Refutation of the Capitalist Western Thought by Hizb Ut Tahrir

And it is also said: “There is no such thing as absolute truth and absolute falsehood” (Henry Augustus Rowland), whilst it is now common place to say, “truth is relative, varying from one individual to another, from one group to another, from one time to another, having no objective standards.” So how can it then be said that the rational method provides the human being decisive absolute truths, which science is not able to provide? Is it not Dogmatism that establishes Determinism and Absolutism in judging opinions, thoughts and convictions? In addition, some of the judgments of the rational method itself are indecisive and so is it not similar to the scientific method? So how can the rational method be a basis of thinking, upon the argument that it is decisive?

The answer to these questions is related to clarifying the reality of truth, as well as the reality of decisiveness and indecisiveness of the judgment arrived at by the mind.

The concept of truth is straightforward for any person, unlike the convolutions manufactured by the modern Western theories, such as utilitarianism, correlationism, dualism and relativism, whether cognitive, cultural or moral, as well as others that have nothing to do with reality. These theories are just philosophies and fanciful constructs falsified by reason and sense. Thus truth is not a term to be defined by any people arbitrarily. Truth is not a mere thought comprehended by the philosophers arbitrarily, nor is it a civilizational concept chosen by some nations amongst nations. Instead, truth is a specific reality for all human beings, regardless of their differences in expressing the truth. This reality is the nature of truth amongst all humans, whether they comprehend it or not. It is in truth that the judgment or thought agrees with the reality that it denotes.

For instance, if we were to draw a geometric figure with four equal and parallel lines with four right angles and show it to Zaid and Thomas to make a judgment regarding it. Affirming the truth of their judgments will be according to a single method for all humans. The method is the agreement of their judgments with the reality of the shape drawn. If one or both of them says that the shape is a square, we will say that it is true. If any one of them says it is a triangle, we will say that it is not true. This is because the geometrical shape drawn is not an area defined by three lines.

Similarly, if Ali says such a person is at home and Jimmy says: such a person is not at home, then the truth is the agreement of their judgments with the reality. If such a person is at home, then the statement of Ali is true. If he is not at home, then the statement of Jimmy is true. This is the concept of truth. Truth is the agreement of the thought to the reality denoted by the thought. This is regardless of the thinking itself, whether the thinking is rational or scientific or logical or any other.

As for the issue of a criteria to determine the decisiveness and certainty of truths, arriving at them, thinking about them and distinguishing them from indecisiveness, all of this is governed by looking at the same fields of rational study. Accordingly, rational thinking is the transference of reality to the brain through sensations, linked with previous information, by which the reality is interpreted. The judgments upon things and matters are in terms of their existence, essence and characteristics.

If rational judgment is related to the existence of an object, then there is no doubt that it is definite and certain. This is because the judgment about the existence comes through sensation of a reality. The senses are not mistaken regarding the existence of a reality. So,

judgment issued by the rational method of thinking about the existence of a reality is decisive.

As for the judgment related to the essence (composition) or characterization (properties and qualities) of an object, the judgment is indecisive, that is, susceptible to error. This is because the judgment upon the essence or characterization comes through information about the object or through the analysis of the perceived reality, according to previous information. Error can seep into this. Therefore, this judgment is liable to disparity and differences because of disparity in human abilities in terms of analysis, in the amount of information about the thing and in how the information is analyzed. For instance, if we hear the sound of a movement, we can decisively judge the existence of the movement. However, we cannot be certain about its essence or characterization. The movement could be from a man or from an object. So, our judgment here falls within indecisiveness. Nevertheless, acknowledging the occurrence of indecisiveness in some judgments does not mean that there is no, decisive absolute truth. This is because when our judgment agrees with its reality, we perceive its truth. Moreover, if we judged upon the moving object, as in the aforementioned example, that it is a man or an animal from its sensed movement, and our judgment agreed with the sensed reality, then we would have perceived the truth. Therefore, the existence of the possibility of indecisiveness, in some judgments and thoughts, does not negate the existence of decisive truth, which the mind is compelled to submit to.

