Musharraf’s "strategy" of "enlightened moderation" is at best promotion of the Western warlords’ concept of a "war within Islam." The neo-cons of the Western world and the neo-mods of Islam, are promoting "moderate Islam" for justifying perpetual wars, occupations and support of dictatorial regimes.
Since the 2003 OIC Conference, Musharraf has been tirelessly working to get credit for the concept of "enlightened moderation". All he actually achieved was merely adding a word "enlightened" to "moderation"—a term the American warlords have invented to use both as a weapon and a shield for their geo-political political agenda for a long time. Introducing it is their potent weapon for winning the latest war on Islam. However, it is used as a shield when the crusaders claim to using it not for a war on Islam but only intensifying a "war within Islam,".
Among Muslims, the promoters of "moderate" Islam are considered classic examples of those who do not care about anything other than self-interest. In the following analysis we will see if it is really their benighted opportunism that makes them embrace "moderate" Islam as a tool for self-promotion. Their continually shifting positions, according to the changing priorities of the United States, is an evidence of their self-centered approach in this regard, but an analysis of their approach is necessary.
Before assessing Musharraf’s "doctrine" of "enlightened moderation", we need to keep in mind that on the opposite ends of the broad spectrum of anti-Islam views, there are two very general and deep-rooted misconceptions: The first misconception is that the Holy Qur’an preaches intolerance and that Islam is only a religion of peace. Both are misrepresentations of the teachings of Islam.
The basic principle of Islam, a belief in prophethood, including the prophethood of Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, is enough to give the lie to the first misconception. Islam teaches that in times past Allah sent prophets to every nation and their numbers are close to 124,000. Islam also teaches that they essentially taught the same message and, since that is so, to disrespect one of those prophets means to disrespect them all. The Qur’an that preaches not only love and respect for the founders of the great religions of the world, but much more than that—faith in them—could not resort to narrowness of intolerance towards those very religions.
Zero tolerance for zulm—injustice and oppression—in Islam negates the second misconception that it is a religion of peace alone. Most importantly, the root word of Islam is "al-silm" which means "submission" or "surrender." It is understood to mean "submission to Allah." In spite of whatever noble intention has caused many a Muslim to claim that Islam is derived primarily from peace, this is not true (see Qur’an 2:136).
A secondary root of Islam may be "Al-Salaam" (peace); however, the text of the Qur’an (2:136) makes it clear that Allah has clearly intended that the focus of this life should remain submission to Him. This entails submission to Him at all times, in times of peace, war, ease, or difficulty.
To demystify this pair of grand misconceptions, we need to study words and deeds of the present day self-proclaimed "moderates" who are exploiting the second misconception in their favor, which indirectly leads to consolidation of the first.
Musharraf’s adding "enlightened" to "moderation" gives the impression that other Muslim opportunists are preaching some kind of inferior moderation. However, his best explanation is hardly different from the confusion spread by several others in the name of moderate Islam.
According to Musharraf, the "suffering" of his "brethren in faith" at the "hands of militants, extremists, terrorists, have inspired" him to come up with "the strategy of enlightened moderation." Here we must note that Musharraf: - tries to kill two birds with one shot, i.e., to please both Muslims and the enemies of Islam; - presents "enlightened moderation" as a strategy, not a value, or a form of Islam to avoid annoying Muslims; - confirms Islamophobes’ perspective that the root of the global turmoil lies with Muslims alone; - gives legitimacy to the Islamophobes’ classification of Muslims and Islam; - attempts to prove Islam and secularism compatible, and - hides the source of his inspiration—which is nothing more than his self-interest.
Like other self-proclaimed moderates, Musharraf provides no clarification as to why a true Muslim would not be a moderate without following Musharraf’s agenda for the so-called moderation. Instead, Musharraf tries to prove that the world would have been a peaceful place if there were no "plastic explosives, combined with hi-tech, remotely controlled activation means superimposed by a proliferation of suicide bombers." His strategy begins with meaningless appeals such as, "something has to be done quickly to stop this carnage." He is right at least in that. Something must be done. But, have appeals and appeasement ever made the aggressors change their policy? The situation demands more than empty appeals and high sundry rhetoric.
Musharraf is cunningly following the neo-cons’ agenda. He argues, the world is "an extremely dangerous place" because of "plastic explosives," and "suicide bombers." He concludes that the world is in such a sorry state because "the perpetrators of the crime…are Muslims."
Compare this biased assessment with the ability and atrocities of those who are neck deep in innocent blood; who have stockpiles of nuclear and biological weapons and who bypassed even the UN to occupy two sovereign states (Iraq and Afghanistan), and who killed at least 150,000 people21 since 9/11 alone on the basis of lies upon lies. What amounts to a carnage? 3,000 deaths at the hands of unknown perpetrators on 9/11, or more than 128,000 at the hands of known liars?22 Is it enlightened moderation to plead guilty to crimes of unknown culprits and turn a blind eye to the acts of known extremists, and appeal to victims of their aggression, Muslims, to "quickly stop this carnage"?
No one needs to remind Musharraf that the 20th century’s mega-murderers—those states killing in cold blood, aside from warfare, one million or more people—have murdered over 151,000,000 people, almost 30,200 times the 5000 killed by Muslim terrorists, and four times the 38,500,000 battle-dead for all the 20th century’s international and civil wars up to 1987. All these killers were not only real carnage-makers but also followers of one or another religion and ideology other than Islam.23 Which faith are these mega-murderers following? Did anyone think of bringing moderation to their faith?
Then there are the kilo-murderers, or those states that have killed innocents by the tens or hundreds of thousands, the top five of which were the China Warlords (1917-1949), Ataturk’s Turkey (1919-1923), the United Kingdom (the 1914-1919 food blockade of the Central Powers and Levant in and after World War I, and the 1940-45 indiscriminate bombing of German cities), Portugal (1926-1982), and the US sponsored Indonesia (1965-87).
The US played a leading role in sponsoring and directly taking part in these carnages. For instance, 450,000 to 500,000 communists and sympathizers were killed by the U.S. backed Indonesian Army and affiliates in a brief period between October 1965 and the end of 1966. One is forced to ask: What role did Islam or Muslims play in these carnages? Why should the world associate carnage, terror and extremism to Muslims for the death of a fraction of human beings (6,000 at the most) compared to the systematic murder of many millions in the 20th century alone? Islam does not justify killing civilians. However, for the sake of fairness in argument, one has to compare statistics of the deaths at the hands of Muslims in the last 14 centuries alongside the numbers of systematic death, destruction and misery inflicted by European colonialists and the US to see who needs moderation.
The US is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons in war; the first to use a chemical weapon since the First World War (Agent Orange); is using depleted uranium to poison thousands of Iraqis and Afghans and perhaps make an entire region dangerous to live in. It has been directly implicated in the murders of national leaders like Allende in Chile. Britain used British and Australian soldiers and Aboriginal civilians in "experiments" by setting off nuclear explosions in the 1950s and then studying the effects on people told to stand within line of sight—surely as bad as anything the Nazis did in their "experiments" on concentration camp victims.
For Musharraf and company, moderation is "a two-pronged strategy" of a) "shunning militancy, extremism" and b) "adopting the path of socio-economic uplift." This appeasement-based strategy does not explain how the so-called "moderate" Islam is different from the Islam as prescribed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Why should one follow them and not the source? If the "moderates" had simply argued that there is no need to use interpretation of the Qur’an to justify acts of violence against civilians, it would have been reasonable. However, introduction of a new version of Islam in an environment in which definition and expectation of "moderate" Islam and Muslims have been totally confused, makes no sense.
As far the two prongs are concerned, no one loves to live in perpetual violence and never-ending poverty. The pre-requisite for addressing these problems is not embracing some kind of convoluted form of Islam. Let us see how the issue of poverty fits with the self-contradictory concept of "enlightened moderation" at a time when government policies perpetuate poverty. As for the second prong, Muslims’ alleged obsession with their faith has no role in the miserable situation they are facing. Instead, it is the lack of obsession that keeps Muslims groping in the dark. They don’t need any moderation in embracing or practicing Islam. "Enlightened moderation" is a deceptive title. It is totally irrelevant to the proposed strategy, which, in turn, is devoid of common sense and the reality of facts on the ground.Blindness of the proposed strategy touches its peak when Musharraf added a series of appeals with regards to "the role to be played by the West," saying the US "must aim at resolutely resolving all political disputes with justice," "resolve the political disputes enumerated above with justice" and "justice must be done and seen to be done." Well said. The excessive stress on justice, however, shows that the label of moderation is deceptive in the first place. What Musharraf is appealing for is exactly what the so-labeled extremists are demanding. Why is it so that when Musharraf begs for it, it is OK? But if someone else just talks about it, it becomes extremism? Besides the apologetic tone, what makes Musharraf a moderate in this case is his hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing exactly the other. Sustaining an unjust order and demanding justice from the same doesn’t make any sense. The hypocrisy is further reflected in Musharraf’s statement that the "root cause of extremism and militancy lies in political injustice, denial and deprivation." That is true. However, he forgets that he is playing a lead role in perpetuating "political injustice, denial and deprivation." He is so obviously responsible for what he calls "acute sense of deprivation, hopelessness and powerlessness."
