying the type of fittest system are not created by the producing powers; rather, man has his own originality and creativity in this sphere, independent of the means of production. Otherwise, how can Marxism explain to us the ideas of nationalization, socialism, and state ownership during distant and separate periods of history?! If the belief in the idea of nationalization - as the fittest system, according to the Soviet man today - is the result of the sort of today's producing powers, what is the meaning of the appearance of the same idea in remote times when these producing powers were non-existent?!

Did not Plato believe in communism, imagining his ideal city on a communist base?! Was his con- ception the outcome of modern means of production which the Greeks never possessed?!

What can I say?! ... But the social ideas two thousand years ago reached a stage of maturity and depth in the minds of some great political thinkers to a degree which paved to them the way of their i mplementation just as does the Soviet man today, with only few adjustments!

This is Woo-Di, the greatest of China's emperors from the Han family, believed, out of knowledge and experience, in the social system as the fittest. He put it to practise during the period from 140-87 B. C., making all natural resources the property of the nation and nationalizing the industries of salt extrac- tion, iron mining and wine-making! He wanted to put an end to the authority of commissioners and commercial competitors. He established a special system for transportation and exchange under the auspices of the state, trying thereby to control trade in order to be able to avoid sudden price changes. The state workers themselves used to undertake carrying and delivering goods to the respective owners throughout the country, and the government itself used to stock whatever was left of the nation's need, selling them when their prices rose above the necess- ary limit and buying them when their prices fell down! He set to establish great common institutions to create jobs for the millions of those who could not be absorbed by the private industries.

Also, in the beginning of the Christian era, Wang Mang ascended the throne and became enthusi- astic to the idea of emancipating slaves and of putting an end to both slavery and feudalism, just like what the Europeans believed in doing at the beginning of the capitalist era. He abolished slavery, took the lands from the feudal class, nationalized arable lands and distributed them among the peasants, forbade buy- ing or selling lands in order to avoid repossession. And he nationalized mines and some other major industries, too.

So, could Woo-Di or Wang Mang have derived their social inspiration and political policies from steam power, electricity or the atom, the powers Marxism considers to be the bases of social think- ing?!

So do we derive this conclusion: perceiving this system or that - as the fittest - is not the making of this producing power or that ... !

Also, the advancing movement of history - the one whereby Marxism proves that the "modernity" of thinking guarantees its accuracy - is nothing but another myth of history, for certainly reactionary and melting trends of civilization are numerous indeed ... !



As for non-Marxist thinkers, these decide that man's capacity to conceive the fittest system grows with him from the many social experiences he lives.

Therefore, when social man puts to practise a specific social system, embodying it within his own living experience, he can notice from his experience of that system the faults and weak points hiding within the system, for these will be discovered event- ually, enabling man to conceive a more terse and informed social system. Thus, man will be enabled to conceive the fittest system, putting his answer to the essential question in the light of his experience and knowledge. The more complete and numerous his experiments or systems he tries, the more know- ledge and terseness he achieves, becoming more ca- pable of defining the fittest system and making its dimensions.

Our major question: "What is the fittest social system?" is but another way of asking: "What is the best method of home-heating?" This question faced man ever since he felt cold for the first time inside his cave or hideout; so, he engaged himself in thinking of an answer to it, until he was led, through his remarks and numerous experiences, to a way to make a fire. Then he persistently struggled to find a better answer to the question across his prolonged experiences, until he finally discovered electricity for heating.

So was the case with thousands of other prob- lems he faced throughout his life. He found the way to solve those problems through experience, and his perception increased in exactness as his experiments increased in number. Among such problems are: the problem of getting the best medicine for tuberculosis, the easiest method for oil-drilling, the fastest means for transporation and travelling, or the best method for wool-weaving ..., etc.

Just as man has been able to solve all of these problems, providing answers for all of those question through experience, so can man answer the question of "What is the fittest social system?" from his social experiences that disclose both advantages and disadvantages of the particular system scrutinized, pointing out the reactions to it on the social level.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL EXPERIMENT AND A SOCIAL EXPERIENCE

This is accurate to a certain degree: the social experience allows man to provide the answer to this question: "What is the fittest (social) system?" just as natural experiments enabled him to answer several other questions which encompassed his life ever since it had begun ... !