As for the Westerners who claim that truth is relative and thus there is no absolute truth, as well as the ones who claim that truth is dual by nature, as there is trivial truth and great truth, like the physicist Niels Bohr who said, “There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true,” these claims are false, without any doubt. Truth is related to existence. It is not possible for the human to sense everything there is. This is in addition to the possibility of the intangible and relativeness. However, if a man sees something, he cannot concurrently propose the probability of not seeing that thing, as he either saw the thing or did not. It is not possible for a sane person to say, “I have seen something and it is trivial truth, whilst the great truth is ‘I have seen it and also I did not see it’ or ‘it exists and does not exist’ or ‘its existence is relative to the probability of its non­ existence’.” This is nonsense that does not come from sane minds.

Moreover, the concept of truth that is prevalent amongst the Western society and the Westerners from the aspect of practical reality, is based neither on academics nor philosophy. Instead, it is a pragmatic concept or the so-called practical philosophy or instrumentalism. Pragmatism defines truth as that which is beneficial and useful or as the immediate benefit of a thought. Similar to what Bertrand Russell states in A History of Western Philosophy, William James in Pragmatism states, “true beliefs work beneficially.” Those who hold this view, mostly Westerners, do not concern themselves with the research of the basis of thought and its essence. They only see the practical consequences of the thought, which led them to relativism, considering the truth of a thought, through the extent of its influence on life and its benefit.

This is wrong in many respects, including: firstly, utilitarianism is associated with people, whims and personal tendencies. If truth were what benefits, then lying would have been a truth, as it benefits in some situations and some people. It is not permissible for a sane person to say that, although this matter is noticeable in the behavior of Westerners. Secondly, the quest of humankind for the concept of truth since ancient times is the quest for a criterion to resolve the conflicts and solve various problems. Since benefit is varied and differing amongst humans, it is not fit to be a criterion and principle that is referred to in the resolution of conflicts. This is simply because it does not resolve the conflict. Instead, it only maintains the conflict by accepting two truths. So the conflict becomes transformed from the conflict between truth and falsehood into a conflict between truth and truth. Thirdly, making utility (benefit) as the essence of truth leads to contradiction. The example is monotheism and trinity. Regarding Allah (swt), as being either one or three, if a person adopts monotheism for the sake of benefit, whilst the other takes trinity for his benefit, it would be said that both monotheism and trinity are true. This would lead to asserting that a matter and its opposite are the same. However, that is not possible in a single matter. Fourthly, the single truth arising from the concept of utilitarian truth is the lack of truth in the society, state and life, through the dominance of utilitarianism within them. This is what is observed in the Western life at the level of behavior and values.

In fact, the absence of differentiation between the rulings issued by mind i.e. between existence, essence and characterization, is what created confusion amongst this group of Western thinkers. The confusion was to the extent that some of them despaired of even the possibility of the existence of truth. So they resorted to the imaginary interpretations of the truth. If this differentiation became clear to them, then the scope of indecisiveness will naturally be clear to them. So it could then be said that relativism lies within the judgment upon the essence and characterization, because both are predisposed to error.

The predisposition to error in the judgment naturally does not imply its truthfulness. It means the judgment has a predisposition to error, in order to differentiate between it and certain definitiveness. Accordingly, the judgment upon the essence and description is considered a correct thought, until a mistake is found. Only then is it judged to be wrong. How wonderful is the Islamic thinking that decreed centuries ago that in the subject of Aqeedah is the subject of truth and falsehood, with no lapse, and there is only one correct judgement. As for the subject of Fiqh (jurisprudence) related to the Shariah rulings, there is the correct and the wrong. Its principle is,

^ij JaIsj Iki diijj “my opinion is correct with the possibility of error, whilst your opinion is wrong with the possibility of correctness.” This is because the Aqeedah, at its core, is the judgment upon existence, which is decisive, whilst the Shariah rulings are judgment upon the essence and characterization, with most of them being indecisive.