Refutation of the Capitalist Western Thought by Hizb Ut Tahrir

The word individualism is derived from the word individual. Its origin is the Latin word individuum, which means an indivisible entity. In the West, this meaning in the philosophical sense, as the concept of individualism is applied on an entity that is indivisible, the human being, in the human's distinguished characteristics as one who enjoys independence to think, choose and act. It is the theory that asserts that an individual is superior to all forms of reality, with the greatest intrinsic worth. The term individualism is also used in contrast to totalitarianism and collectivism. It provides the political vision that lends preeminence to the individual and individual initiative, reducing, or even denying, the role of the state. It also provides the societal vision that focuses on the rights of the individual, as opposed to the community, whilst making the role of the state and societal institutions subservient to the individual and ensuring his interests. The concept of individualism encapsulates the reality of the struggle of the Western man against totalitarian and despotic regimes, before Enlightenment and modernity. It symbolizes the new Western universal view, with political, economic and social dimensions, in which individuals become both masters and the center of the universe, controlling the existence of the universe. Every individual has the freedom to choose his way of life and behavior, as he is the entity that precedes the entities of the state, community and society. The individual is born with natural rights which he must enjoy. Accordingly, individuals are the objective of the state, which preserves their rights and protects their freedom (liberty). Individualism is also the objective of society, where it is a society where the community serves the individual, and not where the individual serves the community.

The reality of the concept of individualism is that it emanates from secularism. The concept arose when the Western man rid himself of the authority of the Church and kings, that connected all of his worldly affairs and actions to the Hereafter. Within the system, he felt coerced and oppressed, with his will and rights within life, crushed. In that era, his identity was shaped according to the traditions and beliefs of the society. When he rid himself of this authority, his connection with the Hereafter was severed. He then turned his full attention towards worldly affairs. So he started living in this world and not outside of this world, as they say. Instead, he became master of this world. The centrality and sovereignty of the individual was reinforced by the theory of natural rights. This theory asserts that the individual has his rights derived from his nature, whilst the society does not grant him such rights. These rights are fixed for him. They are universal, fundamental, inalienable and cannot be repealed.

Thus individuals are born with their natural rights i.e. their existence with their rights precedes the existence of the society, its laws, legislations and constraints. Accordingly, freedom is the foundation of human existence. Individuals are equal in these rights. None of them deprives or repeals the rights of others. Since the individual is a non-social entity in terms of origin and nature, he is subjected to quarrel, conflict and chaos in the event of socialization. So there must be an organization in such a situation by making concessions with a community of individuals. This community's objective is to establish the right to freedom and equality for all i.e. the individual concedes his rights to the collective will, embodied by the state through social contract. In this way, through mutual contract, the ruling authority becomes a human institution that derives its legislations from the regulatory agreement between the people. The state then regulates the rights and freedoms, i.e. the state executes upon the basis of human will and not upon the basis of divine will, where the will of individuals is the root and basis of collective will.

According to the Western thinkers, individualism is amongst the defining pillars of the Western civilization. In his book, Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence In the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950, American political scientist Charles Alan Murray states, “Purpose and autonomy are intertwined with the defining cultural characteristic of European civilization, individualism.” Thus capitalism is described as an individualistic ideology. The ideology views that society is a collection of individuals. Capitalism views society only as a secondary consideration, whilst being orientated towards individuals. Accordingly, capitalism is obliged to ensure individual freedoms. Hence, freedom of belief is within what it sanctifies. Freedom of economic ownership is also sacred and must not be restricted, according to its philosophy. The state makes restrictions only to ensure freedoms. The state executes these restrictions with the power of the army and strict laws. Nevertheless, the state is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. Sovereignty ultimately belongs to individuals and not to the state.

Capitalism is an invalid philosophy in its perception about man, society and the concept of rights. The evidence for its invalidity are many, including:

Firstly: In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes defined the natural rights upon which the philosophy of individualism is built, by saying, “The right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.” In the book, Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant spoke of the preeminence of the individual as a person, by saying, “Only by what one does heedless of enjoyment, in complete freedom and independently of what nature could passively procure for him, does he give to his life, as the existence of a person, an absolute worth.”.

