Refutation of the Capitalist Western Thought by Hizb Ut Tahrir

In the Western perception, the word creed (French: credo) is associated with a number of negative concepts. For the Westerner, creed is synonymous with religious beliefs that emerge from a metaphysical source, which compels man to believe in things without evidence. To the Westerner, creed also implies an acceptance of the mind of the supernatural reality, that is above or beyond the natural world, without evidence or reasoning.

Faith is defined by Jacqueline Russ in her Dictionary of Philosophy (French: Dictionnaire de philosophie) “...from the moral perspective, it is the rational but unprovable belief related to the existence of God, immortality of souls and freedom... from the religious perspective, it is the spiritual orientation towards revelation and dogmatic reality (unproven with no consideration to tolerate other views).” Thus, we must evaluate the corruption of the Western intellectual view about the concept of creed and its essence, before clarifying the corruption of Western creed itself.

In its reality, creed grants human beings decisive affirmation over the issues that form fundamental thoughts. This affirmation may or may not be connected to religion i.e. the belief in the Creator and the Day of Resurrection. Communists believe, i.e. affirm decisively, in the absence of God and the materialistic nature of the universe. Muslims believe, i.e. affirm decisively, in the existence of God and the nature of creation having a Creator. So, decisive affirmation is the basis for consideration of creed. This is irrespective of the nature of the affirmation itself, as to whether it is religious or areligious. The decisiveness can only be with evidence by the one who affirms it. Accordingly, the creed is the decisive affirmation of the evidence, regardless of the nature of the evidence relied on by the one who affirms it.

Herein rises an issue related to evidence as the West restricts the indication of evidence to science alone. Dominique Morin says in his book Dieu Existe-t-il? (God Exists), “If the matter is related to the existence of God, Christian philosophers and theologians have agreed that the word evidence, which is definitely in our world connected to the accuracy of science, is inappropriate. Thus, many, like Thomas Aquinas, prefer to speak of the ways to reach God.” The former Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger noted in his book, Introduction to Christianity (German: Einfuhrung in das Christentum), “Has not Christian consciousness acquiesced to a great extent—without being aware of it—in the attitude that faith in God is something subjective.” The restriction of evidence to that of scientific empiricism is wrong. In fact, evidence means that which guides to what is needed or the arrival at the comprehension of issues. Evidence is the affirmed methodology for the validity of one of the statements or one of the hypotheses. Evidence is the necessary knowledge to know another knowledge. This is the meaning of evidence amongst all peoples. There is no difference in defining the evidence between the sayings of the Muslims and the Westerner. In his book Kitab Al- Kulliyat (cjLK1I); the Muslim Aalim, Abul Baqaa' Al-Kafaw said: idence (JaUI) is that which guides to what is needed. What is intended and meant by it is the evidencing ... what is intended and meant by its indication is that which is evidenced. The smoke is termed as the evidence of the fire. Thus the term evidence i.e. evidence is called upon everything known by what the evidence indicates, whether it is tangible or Shariah matters, whether it is definite or indefinite...” The Westerner, the Dutchman, H. Willemsen, said in his Dictionary of Philosophy (Danish: Woordenboek Filosofie), “Evidence of any statement is the method that affirms its validity...” The Westerner, the French women, Jacqueline Russ in her Dictionary of Philosophy (French: Dictionnaire De Philosophic) said, “The evidence...is the process by which the validity of hypothesis is established.” Thus evidence is something by which it is possible to establish something else. This is the evidence in terms of its reality amongst all human beings. As for the condition of being scientific or rational or logical or intuitive or emotional or other than that, it is the subject of its characteristics and constitution, not the subject of its essence. In other words, that which guides to what is needed, is evidence. The consideration of it arising from science or reason or emotion, within the description of that which guides, never stops it from being an evidence in its essence and reality.

Indeed, with respect to any one or more of its characteristics, the evidence only expresses its constitution and identifies its source of formation. However, it does not prevent it from being an evidence per se. Therefore, whether the philosophers, theologians or Western thinkers name the evidence as method, denotation, indicator or sign, does not change the reality and essence of evidence. It is also regardless of whether the theologians consider conscience, pragmatists consider benefits, moralists consider the moral attribute or rationalists consider rationalism as the basis of belief and creed. All of them believe in evidence essentially, although they differ over the type of evidence and its nature.

If this is comprehended, the error at the level of study and inquiry in the West for the creed can be seen. The study must not be devoted to the nature of affirmation of evidence or other than evidence. This is because the reality of creed amongst humankind is that it can only be affirmed by evidence. The research must therefore be devoted to the validity of the evidence upon which the creed depends. Does it have to be scientific, rationalistic, logical or rational something else, considering that decisive affirmation amongst the whole of humankind can only come from the evidence? Is it appropriate to consider that all evidences achieve the decisive affirmation or not? This is at the level of study.

