Political Crisis of the Present Age:
Dr. Muin-ud-Din Ahmad Khan
PREFACE
I was invited by the Government of Soviet Union in 1979 while I was the Director-General of Islamic Foundation,
The tour was brief, lo0vely and resonably comprehensive. Baba Khanov was a real academician, a perfect Arabist, a thoroughly Allah-fearing personality and a nearly perfect model of Muslim life. We found in him a lively guardian and a spiritually enlightened guide.
We saw many monuments, mosques, visited a number of private homes and mixed with many people around. The sight of the monuments revived glorious historical memories in our minds; we found a number of mosques converted into nightclubs; the homes were small, tidy and packed; but the people we saw everywhere were tight-lipped.
We, Muslims are interested first and foremost in self-dependent, cultivating virtuous freedom, good character, practical wisdom and eternal happiness, which were, one and all, conspicuously absent from our sight.
Instead we were shown, the activities of material development that logically constitutes our second important choice of learning. In material development, we found
We understood. They gained economically much from the
I was thankful to the government of Soviet Russia for the kind favour of inviting me to visit the wonderful lands of
Nevertheless, I caution them, especially the Asiatic Soviets, to heed to the hide and seek game of this mundane life: Be happy for regaining what you lost; yet beware of not to lose what you had gained. Human life runs on a miracle play of economics and morality. Either of them becomes lame without the other. Life is a go-ahead, a one-way traffic and it is the economic umbrella that creates requisite conditions for moral freedom. Hence, the umbrella is the pre-condition of freedom, which needs be kept intact.
That is the subject matter of the booklet, which I offer to the peoples of the
My grateful thanks to Mrs. Nilufar Sultana, Associate Professor of English, Mr. Md. Bodiur Rahman, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Mr. Muhammad Khalid Hussain, Research Student of Islamic History of the
Prof. Muin-ud-Din Ahmad Khan
M.A. (McGill) M.A., Ph.D. (
Professor of Islamic History
and
Director-General
Baitush Sharaf Islamic Research
Institute,
ROLE OF POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN HUMAN LIFE
It is obvious that political activities of human beings are not self-contained or merely politics bound, but stand squarely on economic grounds. Because political activities of human beings are only a part of life which endeavours to build up a social structure with a view to giving a definite shape to the mutually interlinked, inter-dependent and interacting economic footings, social conveniences and opportunities, biological urges, cultural cravings, moral values, religious ideals, immediate needs of survival and self-dependent and ultimate goal of an honourable human life. In a word, political activities of human beings strive to give a concrete shape to all realities of life with a homogenious ideological direction seeking to attain a definite goal.
Hence politics in its pristine sense, pointing to living together in polis (towns and cities or compact settlements of the Afro-Asian village type) in a civil or civilized manner, may be designated as the pivotal post or king-pin of human life and ought to be pursued with good-will, love, affection, moral and spiritual value-oriented idealism and social-welfare-oriented patriotism. The sum total of the economic grounds, political orientation and social structure are reflected, in a generalised form, in the State,, which appears at the present age as inevitably conformable to either capitalistic or communistic norms or an admixer of both, in a purely materialistic or economic sense.
For the reason why, political viability of a modern State is measured by economic prosperity, which, in its turn, is moulded by the political dynamics within the given social milieu and Stately perspective. This is because of the materialistic views of the human society and State, from which both capitalism and communism of the modern times have arisen.
Capitalism
To go to the roots of our subject for discussion, Capitalism in the modern commercial sense as a system of somewhat usurious or interest-based and monopoly-oriented trade and business enterprise, took its birth about sixteen or seventeen century Christian Era, when the west European nations namely, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French, British, German etc. organised themselves into a mutually competitive, but also mutually hostile, yet as an ideally unified world-wide imperialistic venture of European expansionism. They visualised themselves as a superior race of white peoples, adopted laisez faire 1 policy, an interest-based banking system and a tight currency system for controlling finances. This system came to be known, in course of time as Capitalism. 2
For various reasons, the rise of this western commercial capitalism coincided with the decadence and downfall of the old World Empires of the Turkish Ottomans, Iranian Safavids and Indian Mughals.
During the nineteenth century, this western laisez faire commercial capitalism produced a second more powerful wing, that of industrial capitalism and juxtaposed it by its side. Then in the final composite commercial and industrial form, Capitalism reached its zenith by tactfully controlling both demand and supply of the raw materials and the finished goods throughout the civilized world.
As usual in both the fields of commerce and industry, it divided the human society into capitalist few and labouring multitude. Moreover, as Capitalism stretched itself worldwide, as industrial buyers of raw materials from the primary producers as well as commercial suppliers of finished goods to all and sundry, it reduced the world peasantry into slavish producers of raw materials for the entrepreneurs.
The overall result of this worldwide enveloping Capitalism of western Europe became horrifying for humanity at large. Because as usual this composite world Capitalism controlled world economy as its preserve by controlling firstly, investmental capital through a network of banking system running on interest (the new nineteenth century commercial and industrial nomenclature of usury), which in its turn created large scale monopoly in the market economy as well as cartel in special fields of business.
Secondly, through worldwide imperial and colonial expansion of west European Atlantic powers, they took the resources of the five continents and the seven seas as their preserve on the palm of their hands; and by means of currency and tariff control, they further tightened the clutches of composite Capitalism over the world at large.
Thirdly, the monopolistic Capitalism divided the human population into two broad classes of employers and employees and their respective sideling, who, by dint of the exploitative economic dynamics of Capitalism also turned out into two classes of exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed; in ordinary parlance: bosses and servants, masters and slaves-which came to be known in gentle speech as elites and masses, highly ups and underdogs, whom Karl Marx called bourgeoisie and proletariat in French vocabulary.
The laisez faire Capitalism thus divided humanity into a handful of haves and innumerable have-nots, the haves enjoying the fruits of freedom and the have-nots toiling under an unspecified bond of slavery. Under such a state of affairs, money acquired the capacity of buying everything in the world; and in a word, money became the master and labour, the slave.