But we have to differentiate - if we want to study this issue deeper - between the social experi- ences that formulate man's perception of the fittest system and the natural experiments from which man acquires his knowledge of nature's secrets and laws and the methods to benefit from these, to find out, for example, the best medicine, the fastest means of travelling, the best method for weaving, the easiest method for oil-drilling, or even the best way to divide the atom ... !

For the social experiences - social man's trials of different social systems - do not really reach, in their intellectual output, the same degree like that of natural experiments, i.e., man's experiments of the natural phenomena, for these indeed differ from the first in many points. Such a difference leads to man's variable capacity in benefitting from both natural and social experiments. So; while man is capable of comprehending the secrets of natural phenomena, ascending to the peak of perfection as ti me passes by, due to his natural and scientific experiments, well, he really cannot help taking a slow pace in his attempt to comprehend the fittest social system, without ever being able to achieve absolute perfection in his social thinking, no matter how much diversified and numerous his social experi- ences may be ...

It is mandatory on us, in order to know all this, to study these significant differences between the nature of a social experience and a natural one, so that we may be able to reach the fact we have already decided, that is, the natural experiment may be able to grant mankind, across ages, a complete i mage of nature to be used to utilize the natural phenomena and laws. As for the social experience, this cannot guarantee mankind the discovery of such a complete ideology concerning the social issue.

The most significant of these differences may be summarized thus

FIRST: The natural experiment can be initiated and practised by one individual, comprehending it through noticing and observing, directly studying all what may be disclosed of its facts and short- comings, and coming to a specific idea hinging on that experiment.

As for the social experience, it is but the em- bodiment of an already practised and implemented system. The experience of the feudal or capitalist system, for example, means the society's implemen- tation of this system during a period of its history; hence, such an experience cannot be done or ab- sorbed by just one person. Rather, the entire com- munity implements the social experience, consuming a life-span of the community's age far wider than does this individual or that. When one wants to bene- fit from a certain social experience, he cannot be contemporary to all of its events, just like being a contemporary to an actual natural experiment while- i mplementing it; rather, he can be contemporary to one side of its events, necessarily depending on his assumption, derivation and (knowledge of) history while scrutinizing all the aspects and consequences of the experience.

SECOND: The thinking crystalized by a natural experiment is much more subjective and accurate than that derived by man from a social experience.

This is a most essentially significant point which forbids the social experience from reaching upto the level of a natural and scientific point; therefore, it has to be thoroughly clarified.

In the natural experiment, the interest of the person performing it is tied to his discovery of the truth, the complete frank truth, without covering anything up, and he most often does not have the least interest in falsifying the truth or discomposing its features which will eventually be found out through experiment. If he, for example, wants to examine the effects of a certain chemical on tuber- culosis germs, while putting it in those germs' en- vironment, he will not be then concerned except about knowing its degree of effect, albeit if it is high or low, and he will not benefit in treating tuberculosis from falsifying the truth, over-estimating or under-estimating such an effect. Accordingly, the trend of the mind of the person experimenting the method will naturally be directed towards subjec- tivity and accuracy.

As for the social experience, the interest of the person performing an experiment does not always stop at his finding the truth out, discovering the fittest social system for all mankind; but it may be his own personal benefit to even conceal the truth from the eyes of the beholders! The person whose interest hinges on the capitalist system and on monopoly or on the banking interest system, for example, will find out that his benefit lies in the truth which assures that the system of capitalism, monopoly and bank interest is the fittest system, so that the profits such system brings him will con- tinue ... ! He, therefore, is not being naturally sub- jective, as long as his personal impulse urges him to discover the truth in the colour which agrees with his own personal interests.

So is the case with the other person whose per- sonal benefit conflicts with interest or monopoly; nothing concerns him more than truth convicting the interest and monopoly systems. When such person seeks the answer to the social question of "What is the fittest (social) system?", out of his own social research, he always is pushed by an internal power favouring a specific viewpoint. In other words, by no means is he a neutral person per se.

And so do we come to know that man's think- ing of the social problem cannot usually guarantee subjectivity and selflessness to the degree that ensures the accuracy of man's thinking while treating a natural experiment or dealing with a cosmic question.

THIRD: Suppose that a person has been able to free himself intellectually from his self impulses, reasoning with subjectivity, finding out the fact that this system or that is the fittest one for all humanity, well, who can guarantee this person's concern about all humanity's interest if such interest does not agree with his own?! Who is going to guar- antee this person's effort to put the fittest social system for humanity to practise if it does conflict with this person's own interest?!

