Three Men in a Boat (3)
The man in jacket, paused for a moment, pulled his arms out of the jacket pockets, folded his arms, then turned to the man in hoodie, looked at him and said, "You tell us!" The man in hoodie looked up, staring at the two men in front of him. He thought for a moment, then said, "Firstly, communism rests on a purely materialistic basis. It does not recognize anything save that perceived by sense organs. What is not perceivable by these sensory organs is unreal, nonsense and has no existence whatsoever or if it does exist it is so insignificant that onejneeds not at all bother about it. Engels said, “Matter is the only real thing in the world.” And the materialist argue, “Human reason is just a manifestation of matter which reflects the external material environment surrounding it.”
They go on to say that what is called soul does not at all have an independent existence of its own but is rather a product of matter. Thus, we see that communism is a purely materialistic ideology which ridicules all forms of spiritualism, dubbing them all as unscientific. Islamic ideology, on the other hand, declines to concede such a narrowing down of human spheres of activities or degrade man to such low levels of existence. It looks upon man as a being that aspires to soar high in the realms of spirit and thought although he walks on earth and possesses a physical body. Man’s needs are not to food, shelter and sexual gratification as Karl Marx claimed.
A question might at this stage be raised in the our minds, “How can this materialistic philosophy affect us when we shall have nothing to do with it? Shall we shall adopt only the economic program of communism and retain all our basic creeds, our Rabb, our Prophet (ﷺ), and our spiritual system? These cannot be affected by the economic program we might adopt as they are quite different from the things we have described and have independent entities of their own. Let none be under this illusion, for as the communists hold, there exists a strong affinity between the economic system and the basic creed, ideology and outlook upon life of a people. They cannot be viewed in isolation; they are closely interrelated, for they are based on the same economic system which is raised on a purely materialist philosophy of life as has been clarified by the communist pioneers Engels and Marx in their writings.
The communists, for instance, also believe in dialectical materialism. They hold that it is the conflict of the opposites, the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ or workers and capitalists, that is the only real though insidious factor behind all economic and human, progress that mankind has achieved so far starting from the first communist age and moving on to slavery, then feudalism, capitalism and then final communist age. It is with this very dialectical materialism that they justify their standpoint and prove the final emergence of communism as the victor out of the present ideological warfare. They claim that there is a close scientific relationship between communism and this theory of dialectical materialism, in which there is no place whatsoever for any concept of God, His messengers or their messages. In their arrogance they think that all these things are merely an outcome of the interplay of economic forces. They have no meaning or significance apart from the economic circumstances that engendered them. So, they lose all their importance in human life and are simply worthless in interpreting or defining life or determining its true objectives. The one and the only factor of importance is the means of production which, if changed, affects the whole human existence and revolutionises it. The fallacy and weakness of communists’ view of human history is amply proved by the fact that it fails to offer any adequate explanation of the great revolution brought about by Islam in Arabia, for it cannot point out any change in the means of economic production in the Arabian peninsula or even in the whole of the contemporary Islamic world that might be referred to as having caused the emergence of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) in that part of the world bringing with him a completely new system of life.
Secondly, man as viewed by communism is just a passive being whose will has no importance whatever in the face of the material and economic forces. Karl Marx said, “The mode of production conditions the whole process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, it is their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
In Islam, on the other hand, we find that man is viewed as an active being with a free will of his own that is subject to the higher will of Allah alone. Thus Islam makes it clear that it is man who enjoys supreme power and position on this earth with all the material and economic forces being there to do his bidding. Islam itself is a case in point in this respect. Its progress was not limited to or directed by any process of dialectical materialism. The early Muslims never, even for a single moment, felt that the economic existence of man alone played a decisive role in shaping his destiny or that it was something beyond his conscious control as Marx said. They, on the contrary, did consciously shape their economy in accordance with the guidance of Allah and His Messenger (ﷺ) basing all their social relationships on the teachings of Islam. They freed slaves without any consideration of economic gains or initiative inducing them to it; and they did in fact never witness the establishment of feudalism in their lands although it had been the most prevalent system for centuries in Europe and in the world at large.
The adoption of communist economy must inevitably lead to the adoption of the communist philosophy, the philosophy which makes man a mere tool of the economic forces that take their way quite independent of men’s will for they can neither change their course nor can they affect their working in any way as it is simply impossible and, therefore, unthinkable.
Thirdly, Communists and their likes insist that private ownership is not a natural propensity. They claim that there was no private property in the earliest societies where the “first communism” prevailed. All things, they say, were public property shared by all people who were guided by a spirit of affection, co-operation and brotherhood. The sadly regret that such “an angelic-era” did not last because the discovery of agriculture involved disputes over the cultivated land and the means of production. This inevitably led to waging wars. The communists allege that humanity can put an end to this dreadful evil only by returning once more to “the first communism” where no one had a property of one’s own and all production was equally shared by all people. They believe that this is the only way to restore peace, affection and harmony to the world.
On the other hand, psychologists and sociologists do not agree upon a clear distinction between natural and acquired human emotions, concepts and manners. Likewise they differ regarding private ownership. Some psychologists and sociologists maintain that private ownership is a natural propensity bom with man regardless of the conditions of his environment. Others believe that it is acquired through man’s environment. A child, they say, refuses to part with any of his toys either because they are too few or because he fears that another child may take them. When there is just one toy for ten children, quarrel is sure to break out, but, they say, where there are ten toys for ten children everyone will have a toy of his own and there will be no conflict.
The communists allege that private ownership has been coupled throughout the ages with injustice and, therefore, if humanity wants to maintain peace and rid itself of bitter conflicts it must abolish private ownership. But communists seem to forget two important facts, that individual efforts contributed to the progress of humanity, and, that no progress had been achieved during the so-called “ angelic era” of “ the first communism.” It can be said that humanity started to make some progress only after the existence of conflict over ownership. This means that such conflict is not after all an absolute evil. On the contrary its existence, within reasonable limits, is a psychological, social and economic necessity.