The horrible predicament of the nineteenth century world under the grips of the western elites or bourgeoisie, induced many a relenting heart or sensitive mind to ponder over ways and means for rescuing the humanity from the clutches of laisez faire capitalistic individualism that had sunken into the abyss of egotism or blind personal interest. 3
Socialism
Socialism took its birth out of this broader humanitarian heart-rending perspective. Socialism sought to shift the emphasis of human interest from the egotistic individualism to the sphere of collective well being of the humanity. 4
As a matter of fact, modern Capitalism rode on a Greco-Roman political concept of Constitutionalism, and tranquility in the State as the foremost task of the governments. It had broken down the old traditional society and had replaced it by the concept of a Sovereign States as the protectors of citizens and bestowers of rights collectively towards them and in return claiming unflinching loyalty towards the State. As a result, the usual four-dimensional Eastern type of society consisting of individuals within the family, family within society and society within the State as a continuous, interdependent composite structure of human life, had become in the Modern West most conspicuous by its total absence. 5 Hence for confronting the mischief of capitalistic individualism, some western humanitarian thinkers directed their thinking towards collectivism; that is to say, shifting the blind individualistic interest to an enlightened collective interest.
Such collectivistic thinking cropped up in the modern west first and foremost in the liberty and freedom loving humanitarian ground of Paris in France, where the factual realities of collectivism came to be fondly called, in traditional parlance, Socialism (but without any compact society).
In this mood, an Indo-Bangladeshi Muslim, Syed Amir Ali observed in his world famous Spirit of Islam, that Islam is nearer to socialism than the western capitalistic democracy.
However, Socialism as a comprehensive system of life was conceived as a panacea of the ills of Capitalism in the regimented form of Communism, and was developed and made popular as a socio-political theory throughout the world by the Marxist enthusiasts.
Naturally, therefore, the credit of shifting human interest and human thoughts in modern times from the blind alley of capitalistic egotism to the collectivist socialism or Communism goes to the Marxist propaganda.
Marxism
Nevertheless, we must make a series of distinctions between Karl Marx’s Marxism, Engels’ interpretative Marxism and Leninist Marxism as adapted Karl Kautsky, G. V. Plekhanov, Antonio Labriola and others of the so-called orthodox
The Encyclopedia Britannica (1996, vol. 14) succinctly describes “Marxism” as “a body of social doctrine worked out by Karl Marx in co-operation with his friend Freidrich Engels and systematized later by some of Marx’s followers, especially Karl Kautsky.” 6
More elaborate but precise and well-documented exposition is available in the- Dictionary of the History of Ideas (Charles Scribner’s Sons, U.S.a., vol.II, 1973), wherein George Lichtheim says: “the term “Marxism” has come to stand for a systematic doctrine elaborated by Engels and others after the death of Marx”.
“It is comparatively simple matter to distinguish the historical materialism of Marx from the dialectical materialism of Engels. In tracing this distinction we begin with Marx’s writings on history, and then proceed to a consideration of the materialist ontology outlined by Engels and subsequently institutionalized in the dogmatic system of Marxism-Leninism”.
“This approach invites the familiar procedure wherein historical materialism is treated as the application to history of the general doctrine of dialectical materialism. Since no such view was at any time entertained by Marx, we are on safe grounds in disregarding it.”
“The notion that this anthropological naturalism is anchored in a general theory of the universe, which represents the world as a process of dialectical movement from one stage to another, finds no support in Marx’s writings. For him the only “nature” that enters into practical consideration is man’s own nature. The external world as it exists in and for itself, is irrelevant to a thinker who approaches history with a view to establishing what men have made of themselves and are still capable to becoming. ”
“It is equally worth noting that Marx does not speak of a materialist conception of history, contenting himself with the more modest term “materialistic” and thus scientific method.”
“The conversion of his critical method into a determinist social philosophy was primarily the work of Engels, who after the death of Marx in 1883 assumed the role of exegete.”
“The next step consisted in transforming the Marxian critique of society into a comprehensive doctrine embracing both nature nd history. This process too set in motion by Engels and continued (after his death in 1895) by the orthodox school, primarily represented by Kart Kautsky, G.V. Plekhanov, and Antonio Labriola. ” 7
Apart from Marxism-Leninism, there emerged Maoism in the mainland
In the Indian subcontinent, a group of Maoist communists went even to the extremity of announcing the dictum of “end justifies the means” as a positive doctrine of their socialist ideology and called themselves Naxalites after the place-name of Naxalbari where they leagued together. It ravaged different parts of
As a Soviet echo of Maoism and Naxalism, three milder and moderate patterns of one-party-democratic socialist systems were experimented in
Per force, we are therefore compelled to look for the original to look for the original Socialism of Karl Marx that was conceived by him as an anthropological, humanistic and equitable socio-economic phenomenon, emanating from the original value of labour stretching itself into a wholesome social system – elsewhere apart from the above divergent vicissitudes of popular Marxism.
Even the most memorable trait of popular Marxism, namely the dictatorship of the Proletariat was not visualised by Karl Marx, but was developed by Lenin. Let us read from the official Biography of Karl Marx published from
“Marx used to say that the first phase of communist society followed upon the long birth pang of the transition period. Lenin developed Marx’s ideas on the state of that period, and wrote: “The proletarian dictatorship is absolutely indispensable during the transition from capitalism to socialism, and in our revolution this truth has been fully confirmed in practice” (cf. Lenin: Collected Works, vol. 27, p. 318). Lenin gave a profound analysis of economics and politics in the transition period, defined the relations between the various elements in the economic system and the classes behind them, and described new forms of class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat”. (Biography, p. 670).
In the hands of Engels its dynamic creativity acquired a dialectic logicalism that rendered it into a cosmic metaphysical phenomenon. 8 In order to match it with the 20th century Russian social system, Kautsky, Plekhanov and others super-added to it the concept of proletarian dictatorship as a necessary adjunct for reaching out towards the ultimate social of disciplined anarchy. Such anachronistic idealist realism rendered it possible to conceive the most mischievous theory of “end justifies the means” as inevitably good. So much so that, in the hands of Maoism and Naxalism socialism ran riot for fixing up discipline in the politic of society in the name of preparing it for the ultimate goal of “goodly anarchy”, a high sounding empty word, signifying nothing worthwhile.
