Many people overstep the mark and apply the term 'social system' to all systems of life. This is an erroneous application; given that the systems of life befit more to be called the 'systems of society' since in reality that is what they constitute, as they organise the relationships which arise between a people living in a particular society regardless of their meeting or dispersing. The meeting of people is not considered, what is noted is only the relationships (‘Alaqat). Consequently, they will be diverse and differ according to the different relationships. They include economics, ruling, politics, education, penal code ('Uqubat), societal transactions (Mu’amalat) and the rules of (testimonial) evidences (Bayyinat) etc.
Thus, the application of the term 'social system' to all of these relationships is meaningless and inapplicable. Besides, the word 'social' is a description of a system, thus the subject matter of this system should be the organisation of the problems arising from the meeting (of people) or the relationships that arise from people meeting together. The meeting of a man with a man and a woman with a woman does not require a system because no problems arise from it, nor do relationships arise which require a system. Only the organisation of their interests requires a system in view of the fact that they live in the same country even if they did not meet. As for the meeting of a man with a woman and vice versa, it is from this meeting that problems and relationships arise which need to be organised by a system. Thus, this meeting (Ijtima') befits more to be designated as the social system, because in reality it is this system which organises the meeting between men and women, and the relationships which arise from such meetings. That is why the social system is confined to the system which demonstrates the organisation of the woman's meeting with the man and vice versa, and organises the woman's relationship with the man and vice versa. Thus the social system addresses the relationships that result from men and women meeting and not from their interests (Masalih) in society, and it clarifies all that branches out from this relationship. Thus, trade between men and women pertains to the systems of society and not to the social system, because it falls within the economic system. As for the prohibition of (Khalwa) seclusion between men and women, or when a woman has the right to instigate divorce for herself, or who has the right of custody for a child, all of these issues pertain to the social system. Therefore, the social system is defined as: the system which organises the meeting of a man with a woman and vice versa and organises the relationship which results from their meeting and all that branches out from this relationship.
Peoples' conception, especially the Muslims, of the social system in Islam became extremely confused. Their understanding became far removed from the reality of Islam due to their alienation from its thoughts and rules. They went to the extreme, holding the view that a woman has the right to be in seclusion (Khalwa) with a man as she wished, or that she can go out with her 'Awrah uncovered wearing whatever she pleased. Others went far to the other extreme taking the view that women do not have the right to practise trade or meet with men under any circumstances, and viewed the whole of the woman's body as 'Awrah including the hands and face. Due to this extremism there was degeneration of morals and a stagnation of thinking (Tafkeer). The results of all this has been the break up of the social aspect, unrest within the Muslim family, the prevalence of dissatisfaction and discontent amongst family members, and numerous disputes and divisions between its individuals.
The need to unite the family and to ensure its happiness was felt by all Muslims, and the search for a solution to this serious problem occupied the minds of many people. Different attempts of various sorts appeared to present such solutions. Many books were written demonstrating the societal solution and amendments were made to the laws of the Shari'ah courts and electoral systems. Many tried to apply their views on their families in terms of their wives, sisters and daughters. Changes were made to the school system with regards to the mixing of boys and girls. Thus, these attempts continued to appear in these and similar guises. However, none of them could succeed in finding a solution, or come with a system or find a method to implement what they conceived as reform (Islah). This is because the issue of the relationship between the two sexes became obscure in the minds of many Muslims. They were unable to comprehend the way in which the two genders can co-operate with each other, even though the well being (Salah) of the Ummah stems from this co-operation. They were completely ignorant of the thoughts and rules of Islam, which relate to the meeting of the man and the woman. This led them to discuss and debate over the means of treatment, avoiding the study of its reality, until as a consequence of their attempts anxiety and confusion increased. A chasm began to exist in society due to which grew a concern for the entity of the Islamic Ummah, in its capacity as an Ummah with distinct characteristics. It was feared that the Muslim household would lose its Islamic character, and the Muslim family would lose the guidance of the thoughts of Islam, and stray from valuing its rules and thoughts.
As for the cause of this confusion, and deviation from the correct understanding, it is attributable to the crushing onslaught of Western culture. Western culture completely dominated our thinking, tastes (Dhawq), changed our concepts (Mafahim) about life, the criteria (Maqayees) for things and our convictions (Qana'at) which used to be deep rooted within us, such as our concern for Islam and our veneration for the things we hold to be sacred. Thus, the victory of western culture over us was comprehensive - encompassing all sectors of life amongst which was the social aspect.