Is it sufficient reason, for example, for the capitalists who believe that Socialism is the more fitting social system (than Capitalism) to go ahead and implement it even though it does conflict with their own interests? Is it sufficient that the belief of contemporary man (the man of western civilization)

- in the light of the experiences he has lived - in- decency and permissiveness ..., is his belief in what all these relationships include of moral dangers, decay and disintergration, on man's tomorrow and future, causes him to rush to develop such relationships in the method which guarantees humanity's future, protecting it from sexual and instinctive disinter- gration, as long as he does not feel any contemporary danger to the present that he lives, and as long as such relationships do, indeed, provide him with a plentitude of pleasure and fun?!!!

We, then, in the light of all this, do feel in need not only for finding out the fittest system for all humanity, but also in need for an impulse that makes us concerned about the interest of mankind as a whole, trying to bring such system to reality, even when it conflicts with that portion (of society) we represent out of the whole.

FOURTH: The system that social man estab- lishes, believing in its practicality and effiency, can- not be qualified to bring this man up, i.e., uplifting him in the human sphere to wider horizons, because the sytstem which social man makes always reflects its maker's present circumstance, his spiritual and psychological degree. So; if the society enjoys a low degree of strength and solidarity of self-will, it indeed has never been capable of growing this will up - by establishing a firm social system which nurtures self- will and increases its solidarity.

For so long as it does not possess a solid will, it then is incapable of discovering such system and implementing it; rather, it establishes the system that reflects its disintegration and melting self-will. Otherwise, can we expect a society which does not possess its self-will to oppose the temptation of wine, for example, without enjoy- ing a will up-lifting it above such a cheap desire like this?! Can we expect such society to execute a firm system that bans similar cheap desires, nurturing man's self-will, restoring to him his freedom, eman- cipating him from the slavery of desire and temp- tation?! Of course not! We do not expect firmness from a disintegrating society, even when such society realizes the danger of such disintegration and of its consequences. Nor do we expect the society which is enslaved by the desire of wine to free itself from such desire by its own free will, no matter how conscious of wine's effects such society may be. For consciousness is deepened and focussed by the so- ciety if it continues disintegrating itself and satisfying its desires; and the more it continues doing so, the more it becomes incapable of treating the situation and uplifting its humanity to higher degrees.

This is the reason that caused man-made civili- zations to be incapable of establishing a system which makes man oppose his slavery to his own desires, up lifting him to a higher human level. Even the United States, which best expresses the greatest of man- made civilizations, has failed to enforce the law that forbids drinking, for it is self-contradictory to expect a society, which gave itself up to its own desires and to their enslavement, to constitute laws uplifting it from the pitch it has willingly chosen for itself. But we do find the Islamic system - brought by Divine Revelation (contrary to man-made) - capable of nurturing humanity, in the system's own way, up- lifting it to high pinnacles, banning wines and other evil desires, creating in man a conscious and firm self-will.

What remains to us - after having explained a portion of the essential differences between the social experience performed by the entire society and the natural experiment performed by the individual him- self, is to raise the last question in treating the prob- lem under discussion (the problem of the extent of mankind's capacity in the field of social organization and in selecting the fittest social system), and the question is: "What is the scientific value of organizing the group's life, laying the grounds of social living and the social system on scientific bases derived from natural experiment which are as exact as experiments performed in the spheres of physics and chemistry, getting rid of all the weak points we studied while dealing with the nature of the social experience?"

In other words: Is it possible - while organizing social life and getting acquainted with the fittest social system - to leave aside humanity's history, by passing the experiences human societies performed across ages, those experiences towards which we have nothing to do but glance from a distance, hiding be- hind curtains of time that separate us from them ..., can we lay aside all this by building our social life in the light of scientific experiments we ourselves live and practise on this individual or that, so that we may reach to know the fittest social system?!

Some optimists may tend to answer this ques- tion with their affirmative, considering what the western man enjoys today of tremendous potentials; for is it not that the social system is the one that guarantees satisfying man's needs in the best possible way? Is it not that man's needs are realistic matter- of-fact things that can be scientifically measured and tested like all other natural phenomena?! Is it not that the methods of satisfying these needs mean limited measures scientific logic is capable of mea- suring and subjecting to tests, studying their effects to satisfy the needs and the results they cause? ! So; why cannot the social system be laid on bases of such experiments?! Why cannot we find out, through experiment on one person or many persons, the sum of natural, physiological and psychological effects which play a role in activating intellectual gifts, broadening intelligence, so that if we want to or- ganize our social life in a way that guarantees broad- ening the mental and intellectual gifts of individuals, we make sure that all such effects will be present in plentitude in the system for all individuals?!