As a matter of fact, Karl Marx’s target of attack was the elitist complex of the 19th century western society, which he designated “Bourgeoisie” and identified it as the exploiter class of the capitalistic society over and against the exploited masses whom he designated as “Proletariat”. He was up and doing with propounding a material science of life. He did not aim at affirming or denying the truth of religion. But he found the dogmatic religions that prevailed in his time, standing on his way of material progress of human beings by dragging them to superstitious beliefs, blind dogmatism and irrational deductions. So he called them opiate and opposed the concept of God, which is in reality an idolatrous word: god-goddess, which was sought to be made Christian by capitalizing the first letter ‘G’. To get rid of this superstitious dogmatism, he even propagated atheism, which also by means denying the theo, =deo, =deva, god, goddess etc. all idolatrous concepts, which must be denied first by a Muslim or a Jew for affirming the existence of Allah or Jehovah, the Supreme Lord, saying: there is no god but Allah. Marx said nothing against Allah or Jenovah. Yet Lenin declared that, denial of god or atheism is a necessary adjunct of Communist ideology.
Dialectic Materialism
Marx was primarily trained in metaphysics in the tradition of German philosophy; he came under the influence of Hegelian idealism; but he wanted to combine idealism with the realities of human life; so that, by way of a brand of Neo-Hegelianism, he struck upon a socio-economic philosophy of materialism. 9 The makeshift of his thought from the metaphysical idealistic philosophy of “thing” was far-fetched, which probably he endeavoured to carry on on the basis Hegelian dialecticism. Yet, instead of propounding any theory of “dialectic materialism” (which is usually presented before us as a logic of Marxism), he tried to explore the historical process (like Ibn Khaldun) that brought about the capitalistic predicament into existence and therein he discovered the historicity of the sociological phenomena of the consecutive rise of feudalism, capitalism and socialism in the process of the historical evolution human civilization, one after another. Consequently, he propounded an “historical materialism” within the social sphere of human beings. 10 This was stretched into the cosmic phenomenon of “dialectic materialism” by the latterly interpreters of Marxism, principally by Engels, Karl Kautsky, Plekhanov, Antonio Labriola and others. 11 Thus the popular Marxism as upheld by the “dialectic materialism” or “scientific materialism” is not an original doctrine of Karl Marx; rather it is a pluralistic synthesis of various Marxist interpretations, and a very far-fetched development of the original intention of Karl Marx.
For the reason why a close scrutiny of the Marxist logic of “dialectic materialism” proves utterly untenable, misconceived and completely misguided, 12 because in the first place, the triadic logic of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis indicates a “geometric progression” as conceived by Hegel; 13 hence the three arms of it constitute a triangle, which is a closed aggregate; consequently, when applied to the material world it becomes static and loses the power of movement and the principle of dynamism.
Secondly, applied in the metaphysical sphere of “Being” as Hegel had conceived and applied to it. But as and when it is applied in the sphere of material objects as the Marxists did, the Synthesis remains even when it is turned anew into a Thesis; so that a complex Thesis will evoke a complex Antithesis and the end-product would be a complex Synthesis. Consequently, the whole process of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis would lose the required simplicity and go out of control. As a result, human beings, while pursuing such a system of “dialectical materialism”, will lose their hold over this complex dialectic and therefore their own freedom altogether and would cause under the compulsive guidance of the mechanical forces of Nature.
For instance, Hegel seems to say that everything in this visible world is an external expression of the Reality, which is also a part and parcel of it, such as a flower of a plant, which grows into a fruit that produces seeds that produce flowers and plants and so on. In this way with a growing expanding universe, the Reality also grows and expands. But the reality being unlimited, infinite and immeasurable, every thing, whether simple or synthetic-complex, that enters the threshold of Reality gets transformed into simplicity. But on the other hand, when combination of any kind takes place in things, whether big or small, it becomes complex and does not revert into simplicity. For example, hydrogen and oxygen makes water; water and sugar makes sweetened water; again sweetened water and coffee makes a complex drink. So that, the process of Thesis- Antithesis-Synthesis when applied in the sphere of Being the synthesis turns into simplicity at the lap of infinity whereas when Thesis-Antithesis and Synthesis operates in the sphere of things, the Synthesis becomes complexer and complexer progressively. That being so, when sugar is needed to sweeten a cup of tea, it could not be extracted from the sweetened coffee. In that case, the Synthesis cannot be retransformed into a Thesis, which calls for simplicity. Because a complex Thesis will evoke a complex Antithesis and the Synthesis thereof would be a complex one that would go out of human control with multiple reactions. Moreover, in the operation of the material world, we find thesis and antithesis but not the synthesis. For example, in the electricity, we find positive and negative currents coming together for producing light and no synthetic third element is found therein.
Now, if we visualize that the principle of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis would dehumanise human being; and as under the pressure of Communism, the centre of interest of human activities is shifted from individual conscience and personal freedom to the collective interest, perforce humanity will languish under collective suppression and repression, which was being done in Soviet Russia and other Communist countries in the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Thirdly, as and when “dialectic materialism” is identified with ‘scientific materialism’, it lands one into a deep-set logical fallacy. Because in the natural process of physical forces, such as, the make-up of ‘water’ and ‘electricity’, we find only Thesis and Antithesis and no concrete Synthesis; for certain level of the combination of oxygen and hydrogen creates a condition in materials which we call water; yet water is just a name of a certain level of combination of oxygen and hydrogen creates a condition in materials which we call water; yet water is just a name of a certain level of combination of oxygen and hydrogen and nothing else, such as the combination of negative and positive currents of electricity produce certain electrical power, the concreteness of which resides not in the electrical power but in its constituent negative and positive currents.
Thus scientifically speaking “dialectic materialism” falls much too short of being scientific since the Synthesis of the Marxist logic has no concrete place in the progression of Thesis and Antithesis; and the Synthesis is just a “logical fag” that does not exist in actuality. That is to say, the Marxist logic of dialectics may be modified as a binary process of Thesis-Antithesis, Thesis-Antithesis and so on.