This happened because when the western culture emerged in Muslims countries, together with its material forms and materialistic advancements, many were dazzled by it. Consequently they tried to adopt this culture because those material forms, produced by the followers and advocates of this culture, were seen as a sign of progress. That is why they tried to imitate western culture without distinguishing between this western culture and its material forms. They did not comprehend that culture constitutes a set of concepts about life and a specific way of living while civilisation (Madaniyya) denotes the material forms, or tangible objects, in life, irrespective of concepts about life or the way of living. They did not realise that western culture was founded upon a basis which contradicts the basis of Islamic culture, and that it differs from the Islamic culture in its perspective about life and its understanding of happiness (Sa'ada), for which man strives to achieve. The inconceivability of the Islamic Ummah taking from western culture was not apparent to them. Nor was the fact that it is not possible for any community of the Islamic Ummah, in any country, to adopt this culture and remain part of the Islamic Ummah or to continue to be described as a Muslim community.
Their lack of awareness of the intrinsic difference between the Islamic and Western cultures led to transference and imitation. Many Muslims attempted to transfer western culture without understanding it, like the one who copies a book restricting Himself just to the writing of words and letters. Some began to imitate western culture by adopting their concepts and criteria without reflecting on the effects and consequences of such adoption. These people noticed that women in western societies stood alongside men without differentiation and without concern for the consequences that would entail. They also noticed that the material forms were manifested in western woman and she manifested them, so they imitated her or tried to imitate her without realising that these forms agreed with the western culture, its concepts about life, and its depiction of life which contradict with the culture of Islam, its concepts about life, and its depiction of life. They did this without the slightest consideration for what these forms manifested in her and by her, and what they entailed in terms of issues. Yes, they witnessed this and consequently believed that Muslim women should stand alongside men in society and meet with them, regardless of the consequences. They thought that western material forms should be manifested in Muslim woman, and she should manifest western material forms, irrespective of what they entailed in terms of problems and issues. Therefore, they called for securing the personal freedom of Muslim woman and granting her the right to do whatever she wished. As a result of this they called for the mixing of men and women even when a need did not exist, and they called for women to reveal their charms (Tabarruj) and beauty (Zeena), and for women to take up positions of ruling. They viewed this as progress and as a sign of revival.
What made things worse was that the imitators gave themselves complete free reign over personal freedom, until a woman would directly contact a man just for the sake of contact and for the enjoyment of personal freedom. This was without a reason which necessitated contact, and without the need in society for such mixing. This contact between the sexes was made for the sake of socialising and merely for the enjoyment of personal freedom. The evil effect that this faction of imitators who embarked on applying such ideas had was that the relationship between a man and a woman became solely restricted to a male-female relationship. The evil effect of this faction, spread to the other factions in society. This contact did not produce any form of co-operation between men and women in any sector of life. On the contrary what resulted from it was moral degeneration, such as women displaying their charms and adornment to people other than their husbands or mahram men. Amongst Muslims other results were the deviation from the correct way of thinking, corruption in their taste, mistrust and destruction of the criteria (for actions). The social aspect in the West was taken as the ideal model and western society was taken as a benchmark (Miqyas) without considering the fact that western society does not care about extra-marital sex and does not see in it any shame, defamation or breach of the correct and acceptable behaviour, nor any violation or threat to morality. They did this without noticing that Muslims society fundamentally disagrees with it and completely contradicts it. This is because the Islamic society considers the extra-marital relationship as one of the grave sins (Kaba'ir) for which there is severe punishment; either flogging or stoning to death. It also considers the one who commits this sin as an outcast, and a deviant who is looked upon with loathing and contempt. It as well, sees it as axiomatic that honour should be protected and it is one of the issues that is not open to discussion or debate, an issue for the defence of which wealth and lives should be sacrificed willingly and with zeal, without any excuses.
Indeed, those transferors and imitators did not consider the difference between the two societies and the huge disparity between the two positions just as they did not consider what the Islamic life made incumbent on them and what the Shari'ah rules demanded of them. They rushed headlong in the pursuit of transference and imitation until the call for woman's revival dressed with licentiousness (Ibahiyyah) and indifference to the characterisation of morally reprehensible behaviour. In this manner those transferors and imitators continued to destroy the social aspect in Muslims life in the name of reviving women and under the pretext of working to revive the Ummah. However, in the beginning, such people were a minority and the Ummah did not initially accept their call. After the capitalist system was implemented in the Muslims countries and they were ruled by the disbelieving colonialists and then by their agents who followed their direction blindly, the minority was able to influence and bring most people in the cities, and some of the inhabitants of the villages, to proceed along the path they had taken. So they started to transfer from and imitate western culture until the Islamic character was erased from many quarters of Muslims cities. There was no difference between Istanbul and Cairo or between Tunis and Damascus. Nor was there a difference between Karachi and Baghdad or Al- Quds and Beirut. All of them proceeded on the path of transferring and imitating western culture.