Let us agree with Musharraf that "a people suffering from a combination of all these lethal ills are easily available cannon fodder for the propagation of militancy and the perpetration of extremist, terrorist acts." The question, however, is: what is the root cause for these ills? When these ills do not originate from Islam, why then needlessly introduce different versions of Islam, or a strategy with a deceptive title, to address them?In the same breath, Musharraf admits: "it is not Islam as a religion which preaches or infuses militancy and extremism but the political disputes which led to antagonism in the Muslim masses." Logically, the discussion should end at this point because if Islam doesn’t teach militancy and extremism, it is of no use to introduce "moderate" or "liberal," or "progressive" forms of Islam and leaving the dispute to the unjust to resolve. The need is to address the causes that lead to reactionary sentiments, but where is the strategy for that?
Musharraf equates moderation with a "conciliatory approach" and shows that Islam is not in conflict with secularism. Here Musharraf attempts to make his mantra acceptable to the enemies of Islam by making Islam compatible with secularism. Musharraf’s doctrine displays a mind-set infected with benighted opportunism. It is a mind-set shaped into believing the much trumpeted allegation of the Western warlords that "the suffering of the innocent" Muslims in the world today is only due to Muslim "militants, extremists and terrorists." Musharraf had no option but to begin his plea with the same idea. However, the signs of confusion are obvious in his thoughts. He admits in the later part of his plea that these terms are wrongly labeling Muslims alone. In his opinion, if Muslims alone are responsible and he is making a plea to them, why then say they are "wrongly labeled?"The mantra of moderation is no more than a weapon equally used by the neo-cons in the West and the dictators and other neo-mods for their personal gains in the Muslim world. Their victims are both the Muslim and non-Muslim masses because they equally reap the consequences of wars, occupations and puppet regimes imposed on the Muslim world for "moderating" Muslims and Islam.
General Musharraf is simply supporting and consolidating the neo-cons’ argument that the Muslim World as a whole is devoted to terrorism for which the West needs to "rebuild" and introduce a "civil, democratic Islam." Infected with benighted opportunism, Musharraf and other "moderates" endorse this lie when they lump 1.2 billion Muslims into one monolithic group and argue that "the Muslim world has to shun militancy" and "extremism" for "enlightened moderation." It is not that benighted opportunism has over-powered the "moderates" to the extent that they do not realize the truth. General Musharraf cautiously concedes: "the West, the US in particular, must aim at resolutely resolving all political disputes with justice." It means:The US and its allies are not dealing with justice and their injustice is the root cause of the problems today, and Whoever stands by the unjust in perpetrating injustice becomes accomplice in the crimes of the unjust. The Question is, what makes the "moderates" stand by the US shoulder to shoulder in perpetrating injustice when they admit, in Musharraf words: "the root cause of extremism and militancy lies in political injustice, denial and deprivation," not Islam.Opportunism and denial hold "moderate" Muslims from supporting their words with deeds. Musharraf’s sermons about "political injustice" are meaningless as long as he remains committed to perpetuating himself in power and ignores his guilt in continuing to heap political injustice on the nation. In their attempts to make the leg-less moderation stand, the "moderates" contradict and undermine what they stand for. After giving a historical background, Musharraf proves, in total contradiction to the mantra of moderation that Islam, as a religion, is not one that "preaches or infuses militancy and extremism." To him, it is "the political disputes which led to antagonism in the Muslim masses." If this were so, what was the need for inventing "moderate" Islam and Muslims? Why not just follow Islam and be moderate by default?By virtue of the above mentioned argument from Musharraf, there is no need for promoting secularism, taking out Qur’anic verses from the school curriculum, proposing "moderation," civilizing Islam and advancing new concepts that have nothing to do with Islam at all. If any moderation is required, it is required of those who are responsible for the root causes of the problem.Promoting "moderation" that runs against the common beliefs of Islam is just a mockery of Muslims and Islam. Musharraf says Muslims have to "wash off the common belief that Islam is a religion…in conflict with modernization, democracy and secularism." This is the crux of the "moderate" message, which takes the soul out of both moderate Islam and the neo-cons’ theory of "moderation", because there is no place for secularism in Islam. Islam also rejects the forms of governance and modernization that are not bound by the prescribed limits of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. However, this does not necessarily mean that Islam in its true sense is against democracy, modernization, education, human rights and so on. If anyone thinks so, he is either a victim of the neo-cons’ lies or the neo-mods’ benighted opportunism. One only needs to refer to the sources of Islam and the truly Islamic scholarship to see what Islam’s position is on these topicsThe solution to the world’s problems lies in the realization that leaving Muslims alone to live by Islam is the only way forward to peace and security for all. Propping up dictators and promoting misconceptions about Islam will never work.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Islam and the new world order
For over a billion Muslims all over the world the new world order is dead even before it was born.
Twentieth century has witnessed many a leader talking of a new world order. After the First World War the American President Woodrow Wilson tried to breath some fresh air \into the debate on the future world order and came out with the dream of a world ruled by principles and universally accepted values. The dream shattered with the flawed birth and quick demise of the League of Nations. The world could neither be saved from a new war nor made safe for democracy. Instead the mankind was confronted with totalitarianisms of the ‘right’ and the ‘left’.
At the end of the Second World War new hopes were nurtured once again. The United Nations was founded and prospects of a new era were aired. Very soon these hopes too dissolved into ashes and the human race entered into an era of a disastrous cold war, stretched over four decades.
Recently there is a fresh upsurge in the search for a new world order. With the supposed end of the cold war the American President George Bush came out in early 1990 with a fresh call for a new world order. Iraq’s disastrous attack on Kuwait and the American-led Gulf war were used as the harbinger of the alleged new order. It was claimed that ‘no aggressor would in the future be allowed to go unpunished’, that ‘occupation by force would not be tolerated’, that ‘international boundaries would not be allowed to be changed arbitrarily’, that ‘human rights would have to be respected by all’, that ‘it would be ensured that any violence of human rights is brought to an end’ without the constraint of national boundaries, and that ‘the United Nations would play a new role as the peace-keeper of the world’. With the establishment of these principles, it was suggested, the mankind is bound to enter into a new era of democracy and security.
Who will not subscribe to such high ideals? The question, however, is : Are those who weild political power in the world today serious about these principles or are they only interested in using these slogans to advance their own vested interests? This is the six million dollar question!
The Muslim World: yesterday and today
Muslims constitute over one fifth of humanity today. There are about 1.2 billion Muslims all over the world. There are some 53 independent Muslim states with over 800 million Muslims living in these countries. These Muslim states occupy around 23 percent of the land area of the world. Majority of them are found in Asia and Africa although in East and Central Europe Albania has 73 percent Muslim majority and Bosnia-Herzegovenia has also a significant Muslim dimension. There is also strong Muslim presence in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe and America where Islam today is the second largest religion, after Christianity of course.
Yet Islam remains the most misunderstood religion in the West — a religion that stands for peace and justice has been misrepresented as a religion of war and fanatacism. It is an historical fact that over a thousand years not only the Muslims had been a dominant power in the world, the Islamic civilisation and society provided peace and security to all its citizens, including the non-Muslims. In fact it was the Muslim World that became the abode and a refuge for all those who were persecuted in different parts of the world, particularly in Europe.
Robert Briffault, while examining the record of the Muslim state and society, based as they were on Islamic religion, writes in his monumental work, The Making of Humanity: "Theocracy in the East has not been intellectually tyrannical or coercive. We do not find there the obscurantism, the holding down of thought, the perpetual warfare against intellectual revolt, which is such a familiar feature of the European world, with Greece and Rome at its back (p.113). Historian Muir also clearly states that the Islamic "leniency towards the conquered and their justice and integrity presented a marked contrast to the tyranny and intolerance of the Romans.... The Syrian Christians enjoyed more civil and popular liberty under the Arab invaders than they had done under the rule of Heraclius and they had no wish to return to their former state" (The Caliphate, Its Rise, Decline and Fall, p.128) This has been the record of the Muslims in history.
The situation has materially changed over the last three centuries. During this period Western colonial powers have ruled over the world. By and large the Muslim world was under the dominance of Western countries. During this period all nations and peoples in the Third World in general and the Muslims in particular have suffered at the hands of the colonial powers in a number of ways. Arnold Toynbee has very rightly summed up the relationship of the world with the West in the following words:
"In the encounter between the world and the West that has been going on by now for four or five hundred years, the world, not the West, is the party that, upto now, has had the significant experience. It has not been the West that has been hit by the world; it is the world that has been hit - and hit hardly by the West.… The West (the world will say) has been the arch-aggressor of modern times. And certainly the world’s judgement on the West does seem to be justified over a period of about four and a half centureis ending in 1950." ("The World and the West," p.1-4)
And Professor Phillip K. Hitti, observes about the very recent past:
"Unfortunately during the last decade or two, in particular, the impact of the West has not been all for the good. There is striking contrast between the humanitarian ideas professed by Western missionaries, teachers, and preachers, and the disregard of human values by European and American politicians and warriors; a disparity between word and deed; an overemphasis on economic and nationalistic values. The behaviour of the so-called advanced nations during the last two wars waged on a scale unknown in history; the ability of Western man to let loose these diabolic forces which are the product of his science and his machine and which now threaten the world with destruction; and, with particular relation to the Near East, the handling of the Palestine problem by America, England, France and other nations — all these have worked together to disillusion this man of the Near East who has been trying to establish an intellectual reapproachment with the West. It is these actions of the West which alienate him and shake his belief in the character of the Western man and his morality on both the private and the public levels." ("Current Trends in Islam" by Phillip K. Hitti in Islam in the Modern World, The Middle East Institution, Washington pp. 7-8).