Some amateurs may imagine more than this, reasoning thus: "This is not only possible, but it also is what modern Europe actually did in its west- ern civilization, after discarding religion, ethics and all intellectual and social axioms, directing itself in building its life towards science, hence, jumping in its modern historical procedure, opening the gates of heavens and possessing the treasures of earth ..." But before we answer the question we have raised above (i.e., inquiring about the extent of the possibility of laying the grounds of social life on a scientific experimental basis), we have to discuss this latest image of western civilization and this superficial trend of believing that the social system, which represents the essential facet of this civilization under discussion, is the product of its scientific ele- ment. The fact is this: The social system in which Europe believed, the social principles it called for and believed in, did not really result from an experi- mental scientific study; rather, it was more theor- etical than experimental, more of philosophical principles than experimented scientific ideas, the result of a mental understanding and the belief in limited intellectual principles more than a result of a derivative reasoning or an experimental research in man's needs, his psychological, physiological and natural characteristics. That who studies modern European Renaissance - so-called by the European history - with understanding, he will certainly be able to comprehend that the general trend of the Renaissance in the spheres of the substance did in- deed differ from its general trend in both social and organizational spheres. In the sphere of substance it was scientific, for its ideas about the world of substance were indeed based on observation and experiment. Its ideas about the constituency of water and air, about the law of gravitation or atom-dividing, were all scientific ideas derived from observation and experiment.

As in the social field, the modern western mind was based on theoretical, rather than scientific, ideas. For example, he calls for human rights declared in his social revolution, and it is quite obvious that the idea of right is not scientific, for man's right of freedom, for example, is not a substance capable of measurement and experiment, so, it is out of the reach of scientific research; rather, need itself is the substantial phenomenon which can be scientifically studied.

If we observe the principle of equality among all members of the society - this principle is regarded theoretically as one of the basic requirements of a modern social life - we will find out that this prin- ciple was not derived scientifically from closer observation, for people are not equal in the scientific criteria except in their general human quality. After that, they all differ in their natural, physiological, psychological and intellectual qualities. The principle of (social) equity expresses an ethical value which is a mental, rather than experimental, conclusion!

So do we clearly distinguish between the stamp of the social system in modern western civilization and the scientific one. And so do we realize that the scientific trend of thinking in which modern Europe excelled did not include the field of social principle in the spheres of politics, econmy and sociology.

By this we declare but the truth, and we do not want to blame western civilization for its negligence of the value of scientific knowledge, in the field of social organization, or for not building such system on the bases of natural scientific experiments, for indeed such scientific experiments can never be suit- able as bases for social organization ... !

It is true, though, that man's needs can be subjected to experiment on many occasions, and also the methods of satisfying these needs. But the basic problem in social organization is not to satisfy the needs of this individual or that; rather, it is to find out a fair equilibrium between the needs of all individuals, and to define their relations within the framework which allows them to satisfy these needs. Obviously, the scientific experiment on this individual and that does not allow discovering such a framework, the nature of such relationships and the method of finding such equilibrium out. Instead, all this can be found out during the whole society's i mplementation of a (particular) social system, for all the points of weakness and strength in the system will eventually be found out. Accordingly, what must be followed in order to find the needed fair equilibrium, which guarantees the happiness of all, will also be discovered.

Add to this the fact that the same needs, or their consequences, cannot be discovered in one scientific experiment. Take this example: The person who gets used to committing adultery, as a happy person, you may not be able to discover what he really lacks or what grieves him, but you will possibly find out that the society that lived, as did this same person, a large span of its lifetime, allowing itself to go after its sexual desires, you may find it after a period of its social experience falling down, its spiritual entity cracked, its moral courage, free-will and intellectual spark all gone ...

So, not all the results which have to be known, while establishing the fittest social system, can be discovered in a scientific experiment we perform inside natural and physiological laboratories, or even inside psychological laboratories on this person or that; rather, their discovery depends on long-termed social experiences.

After this, using a natural scientific experiment in the field of social organization is sure to be moti- vated by the same personal inclination which threat ens our use of social experiences. For as long as the individual has his own personal interests - that may or may not agree with the fact decided by the experi- ence -, the possibility will always be there that this individual's mind is self-motivated, losing the sub- jectivity which characterizes scientific ideas, in all other areas as well.