What they intended by this is that man is born with a specific nature. It is this nature, upon which he is born or he is found, that is his law of conduct and behavior. This means that this nature is by itself of fixed principles i.e. rights. The theory is that the individual possesses natural rights. These natural rights are pre-political rights or pre- contractual rights, as they say. This nature is supposed to constitute rights that precede the society with its systems, laws and legislations, based on the idea of state of nature. State of nature is the virtual and imaginary state in the minds of some philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and others. It has no reality as it is based on speculations, assumptions and perceptions. The focus of study is not related to the first human being, whose reality is imagined in their minds. It is not related to prehistoric or pre-civilized humans either. Instead it is related to human beings in terms of being tangible and sensed, both as individuals or as a collective community.

So we do not need to assume the reality of a human in order to study him and then to make a judgment upon him. Instead, we must proceed from the existing reality to make analogy upon the absent, with what is witnessed. Not the other way around. The nature of humans which they discuss is what is created or found within humans. The essence of a man can be studied by looking at his actions and behaviors. When looking at the actions of a man, one can observe within him vital energy. This life energy has natural sensations that motivate man to satiate them. This motivation creates feelings and sensations that require to satiation. Amongst those feelings and sensations are those that mandate satiation. If they are not satiated, man will die because they are related to the existence of vital energy, in terms of the existence of humans. Then there are feelings and sensations that require satiation, but they do not mandate sensation. If a man does not satiate these, he will be agitated but he will remain alive. This is because they are related to the needs of the vital energy, but not the existence of the energy. Accordingly, life energy is of two kinds: one kind requires mandatory satiation and are called organic needs such as hunger, thirst and relieving the call of nature. The other kind requires satiation but not mandatorily and are called instincts. There are three instincts: 1) Survival instinct whose manifestations are fear, love to own, love to dominate and others that serve for the survival of humans. 2) Procreation instinct, whose manifestations are sexual inclinations, motherhood, fatherhood and others that serve for the existence of human species. 3) Sanctification instinct, whose manifestations are the feelings of deficiency, incapability, need and reverence. It is the ultimate respect in the heart for something amongst others that motivate man to search for his essence, existence and his greatest problem represented by the crucial questions, where are we from? Where shall we go? Why is it so?

This is the nature of humans. It is to be noted that when a man rushes to satiate his needs or instincts, he only does that based on the rational comprehension, distinguished from animals in that it is not a merely an instinctive reaction. Thus a man needs two concepts for the behavior: The concept about a thing in terms whether it satiates or does not satiate, and the concept about life in terms of whether the thing is permissible to satiate with or not. Concepts about life are not derived from the essence of things and not from the essence of humans. Instead they are external matters connected to the viewpoint and criterion of adopted actions. In other words, they are connected to the system emerging from the creed that defines rights and obligations for a man as an individual or community.

There are no such thing as natural rights that exist within a person from birth. This is because rights are determined by the civilizational and cultural concepts, adopted by the individuals. Civilizations are distinct with regards to all that they adopt in terms of concepts and systems, whose validity is measured according to the extent of their agreement with the human nature (fitra). For example, Medieval European civilization contradicts human nature by adopting the idea of monasticism and repression. Likewise, Modern European Civilization contradicts human nature by its adoption of the idea of pornography and approving homosexuality. As for the Islamic civilization, it agrees with human nature by adopting the concept of organization and satiation, without repressing it or unleashing it to excess. Islam acknowledges the instinct and its satiation, whilst also organizing the manifestation of the instinct without unleashing it.

Secondly: Since when man is known to live in a society, living in a civil state, as they say, he is not in a natural state. The reality is that he is a social being subjected to a system within the society and state that defines his rights and obligations. As for the claim that man turns from the state of nature into a civil state, civilized in a civil society, through a social contract that guarantees individualized natural rights, it is invalid both theoretically and practically. As for the claim that the individual’s will is the basis and precursor of community and so individuality must be preserved by looking at society as a collection of individuals, in which the system establishes the values of individuals and not the community, this is also invalid both theoretically and practically. The reality of society is that it is a collection of people with permanent relationships. Thus, individuals can come together even in millions to form a group. It is the collection of individuals that forms into a group. If there exist permanent relationships between them, then they become society. If there are no permanent relationships, between them, then they remain a group alone. They can form a society only when there are permanent relationships between them.