The irony, however, is that this very Muslim World which has suffered at the hands of the West in the past and which remains even today weak materially, economically, technologically and militarily, is now being projected as a threat to the West. Their efforts to rediscover their identity and set their own house in order are looked upon as a challenge to the West. The frankestein of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ is being seen in their harmless and inaucous efforts to activiate the democratic process and seek self-reliance. From former Presidents Richard Nixon (Seize the Moment) and Ronald Reagan (An American Life) to intellectuals like Francis Fakuyama (The End of History and the Last Man) and columnists like Richard Pfaff and others are playing on the theme of Islam’s threat to the West. They all are drum-beating as ‘if a spectre is haunting Europe andAmerica, the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism’. This is a phony, one-sided war. Yet the politicians, journalists and media men, even some scholars are party to the projection of this scare-mongering scenario.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. While it is a fact that there is a worldwide Islamic resurgence but the reality is that the Muslims have no aggressive designs against anyone, at home or abroad. Muslims have suffered ideologically, economically, politically, culturally and even morally during the colonial domination. Politically with the independence of Muslim states, they have been able to achieve some mileage. Presently their effort is to see that economically, technologically, educationally, ideologically and culturally also they consolidate their lives in the light of their own faith, values and history. They do not stand for isolationism or autarky. They want to live in the commity of nations with others, but they want to live with respect and honour, not as mere ‘client states’ but as honourable members of this human family.
The Bogey of Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is a distinctly Christian phenomenon. It has no place in the Islamic framework of thought and action. In recent Western history the term has been used for those evangelists in America who stood for literal interpretation of the Bible, subscribed to the theory of vigrin birth, looked upon Christian ethics not merely as basis for personal conduct but also as a basis for social and collective life. They had also criticised certain aspects of Western life and culture as deviations from Christian ethos. As most of these groups were looked upon by others as extremists and fanatics, the term ‘fundamentalists’ began to be used for them in a perjurative sense.
Any transplantation of this distinctly Christian phenomenon over the Muslims is not only dishonest and incorrect but also politically abhorrent. In Islam there is no difference between life-spiritual and life-material. They represent two sides of the same coin. There is no dichotomy between religion and politics as had been the case in the Christian world. The Quran is the Word of God and by definition every Muslim believes in the Book in its entirety. Whole of the Quran is fundamental; there is no attempt to pick and chose some and drop others. As such there is no scope for any fundamentalism in Islam.
If ‘fundamentalism’ is exclusively used to denote resort to violence and terror in religious contexts, then the whole scenario changes. Unfortunately violence is a phenomenon which is found in all human societies and in all eras of history. There is nothing peculiar about a religious community. Human failings of men of religion are also human failings and not uniquely related to religion. Secular countries are as much prone to violence and extremism as others. Even after the ascendence of secular culture in the modern West, blood-shed in the name of religion is not non-existent. What is happening in Ireland, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia today is a proof of the horrors to which man can resort to despite centuries of secularism. Use of violence and discrimination are not merely on the basis of religion. Race, colour, language, life-style, ideology all have led to their own special brands of violence and fanaticisms. What happened in Los Angeles and a dozen other American cities only a few months back is just one example of what different shapes and forms violence can take. To project certain human failings as ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ can hardly be described as honest or realistic.
Islam, the West and Double-Standards
Notwithstanding human failings, as has been submitted earlier, Islam’s record in history on the count of tolerance is superb. Islam stands for the middle path and invites its adherents to avoid extremes. Islam is a religion of tolerance and fellow-feeling. Contemporary Muslims are as much against violence and terrorism as any other civilized human beings. Yet they are amazed at the double standards that the leaderships in the Western world have demonstrated. If illegal and arbitrary occupation was a crime in the case of Kuwait, Israeli occupation of Palestine, the Indian occupation of Kashmir and the Serbian occupation of Bosnia should also be treated as equal crimes. If resort to violence by certains Muslims is censured, why many times more violence resorted to by Israeli civilians as well as forces of occupation or anti-Muslim riots in India and the Indian attrocities in Kashmir are not censured in the same manner. Use of violence by the state is as much, even more heinous a crime, than use of violence by individuals cornered by repressive regimes. Despotic rule is bad, but it should be bad for all people. Why support despotisms in some part of the world and criticise in others. Does that not smack of hypocracy? Democratic process is desirable, but it should be desirable everywhere. People of Egypt, Algeria and Indonesia have equal rights to have governments of their own choice. And yet many leaders in the West have no qualms of conscious if free elections are sabotaged in many of those Muslim countries whose rulers are in collaboration with the world powers. When Turkish cypriots were subjected to all kinds of discrimination, denial of rights, persecution and even physical eliminatin, the West kept quiet. Even the guarantor power of Great Britain having a military base in Cyprus chose to remain a passive spectator. Greek Cyptiots were given the freedom even to state a final coup d’etat. But when Turkey, invoking its right as the other guarantor power intervened, all the hell was let loose. Libya has similarly been singled out for arbitrary intervention, sanctions and backmail. Today what is happening in Bosnia-Herzegovenia is another glaring example. Western powers have failed to convey an effective message that aggression is to be punished. Instead all the signals are as if the Western world, NATO, the super power of America will all their military might, are helpless against Serbian aggressors, who are free to perpetrate whatever atrocities they want to inflict, aggrandise as much land as they want, kill as many people they choose to massacre, ‘cleanse’ as many areas they want to ‘cleanse’. Those who stand for international law, peace and security are not prepared to meet force by force. They are waiting, on the debris of dead bodies and broken pacts, for the moment when the aggressor has finished its job and then they will use their influence to get an agreement between the aggressor and the victim to legetimize what has been acquired by force. When the aggrevied seek for arms and support to defend themselves, US embargo comes in the way. If by chance some sympathisers are able to cross these ‘civilized’ barriers they are called fenatics and fundamentalists. To single out Muslim resurgence as fanatical and fundamentalist is not going to change the realities on the ground. It only effects the credibility of the Western leadership in the minds of the Muslim people.
Muslims do not constitute a threat to the West. There is no indication or even a remote possibility of any Muslim armed incursion into any Western country or even a threat of sabotage of their political system. Muslims are only trying to set their own house in order. They want the right to order their individual and collective lives and institutions in accordance with their own values and ideals. Movements of Islamic resurgence are not alergic to modernity. They stand for modernisation and progress but they want to achieve modernisation and progress in the context of their own culture and values. What they disapprove of is imposition of Western culture and values through overt and covert means over a people who have their own distinct culture and civilisation.
Economic and cultural imperialisms are as bad and destructive as political imperialism. The world would be a safer place to live in only if all nations and people accept to allow each other the opportunity to fashion their future order according to their own ideals and principles. There should be free exchange of ideas. Efforts to impose by force one set of values or a particular culture or system over others are to be avoided. It is only through pluralism and acceptance of cultural and ideological diversity as authentic and genuine that different nations and people can live in peace and amity with each other. What the Muslims disapprove of is the hegemony of one particular country, however strong it may be, militatrily or economically. Smaller nations and weaker countries have as much right to exist and grow. Pax Americana is as revolting as Pax Britainica or Pax Espania. All talk about unipolar world and only one supreme power gives rise to newer fears and apprehensions. This is seen as the beginning of a new imperial order. A just world order cannot be produced through hegemonistic encounters.
Muslim people and the nations of the Third World would never be prepared to accept new hegemony. Small and big, poor and rich, weak and powerful have an equal right to exist and to live according to their own values and standards. All should have equal opportunities to grow. Imposition of the hegemony of anyone on others is the root cause of international tension and confrontation. The West should be a little \more self-critical if it is really serious about helping humanity to move towards a just world order.
Islam and Democracy
It is also alleged that Islam is anti-democracy. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in this formulation. Democracy at the philosophic level, which affirms the principle of sovereignty of man and denies existence of eternal and absolute religious and moral values, is at variance with the Islamic concept of world and society. Islam affirms the sovereignty of God and believes that man needs divine guidance. By definition the Muslim is one who accepts the divine law as the source of guidance for his individual and collective behaviour. But to infer from this that there is no democracy in Islam is sheer confusion. Islam has also propounded the principle of human vicegerency (Khilafat). This Khilafat is a popular Khilafat and is not confined to any group of people or class. Divine law provides the framework. Within this law there is a vast area of flexibility and change. This vast area is known as (Mubah) the permissible and as such change and flexibility are built into the system. The Book of God is open to all who have the knowledge and capacity to understand and interpret it. The door of Ijtehad is open within the framework of the Islamic legal system.
The authority to rule is not given to any one on the basis of his religious position. All members of the society have a right, nay the duty, to give the reigns of power to those whom they trust. The political leadership is accountable before the people as much as it is accountable before God. It is the people who have the right to elect or change the leadership, through political process. In the Islamic political system there has to be rule of law and respect for fundamental rights of all members of the society, including non-Muslim minorities. The principle of accountability of the Government is also cardinal to the Islamic system. Similarly the election and removal of leadership through the will of the people is an accepted principle. So is the right to disagree and dissent.
At the operational level, Muslim political system is based on these principles and as such the democratic process forms its very heart and soul. What Islam wants to achieve in the political field should not be confused with the way some of the regimes in the Muslim world are operating today, even those who invoke the name of Islam. This is very similar to the predicament of democracy in the contemporary world. Many of the claimants to democracy in the world do not really conform to the democratic principles. This divergence should not be looked upon as failure of democracy but only as departure from it by certain people or countries.