Science is not suitable as evidence for creed because science is limited to issues that are tangible and sensed for research and experimentation. However, the existence of God is not tangible, though sensed, whilst the existence of paradise, hellfire and angels is not sensed and so they cannot be subjected to experimentation. Hence the error of the Western view of the creed, in terms of concept, stipulation and condition, becomes apparent. As for what is suitable as evidence for the decisive affirmation of anything, i.e. as evidence for creed, it is the intellect or the rational method. As we have clarified above, it is the only method that is suitable as a basis of thinking for humans, upon which the judgments are built and the comprehensive view of the existence of man and his purpose in life are established. Accordingly, our view towards the Western creed, in terms of establishing its invalidity and corruption is based on the intellect. It is based on the rational method to judge upon things and issues. The distortion of the Western creed is rationally established indicated by a number of aspects, which are:

1- The Western creed is in fact a result of the societal, political and historical circumstances of the West uniquely. It has emerged as a compromise solution for the conflict between the Church, on the one hand, and the thinkers and rulers, on the other. It did not result from a thinking nor was it built upon reason and intellect. It is the creed of popular consensus to act upon this creed and it is not the creed of reason, i.e. its people did not establish its evidence rationally for its validity. An example of this is in France. LaTcite was submitted for majority vote in the House of Representatives (Chambre des deputes). In 3/7/1905 LaTcite received 341 votes for and 233 votes against. Then it was submitted to the Upper Legislative House on 6/12/1905 and the result was 181 votes for and 102 votes against. Thus, LaTcite became law binding upon the people, regardless of its validity or invalidity from the intellectual perspective. So, secularism does not have an intellectual justification for it. Instead, all of its justifications are historical alone, as an expression of the experience of people. The corruption of these justifications are not hidden to any sane person. If someone were to say, ‘The West suffered from the religion, and it was declined by it. When the West separated religion from life, the West was revived.’ However, he can be rebutted by saying, ‘Muslims were revived and elevated with the religion. When they became weak in understanding their religion, when it was removed from their life, they declined.’ Therefore, the historical judgments expressing the experience of people is not suitable as a rational evidence to establish the validity of the creed. There must be intellectual justifications and rational evidence, and secularism lacks these.

2- Since secularism emerged as a compromise solution to the conflict between Church on one side, with thinkers and rulers on the other, it represented a compromise solution, whereby both parties conceded part of their demands. In this context, we are in need of study into the reality of this creed in terms of origin. Such a study would clarify the contradictory logic of modern Western thought for us. We ask the following questions: Over what matters did the clergy concede? Did the clergy concede a part of a religious demand or a clerical demand?

If it is said that the clergy conceded part of a religious demand, this affirms that religion has, in fact, a relation to life. So in the case of the religious demand it is not appropriate to separate religion from life. This would show the error of Western creed in insisting on the separation of religion. However, if it is said that the clergy conceded part of its own clerical demands, not religious demands, this would mean that the religion has, in fact, no relation to life. This would also invalidate the agreement that took place between the clergymen and thinkers, stipulating the separation of religion from life. That is because it would be the agreement upon a non-existent dispute, as there would be no relation of religion to life in this case, to compel the condition of separation.

Here, one might say: ‘Religion means the clergy according to the Western perspective, as there existed a connection between the Church and religion. Accordingly, the West does not differentiate between both.’ However, the rebuttal would be: ‘this would invalidate the nature of secularism being a universal creed, appropriate for all of humankind. This is because it is based on the Western experience of religion and so it is not suitable to generalize upon the whole of humanity.’ This is from one aspect. From another aspect, the compromise solution is a compromising conciliation that cannot be used to discriminate between opinions and thoughts. Compromise is deployed for conciliation amongst peoples with conflicting interests. However,

judgment upon a thought reveals its characteristic as either being invalid and wrong, or correct and valid. A sound mind does not accept combining truth and falsehood, light and darkness, in a compromising conciliation.

Accordingly, secularism is in fact a compromise solution amongst two conflicting groups. One group is of those who reject religion, giving themselves the authority to compromise rationalist opinion. The other group is of those who adhere to religion, giving themselves the authority to concede religious opinion. This affirms that secularism emerged as a result of compromising conciliation between men, as a compromise resolution between two conflicting parties. Such a resolution or reconciliation did not occur between the actual rationalist thought and religion in themselves. This indicates that the conflict between religion and rationalist thought continues to exist until this day. This also indicates that Western thought did not provide a rational solution to the root of the problem. This can be observed in debates about religion and its relation to politics until this day within the Western society.

It may be said here: ‘The West has ended the dispute by not examining it and made the subject of the problem the interests of individuals instead.’ The rebuttal to this is: ‘The issue of the existence of the Creator, the Lord and a religion that organizes the affairs of man is an issue of humanity in general and not an individualistic issue. It is related to man in his capacity as a human and not in his capacity as being an individual. The evidence for the issue being an issue of humanity is that it concerns the humans as a whole. It is this that is given importance by humankind, since ancient times until the present day. Thus religion is not an individualistic issue. However, it is the West that wants to make it an individualistic issue, even though it is an issue for all of humanity.