What makes a group of people form a society is the existence of permanent relationships ('alaaqaat) between them. These relationships emerge as a consequence of their interests (maSaalaH) because people need one another to fulfill their many, varied interests. Thus, interests are the motive for establishing relationships and if there are no interests, there will be no relationships. However, such interests are only real or corrupted, in terms of their nature as being interests, by the concept of man about the interests. Since concepts are the meanings of thoughts, thoughts determine the interests. Thus the existence of thoughts and their unification amongst a people, generates their relationships.

Since there must be emotions (mashaa'ir) in addition to thoughts, such as joy, pleasure, anger and others, such emotions must also be unified in harmony with the interest. Yet, even both thoughts and emotions are not sufficient to generate the relationship permanently. There must be a system to treat this interest, so that this relationship exists on a permanent basis. Accordingly, unification (waHdah) of thoughts, emotions and systems must be achieved amongst a people, in order to establish relationships between them. If there is no unification of these three matters amongst them, then there will be no relationships. Thus society is a people and the unification of thoughts, emotions and systems amongst them. Society is not as the capitalists claim. It is not merely a group of individuals in which each individual works to achieve his personal interest. According to them, society is a byproduct of the aggregate of the wills of individuals.

Western views about society did not in fact change the definition of society as an evident, existing reality. Instead, it is only the function of society that has changed amongst them, as the concept of relationships was painted with a particular hue. Individualism constitutes preeminence of the individual, with a focus on the rights and freedoms of the individuals. This is upon the characterization of individuals being independent beings, separated from the community. In the Western view, societal life is nothing but an issue of individual decisions and utilitarian choices, in which connections and relations are conditioned to please the interests of individuals. Thus capitalist society is a society formed with relationships based on the interest, governed by utility (benefit), thereby resulting in isolation, introversion, selfishness, indifference, lack of cooperation and dysfunctional family relationships and the loss of family values within the society at large.

This in turn led to growing criticism of individualism even in the West and the emergence of calls to revive collectivism and solidarity, as values for individuals.

Moreover, the Western states themselves have actually begun to interfere in many of the economic, political and social matters, restricting individualism on the pretext of creating a balance in the society. It is a recognition of the existence of public interests, preferred over the private, individualistic interests, until the regimes began to resemble totalitarian regimes.

Thirdly: The philosophy of individualism perceives that an individual is in a persistent and continuous effort to preserve himself, his independence and rights to own and decide by himself, with a fear of dissolving into a collective identity imposed on him by coercion. Thus individuals in capitalist society are separated entities or individual beings, who compete with one another. So each separated individual is an enemy to another by force or action, which means individualism supposes the existence of conflict between the individual and the community. In the Western view man has to choose one of the two options. The first option is individualism in which he is of supreme value, allowing him to formulate his present and future, according to his desire and will. The second option is collectivism in which a group is of supreme value, instead of individuals, which would inevitably and automatically shape, based on the criterion, the desire and will of the community, as claimed by some ideological doctrines, such as socialism.

However, since an individual takes precedence over a community, according to the philosophy of Individualism, one is more deserving to prevail, be first in preference and be of supreme value, this only maintains the state of conflict in a society, which continues to exist between the individuals and the wider community.

Individualism does neither the affairs, nor are they organized to ensure happiness and contentment for a man, by being an individual as part of a community. Instead, it pits one party over another and keeps the society burning in the fires of conflict. The fact is that the relationships of an individual with the community of a society i.e. people, with the characterization of being individuals, whilst being part of a community, must be organized to ensure harmony, coherence, non-conflict and non-contradiction between desires and wills, which will lead to conflict, rupture and disintegration. So the community must be viewed as a whole having parts, whilst the individual must be viewed as a part of this community, inseparable from the community at large. However, the nature of an individual being a part of a community does not mean that it is a part is like a mere spoke in a wheel. Instead it means a significant part of the whole, like a hand being a part of the body. Such is the Islamic view about the society, including the relation of individuals with the community. Accordingly, Islam takes care of this individual as a part of a community and not as an individual separate from the community, which leads to the preservation of community. At the same time, Islam takes care of the community, not as a whole without having parts, but as a whole composed of parts who are individuals, which in turn leads to the preservation of those individuals as parts. This Islamic view is the only view that ensures the establishment of peace, tranquility, affection and compassion in society. Nu’man bin Bashir reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said.

Muslims are like one body of a person; if the eye is sore, the whole body aches, and if the head aches, the whole body aches.” [Narrated by Muslim in his Sahih],