If the Islamic political order is seen in this background it should be understood as a divinety-inspired democratic system. That is why one of the leading Muslim thinkers Syed Abul A’ala Mawdudi described the political system of Islam as a theo-democracy. There is no scope for theocracy in Islam, because in a theocracy a particular religious class has the right to interpret religious law and weild political power. Islam does not subscribe to any such theocratic arrangement. Instead it establishes rule of law and equality of all before the law. It is based on the principle of accountability and formation and change of government through the will of the people. But the Muslims worry today is that while Islam is projected as anti-democracy, popularly elected Muslim leaderships are denied the right to rule over their own countries, as was recently done in Algeria.
Islamic Resurgence and New World Order
To understand the Muslim mind today it will be useful to reflect upon some of the major features of Islamic resurgence. Muslims are eager to see that a New Just World Order comes into existence, and not merely a new order which ensures hegemony of one country or the other.
Islamic resurgence is unique as well as universal, because in Islam there is unity with diversity, and variation that does not destroy uniqueness. Islam is a universal religion. There is nothing like ‘Arab Islam’, ‘Pakistani Islam’, ‘Iranian Islam’, or ‘Turkish Islam’ - nothing like that. Within the Islamic universalism there is unity but not uniformity.
There are certain distinct features which are common everywhere, but they never exhaust the richness of the movement. For example, Arabic is the language of the Quran and the Prophet (peace be upon him), but not necessarily the language of all Muslims. Although every Muslim learns at least some Arabic, it is not less ‘Islamic’ to speak other languages and to use them as instruments for developing ideas which conform to Islamic norms.
Muslims are self-critical. They re-examine the superficial manifestations of social life and go back to the first principles, as expressed in the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). This may involve disregarding some of those symbols which have become a part of the religious tradition: for example, certain customs or even certain details of jurisprudence. "Going back to the roots" is the spirit behind current resurgence.
This return to the sources acts as a liberating force. Within Islam it initiates an invigorating, dynamic process. Going back to fundamentals does not produce a ‘fundamentalism’ that leads to anachronisms. It brings a freshness of approach, producing a new commitment, a new dynamism, a new flexibility and a new ability to face challenges.
People are now rediscovering Islam as a source of civilisation and culture, a factor which ought to be influencing the shape of society.
In my view the contemporary phase involves moving away from a slavish imitation of Western models and becoming discriminating in what we use or adapt. In many ways we can benefit from the Western experience, but we do not intend to become instruments for the imposition of alien cultures.
Of course, not all Muslim countries have the same attitude towards Western culture. Those countries which were sometime back pioneers of Westernisation are now in the vanguard of Islamic resurgence. While in the countries which seemed to be lagging behind and were stuck to their traditions are the people who are still enthusiastic about Western prototypes and models.
It is often suggested: can the Muslim countries really afford to reject certain choices - in development, technology and so forth - if these would enable them to build up communal prosperity and add to the possibilities of human development? This question beautifully epitomizes all the confusion on this issue. Development and technology - yes. But the real issue is what type of development? In the pursuit of which objectives? Is it going to be mere economic development or total human development - economic, social, moral, ideological - leading to the establishment of a just social order? Do we visualize development in the context of individual states or do we have a vision of the development of the Islamic ummah? Would this mean going back on recent history, for example, by trying to undo the existence of the Muslim nation states, or would it mean that the Muslim countries would only concentrate on carving out a new future for the ummah?
In my view there is no going back in history; but we want to go ahead in a much more creative way than our recent predecessors. We can accept the nation state as a starting point, although it is not the Muslim ideal. It constitutes the present day reality and we do not want to dismantle political systems in an arbitrary manner. We want to bring about a greater sense of unity in the Islamic ummah, greater cooperation and increasing integration between the different Muslim states. Under Islamic idealism, every nation state would gradually become an ideological state and these would go to make up the commonwealth of Islam.
The West has failed to see the strength and potential of the Islamic movement. It has chosen to dubb it as fundamentalist, as fanatic, as anti-Western, as anachronistic, and what not. This cannot help better understanding of each other. It appears that the West is once again committing the fatal mistake of looking upon others belonging to a different paradigm, from the prism of its own distorted categories of thought and history.
Through this ill-advised approach great violence is being done to humanity. It is also bound to misinform the western people and policy-makers about the true nature of Islamic resurgence, as they are being forced to see them in the light of a particular unhappy chapter of their own history. Islamic resurgence is a future-oriented movement and has nothing in common with the fundamentalist approach of the Christian groups. It has shown great awareness of the problems of modernity and the challenges of technology, and its emphasis on the original sources of Islam, the Quran and Sunnah, imparts to its approach a flexibility and a capability to innovate which is conspicuous by its absence in the approach of the conservatives who stick to a particular school of fiqh (law). All these possibilities are ignored by analysts who try to see the contemporary Islamic world in categories which are not relevant to it.
The present Muslim mind cannot be understood properly unless we realize that their self-understanding of their predicament is deeper than a mere political anguish. Unfortunately, efforts to understand the Islamic resurgence are often too facile and biased. The theory that the Islamic resurgence is just a result of rapid developmental efforts, particularly in the case of Iran, is overtly simplistic. Yes, the development syndrome has its own problems, but it would be an oversimplification to assume that the Muslim people’s overwhelming response to forces of resurgence is simply due to tensions that have been produced by efforts to achieve quick economic development through technology transfer. Such diagnosis betrays abysmal ignorance of the ethos of the Muslim society.
Similarly, reducing the resurgence to just an angry reaction of people against Western imperialism is equally misleading. That there is a reaction against imperialism; there is no doubt about that. However, more than a political fury is being expressed or articulated. A much deeper cause is dissatisfaction with the ideals and values, the institutions and the system of government exported from the West and imposed upon them. It is a dissatisfaction with their own leadership which they associate with Western interests and believe has been instrumental in imposing Western models of development and modes of value on the Muslim society. It is a multidimensional phenomenon. On the one hand, it is an historical expression of the concerns as well as the aspirations of the people, based primarily upon internal and indigenous factors. On the other hand, it is also a response to an external challenge, the challenge of post-colonial incursions in Muslim society.
The movement of Islamic resurgence is a critique of the Muslim status quo. It is also a critique of the dominant culture of our times—the Western culture and civilization which is prevalent in many of the Muslim countries. And it is a critique from a different base, from a different point of reference; and that point of reference is Islam, the original sources of Islam—the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
It represents a reawakening of faith. This dimension is neglected in most of the Western writings; they assume that it is just a question of political and social rearrangements. The social order is definitely important but the starting point is reawakening and strengthening of faith, and rebuilding of the moral personality and the character of the individual. There is an upsurge of spirituality and idealism, generating a new sense of direction and a commitment to reconstruct their world, whatever be the sacrifice.
The model of leadership during the period of colonial domination and of post-colonial manipulation has been one which just looked after personal interests. That is why Muslim society has become so devoid of moral values and become rife with corruption. Corruption and exploitation have become a way of life in our part of the world. Muslims have their own weaknesses and they had faced many reverses as part of the global situation. But the explosion of corruption which is so visible in the present day Muslim World is a new phenomenon. They relate it to the impact of secularization and Westernization resulting in loss of individual morality and of social ethics, which had historically been based upon tawhid (the unity of God) and loyalty to the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and which were weakened under these alien influences. Muslim modernism which had been the secularizing spearhead of Westernization in Muslim lands tried to super-impose the values of Western liberalism on Muslim society with the result that the grip of traditional values was weakened; but no new morality could be developed to fill the gap. It is in this moral vacuum that personal aggrandizement and socio-economic exploitation have become rampant, mostly in the name of economic development and material progress. Islamic resurgence represents a rebellion against this state of affairs. It stands for a reaffirmation of Islamic morality and a rededication of the resources of the ummah—material as well as human—to the achievement of social justice and self-reliance. Muslim youth have been inspired by a new vision to rebuild their individual and social life in accordance with the ideals and principles given by Islam and to strive to establish a new social order, not only within their own countries but also to see that a new world order is established ensuring peace, dignity and justice to all the oppressed of the world.
In conclusion, I would suggest that the Islamic resurgence is primarily an internal, indigenous, positive and ideological movement within Muslim society. It is bound to come into contact, even clash with certain forces in the international arena. The close contact of the West, particularly through colonial rule is relevant but not the most decisive factor in producing the Islamic response.
Muslims want to reconstruct their socio-economic order according to the values of Islam. This is bound to come into conflict with the international status quo. So conflict there may be. And to that extent, I would like to invite my Western friends to understand that Muslim criticism of Western civilization is not primarily an exercise in political confrontation. The real competition would be at the level of two cultures and civilizations, one based upon Islamic values and the other on the values of materialism, nationalism and liberalism, both political and economic. Had Western culture been based on Christianity, on eternal values of morality, on faith, the language and modus operandi of the contact and competetion would have been different. But that is not the case. The choice is between the Divine Principle and a Secular Materialist Culture. And there is no reason to believe that this competition should be seen by all well-meaning human beings merely in terms of the geo-politic boundaries of the West and the East or even in terms of Christianity versus Islam. In fact all those human beings anywhere in the World who are concerned over the spiritual and moral crisis of our times should heave a sigh of relief over Islamic resurgence, and not be put off or scared by it.