This makeshift lands into a further theoretical complicacy of fixing up the source spring of Marxist dialectics. By a long range survey of the logical concept of dialectics, we find the German philosopher Hegel articulating his philosophical thoughts in terms of a geometric-progression-oriented triadic logic of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis half a century before Karl Marx, who started his own philosophical thinking as a neo-Hegelian. On the other hand, we find the Spanish Arab refugee scholar, Ibn Khaldun, who lived five hundred years before Hegel, basing his philosophy of history, sociology and politics squarely on an arithmetical binary-progression-oriented logic of Thesis-Antithesis combined. 14
Elemental Simplicity versus Complexity
We may recall herein that the ancient Greek philosophers assumed that all material objects in the universe are made up of simple elements. Hence the primary elements are simple and things are composite and complex. On the other hand, in the purview of Islamic theory of creation, the Muslims assumed that nothing in the universe is simple. Simplicity, unity and infinity are the characteristics of Allah alone, who created everything in the universe in pairs, having for its principle a positive and a negative aspect, such as, we find in positive and negative currents of electricity and the male and female elements in animals and plants.
Hence Ibn Khaldun visualised that there is no purely positive or no purely negative current or purely male nor purely female; rather there is a combined posi-negative current and nego-positive current and so also male-female combined and female-male combined (as modern science has made it evident that the body of a male is a combination of the proportionately major male and minor female hormone and the body of a female is a major female and minor male hormone combined.)
Therefore, in Ibn Khaldun’s view, the elements as well as things are both combination and complex of opposite elements; so that, when the positive side passes through the stages of germination, infancy, youth, maturity and death, it is followed up step by step, by its opposite elements that remained dormant within itself; for instance, when the positive becomes youth, the negative germinates and when the positive dies, its negative combination attains youthfulness; and again when the negative youth germinates, its opposite the positive seedling proceeds forward carrying within it the potency of its opposite: the negative combination. So everything in the world is a procession of posi-negative and nego-positive combined, which goes forward producing hybrid elements at every turn. 15 The micro processes within the elements, show up in clusters and constellations in human groups, societies and nations in the forms of tribes, classes, etc. in macro form.
Conflict Theory
Therefore, the idea of conflict in the view of Ibn Khaldun lies in micro form in the minds of human being which reflects in macro form in the class conflict and national struggles. Now, Marxist dialectics being a triadic geometrical progression, it can neither be linked up with Ibn Khaldun’s binary arithmetical concept nor can it be judged as scientific by minimising or deducting from it, the third element of Synthesis. Hence this way or that way the Marxist dialectics when closely scrutinised falls through.
This is however not to say that, Karl Marx had either conceived the cosmic or universal triadic logic of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis as the basis of his conflict theory, as the Marxist would have us believe; or that, on account of the futility of Marxist theory of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, the socioeconomic theory of Karl Marx loses all grounds. As a matter of fact, our further deeper analysis of the Marxist theory takes us on the hand to the philosophy of cooperation of Abu Nasr Al-Farabi who lived in Tashkent 500 years before Ibn Khaldun and who on the basis of the Quranic inspiration held that, human beings cannot live except in a combination of families, associations, societies city States, national States and the World State. Because human desires are unlimited and human ability to fulfill these desires is limited. 16
To elaborate the point, I should like to assert with all the logic in my command that, Abu Nasr Muhammad Tarkhan Al-Farabi (875-950 Christian Era) was the originator of the science of human society and State; and in the field of rationalism, he was the greatest philosopher ever produced by the human race. The Greek philosopher Aristotle was known in medieval times as the First Teacher of mankind and Al-Farabi was called, who came one thousand five hundred years after him, the Second teacher (Muallim ath-Thani); because he had reformulated the theories of knowledge, its logical base and the methodology of its teaching.
As a matter of fact, he devised a new logic of distinction, which I have designated macro-analytical logic, and which he added to the Aristotelian logic of definition formulated in the form of syllogism of Inductive and Deductive logic. Moreover, Al-Farabi changed the base of philosophy from matter or physique to life, and instead of engrossing himself with the Greek meta-physics; he concerned himself more meaningfully with meta-life. He held that, for human beings life is of supreme importance; and the preservation and development of human life are the number one and number two problems. So, he said: first of all let us think of life and ponder about how life came about? How to ensure its development? And the only thereafter let us think of physique or material objects for the utilization in promoting human life. Therefore, in his view, meta-life is more important than meta-physics; so that, in dealing with the problems of life, he developed a social and political philosophy and a full-fledged sociology and political science.
In brief, his arguments are as follows: In the first place, he says that, our needs are unlimited, but our capacity to satisfy those needs is limited; therefore, human life moulds itself in between plus-minus, unlimited-limited predicament of needs and fulfillments.
Secondly, he holds that the capacity of human beings to fulfill their needs is so limited that, they are unable even to satisfy the most primary basic needs, such as, for food, clothes and housing, all by themselves individually. For example, if a person is able to produce food by himself, he is unable to produce clothes and build the house needed by him, all by himself. So that, he has to cooperate with others of his kind and exchange materials, which calls into existence a barter economy.
Thirdly, mutual cooperation first of all creates a circle of (2+2) four hands of two persons. Circles become productive whereas individual persons are basically incapable of making any kind of production. Yet, circles also fall short of supplying the necessities of human life, which at the second stage compels the circle to cooperate for organising associations of circles.
Fourthly, the association eventually proves to be a loose organisation. It is imperfect and leans towards perfection. In so doing, it creates a committee to manage the affairs of the association more profitably. As the association is activated with a committee, it turns into a society. Society is controlled by the committee members, the elders, whereas in the association, the individuals collectively would take any decision. Hence, at the level of the society, the power shifts from the periphery to the centre.
Fifthly, the society conducts the affairs of the people with order and discipline and the committee helps the circles in improving their products and marketing them more profitably, which boosts up production and brings about prosperity. But prosperity attracts the attention of the disorganised nomads roaming about collecting food and hunting birds and animals, which, in its turn, give rise to security problems.
Sixthly, the security problems of the society cannot be solved by one society alone; because it is too expensive. So, many organised and prosperous societies get together to form an association of societies. This is initiated by the elders since they hold authority over the peoples. For convenience, in their convention, they set up a committee of the elders for managing the security affairs of all the societies. When the association of the societies produces a committee of elders and delegates to it the power of controlling a body of guards or troops, then the committee of elders turns into a government, which turns the association and its different areas into a City State.