Now, having known man's capacity to solve the social problem and answer its essential ques- tion, we exhibit the social doctrines which occupy humanity's mind today, among which an intellec- tual or political combat is going on, according to the extent of their social existence in man's life. These doctrines are four

1. The Democratic System
2. The Social System
3. The Communist System
4. The Islamic System

The first three of these doctrines represent three human viewpoints attempting to answer the essential question: "What is the fittest (social) system?" They are answers mankind put for this question, according to his potentials and limited capacity, the extent of which we have explained a short while ago.

As for the Islamic System, it offers itself on the social level as a religion based on Divine Revelation and Endowment, not an experimental ideology springing out of mankind's capacity and potentials.

The world today is sharing two of these four systems: the democratic capitalist system is the basis of government in a large portion of the earth, while the socialist system is prevalent in another large portion. Each of these systems possesses a great political structure, protecting it in its struggle with the other, arming it in its gigantic battle waged by its heroes for leading the world and uniting the social system in it. As for the communist and Islamic systems,

their actual existence is purely intellectual. The Islamic system, however, went through one of the most glorious and successful experiences of all social systems; then tempests blew on it when the field was - or was almost - empty of principled leaders. Hence, the experience remained at the mercy of peo- ple in whose hearts Islam had not yet matured, nor were their souls filled by its spirit and essence. Con- sequently; these souls were incapable of resisting and withstanding. So; the Islamic structure crumbled, and the Islamic system lingered as an idea in the mind of the Muslim nation, a creed in the hearts of Muslims, and a hope its striving sons try to bring to reality ...

As for the communist system, it still is an ex- perience which has not been fully tried; yet, the leadership of the social camp is directing its mind today towards preparing a social environment for it, having failed to put it to practise when it took the reins of government and declared the implementation of the social system, practising it as a step towards "true communism"! Therefore, what is our position (as Muslims) from these systems?!

And what is our case for which we have to dedi- cate our lives and towards whose shore we have to lead our ship?!



CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY

So let us start with the capitalist democratic system, the stystem which cast a sort of injustice in the economic life, a dictatorship in the political, a stagnation in the intellectual life of the Church and whatever is related to it, preparing the reins of government and influence to a new ruling group which substituted its predecessors yet played their very social role only in a new manner . .

. ! Capitalist democracy has been based upon a li mitless belief in the individual, and that his per- sonal interests by themselves guarantee, naturally, the society's interest in different fields ..., and that the idea of government is but for the pro- tection of individuals and their personal interests; therefore, the government must not go beyond this objective in its activities and actual scopes.

Capitalist democracy may be summarized in declaring the four norms of freedom: political, econ- omic, intellectual and individual.

Political freedom allows every individual's speech to be heard and opinion to be respected in determining the nation's general well-being, planning, construction and appointing the authorities for her protection. For the nation's general system and ruling organ are a matter directly linked to the life of each of her individuals, affectively touching his happiness or misery; so, it is natural, then, that each individual has the right to participate in and build both system and organ. Had the social issue been as we said before, a matter of life or death, happiness or misery of the natives upon whom general laws and regulations are enforced, it equally is natural not to let an indi- vidual or group, whatever the circumstances may be, take her responsibility as long as there is no individual whose purity of purpose and wisdom of mind rise above inclinations and mistakes.

Therefore, there has to be a complete equity in the political rights of all natives, for they all are equal in bearing the results of the social issue and obeying the demands of constituting and executing authorities. Upon this basis stands the right of voting and the principle of general election which guarantee that the ruling organ, in all its authorities and offices, represents the majority of natives.

Economic freedom hinges upon the belief in free economy, whereupon the policy of open door has been erected, determining to open all doors and prepare all fields before the native in the economic field. So, everyone is free to possess for the sake of both consumption and production. Such productive possession, which makes the mass capital without a limit or restriction, is equally allowed for every- one. Each individual, then, possesses an absolute freedom to produce, in any norm or method, accu- mulate, increase and multiply wealth in the light of his own personal interests and benefits.