Once the nature of the conflict as taking place on the level of values and culture is clarified, I want to underscore that there is a political dimension to the situation that we must not ignore. There is nothing pathologically anti-Western in the Muslim resurgence. It is neither pro nor anti-West regarding the political relationship between Western countries and the Muslim world, despite the loathsome legacy of colonialism which has the potential to mar these relationships. If China and the United States can have friendly relations without sharing common culture and politico-economic system, why not the West and the Muslim World? Much depends upon how the West looks upon this phenomenon of Islamic resurgence and wants to come to terms with it. If in the Muslim mind and the Muslim viewpoint, Western powers remain associated with efforts to impose the Western model on Muslim society, keeping Muslims tied to the system of Western domination at national and international levels and thus destablizing Muslim culture and society directly or indirectly, then, of course, the tension will increase. Differences are bound to multiply. And if things are not resolved peacefully through dialogue and understanding, through respect for each other's rights and genuine concerns, they are destined to be resolved otherwise. But if, on the other hand, we can acknowledge and accept that this world is a pluralistic world, that Western culture can co-exist with other cultures and civilizations without expecting to dominate over them, that others need not necessarily be looked upon as enemies or foes but as potential friends, then there is a genuine possibility that we can learn to live with our differences. If we are prepared to follow this approach, then we would be able to discover many a common ground and many a common challenge. This is the key to the future world order. Are we prepared to accept co-existence, even pro-existence of all cultures, religions and nations? If the answer is yes, the future is bright. The Muslim World wants to strive for a brighter future for mankind. Much would, however, depend on how the West responds to this challenge.
Twentieth century has witnessed many a leader talking of a new world order. After the First World War the American President Woodrow Wilson tried to breath some fresh air \into the debate on the future world order and came out with the dream of a world ruled by principles and universally accepted values. The dream shattered with the flawed birth and quick demise of the League of Nations. The world could neither be saved from a new war nor made safe for democracy. Instead the mankind was confronted with totalitarianisms of the ‘right’ and the ‘left’.
At the end of the Second World War new hopes were nurtured once again. The United Nations was founded and prospects of a new era were aired. Very soon these hopes too dissolved into ashes and the human race entered into an era of a disastrous cold war, stretched over four decades.
Recently there is a fresh upsurge in the search for a new world order. With the supposed end of the cold war the American President George Bush came out in early 1990 with a fresh call for a new world order. Iraq’s disastrous attack on Kuwait and the American-led Gulf war were used as the harbinger of the alleged new order. It was claimed that ‘no aggressor would in the future be allowed to go unpunished’, that ‘occupation by force would not be tolerated’, that ‘international boundaries would not be allowed to be changed arbitrarily’, that ‘human rights would have to be respected by all’, that ‘it would be ensured that any violence of human rights is brought to an end’ without the constraint of national boundaries, and that ‘the United Nations would play a new role as the peace-keeper of the world’. With the establishment of these principles, it was suggested, the mankind is bound to enter into a new era of democracy and security.
Who will not subscribe to such high ideals? The question, however, is : Are those who weild political power in the world today serious about these principles or are they only interested in using these slogans to advance their own vested interests? This is the six million dollar question!
The Muslim World: yesterday and today
Muslims constitute over one fifth of humanity today. There are about 1.2 billion Muslims all over the world. There are some 53 independent Muslim states with over 800 million Muslims living in these countries. These Muslim states occupy around 23 percent of the land area of the world. Majority of them are found in Asia and Africa although in East and Central Europe Albania has 73 percent Muslim majority and Bosnia-Herzegovenia has also a significant Muslim dimension. There is also strong Muslim presence in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe and America where Islam today is the second largest religion, after Christianity of course.
Yet Islam remains the most misunderstood religion in the West — a religion that stands for peace and justice has been misrepresented as a religion of war and fanatacism. It is an historical fact that over a thousand years not only the Muslims had been a dominant power in the world, the Islamic civilisation and society provided peace and security to all its citizens, including the non-Muslims. In fact it was the Muslim World that became the abode and a refuge for all those who were persecuted in different parts of the world, particularly in Europe.
Robert Briffault, while examining the record of the Muslim state and society, based as they were on Islamic religion, writes in his monumental work, The Making of Humanity: "Theocracy in the East has not been intellectually tyrannical or coercive. We do not find there the obscurantism, the holding down of thought, the perpetual warfare against intellectual revolt, which is such a familiar feature of the European world, with Greece and Rome at its back (p.113). Historian Muir also clearly states that the Islamic "leniency towards the conquered and their justice and integrity presented a marked contrast to the tyranny and intolerance of the Romans.... The Syrian Christians enjoyed more civil and popular liberty under the Arab invaders than they had done under the rule of Heraclius and they had no wish to return to their former state" (The Caliphate, Its Rise, Decline and Fall, p.128) This has been the record of the Muslims in history.
The situation has materially changed over the last three centuries. During this period Western colonial powers have ruled over the world. By and large the Muslim world was under the dominance of Western countries. During this period all nations and peoples in the Third World in general and the Muslims in particular have suffered at the hands of the colonial powers in a number of ways. Arnold Toynbee has very rightly summed up the relationship of the world with the West in the following words:
"In the encounter between the world and the West that has been going on by now for four or five hundred years, the world, not the West, is the party that, upto now, has had the significant experience. It has not been the West that has been hit by the world; it is the world that has been hit - and hit hardly by the West.… The West (the world will say) has been the arch-aggressor of modern times. And certainly the world’s judgement on the West does seem to be justified over a period of about four and a half centureis ending in 1950." ("The World and the West," p.1-4)
And Professor Phillip K. Hitti, observes about the very recent past:
"Unfortunately during the last decade or two, in particular, the impact of the West has not been all for the good. There is striking contrast between the humanitarian ideas professed by Western missionaries, teachers, and preachers, and the disregard of human values by European and American politicians and warriors; a disparity between word and deed; an overemphasis on economic and nationalistic values. The behaviour of the so-called advanced nations during the last two wars waged on a scale unknown in history; the ability of Western man to let loose these diabolic forces which are the product of his science and his machine and which now threaten the world with destruction; and, with particular relation to the Near East, the handling of the Palestine problem by America, England, France and other nations — all these have worked together to disillusion this man of the Near East who has been trying to establish an intellectual reapproachment with the West. It is these actions of the West which alienate him and shake his belief in the character of the Western man and his morality on both the private and the public levels." ("Current Trends in Islam" by Phillip K. Hitti in Islam in the Modern World, The Middle East Institution, Washington pp. 7-8).
The irony, however, is that this very Muslim World which has suffered at the hands of the West in the past and which remains even today weak materially, economically, technologically and militarily, is now being projected as a threat to the West. Their efforts to rediscover their identity and set their own house in order are looked upon as a challenge to the West. The frankestein of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ is being seen in their harmless and inaucous efforts to activiate the democratic process and seek self-reliance. From former Presidents Richard Nixon (Seize the Moment) and Ronald Reagan (An American Life) to intellectuals like Francis Fakuyama (The End of History and the Last Man) and columnists like Richard Pfaff and others are playing on the theme of Islam’s threat to the West. They all are drum-beating as ‘if a spectre is haunting Europe andAmerica, the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism’. This is a phony, one-sided war. Yet the politicians, journalists and media men, even some scholars are party to the projection of this scare-mongering scenario.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. While it is a fact that there is a worldwide Islamic resurgence but the reality is that the Muslims have no aggressive designs against anyone, at home or abroad. Muslims have suffered ideologically, economically, politically, culturally and even morally during the colonial domination. Politically with the independence of Muslim states, they have been able to achieve some mileage. Presently their effort is to see that economically, technologically, educationally, ideologically and culturally also they consolidate their lives in the light of their own faith, values and history. They do not stand for isolationism or autarky. They want to live in the commity of nations with others, but they want to live with respect and honour, not as mere ‘client states’ but as honourable members of this human family.
The Bogey of Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is a distinctly Christian phenomenon. It has no place in the Islamic framework of thought and action. In recent Western history the term has been used for those evangelists in America who stood for literal interpretation of the Bible, subscribed to the theory of vigrin birth, looked upon Christian ethics not merely as basis for personal conduct but also as a basis for social and collective life. They had also criticised certain aspects of Western life and culture as deviations from Christian ethos. As most of these groups were looked upon by others as extremists and fanatics, the term ‘fundamentalists’ began to be used for them in a perjurative sense.
Any transplantation of this distinctly Christian phenomenon over the Muslims is not only dishonest and incorrect but also politically abhorrent. In Islam there is no difference between life-spiritual and life-material. They represent two sides of the same coin. There is no dichotomy between religion and politics as had been the case in the Christian world. The Quran is the Word of God and by definition every Muslim believes in the Book in its entirety. Whole of the Quran is fundamental; there is no attempt to pick and chose some and drop others. As such there is no scope for any fundamentalism in Islam.
If ‘fundamentalism’ is exclusively used to denote resort to violence and terror in religious contexts, then the whole scenario changes. Unfortunately violence is a phenomenon which is found in all human societies and in all eras of history. There is nothing peculiar about a religious community. Human failings of men of religion are also human failings and not uniquely related to religion. Secular countries are as much prone to violence and extremism as others. Even after the ascendence of secular culture in the modern West, blood-shed in the name of religion is not non-existent. What is happening in Ireland, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia today is a proof of the horrors to which man can resort to despite centuries of secularism. Use of violence and discrimination are not merely on the basis of religion. Race, colour, language, life-style, ideology all have led to their own special brands of violence and fanaticisms. What happened in Los Angeles and a dozen other American cities only a few months back is just one example of what different shapes and forms violence can take. To project certain human failings as ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ can hardly be described as honest or realistic.