Seventhly, since City States would not be able to fulfill all the desires and needs of their citizens within their single boundaries, they would again cooperate with one another and form greater and greater States till ultimately they form a World State.
Professor Khairuddinov of Soviet Union, who specializes on Al-Farabi’s unparallel scholarship, would agree with me in Judging him as the father of sociology and political science and in holding that, the modern streams of socialism and democracy have, in reality stemmed from Al-Farabi’s philosophy of mutual cooperation, the former adhering to a tight-rope mutual cooperation such as in collective farm and the latter adhering to a freely chosen pattern of mutual cooperation, which this way or that way have brought us in a span of about one thousand years, after his death, well-nigh to founding a World State, in the form of U.N.O.
The great Spanish-Arab historian-philosopher Ibn Khaldun was a follower of Al-Farabi’s philosophy of mutual cooperation. He came five hundred years after Al-Farabi. Ibn Khaldun devised a micro-analytical logic and added a new chapter in the field of rational knowledge. I have just extracted the logics of Al-Farabi and Ibn Khaldun from their voluminous writings and put together the syllogistic Inductive and Deductive Logic of Aristotle, Al-Farabi’s Macro-Analytical Logic and Ibn Khaldun’s Micro-Analytical logic into a continuous whole of three chapters of Comprehensive Logic.
Applying his Micro-Analysis, for example, he says, when we want to have a bread, we need flour of wheat, it requires a grinder, which is made of stone, which is to be cut into size with an iron instrument, iron is to be extracted from the ore by smelting, which requires dice; for every stage of making these things the cooperation of new hands are needed. On the other hand, wheat is produced by the farmer, whose plough-animals are tended by the cow-boy, their food is cooked by the farmer’s wife, the plough is made of wood and iron; wood is extracted and polished by one person and iron ploughshare is made by another; moreover, the flour is to be wet in a can and cooked in a pan, which are made by different hands with materials collected from different quarters. Besides, for cooking the bread, stove and fire are needed which are prepared by newer hands. After such massive cooperation when we get a cooked bread, we still need vegetable, fish, meat, egg, milk, butter, oil, pepper, onion, garlic, turmeric, salt and different types of cans and utensils which are produced by many different hands. So that, even for taking a simple bread, we need a vast range of mutual cooperation, in the absence of which we cannot satisfy our basic need of taking food.
However, by applying his micro-analytical logic in different aspects of life and activities of human beings. Ibn Khaldun devised a “New Science” which he designated a “Social Science” built on a “conflict theory” pervading everywhere in the dynamic process of creation in the nature of human beings. This was adapted later on by Hegel in his philosophy of Being and Karl Marx in his philosophy of things.
Hence, every human being is compelled inevitably by the necessities of human desire to cooperate with one another for survival and self-development, progressively from the family to the organisation of
Ibn Khaldun being a popular classical figure in the modern western and German intellectualism, it may be plausibly surmised that both Hegel and Karl Marx were influenced by his conflict theory.
Marx’s Theory in Reality
The paramount importance of Karl Marx’s thinking, however, lies in his evaluation of labour versus money. Hence Karl Marx shows up in his original mantle. It may be remembered that Karl Marx was the son of a Jewish Rabbi family, that is to say, this forefathers from time immemorial belonged to a Jewish priest family, who were called Rabbinical Jews. 18 However, under the pressure of anti-Semitism in
Coming from such a family, Karl Marx must have known the supreme importance attached to the value of Labour by prophet Moses. Karl Marx himself was baptised as a Lutheran Christian, but could not escape the ferocity of anti-Semitism. In Germany, he starved for the lack of job opportunity and was driven out to Paris where he tried to earn his bread by journalism. Yet the European ferocity of anti-Semitism did not leave him alone and as he leaned towards the oppressed humanity in his journalistic profession and showed some inclinations towards Parisian socialism, he was expelled by the French Government from that country. 20 He came to
It may be noted that he studied diligently for 20 years in the British Museum, in course of which, he is known to have made a deeper study of the Holy Quran. The records of the British Museum is said to give evidence that he borrowed different copies and commentaries of the Holy Quran more than one hundred times. In his writings, he praises the Holy Quran and holds that Islam is the most perfect religion of monotheism (that is, more correctly Unitarianism). He may not have, therefore, missed the Quranic view of labour, which has been repeated over and over again in various parts of it.
Value of Labour
As a key point on labour, the Quran addresses the Prophet of Islam Muhammad (sm.) and directs him to go to the people of the Book for reminding them what the father of the Jews and Christians, Abraham entertained in his heart of hearts and Prophet Moses propounded as the basis of his mission to the humanity, that:
A) No bearer of burden will bear the burden of another’s (crime) (La taziru waziratun wizra ukhra)
B) Human being has no claim except on what on what he or she strived for (Laisa lil-insani illa ma sa’a)
C) The fruits of his/her strivings are bestowed immediately on him or her (irrespective of good or bad intention) (wa anna sa’iuhu sawfa yura).
D) (And that) the ultimate fruits of (good or bad intention) would be bestowed on him/her in the fullest measure on the Day of Judgement (Thumma yaj-jahu jazaun aufa).
E) And that, to your Lord-Providence is the ultimate end (Wa anna ila Rabbika’l-muntaha). (24)
That is to say, human being has no claim except on the fruits of his/her labour, but every act of human being is invariably accompanied by an intention which either good or bad. Hence, the labour of human beings produces double fruits-immediate and ultimate, implying the economic and moral fruits. While bestowing the economic fruits on human being,
This being the basic standpoint of Islam and Judaism, in respect of human life, Karl Marx’s doctrine of labour as the basis of all human life may not be judged as fundamentally different from it, except that, for some reason or other, whether owing to his atheistic leanings or due to his anxiety to conceal his Judaistic identity, he cut off the immediate economic fruits of human labour from the ultimate consequential moral reward and punishment.