In addition to this, it should be borne in mind that Islam does not take it for granted that private ownership underlies all the injustice which afflicted humanity. The serious injustice that accompanied private ownership in Europe and other non-Islamic countries in general was due to the fact that the propertied classes in those countries were themselves the legislators as well as the rulers. It was only natural that such a class should make the legislations that safeguarded its interests at the expense of the other classes.
Islam does not recognize the existence of a ruling class. In Islam, laws are not made by a specially privileged class. It is beyond imagination that Allah should favour some individuals or classes at the expense of others. What reasons could He have for such favouritism? According to Islam, the ruler is freely elected by all the Muslims. He is not nominated to office by virtue of any class consideration. After assuming the duties of his office, the ruler must follow a law which he did not make, a law that everyone knows and was revealed by Allah Himself. In this connection, we may quote a saying by Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, “Obey me as long as I obey Allah in my rule over you, but where I disobey Allah, you shall not obey me.” A ruler in Islam has no legal power authorizing him to confer upon himself or others any legislative privileges. He has no power to prefer one class to another or to act in response to the political influence of the propertied class by enacting legislations which safeguard its interests while oppressing other classes.
It should be pointed out that when we talk about Islamic rule, we refer to that period in Islamic history wherein the principles and instructions of Islam were fully applied in their true sense. We do not refer to the periods when corruption changed the system of rule into monarchy. Islam does not recognize such governments nor can it be held responsible for such rule.
That Islamic rule with all its justice and idealism remained in force only for a brief era should not mean that it is an imaginary system unfit for practical application. After all, what was successfully applied once may be applied again, and it is the duty of all people to work hard for the restoration of such an era. The present time, however, is more propitious than ever for reestablishment of Islamic rule.
Under Islamic rule, the propertied classes will not be given the chance to make laws which serve their only interests. Islam prescribes that all people must be treated according to the same laws without any discrimination regarding human rights or dignity. In case of any differences as to the interpretation of some provisions of law— which happens with respect to every law on earth— the jurisprudents will have the last word. It is to be recorded with pride that the great Muslim jurisprudents did never interpret any law in a manner which might serve the interests of the propertied classes at the expense of the poorer ones. On the contrary, they have always been especially inclined to satisfy the basic demands of the working classes and to give them their full due. In fact, some Muslim jurisprudents went so far as to regard the workman or the peasant to be in partnership, as far as profits are concerned, with his employer.
On the other hand, Islam does not rate human nature so low as to take it for granted that ownership will always inevitably lead to injustice and oppression. In the field of refining and educating human nature, Islam achieved an unmatched success. Some Muslims owned property yet, they willingly shared their own property with others without expecting any return save forgiveness and recompense from Allah.
It should be understood that Islam never wants us to live in a world of dreams nor does it make the public interests wholly dependent on uncertain “ good intentions.” Despite its excessive care for the purification and refinement of souls, Islam never forgets practical considerations. Islamic legislation ensures a fair distribution of wealth. By not only concentrating on the purification of the soul but also enacting just legislation, Islam lays the proper foundations for a healthy world. Islam permitted ownership of land but never allowed it to lead to feudalism. Islam took the necessary precautions by enacting economic and social legislations which precluded feudalism and ensured a respectful standard of living even for those who did not own any land. It was such a guarantee that protected the poorer class from exploitation by the propertied one.
If we accept communism as an economic programme, we must also inevitably embrace along with that its social philosophy which states that society is the only real thing, the individual having no importance whatever save as a member of a community. This is a position quite contrary to that taken up by Islam, for Islam’s position attaches great importance to the individual and relies more upon him than on society for the realization of its ends. Islam civilizes man from within so that he would willingly discharge all his responsibilities as a member of a community. Thus, it elevates man to the position of a conscious member of society with a will of his own, freely choosing his own job as well as the place where he would like to work. He has the choice to comply with the orders of the niler or to refuse to obey him if the ruler should happen to transgress the bounds set by obedience to Allah and is practising Islam. Thus Islam makes every individual a guardian of the community’s morals besides holding him responsible for the eradication of all forms of evils. But such a thing cannot for obvious psychological and practical reasons happen in a society wherein the individual is reduced to the status of an insignificant midget or a worthless manikin whose destiny is solely shaped and controlled by the government as it alone controls all economic means of production.
Last, we must also remember that the communist philosophy is based on the assumption that it is the economic factor alone that is supreme so far as the determining or moulding of the diverse social relationships within a social group are concerned. Islam does not deny or under-rate the importance of the economic factor in human life nor does it ignore the importance of a sound economic basis for the social life of a community so as to make the moral and social virtues flourish. But it does not at all contribute towards the notion that life is but economics. It also does not believe that if economic problems are solved all the other problems of the society will also be solved as a result thereof.
The communist economy rests on a full-fledged dictatorship of the proletariat, which means that the state alone decides as to the functions performed by different citizens without any regard whatsoever to their respective aptitudes or likings. The state alone controls all thought, acts, associations as well as the ends to be realised by them. At this point we must also differentiate between the dictatorship of a single ruler and the dictatorship of the state, proletariat. For, in the case of a ruler, it is just possible that he be of a congenial, modest character with the welfare of his country being very dear to his heart and may even at times condescend to consult with the representatives of the people — real or false—before deciding on a matter or enacting a law. But all these possibilities are simply out of question in the case of a dictatorship of the proletariat or state, as it will primarily be concerned with the economics alone and the realization of economic ends, and will do so with an iron hand. That is what is signified by the very name—dictatorship of the proletariat.