It was natural for a group from amongst the Muslims to rise up and struggle against these thoughts. It was inevitable that a great number of people from the Muslims countries would set about to fight these ideas. So a group or rather groups were formed which called for the obligation of protecting Muslim women and safeguarding the virtues in society. However, they did this without understanding the systems of Islam nor were the Shari'ah rules clear to them. They accepted interest (Maslaha), as perceived by the mind, as a basis for study and as a criterion for judging ideas and matters. They also called for the preservation of customs and traditions. They called people to hold on to morals, without comprehending that the basis is the Islamic 'Aqeedah and that the criterion is the Shari'ah rules. Blind fanaticism concerning the Hijab of women reached the point where they advocated restrictions over women, not giving them permission to leave their house, or to undertake the fulfilment of their needs, or pursue matters themselves. Late jurists (Fuqaha) ascribed five (types) of 'Awrah to women: 'Awrah in prayer, 'Awrah when in the presence of male Mahrams, 'Awrah when in the presence of foreign (non Mahram) men, 'Awrah when amongst other Muslim women and 'Awrah amongst non-muslim women. According to this they called for the total segregation (Hijab) of women preventing them from seeing or being seen by anyone. They called for barring the woman from pursuing life's activities. So they maintained that she should be banned from practising her right to vote by excluding her from holding an opinion about politics, ruling, economics or society. So they stood between her and life until they thought that some verses had come to address men to the exclusion of women. They gave the Hadith of the Prophet (pbuh) about his (pbuh) shaking the hands of woman in the Bay’a, his Ahadith about the 'Awrah of women and his (pbuh) societal transactions (Mu’amalat) with women, interpretations that agreed with what they intended for women and not what was required by the Hukm Shar'i.
Thus, all of this served to distance people away from the Shari'ah rules and obscure the aspect of social system in the minds of the Muslims. Consequently, their views were not able to stand in the face of attacking thoughts, or impede the overwhelming flow of western ideas, or have even the slightest effect in elevating the aspects of the social system amongst the Muslims. This happened inspite of the existence of scholars in the Ummah, who are of the foremost Mujtahidin and scholars of mazahib in terms of their knowledge and erudition, and in spite of the existence of an intellectual and legislative wealth at the disposal of Muslims which is unparalleled compared to any other wealth of any other nation. This occurred inspite of the abundance of books and valuable works in the possession of Muslims in their public and private libraries. All of this had no effect in holding back those bent on transferring and imitating from their error, or in convincing the narrow minded, of the Islamic opinion which had been derived correctly by a mujtahid, as long as it disagreed with what they wanted women to do. This is because such people on both sides, amongst the imitators, the narrow minded, the scholars and the educated were far from being described as thinkers. They did not understand the reality, or they didn't understand the Hukm of Allah (swt). They did not study the Shari'ah rules intellectually by accurately applying them to the reality so as to be in full agreement with it. Due to this, the society in Muslims countries continued to oscillate between two notions: imitation (Taqleed) and rigid narrow mindedness (Jumud). The social aspect continued in a confused state until the Muslim woman became bewildered. She stood between on one side women who were anxious and confused, taking from western society without understanding it and without being aware of its reality, or knowing the contradiction that existed between it and the Islamic culture; and narrow minded women who did not benefit themselves, nor did their presence benefit the Muslims on the other side. All of this was due to a failure in studying Islam intellectually and not understanding the Islamic social system.
Therefore, we must study the Islamic social system comprehensively. We must study it deeply until it is realised that the problem is the meeting between the man and the woman and the relationship that results from their meeting and that which branches out from this relationship. And that what is required is the treatment of this meeting and the resultant relationship and that which branches out from it. It should be understood that this solution is not dictated by the mind but by the Shar’a. As for the mind, its role is to understand the solution, that the solution is for Muslim men and women who live a specific lifestyle which is the lifestyle which Allah (swt) has obliged them to live. They are most definitely obliged to restrict their living solely to this lifestyle as Allah (swt) has commanded in the Qur'an and Sunnah irrespective of whether it contradicts with the West or disagrees with the customs and traditions of their own fathers and forefathers.