Marx’s Doctrine of Labour
We have pointed out above that, in the philosophy of Karl Marx the doctrine of labour is of paramount importance. He judges money, which is the mainstay of Capitalism (since in the Capitalist system basically money purchases labour) as congealed labour, that water, which when frozen becomes ice, and when defrozen again becomes water. So also, labour gives birth to money, which remains valuable so long as it retains the capacity of purchasing labour. Marx, therefore, holds that in this natural process, labour is the Master and labour the Servant; whereas in Capitalism quite unnaturally money has been made the Master and labour the Servant 25 He pleads that this unnaturalism is the root of all evil in the modern world. This must have changed and labour should be given the proper value and the superiority over money, which is its due.
If we formulate this Marxist doctrine of labour to mean, “every human being has the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labour” (Marxist humanism) and since in order to ensure the enjoyment of the fruit of one’s labour, one has to enter into a collective and social organisational structure or cooperative or collective farm or society or commune, one has to enter ultimately into a cooperative political State (Socialism), per force one has to allow a part of the fruit of his labour to be consumed by the organisational personnel; but no third person has any right whatsoever to claim a share from the fruits of one’s own labour. Even so, the portion of the fruits of one’s labour appropriated by the personnel of the State must logically require the express or tacit consent of the labourer. In nutshell, this is the most fundamental basis of Marxist Socialism, which on account of divergent vicissitudes of time and situational exigencies took the shape of the doctrine of “work according to the ability and pay according to the need”. 26
Thus, the long and short of Karl Marx’s social philosophy is that, it is the right of every human being to enjoy the fruits of his or her own labour, whereas the long and short of the prophetic philosophy of Muhammad (s) and Moses (s) every human being has the right to enjoy the fruits of his or her strivings.
Also, Karl Marx holds that every human being is dependent for securing, promoting, and distributing the fruits of his labour along with that of others on the intervention of the State organisation. Whereas according to Prophet Muhammad (s) every individual is dependent for the selfsame purposes and the society and the societies in their turn are dependent for protection and administrative facilities on the State.
Ownership in Islam
Further, Prophet Muhammad (s) holds that the resources of the earth belongs to the Creator and human beings are the utilitarian proprietors over the resources; so that, whatever an individual produces out of the natural resources by applying his labour and technology, that belongs to him. He has to pay the share of Allah (for the poor, society and State as purificatory to his possession) and to none else. For example, the cultivators of a piece of land remains owner of it in the purview of Islamic Shariah so long as he keeps it cultivated. But if it becomes fallow for a maximum of three years, it is to be confiscated by the society and the State and be given to some other person for cultivation, so as not to make the community and the State loser on account of the negligence of an individual. Because the Creator is the real owner of the land, the community is the overall beneficiary of its profit and the individual cultivator is the lease of it. So, in the Islamic parlance, there is no real estate of anyone on the earth nor a real proprietorship is defined as bandobasti, which, in Persian language, means lease.
On analogy, the workers of a factory should be made the owner of it, though like as in the case of the land, in running the factory and administering its land, in running the factory and administering its affairs, the society and the government may be deemed as the rightful manager.
What, however, is the most important in the prophetic system of life is the moral reference of every piece of human work. Because every human work has two propulsive causes behind it; labour plus intention. No human labour can be apart from an intention and the intention must needs be good or bad. Hence the prophetic contention is that while in the mundane part of one’s life a human being has the right to enjoy the fruits of his labour, so also he cannot escape from the moral consequences of his intention in the Hereafter.
The reason behind the combined concept of labour plus intention is that in the prophetic viewpoint a human being is a combination of body, mind and soul. The first indicates his material existence the second, his biological existence as animal, and the third points to his soul, conscience and the judgement of good and bad, the moral aspect of his existence.
Deficiency of Western Languages
The European languages, such as classical Greek, Latin and modern English, French, German etc. having arisen out side of the pale of prophetic revelational languages, such as Hebrew, Arabic and Vaidic languages, tend to lack the linguistic terms signifying such conceptual distinctions as shown above. For example, in the European languages there is no distinction between the labour of lower animals and the labour of human beings. Whereas in revelational parlance, the two classes of labour are distinguished. For instance, in Vaidic Sanskrit and in Bengali language human labour is called parisram whereas animal labour is called sram; hence the wage-labour is called parisramic. In Arabic, labour if related to human being, it is amal or juhd, whereas if it is related to animals, it is hamal or burden. Because the labour of human beings is inseparably connected with an intention, whereas animal labour is connected with a motive power to fulfill a physical need or to obey a superior. So that, human intention falls under voluntary action and moral dynamic whereas animal motive is mechanical and compulsive.
Greco-Roman Idolatrous Credulity
The Greeks and Romans were idolatrous people and did not believe either in the existence of the soul or in the Day of Judgement in the Hereafter. They classified human beings as animals and called them rational animals, which was translated into Arabic as Haywan Natiq. So also, modern
As a matter of fact, the idolatrous people are by nature credulous. Because they see an idol or a symbolic object, such as a river, a tree and believe that there resides a god or goddess in it; and they worship it. Whereas a truly religious person and a reasonable man when sees an idol, believes in its creator and rearer as even more true than the object seen.
Religious Faith
Idolatrous belief is superstitious, blind and credulous whereas the religious Faith is based on visible signs and logical deduction. The existence of a human being points to a maker or creator of him and his rearing through different stages, points to a rearer and his birth and death and his regular heart-beat that counts his span of life and his judgement of good and bad as well as his ability to freely choose the one or the other from various possible alternatives and the bidding of his conscience, inevitably point to an ultimate reckoning which is confirmed by Revelation through the prophets that there exists the Creator and Rearer of the universe and that the ultimate judgement will be held in the life Hereafter wherein the dead will be raised in the same manner as they were given birth to.
The idolatrous people believe in the mundane material life alone. They believe that human beings like lower animals and plants, live on the surface of the earth and when dead go underneath the earth, which the Greeks called Hades. They do not ask whence human beings came and where would they go? How are they born? Who rears them? What responsibilities are attached to their opportunities? They do not believe in the soul; so that, they have no clear idea of conscience. They do not believe in the Creator; so that, they have no clear idea of moral accountability. They do not believe in the last Judgement; so that, they are careless to their moral responsibility. They live an animal life by means of stratagem, which they call intelligence and diplomacy. They regard human life as secular and attach themselves to secularism; that is to say, which pertains neither to the faith in the Supreme Creator nor to the staging of the last Judgement.