According to the allegation of some defenders of this "economic freedom", the laws of political economy, which naturally are based on general principles, can guarantee the society's happiness and keep an economic equilibrium in it ..., and that the personal interest, which is the strong motif and real goal of the individual in his work and activ- ity, is the best to guarantee the general social interest, and that the competition which takes place in the free market is solely sufficient to create the spirit of justice and equity in different accords and con- tracts. The natural laws of economy, for example, interfere in keeping the natural level of price in a manner which can almost be mechanical, for if the price rises above its fair natural limits, demand will decrease, according to the natural law which rules that "The rise of a price causes a decrease in de- mand", and the decrease in demand causes in turn lowering the price, according to another natural law, and it does not leave price until it lowers it to its previous level, thereby removing exceptions. The personal interest always imposes upon the individual to think of the way to increase and i mprove production, while decreasing its expense and cost. This (according to the same theory) brings forth the society's interest at the same time when it is regarded as a private issue which also concerns the individual ... !

Competition naturally demands restricting prices of goods and fair wages to workers and labourers without injustice or inequity, for each seller or pro ducer fears raising his prices or lowering the wages of his labourers because of the competition of other sellers and producers.

Intellectual freedom means that people must live free in their doctrines and beliefs according to their reasoning or whatever their liking and incli nation inspire to them without obstacles from the authority. The government must not rob any indiv- idual of this freedom, nor must she forbid him from practising his right in it, the proclamation of his ideals and beliefs, and the defence of his view- points and reasoning.

Personal freedom expresses: the emancipation of man in his behaviour from different kinds of press- ure and restriction. Therefore, he possesses his will and (the freedom to) improve it according to his personal desires, regardless of whatever happens as a result of applying such control over his personal conduct of consequences and results, unless they clash with the control of others over their own con- duct. The deadline at which the personal freedom of any individual stops is: the freedom of others. As long as the individual does not harm this freedom, there is no problem in conditioning his life in the manner he likes, following different customs, tra- ditions, rituals and rites they find palatable, for this is a private matter which is linked to his being, pre- sent and future. As long as he possesses such being, he is capable of faring with it however he pleases.

Religious freedom, according to the capitalism it calls for, is but an expression of the individual freedom in its doctrinal aspect, and of the personal freedom in the practical aspect which is related to doctrines and conduct ... !

From this exposition we can reach this sum- mary: the wide intellectual line of such system, as we hinted to it, is:

Society's interests are linked to those of the individual; for the individual is the base where- upon the social system must be placed. A good government is the apparatus which is utilized for the service and benefit of the individual and the strong instrument to keep and protect his interests.

Such is the capitalist democracy in its basic principles for the sake of which several revolutions broke up and many peoples and nations strove to achieve under the leadership of leaders who, when describing such new system and counting its merits, describe paradise in its blessing and happiness and what it contains of aspiration, bliss, dignity and fortune, and upon which several amendments were made, but such amendments never touched its heart's essence; rather, it stayed maintaining the most signi- ficant of its principles and bases.



It is obvious that this social system is a purely materialistic one which mankind has followed sepa- rated from both his beginning and end, limited to the utilitarian aspect of his materialistic life, placing his assumptions thereupon. But this system, while being saturated with a domineering materialistic spirit, has never been based upon a materialistic philosophy of life or a detailed study thereof. Life within the social atomosphere of this system has been separated from every relationship outside the materialistic and utilitarian limits, but there has been no complete philosophical comprehension prepared for the establishment of this system for the purpose of such separating operation. I do not mean that the world did not contain schools for philosophical materialism and its adherents; rather, it contained popularity of the materialistic inclination as the result of the experimental mentality which was wide- spread since the beginning of the Industrial Revol- ution,' and by the spirit of doubt and intellectual upheaval brought forth by the intellectual revolution which befell a group of notions used to be considered among the most clear and accurate facts, 3 and by the spirit of rebellion and anger against the alleged "religion" which was freezing the minds and intel- lects, flattering tyranny and iniquity, supporting the social corruption in every battle it waged against the weak and the oppressed ... 4

These three factors helped promote material- ism in the minds of many a western mentality.

All of this is true, but the materialistic system has never been based upon a philosophical compre- hension of life, and this is its contradiction and in capacity, for the social aspect of life is linked to the reality of life: it is not crystalized in a correct form except when it is based upon a central base which explains life, its reality and limits. The materialistic system lacks such a base, for it implies deception and cheating, speed and little consideration when the realistic aspect of life is frozen and the social issue is studied in separation from it, although the continuation of the intellectual balance of a system is its restriction of attitude, from the beginning, to the reality of life which attitude provides society with the social ingredient: the mutual relationships among the people, and his method in understanding it and discovering its secrets and values ... ! Had mankind in this planet been the making of a man- aging and overwhelming Power that knows his secrets and obscurities, appearances and peculiarities, organ- izing and directing him ... ., then he would have naturally submitted, in his direction and life-condi- tioning, to such Creating Power, for that is wiser than him regarding his own affairs, more knowledgeable about his reality, more righteous in faring and more moderate than he is ... !