Islam, the West and Double-Standards
Notwithstanding human failings, as has been submitted earlier, Islam’s record in history on the count of tolerance is superb. Islam stands for the middle path and invites its adherents to avoid extremes. Islam is a religion of tolerance and fellow-feeling. Contemporary Muslims are as much against violence and terrorism as any other civilized human beings. Yet they are amazed at the double standards that the leaderships in the Western world have demonstrated. If illegal and arbitrary occupation was a crime in the case of Kuwait, Israeli occupation of Palestine, the Indian occupation of Kashmir and the Serbian occupation of Bosnia should also be treated as equal crimes. If resort to violence by certains Muslims is censured, why many times more violence resorted to by Israeli civilians as well as forces of occupation or anti-Muslim riots in India and the Indian attrocities in Kashmir are not censured in the same manner. Use of violence by the state is as much, even more heinous a crime, than use of violence by individuals cornered by repressive regimes. Despotic rule is bad, but it should be bad for all people. Why support despotisms in some part of the world and criticise in others. Does that not smack of hypocracy? Democratic process is desirable, but it should be desirable everywhere. People of Egypt, Algeria and Indonesia have equal rights to have governments of their own choice. And yet many leaders in the West have no qualms of conscious if free elections are sabotaged in many of those Muslim countries whose rulers are in collaboration with the world powers. When Turkish cypriots were subjected to all kinds of discrimination, denial of rights, persecution and even physical eliminatin, the West kept quiet. Even the guarantor power of Great Britain having a military base in Cyprus chose to remain a passive spectator. Greek Cyptiots were given the freedom even to state a final coup d’etat. But when Turkey, invoking its right as the other guarantor power intervened, all the hell was let loose. Libya has similarly been singled out for arbitrary intervention, sanctions and backmail. Today what is happening in Bosnia-Herzegovenia is another glaring example. Western powers have failed to convey an effective message that aggression is to be punished. Instead all the signals are as if the Western world, NATO, the super power of America will all their military might, are helpless against Serbian aggressors, who are free to perpetrate whatever atrocities they want to inflict, aggrandise as much land as they want, kill as many people they choose to massacre, ‘cleanse’ as many areas they want to ‘cleanse’. Those who stand for international law, peace and security are not prepared to meet force by force. They are waiting, on the debris of dead bodies and broken pacts, for the moment when the aggressor has finished its job and then they will use their influence to get an agreement between the aggressor and the victim to legetimize what has been acquired by force. When the aggrevied seek for arms and support to defend themselves, US embargo comes in the way. If by chance some sympathisers are able to cross these ‘civilized’ barriers they are called fenatics and fundamentalists. To single out Muslim resurgence as fanatical and fundamentalist is not going to change the realities on the ground. It only effects the credibility of the Western leadership in the minds of the Muslim people.
Muslims do not constitute a threat to the West. There is no indication or even a remote possibility of any Muslim armed incursion into any Western country or even a threat of sabotage of their political system. Muslims are only trying to set their own house in order. They want the right to order their individual and collective lives and institutions in accordance with their own values and ideals. Movements of Islamic resurgence are not alergic to modernity. They stand for modernisation and progress but they want to achieve modernisation and progress in the context of their own culture and values. What they disapprove of is imposition of Western culture and values through overt and covert means over a people who have their own distinct culture and civilisation.
Economic and cultural imperialisms are as bad and destructive as political imperialism. The world would be a safer place to live in only if all nations and people accept to allow each other the opportunity to fashion their future order according to their own ideals and principles. There should be free exchange of ideas. Efforts to impose by force one set of values or a particular culture or system over others are to be avoided. It is only through pluralism and acceptance of cultural and ideological diversity as authentic and genuine that different nations and people can live in peace and amity with each other. What the Muslims disapprove of is the hegemony of one particular country, however strong it may be, militatrily or economically. Smaller nations and weaker countries have as much right to exist and grow. Pax Americana is as revolting as Pax Britainica or Pax Espania. All talk about unipolar world and only one supreme power gives rise to newer fears and apprehensions. This is seen as the beginning of a new imperial order. A just world order cannot be produced through hegemonistic encounters.
Muslim people and the nations of the Third World would never be prepared to accept new hegemony. Small and big, poor and rich, weak and powerful have an equal right to exist and to live according to their own values and standards. All should have equal opportunities to grow. Imposition of the hegemony of anyone on others is the root cause of international tension and confrontation. The West should be a little \more self-critical if it is really serious about helping humanity to move towards a just world order.
Islam and Democracy
It is also alleged that Islam is anti-democracy. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in this formulation. Democracy at the philosophic level, which affirms the principle of sovereignty of man and denies existence of eternal and absolute religious and moral values, is at variance with the Islamic concept of world and society. Islam affirms the sovereignty of God and believes that man needs divine guidance. By definition the Muslim is one who accepts the divine law as the source of guidance for his individual and collective behaviour. But to infer from this that there is no democracy in Islam is sheer confusion. Islam has also propounded the principle of human vicegerency (Khilafat). This Khilafat is a popular Khilafat and is not confined to any group of people or class. Divine law provides the framework. Within this law there is a vast area of flexibility and change. This vast area is known as (Mubah) the permissible and as such change and flexibility are built into the system. The Book of God is open to all who have the knowledge and capacity to understand and interpret it. The door of Ijtehad is open within the framework of the Islamic legal system.
The authority to rule is not given to any one on the basis of his religious position. All members of the society have a right, nay the duty, to give the reigns of power to those whom they trust. The political leadership is accountable before the people as much as it is accountable before God. It is the people who have the right to elect or change the leadership, through political process. In the Islamic political system there has to be rule of law and respect for fundamental rights of all members of the society, including non-Muslim minorities. The principle of accountability of the Government is also cardinal to the Islamic system. Similarly the election and removal of leadership through the will of the people is an accepted principle. So is the right to disagree and dissent.
At the operational level, Muslim political system is based on these principles and as such the democratic process forms its very heart and soul. What Islam wants to achieve in the political field should not be confused with the way some of the regimes in the Muslim world are operating today, even those who invoke the name of Islam. This is very similar to the predicament of democracy in the contemporary world. Many of the claimants to democracy in the world do not really conform to the democratic principles. This divergence should not be looked upon as failure of democracy but only as departure from it by certain people or countries.
If the Islamic political order is seen in this background it should be understood as a divinety-inspired democratic system. That is why one of the leading Muslim thinkers Syed Abul A’ala Mawdudi described the political system of Islam as a theo-democracy. There is no scope for theocracy in Islam, because in a theocracy a particular religious class has the right to interpret religious law and weild political power. Islam does not subscribe to any such theocratic arrangement. Instead it establishes rule of law and equality of all before the law. It is based on the principle of accountability and formation and change of government through the will of the people. But the Muslims worry today is that while Islam is projected as anti-democracy, popularly elected Muslim leaderships are denied the right to rule over their own countries, as was recently done in Algeria.
Islamic Resurgence and New World Order
To understand the Muslim mind today it will be useful to reflect upon some of the major features of Islamic resurgence. Muslims are eager to see that a New Just World Order comes into existence, and not merely a new order which ensures hegemony of one country or the other.
Islamic resurgence is unique as well as universal, because in Islam there is unity with diversity, and variation that does not destroy uniqueness. Islam is a universal religion. There is nothing like ‘Arab Islam’, ‘Pakistani Islam’, ‘Iranian Islam’, or ‘Turkish Islam’ - nothing like that. Within the Islamic universalism there is unity but not uniformity.
There are certain distinct features which are common everywhere, but they never exhaust the richness of the movement. For example, Arabic is the language of the Quran and the Prophet (peace be upon him), but not necessarily the language of all Muslims. Although every Muslim learns at least some Arabic, it is not less ‘Islamic’ to speak other languages and to use them as instruments for developing ideas which conform to Islamic norms.
Muslims are self-critical. They re-examine the superficial manifestations of social life and go back to the first principles, as expressed in the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). This may involve disregarding some of those symbols which have become a part of the religious tradition: for example, certain customs or even certain details of jurisprudence. "Going back to the roots" is the spirit behind current resurgence.
This return to the sources acts as a liberating force. Within Islam it initiates an invigorating, dynamic process. Going back to fundamentals does not produce a ‘fundamentalism’ that leads to anachronisms. It brings a freshness of approach, producing a new commitment, a new dynamism, a new flexibility and a new ability to face challenges.
People are now rediscovering Islam as a source of civilisation and culture, a factor which ought to be influencing the shape of society.
In my view the contemporary phase involves moving away from a slavish imitation of Western models and becoming discriminating in what we use or adapt. In many ways we can benefit from the Western experience, but we do not intend to become instruments for the imposition of alien cultures.
Of course, not all Muslim countries have the same attitude towards Western culture. Those countries which were sometime back pioneers of Westernisation are now in the vanguard of Islamic resurgence. While in the countries which seemed to be lagging behind and were stuck to their traditions are the people who are still enthusiastic about Western prototypes and models.