Whereas religion points to two stages of human life; one is examinational on this earth and the other is eternal in the Hereafter, in which secularism has no place whatsoever. In the Quran, it is stated that the Creator has made the surface of the earth ornamented in order to test human beings as to who amongst them do how best of works and after the examination is over. He will turn it into mere soil. 27
Coming back to our central topic, Karl Marx confronted the 19th century Western Capitalism with his doctrine of labour, which he regarded as the source-spring of human rights in this world. It coincides exactly with the first stage or starting point of the prophetic view of life, in whose vision the second stage is actuated by the intention whether good or bad. For instance, the first Hadith of Imam Bukhari’s Sahih is that, “human actions are judged by the intentions”. That is to say, human actions ought to be directed by good intentions.
Conclusion
In our above analysis, we have seen that what is popularly called Marxism is actually an admixture of views of lesser personalities, such as Engels, Plekhanov, Kautsky, Lenin etc. added to the original standpoint of Karl Marx. Marx’s basic standpoint is to give due value to wage-labour and for some reason or other he did not mention the intention which cannot be separated from human labour. Compared to the prophetic standpoint, it is a halfway house, a broken concept, which is the reason why communistic brand of socialism is breaking down. The remedy therefore does not lie in going back to the oppressive and repressive Capitalism, but it lies in going forward by adding good intention to the value of wage-labour.
It is obvious that the concept of original value of labour was in vogue in the Jewish tradition and is clearly was in vogue in the Jewish tradition and is clearly stated in the Quran, with which Karl Marx seems to have been acquainted. Originally, it symbolized the Abrahamic Semitic confrontation with the Sumerian Aryan tradition of Usury, which is called in Vaidic Sanskrit – Suud (sud), meaning: self-increased, i.e. increased like a plant in the natural process due to time. It is called in Arabic: Riba, with the same meaning. So the Semitic conception was that the “increased portion belonged to the tree” and not to outsiders. In other words, as in the case of Usury or interest (suud, riba) the increased portion was a natural growth having no connection with the labour of the claimant of Usury or interest; hence the claims are admitted, the labourer would be deprived of his just human rights and it will create inequity, ups and downs, oppression and repression in the society. So it was prohibited by the prophets.
The Jewish tradition had two streams: one was the prophetic and the other contagious. The contagious usurious tradition of the Jews usually dominated their society. For the reason why, interest or usury was prohibited again and again by Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the prophetic times; and in medieval
Karl Marx nevertheless reduced or minused intention from labour and invented or discovered the doctrine of surplus value as its replacement, which, in substance, conforms to the human rights adumbrated by Prophet Muhammad (s), who assigned the products of labour to the labourer alone; and on basis of it, elaborated a social system and devised a society-based State. He laid down the cornerstone of such an equitable society in the Charter of Medina and built up its edifice in the Sermon of the Farewell Hajj.
As an analyser of political doctrines, I see no reason why the present-day socialist systems should have to be reverted to the Capitalist system for survival, which would rather be a suicidal step for them. Society must be established on justice in order to facilitate the path of peace and happiness. Society must run on the freedom of conscience and freedom of action of individuals in order to make life valuable and humane. Society must be founded on the basis of equality of status of all individuals in order to make in order to recognise unity of the human race and oneness of the Creator. Therefore, practical wisdom demands that the present-day Communist States should take a step forward to recognise human beings not merely as economic animals, but also as moral beings and, in the same vein, justly add to the doctrines of labour and surplus value, the judgement of goodness or badness of the intention with reference to ultimate Judgement in the life Hereafter and not revert to an usurious Capitalism.
For an objective understanding of the point, we may refer to the Islamic conflict theory of human life into three stages. In respect of examinational stance of human life on this earth, the Quran classified human life into three stages. The first stage is the nafs ammara (the commanding self), wherein one remains attached to the animal propensity and natural desires. At this stage, he remains dedicated to the economic thinking of profit and loss and the moral judgement of good and bad. Herein his mind impels him to get to the profit and his conscience bids him to get and his mind directs him to accept the profitable by all means. The second stage is the nafs lawwama (the scolding self), wherein he falls into a conflict between the economic thinking of profit and loss and the moral judgement of good and bad. Herein his mind impels him to get to the profit and his conscience bids him to accept the good. This internal conflict between mind and the conscience, the former arising from the animae and the latter arising from the soul, the former arising genetically and the latter coming from the breath of the Creator, is the microscopic conflict basis of human life. The third stage is nafs mutmainna (the peaceful self), wherein one chooses the good whether with profit or with loss and gets over the side of the conscience and achieves the perfect peace of mind, or else one gets caught into the snare of profit making propensity and falls back to the first stage of animal desires. That is the dividing line between the virtuous and the vicious.
If we think deeply enough it becomes crystal clear that the class conflict as divulged by Marx is nothing but a collective reflection of the psychic conflict between the mind and the conscience. What the prophetic theory, therefore, gives us at the level of micro-analysis, Karl Marx projected or scanned it at the level of macro-analysis. Naturally and consequently the remedy of class-conflict does not lie in removing the conflict from macro level of class itself but in modifying the animal desire by goodly intention at the micro-level alone.
I, therefore, join my voice as an historical political researcher with those of Imam Khomeini and Pope John Paul in inviting the attention of the followers of Karl Marx to the prophetic religious Doctrines of the freedom of conscience and of action as the basic ingredients of human life. I invite them to ponder for a moment over the most fundamental doctrines of Vedas, Bible and the Quran as regards the recognition from the observable phenomena of the universe, the abiding existence of a Creator, Sustainer, Rearer, Providence and Supreme Judge of the universe; and that, the uniformity of the Laws of Nature, regularity and discipline in the exciting dynamism and continuous movement of the smallest particles of atoms at the micro level and the largest stars and planets at the macro-level, with amazing rapidity, completely free from any contradiction, conflict or collision-give unchallenging witness to the Oneness and Unity of the Supreme Lord of the universe.