Also, had this limited life been the beginning of a perpetual one that will spring out of it, taking its hue therefrom, with its balances depending upon the extent of the first one's moderation and right- eousness ..., then it would have been natural to organize the present life, since it is the beginning of an immortal one based upon both materialistic and non-materialistic principles.

Therefore, the issue of belief in God and in life to have sprung from Him is not a purely idealistic matter detached from life, so that it would be sepa rated from life's spheres, for which speical codes and laws would have to be legislated, while by passing that matter and separating it ...! Rather, it is a matter linked to the mind, the heart and life alto- gether ... !

The proof for its closer link to life than demo- cratic capitalism itself is that its idea is based upon the belief that there has been no individual or group of individuals whose infallibility of objective, intel- lectual inclination and discretion are of the degree which allows entrusting the social issue to it and the dependability thereupon for the establishment of a righteous life of the nation ... ! This very basis has neither position nor meaning except when built up- on a purely materialistic philosophy which does not recognize the establishment of a system except by a limited human mind ... !

The capitalist system is materialistic in all the sense the world implies; it either implies materialism, without daring to declare its link to it and depend ence thereupon, or it may be ignorant of the extent of the natural linkage between the realistic matter of life and its social aspect. Therefore, it lacks the philos- ophy every social system has to hinge upon. It simply is materialistic even though it has never been based upon a mterialistic philosophy with clear outlines.



The result of such materialism with whose spirit the system has been overwhelmed is that ethics have been left out of all calculations, without win ning any existence in that system, or say their con- cepts and ideals have been altered, and the personal benefit has been declared as a supermost priority and all types of freedom as means towards achieving this priority ... ! Resulting from that are all what the modern world has complained of calamities and catastrophes, troubles and tribulations.

Advocates of democratic capitalism may defend its attitude towards the individual and his personal interests by saying The personal interest by itself brings forth the social interest, and the results achieved by ethics in their spiritual values are also achieved in the democratic capitalist society, not through "ethics" but through the special "motifs" and their service! When man performs a social ser- vice, he, too, achieves a personal benefit, being part of the society he works for. When he saves someone's endangered life, he also benefits his own self, for that person's life will serve the social body a portion of which service will be his own. Therefore, the personal motif and the utilitarian sense suffice to guarantee and ensure the social interests since they, when analysed, amount to personal interests and individual benefits.

Such an apology is closer to vast imagination than to reasoning! Imagine if the practical criterion in the life of every individual in the nation had been the achievement of his personal benefits and interests, to the widest possible range, and had the State been providing for the individual his freedom, sanctifying him without reservation or limitation, then what would the position of social work have been in the dictionary of such an individual?! How can the link between the social interest and the individual one be sufficient to direct the individual towards the oc- cupations called forth by ethical codes, knowing that many of such occupations do not bring him any profit?! If it happens that they do contain some benefit to him, since he is a member of the com- munity, it often happens, too, that such minute benefit (which cannot be conceived except analyti- cally) would be counteracted by transient benefits or individual intersts which find in freedom a guar- antee to their achievement, so much so that the individual would trample over all systems of ethics and spiritual conscience ... !

TRAGEDIES OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM

If we wish to discern the consequent series of social tragedies resulting from this system which does not stand on a studied philosophical base ..., this research's scope will only be too narrow for that; therefore, we would like to just allude to them thus:

The first of such series is the minority ruling the majority, controlling its interests and essential affairs. Political freedom has meant that the estab lishment of systems and codes as well as their execu- tion is the right of the majority. Let us suppose that the group which represents the majority of the na- tion has possessed the reins of government and legislation while having the democratic capitalist mentality, which is a mentality purely materialistic in its trend, inclinations and objectives, what will be the fate of the other group?! Or, say, what can the minority expect in the shade of laws legislated for the benefit of the majority, to protect its interests?! Will it be strange then if the majority legislates the laws in the light of its own interests, neglecting the minority's interests, following an unjust trend to achieve its desires that may harm the interests of others?! Who will maintain this monority's existing entity and defend it against injustice, as long as the personal benefit is the issue of every individual, and as long as the majority does not know, in its social concept, any values for the spiritual and intellectual principles ...?! Naturally, sovereignty will stay under the system as it did before, and the symp- toms of monopoly and trespassing on the rights and interests of others will linger in the social at- mosphere of this system as it did in the old social systems! The only difference is that degrading the human dignity used to be done by the individual to his nation; now in this system it comes from the majorities to the minorities, the first composing a huge number of humans!