Moreover, it is the West that makes religion a matter for individual concern alone, fleeing away from the problem. Thus the West is incapable of solving the problem radically, either by acknowledging religion and its role in life and society, or by advocating the elimination of religion completely, by denying it. Instead of that, the West chose the conciliatory compromise of separating religion from life, leaving it as an issue of belief and atheism for individuals. This reveals that the West did not actually solve the problem, fleeing away from the problem instead. Fleeing away from solving the problem means the problem still persists and continues to exist. This is what prompted the famous sociologist, Peter L. Berger, who was one of the most vocal advocates of secularism in the 1960s, to express in his book, The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, “Although the term “secularization theory” refers to works from the 1950s and 1960s, the key idea of the theory can indeed be traced to the Enlightenment. That idea is simple: Modernization necessarily leads to a decline of religion, both in society and in the minds of individuals. And it is precisely this key idea that has turned out to be wrong. To be sure, modernization has had some secularizing effects, more in some places than in others. But it has also provoked powerful movements of counter-secularization.” Accordingly, the question about the relation of religion to life still continues to exist, which the Western thinking has yet to study and provide an answer for.

3- The creed of separating religion from life contradicts itself. This is because it both affirms and negates religion at the same time. By advocating the separation of religion from life, it affirms religion, since separation between two matters acknowledges and affirms the existence of both of them. Separation occurs between two existing things. Separation neither occurs between two non-existent things nor between an existing thing and a non-existent thing. As for the negation of religion after its affirmation, it is understood from the reality of religion itself. Religion is a belief in the Creator and in the Day of Resurrection and Judgment. Belief in the Creator mandates acknowledging of the attributes of perfection for the Creator such as ability, governance, managing all the affairs and complete knowledge of everything. However, the separation of religion from life negates this belief. It negates the attributes of the Creator and negates his ability of governance and managing all the affairs. Since religion mandates the belief in the Day of Judgment, the separation negates it, just as it negates the deeds for (the day of) judgment. Should the Creator account upon what He commands and prohibits or is he to account upon what is commanded and prohibited, by the reasoning of Western man?

Furthermore, the affirmation of the Creator mandates a view about his relationship with the created. The relation of the Creator with the creation is to be either defined by the Creator, or by the creation. As for the creation, it is not suitable to define its relationship with the Creator due to its inability, deficiency and limitation. This is in addition to its lack of knowledge about the Will of the Creator (Iradathul Khaliq) pertaining to creation, unless the Creator Himself informs the creation. Accordingly, defining the relationship of the Creator with the creation is exclusive to the Creator Himself alone. Here the question arises: who else is to define the relationship of the Creator with creation, if, according to the Western conception, there is to be a separation of religion, or the system of the Creator? If it is said that the relationship is defined by the created, then it is invalid, as we have clarified above. If it is said that such a relationship of separation is defined by the Creator himself, then where is the evidence for it? If there is any evidence of the Western conception, then it is the expression of the Bible, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God’s (Greek: AttoSote ouv tci Kaioapog Kafoapi koi to toO OeoO to) 0£(jj).” However, this evidence is invalid because it is not rational evidence for all of humanity, universally. This is because the evidence may give legitimacy to separating the religion from the life for Christians at best, according to their distorted understanding of Christianity. However, this does not justify the separation of religion for others like Muslims, as Islam renders Caesar (the ruler) and all his possessions to Allah (swt). Thus, it is invalid for secularism to be the creed of humanity as a whole.

4- The creed of secularism is a creed that also contradicts the instinctual nature of humans. By implicitly acknowledging religion, it acknowledges the instinct of religious sanctification, which is natural and instinctive in humans. By acknowledging religion, secularism acknowledges the necessity of satiating the instinct of sanctification. Despite that, secularism then restricts that satiation to individual sanctification and worship alone. However, the instinct of sanctification does not appear in individual worship alone. It will also appear and be apparent in all other matters in which one is incapable and needy. Since secularism separates religion and life, it negates the reality of human incapability and need, i.e. it rejects and denies a part of the human instinctive constitution.

Secularism reduced religion to a personal, individualistic relationship between the Creator and the created. Secularism recognizes on the one hand that religion is for individual sanctification and worship, but on the other hand, it ignores the human feelings of inability and shortcomings in managing the collective affairs of humans and governance. Man in managing his own affairs of life, i.e. in organizing his behavior related to satiating his instincts and organic needs, shows differences, disparity and contradiction. This indicates that man is incapable and is in need of the Creator, the One who manages all the affairs. Accordingly, the religion or the system commanded by the Creator, the one who manages all the affairs, is amongst the human instincts. The Creator alone is the One who knows the secrets of man, which is the basis of managing the affairs of man.

In conclusion, the creed of secularism is an invalid creed because of its contradiction to reason and instinct. We are not wrong to say that the creed of secularism, known by man, is a false creed whose foundation is fragile, whose justifications are superficial and whose intellectual edifice is fragile.