It is often suggested: can the Muslim countries really afford to reject certain choices - in development, technology and so forth - if these would enable them to build up communal prosperity and add to the possibilities of human development? This question beautifully epitomizes all the confusion on this issue. Development and technology - yes. But the real issue is what type of development? In the pursuit of which objectives? Is it going to be mere economic development or total human development - economic, social, moral, ideological - leading to the establishment of a just social order? Do we visualize development in the context of individual states or do we have a vision of the development of the Islamic ummah? Would this mean going back on recent history, for example, by trying to undo the existence of the Muslim nation states, or would it mean that the Muslim countries would only concentrate on carving out a new future for the ummah?
In my view there is no going back in history; but we want to go ahead in a much more creative way than our recent predecessors. We can accept the nation state as a starting point, although it is not the Muslim ideal. It constitutes the present day reality and we do not want to dismantle political systems in an arbitrary manner. We want to bring about a greater sense of unity in the Islamic ummah, greater cooperation and increasing integration between the different Muslim states. Under Islamic idealism, every nation state would gradually become an ideological state and these would go to make up the commonwealth of Islam.
The West has failed to see the strength and potential of the Islamic movement. It has chosen to dubb it as fundamentalist, as fanatic, as anti-Western, as anachronistic, and what not. This cannot help better understanding of each other. It appears that the West is once again committing the fatal mistake of looking upon others belonging to a different paradigm, from the prism of its own distorted categories of thought and history.
Through this ill-advised approach great violence is being done to humanity. It is also bound to misinform the western people and policy-makers about the true nature of Islamic resurgence, as they are being forced to see them in the light of a particular unhappy chapter of their own history. Islamic resurgence is a future-oriented movement and has nothing in common with the fundamentalist approach of the Christian groups. It has shown great awareness of the problems of modernity and the challenges of technology, and its emphasis on the original sources of Islam, the Quran and Sunnah, imparts to its approach a flexibility and a capability to innovate which is conspicuous by its absence in the approach of the conservatives who stick to a particular school of fiqh (law). All these possibilities are ignored by analysts who try to see the contemporary Islamic world in categories which are not relevant to it.
The present Muslim mind cannot be understood properly unless we realize that their self-understanding of their predicament is deeper than a mere political anguish. Unfortunately, efforts to understand the Islamic resurgence are often too facile and biased. The theory that the Islamic resurgence is just a result of rapid developmental efforts, particularly in the case of Iran, is overtly simplistic. Yes, the development syndrome has its own problems, but it would be an oversimplification to assume that the Muslim people’s overwhelming response to forces of resurgence is simply due to tensions that have been produced by efforts to achieve quick economic development through technology transfer. Such diagnosis betrays abysmal ignorance of the ethos of the Muslim society.
Similarly, reducing the resurgence to just an angry reaction of people against Western imperialism is equally misleading. That there is a reaction against imperialism; there is no doubt about that. However, more than a political fury is being expressed or articulated. A much deeper cause is dissatisfaction with the ideals and values, the institutions and the system of government exported from the West and imposed upon them. It is a dissatisfaction with their own leadership which they associate with Western interests and believe has been instrumental in imposing Western models of development and modes of value on the Muslim society. It is a multidimensional phenomenon. On the one hand, it is an historical expression of the concerns as well as the aspirations of the people, based primarily upon internal and indigenous factors. On the other hand, it is also a response to an external challenge, the challenge of post-colonial incursions in Muslim society.
The movement of Islamic resurgence is a critique of the Muslim status quo. It is also a critique of the dominant culture of our times—the Western culture and civilization which is prevalent in many of the Muslim countries. And it is a critique from a different base, from a different point of reference; and that point of reference is Islam, the original sources of Islam—the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
It represents a reawakening of faith. This dimension is neglected in most of the Western writings; they assume that it is just a question of political and social rearrangements. The social order is definitely important but the starting point is reawakening and strengthening of faith, and rebuilding of the moral personality and the character of the individual. There is an upsurge of spirituality and idealism, generating a new sense of direction and a commitment to reconstruct their world, whatever be the sacrifice.
The model of leadership during the period of colonial domination and of post-colonial manipulation has been one which just looked after personal interests. That is why Muslim society has become so devoid of moral values and become rife with corruption. Corruption and exploitation have become a way of life in our part of the world. Muslims have their own weaknesses and they had faced many reverses as part of the global situation. But the explosion of corruption which is so visible in the present day Muslim World is a new phenomenon. They relate it to the impact of secularization and Westernization resulting in loss of individual morality and of social ethics, which had historically been based upon tawhid (the unity of God) and loyalty to the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and which were weakened under these alien influences. Muslim modernism which had been the secularizing spearhead of Westernization in Muslim lands tried to super-impose the values of Western liberalism on Muslim society with the result that the grip of traditional values was weakened; but no new morality could be developed to fill the gap. It is in this moral vacuum that personal aggrandizement and socio-economic exploitation have become rampant, mostly in the name of economic development and material progress. Islamic resurgence represents a rebellion against this state of affairs. It stands for a reaffirmation of Islamic morality and a rededication of the resources of the ummah—material as well as human—to the achievement of social justice and self-reliance. Muslim youth have been inspired by a new vision to rebuild their individual and social life in accordance with the ideals and principles given by Islam and to strive to establish a new social order, not only within their own countries but also to see that a new world order is established ensuring peace, dignity and justice to all the oppressed of the world.
In conclusion, I would suggest that the Islamic resurgence is primarily an internal, indigenous, positive and ideological movement within Muslim society. It is bound to come into contact, even clash with certain forces in the international arena. The close contact of the West, particularly through colonial rule is relevant but not the most decisive factor in producing the Islamic response.
Muslims want to reconstruct their socio-economic order according to the values of Islam. This is bound to come into conflict with the international status quo. So conflict there may be. And to that extent, I would like to invite my Western friends to understand that Muslim criticism of Western civilization is not primarily an exercise in political confrontation. The real competition would be at the level of two cultures and civilizations, one based upon Islamic values and the other on the values of materialism, nationalism and liberalism, both political and economic. Had Western culture been based on Christianity, on eternal values of morality, on faith, the language and modus operandi of the contact and competetion would have been different. But that is not the case. The choice is between the Divine Principle and a Secular Materialist Culture. And there is no reason to believe that this competition should be seen by all well-meaning human beings merely in terms of the geo-politic boundaries of the West and the East or even in terms of Christianity versus Islam. In fact all those human beings anywhere in the World who are concerned over the spiritual and moral crisis of our times should heave a sigh of relief over Islamic resurgence, and not be put off or scared by it.
Once the nature of the conflict as taking place on the level of values and culture is clarified, I want to underscore that there is a political dimension to the situation that we must not ignore. There is nothing pathologically anti-Western in the Muslim resurgence. It is neither pro nor anti-West regarding the political relationship between Western countries and the Muslim world, despite the loathsome legacy of colonialism which has the potential to mar these relationships. If China and the United States can have friendly relations without sharing common culture and politico-economic system, why not the West and the Muslim World? Much depends upon how the West looks upon this phenomenon of Islamic resurgence and wants to come to terms with it. If in the Muslim mind and the Muslim viewpoint, Western powers remain associated with efforts to impose the Western model on Muslim society, keeping Muslims tied to the system of Western domination at national and international levels and thus destablizing Muslim culture and society directly or indirectly, then, of course, the tension will increase. Differences are bound to multiply. And if things are not resolved peacefully through dialogue and understanding, through respect for each other's rights and genuine concerns, they are destined to be resolved otherwise. But if, on the other hand, we can acknowledge and accept that this world is a pluralistic world, that Western culture can co-exist with other cultures and civilizations without expecting to dominate over them, that others need not necessarily be looked upon as enemies or foes but as potential friends, then there is a genuine possibility that we can learn to live with our differences. If we are prepared to follow this approach, then we would be able to discover many a common ground and many a common challenge. This is the key to the future world order. Are we prepared to accept co-existence, even pro-existence of all cultures, religions and nations? If the answer is yes, the future is bright. The Muslim World wants to strive for a brighter future for mankind. Much would, however, depend on how the West responds to this challenge.
Moral Values: Comparison between Islam and secularism
Moral values, such as honesty, trustworthiness, justice and chastity, are originally innate values that Allah planted in the hearts of mankind. Then He sent His messengers with a system of life that accord with this innate disposition to affirm it. "So set your face toward the religion, as one by nature upright; the instinctive (religion) which Allah has created in mankind. There is no altering (the laws) of Allah’s creation. That is the right religion but most people do not know." [30:30] A believer adheres to these moral values because his nature, fortified by faith, induces him to do so, and because the religion he believes in commands him with them and promises him a reward for them in the Hereafter.
Secularism, on the other hand, undermines the two foundations for moral values in the hearts of mankind, even in its less virulent form that satisfies itself with removing religion from political life, rejecting it and the innate values as a basis for legislation. As for secularism in its extreme atheistic form, it completely demolishes these two foundations and replaces them with human whims, either the whims of a few rulers in dictatorial systems, or the whims of the majority in democratic systems. "Have you seen the one who has taken his own desire as his god? Would you then be a guardian over him?" [25:43]
Since whims and desires are by their nature constantly changing, the values and behaviors based on them are also mutable. Today something is considered to be a crime, punishable by law with the severest of penalties. Those who do it are even deprived of certain rights granted to others. But tomorrow the same act becomes permissible, or even praiseworthy. And the one who objects to it becomes "politically incorrect." This shift from one point of view to its opposite as a result of society’s estrangement from innate religious values is a frequent occurrence. However ignorant a traditional society may be, it or many of its members will maintain some innate values. But the further a society penetrates into secularism, the fewer such individuals will become. Their influence will become more and more marginal, until the society collectively rebels against the same innate religious values it used to uphold. There may be another reason for some traditional ignorant cultures to maintain innate religious values. They might appeal to their desires. Or they may represent their heritage and not conflict with their desires. "And when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them, Lo! a party of them refuse and turn away. But if the right is with them they come to Him willingly." [24:48-49] Their relationship with truth is similar to Satan's, as described by the Prophet (PBUH) to Abu Hurayrah, whom Satan had advised to recite Aayat al-Kursee when going to bed: "He told you the truth, even though he is an inveterate liar."