This is not the whole story! The tragedy would then be simple! But the stage displays more laughters than tears! The case has worsened and become more severe when the economic issue resulted from this system later on; therefore, the economic freedom was decided in the fashion we described above, sanctioning all the ways and means of getting rich; no matter how outrageous or queer in method or manner, guaranteeing what it had advertised when the world was busy in a big industrial revolution and science giving birth to the machine which over- turned the face of industry and wiped out manual industries and the like.

The field was clear then for an outrageous wealth for the nation's minority. Opportunities enabled the latter to benefit from the modern means of production, provided by limit- less capitalist liberties with sufficient assurities for their utilization and use to the furthermost limit, annihilating thereby many groups of the nation whose industries were wiped out by the machine that shook their livelihoods without finding a way to withstand the torrent, since the promoters of the modern industries were armed with "economic free- dom " and all other "sacred " liberties. Thus does the field remain vacant except of that elite group of the promoters of industry and production, while the middle class is being reduced to the generally low level, and this crushed majority falling at the mercy of that elite group that does not think or calculate except according to the "democratic capi- talist " mode ... ! ! ! Naturally, then, it would not extend its kind and assisting aid to them in order to get them out of the pit and give them a share of its tremendous profits ...! Why should it, since its "ethical" criterion is benefit and pleasure, as long as the State guarantees absolute freedom in what- ever it does, so long as the democratic capitalist sys- tem is too narrow for the intellectual philosophy of life with all its related concepts?! The matter, therefore, has to be studied in the manner inspired by this system, which is: These important men utilize the majority's need for them and their living standards to oblige those who are capable of working in their occupations and factories for a limited time and for wages enough only to sus- tain them...! This is the "logic" of pure utili- tarianism which they would naturally adopt, dividing the nation consequently to a group in the peak of wealth and a majority in a bottomless pit ....!

Here, the nation's political right is crystalized in a new form. As for equality in the citizens' politi- cal rights, even though it is not wiped out of the system's record, it has survived these turmoils only as a shadow and pure ideology: for when the econ- omic freedom records the results we exposed above, it will come to the conclusion of the deep division we have explicated, taking control of the situation and holding the reins, conquering the political free- dom before it ... ! Because of its economic status in the society and capacity of using all means of propaganda, and because of its capability of pur- chasing supporters and helpers..., the capitalist group controls the reins of government in the nation, seizing power in order to use it for its own interests and to guard its objectives, and both legislative and social systems will be controlled by the capi- tal, after it has already been supposed by the demo- cratic concepts to be the right of all the nation! Thus does democratic capitalism become in the end an authority monopolized by the minority, a means whereby several individuals protect their own ex- istence at the expense of others, according to the utilitarian mentality inspired by the democratic capitalist "education" ...!

Here we reach the worst series enacted by this system. Those people in whose hands the democratic capitalist system has placed all sorts of influence, providing them with every kind of power and poten- tial, will direct their attention, inspired by this sys- tem's mentality, towards the horizons and feel - inspired by their interests and objectives - that they are in need of even new areas of influence for two reasons:

First: The abundace of production depends on the extent of abundance and availability of essen- tial materials; therefore, whosoever's share of such materials is larger, his producing capacities will be stronger and more plentiful. These materials are spread in God's vast lands. It it is necessary to obtain them, then the lands which contain them have to be seized for absorption and utilization!

Second: The strength of the producing speed and its power, motivated by the anxiety for plenti- tude of profit on one hand, and the low standard of living of many nations, due to the materialistic greed of the capitalist group and its competition with the public through its utilitarian means, on the other, make the public unable to purchase products and consume them. All of this makes the big producers in dire need of new markets to sell their surplus pro- ducts therein. Finding such markets means thinking of seizing new lands ...!

Thus is the matter studied in a purely material- istic mentality. Naturally, such mentality, whose system has never been based on spiritual or ethical principles and whose social s

Share this article

Comments 0

Your comment

Comment description

Latest Post

Most Reviews

MOST READ