This is the most fundamental doctrine of prophetic doctrinal religions in recognising the Supremacy and Unity of the Supreme Lord of the universe, on the basis of observable signs of all objects and natural phenomena, such as, from the rearing of a plant, an animal, a human being, to recognise a rearer, like as recognising a carpenter from the workman’s signs of a furniture.
The Quran calls signs: “Ayat” as discernable in the horizon, that is, in the visible world and also designates every sentence of the Quran itself as the readable signs (Ayat) of the Supreme Lord.
Secondly, besides the discernable signs in the horizon, the Quran says that the Lord will show every human being dives into a deep into the depth of one’s self. When a human being dives into the depth of his heart beneath the thin layer of the economic thinking of profit and loss, he or she gets enamoured of throbbing ideas of good, virtue, love, reverence etc. and naturally recognises that a model human life is a “good” life. Wherefrom this idea of “good” comes? It comes from the mysterious conscience, which inspires one even to sacrifice one’s life for the sake of it.
“Conscience” is not an animal trait. It does not exist in plants and animals. It is neither a biological entity nor a biological by-product, since a by-product does not become better than the original elements. Yet, it is conscience, which characterises human beings as humane.
Religion in its pure doctrinal form consists of following the biddings of the conscience, which emanates from the Soul. Now, modifying the thinking of profit-and-loss, pertaining to the human economical animal, by the good and evil, emanating from the conscience, that is to say, modification of gross desires by refined goodness, turns a human animal into a human being.
Thus, the function of the doctrinal religion is to turn human animals into human beings; modifying the economic life of humanity by moral values. Yet like all other human organisations, in the actual social on-going process, religion also tends to degenerate into dogmatism and blocks the progress of human life, instead of promoting and ameliorating it, as it happened in the case if Marxist socialism’s out-growth into Marxist-Leninist dogmatic Communism.
Life is a combination of economics and morality. Economics provides the umbrella, and morality, the value-judgement. Now, as you internalise values, it becomes religion- the supreme guide to good life.
Moreover, while living through a mundane life, one must keep in mind that, individual life is a personal life, which requires a family for bare living and a social milieu for a good life. A good life has to be lived in conformity with local customs and usages; a social life, in order to be cultured and civilized, needs the protection and patronage of a political State. So, as Al-Farabi says, a social life is in reality a political life or civil life. But without economic viability and prosperity civil life becomes meaningless. Thus, a happy life, a civil life and a political life are dependent externally on economic viability.
Now, society is local, political life is national, but economic life is invariably international, which calls for multi-national block, super-national or international operation. For economically viable life therefore, mere national umbrella is not enough; it needs multi-national block operation to keep it fitfully agoing. For economic prosperity en block operation is a must, which the Asiatic Soviets ought to keep in mind.
R E F E R E N C E S
- “Laisez faire” in French means “do as you like”, signifying a complete freedom in trade and commerce from governmental interference. See footnote 3 below.
- For the origin and development of Capitalism,
see:
(a) Maurice Dobb : Studies in the Development of Capitalism,
(b) Stephen Rousseas : Capitalism and Catastrophe, a critical appraisal of the limits to Capitalism,
- And for Laisez faire Capitalism, see:
(a) Adam Smith : An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations,
(b) Kenneth E. Boulding : ‘Economic Theory of Natural
of the History of Ideas: Studies in Selected Pivotal Ideas, Charles
Scribner’s Sons publication,
- “Socialism”, International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, David D. Sills ed;
Macmillan, 1968, Vol. 14, pp. 506-534.
- In the Western countries, the State recognises individual citizens and the citizens recognise the State, the former bestowing and guaranteeing citizen’s rights and the latter paying allegiance and loyalty; other social organisational set-ups are mere go-between and subsidiary. In the West there is no organised society like the eastern type.
- Encyclopedia Britannica,
- George Lichtheim : “Historical and Dialectic Materialism”, Dictionary of the History of Ideas. op. cit., pp. 450-53.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., and Encyclopedia Britannica, London, 1966, Vol. 14, pp.988-990: “Marxism”; and also further Elaboration in Ibid., 1978 edition, Vol. 11, pp. 553-560: “Marxism”.
- In a recent paper on the conflict basis of society, I have made a detailed analysis of the so-called Marxist dialecticism, which is published in Bangladesh Journal of Philosophy and which is summarized herein, see vol. 4, Dec. 1990, pp.70-81.
- J. N. Findlay : Hegel : A Re-examination; New York, 1962 p. 56 ff. ; Paul Edwards ed. : The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 2, pp. 387-88 : “Dialectic” and “Hegel and His Successors”; see also, Frank Thilly : History of Philosophy, Allahabad, 1949, p. 434 ff; for a brief life of Hegel.
- Muhsin Mahdi : Ibn Khaldun’s Philosophy of History,
- Ibn Khaldun’s micro-analytical logic and social logic and social science methodology have been brought out by our new researches, which are being published in the present writer’s A Manual of Comprehensive Logic.
- Al-Farabi : Kitab Arau Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadila. Dr. Al-Birr Nasri ed.,
- cf. foot note 15 above.
- P.N. Fedeseyev : Karl Marx, a Biography,
- Ibid.
- Ibid., Chapters 13.
- Ibid.
- Dictionary of the History of Ideas, Philip Weiner ed., op.cit pp. 450-455.
- Karl Marx : Capital, A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production,
- Al-Quran, Surah al-Nazm : 53 : 36-42, and compare with The Bible: containing the Old and New Testament, American Bible Society, New York, 1973, see Concordance on Labourer, Work, Due, Interest etc. – Labourer deserves his wages (Wk 10.7); Work of a man’s hand comes back to him (Prov. 12,14); One who works, his wages are his due (Rom. 4,4). The heavens are the work of thy hands (Ps. 102,25) and so on.
- Philip Weiner : Dictionary of the History of Ideas, op. cit. for labour value p. 39, commodities as congealed labour-time p. 40 ff., exchange value p. 41, money from pp. 69-70 and so on.
- Philip Weiner: Dictionary of the History of Ideas, op. cit., p. 561.
- Al-Quran, Surah Kahf, 18: 7.
No comments:
Post a Comment