Contemporary Western secular societies are the clearest examples of the shifting, self-contradictory nature of jaahilee civilization. From one angle it views culture and the values it rests upon as a relative, variable phenomenon. However, from another angle it characterizes some values as human values, considers their violation as shocking, and punishes their violators severely. The sources of this problem are two fundamental principles that democratic secular societies rely upon.
The first is majority rule as a standard for right and wrong in speech and behavior; the second is the principle of individual freedom. These two principles will necessarily conflict with each other if they are not subordinated to another principle that will judge between them. Secularism, by its very nature, rejects religion, and in its Western form does not consider fitrah (innate values) a criterion for what is beneficial or harmful for humanity. It has no alternative but to make these two principles an absolute standard for what behavior is permissible and appropriate, and what is not. The contradiction and conflict between these two principles is showing itself plainly in some of the current hot issues in these societies. An alliance of groups advocates acceptance of homosexuality. They want equal rights and opportunities in every aspect of life, including military service, to be granted to avowed homosexuals. They base their argument on the principle of individual rights. According to them, no one has the right to concern themselves with what they call their "sexual orientation."
Supporters of abortion make the same argument. You frequently hear them say incredulously, "How can I be prohibited from freedom of choice in my own affairs and over my own body? What right do legal authorities have to involve themselves in such personal matters?" The only argument their opponents can muster is that this behavior contradicts the values held by the majority of the population. Even though the basis for many people's opposition to abortion is moral or religious, they can't come out and say so openly, nor can they employ religious or moral arguments, since secular society finds neither of them acceptable. If we accept that there is no basis for values except individual or majority opinion, and that all values may change from one era to another, and from one society to another, it means that there is no connection between values and what will benefit or harm people in their material and spiritual lives. This means that all values are equally valid, and it doesn't matter which values a given society accepts or rejects.
However, this means that all behavior considered abhorrent by secular societies today, such as sexual molestation of children and rape of women, for which it has serious penalties, are considered repulsive only because of current inclination. That might change tomorrow, so that certain serious crimes may become acceptable, based on the principle of individual freedom. The reason a secularist is confused when posed with certain questions is that his repugnance toward such crimes is not really based on these two principles, which have become the only accepted bases for argument in societies dominated by secularism; the real reason for it is the remnants of the moral feelings he still possesses from the original nature with which Allah endowed him, and which linger on in spite of his secularism.
Perhaps the confusion of the secularist would increase if he were asked for what reason he had given such precedence to these democratic values, until he made them the standard by which all other values and behaviors are judged. If he says his reverence for them is based merely on current personal preference and inclination, or on cultural chauvinism, he will have no reply to one who opposes him on the basis of his contradictory personal preferences, or because the norms of his society differ from those of the other.
The flimsy foundation of values in secular societies makes them liable to turn at any time against all the values they currently hold dear. It also paves the way for them to descend to their practices of the occupation and colonization of weaker nations. There is nothing to make them refrain from doing so, once one of them stands up and announces that there is a nationalist benefit to be gained by it and a large number of fellow citizens believe him. His policy proposal becomes official policy, based on the standard of majority approval. It is, however, as you can see, an approval based on nothing more than greed. This has been the justification for every transgression in history. In fact it is the basis on which any animal attacks another. Personal freedom and majority rule are not, then, the fundamental values on which secular culture are based. That is because freedom entails choice, but it is not the criterion for that choice. Likewise, majority opinion is not itself the standard; it is merely the result of many individual choices made on the basis of some standard. So what is the basis for the choices of a free individual and a free society in the secular system? It is, without the slightest doubt, those whims and desires which have taken the place of the real Deity.
Secularism, on the other hand, undermines the two foundations for moral values in the hearts of mankind, even in its less virulent form that satisfies itself with removing religion from political life, rejecting it and the innate values as a basis for legislation. As for secularism in its extreme atheistic form, it completely demolishes these two foundations and replaces them with human whims, either the whims of a few rulers in dictatorial systems, or the whims of the majority in democratic systems. "Have you seen the one who has taken his own desire as his god? Would you then be a guardian over him?" [25:43]
Since whims and desires are by their nature constantly changing, the values and behaviors based on them are also mutable. Today something is considered to be a crime, punishable by law with the severest of penalties. Those who do it are even deprived of certain rights granted to others. But tomorrow the same act becomes permissible, or even praiseworthy. And the one who objects to it becomes "politically incorrect." This shift from one point of view to its opposite as a result of society’s estrangement from innate religious values is a frequent occurrence. However ignorant a traditional society may be, it or many of its members will maintain some innate values. But the further a society penetrates into secularism, the fewer such individuals will become. Their influence will become more and more marginal, until the society collectively rebels against the same innate religious values it used to uphold. There may be another reason for some traditional ignorant cultures to maintain innate religious values. They might appeal to their desires. Or they may represent their heritage and not conflict with their desires. "And when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them, Lo! a party of them refuse and turn away. But if the right is with them they come to Him willingly." [24:48-49] Their relationship with truth is similar to Satan's, as described by the Prophet (PBUH) to Abu Hurayrah, whom Satan had advised to recite Aayat al-Kursee when going to bed: "He told you the truth, even though he is an inveterate liar."
Contemporary Western secular societies are the clearest examples of the shifting, self-contradictory nature of jaahilee civilization. From one angle it views culture and the values it rests upon as a relative, variable phenomenon. However, from another angle it characterizes some values as human values, considers their violation as shocking, and punishes their violators severely. The sources of this problem are two fundamental principles that democratic secular societies rely upon.
The first is majority rule as a standard for right and wrong in speech and behavior; the second is the principle of individual freedom. These two principles will necessarily conflict with each other if they are not subordinated to another principle that will judge between them. Secularism, by its very nature, rejects religion, and in its Western form does not consider fitrah (innate values) a criterion for what is beneficial or harmful for humanity. It has no alternative but to make these two principles an absolute standard for what behavior is permissible and appropriate, and what is not. The contradiction and conflict between these two principles is showing itself plainly in some of the current hot issues in these societies. An alliance of groups advocates acceptance of homosexuality. They want equal rights and opportunities in every aspect of life, including military service, to be granted to avowed homosexuals. They base their argument on the principle of individual rights. According to them, no one has the right to concern themselves with what they call their "sexual orientation."
Supporters of abortion make the same argument. You frequently hear them say incredulously, "How can I be prohibited from freedom of choice in my own affairs and over my own body? What right do legal authorities have to involve themselves in such personal matters?" The only argument their opponents can muster is that this behavior contradicts the values held by the majority of the population. Even though the basis for many people's opposition to abortion is moral or religious, they can't come out and say so openly, nor can they employ religious or moral arguments, since secular society finds neither of them acceptable. If we accept that there is no basis for values except individual or majority opinion, and that all values may change from one era to another, and from one society to another, it means that there is no connection between values and what will benefit or harm people in their material and spiritual lives. This means that all values are equally valid, and it doesn't matter which values a given society accepts or rejects.
However, this means that all behavior considered abhorrent by secular societies today, such as sexual molestation of children and rape of women, for which it has serious penalties, are considered repulsive only because of current inclination. That might change tomorrow, so that certain serious crimes may become acceptable, based on the principle of individual freedom. The reason a secularist is confused when posed with certain questions is that his repugnance toward such crimes is not really based on these two principles, which have become the only accepted bases for argument in societies dominated by secularism; the real reason for it is the remnants of the moral feelings he still possesses from the original nature with which Allah endowed him, and which linger on in spite of his secularism.
Perhaps the confusion of the secularist would increase if he were asked for what reason he had given such precedence to these democratic values, until he made them the standard by which all other values and behaviors are judged. If he says his reverence for them is based merely on current personal preference and inclination, or on cultural chauvinism, he will have no reply to one who opposes him on the basis of his contradictory personal preferences, or because the norms of his society differ from those of the other.
The flimsy foundation of values in secular societies makes them liable to turn at any time against all the values they currently hold dear. It also paves the way for them to descend to their practices of the occupation and colonization of weaker nations. There is nothing to make them refrain from doing so, once one of them stands up and announces that there is a nationalist benefit to be gained by it and a large number of fellow citizens believe him. His policy proposal becomes official policy, based on the standard of majority approval. It is, however, as you can see, an approval based on nothing more than greed. This has been the justification for every transgression in history. In fact it is the basis on which any animal attacks another. Personal freedom and majority rule are not, then, the fundamental values on which secular culture are based. That is because freedom entails choice, but it is not the criterion for that choice. Likewise, majority opinion is not itself the standard; it is merely the result of many individual choices made on the basis of some standard. So what is the basis for the choices of a free individual and a free society in the secular system? It is, without the slightest doubt, those whims and desires which have taken the place of the real Deity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)