The Capitalism
Introduction
The objective of this article is to illustrate the intellectual foundation of Capitalism, from which emanate other thoughts that define to its adherents their point of view towards life and shape their outlook and behavior. This research is not intended to discuss the Capitalist economic system or any other system that emanates from this foundation.
The need for this study is extremely vital because of the extensive propaganda for this ideology, especially after the collapse of Communism. The propaganda for Capitalism yielded its fruits and exerted its impact all over the world. Concepts such as Democracy, Free Market, Pluralism, and Secularism, became ideals for various people, including the Muslims. Such ideas are being deceptively marketed to the Muslims detached from their creed. As a result, the Muslims would accept them as universal ideas rather than distinct ideas which emanate from a specific Aqeedah that contradicts the Islamic Aqeedah in its outlook.'
In addition to this phenomenon, the Muslims have been subjected to the application of Capitalism for a considerable period of time. Together with the apparent success of Capitalism in its application in the West - particularly in the spheres of economics and human rights - all these factors have produced new patterns of thought among the Muslims. The roots of this new pattern of thought began to emerge towards the end of the 191h century and the beginning of the 20"' century. Individuals fell under the influence of Muhammad Abdu, Jamaal ud-Deen Afghani, Khayrud-Deep At-Tunisi, and (Sir) Syeed Ahmad Khan, the pioneers of the Modernist movement. Afterwards, such a pattern of thinking began to concentrate and firmly root itself among the Muslim masses. Nowadays, the means and styles which are used to present and circulate ideas among the Muslims, such as the various seminars, lectures, and publications, culminate to produce a new thinking style which both the Seculars as well as some among the "Islamists" express.
Such a pattern of thinking varies from one extreme to the other. Some are openly and explicitly calling to disregard Islam and adopt Capitalism in its place. They call for the total separation of Islam from life, reshaping Islam into a personal relationship between the individual and his Creator. Islam for them is not intended to interfere in the affairs of the society to any degree. Others attempt to reconcile between Islam and Capitalism by claiming that Islam focuses on some basic ideas and goals which must be maintained in the society, such as justice, shura, social justice, maintenance of ownership, honor, and the sanctity of human life. To them, the achievement of these objectives is all that matters, regardless of the means adopted. The system or regime can be a monarchy, a presidential system, a republic, or any other shape, as long as it upholds and guarantees these principles.
A third category of Muslims try to patch up both Islam and Capitalism. They adopt from Islam only some rules in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, but beyond this they are ready to take from Capitalism the entire economic structure, which includes the market economy as well as the monetary, banking, and insurance systems. This pattern of thinking is the most dangerous pattern because it allows people to adopt rules from a Kufr system as long as it does not "contradict" Islam.'
These patterns of thinking produced different perceptions or understandings towards Islam. Such understandings are presented in such a way to imply that they are different brands of Islam altogether. These various strains of Islam are further entrenched by designating them with distinct labels such as "Orthodox Islam," "Conservative Islam," "Political Is lam," and "Moderate Islam." This labeling scheme has become widely used not only to demarcate these various brands, but also to discriminate between certain followers associated with such brands. Terms such as Fundamentalist, Moderate, Extremist, and Liberal verses Conservative, became used to describe the people. The basis of such labels was how remote or near the Muslim is from the Western way of life. Thus, the Western way of life became the frame of reference for measuring both Muslims as well as Islam itself.
Therefore, we need to illustrate the basis of Capitalism in order to show that Islam set distinct boundaries which defines the Islamic ideology and distinguishes it from other ideologies, and these boundaries must be acknowledged and preserved. The study in further needed to show that certain ideas which are currently propagated among Muslims are Kufr ideas because they stem from a false doctrine.
Capitalism and Christianity
Capitalism by itself is a deen or a complete way of life that has its own doctrine and system. This doctrine is not Christianity but rather the separation of religion (any religion) from life.' Therefore, one can find Muslim Capitalists who believe in separating Islam from life, in addition to Jewish Capitalists who believe in separating Judaism from life. Also, there are Christian Capitalists who believe in separating Christianity from life, as well as Hindu Capitalists who detach Hinduism from life. The doctrine of Capitalism is Secularism, which can be found among all people, whether they are Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Christian.
Is the struggle Islam vs. Christianity or Islam vs. Capitalism?
Capitalism from its onset emerged from the struggle between the Christian Church as an institution and the intellectuals in Europe. As a result of this struggle, they arrived at the formula of separating religion from
life as a reaction to the Materialists who denied religion altogether. Therefore, we should not mix between Christianity as a creed and Secularism, which separates Christianity from life, as another distinct creed.
While it is true that Capitalism was born in a Christian-dominated environment, and as a result most people who adopt Capitalism now are Christians, still this does not mean that Capitalism and Christianity are the same. This coincidence caused some people to mix between Christianity and Capitalism, and some people began thinking that the struggle is between Islam and Christianity. Much effort is dedicated towards addressing some issues of Christianity as the method of calling people towards Islam, such as the divinity of Jesus, the concept of the Trinity, and the authenticity of the Bible.
In reality, the struggle is between Islam and Capitalism and not between Islam and Christianity. Aside from a few moral principles, Christianity today is not a comprehensive way of life that can challenge Islam on an equal footing. Furthermore, Christianity amounts to nothing more than a historical heritage that has no role in legislative affairs. As a matter of fact, the Church itself became an institution used by Capitalism to serve the Capitalist ideology by offering some services to some individuals in the society.�
Although the true essence of the struggle is between Islam and Capitalism, no effort is currently dedicated to addressing Capitalism and its thoughts. One would rarely hear of a discussion between a Muslim and a Capitalist, although discussions between Muslims and Christians occur on a daily basis. This gave some people a false image that Islam and Christianity have the same platform - both are religions, and since religion must be separated from life, then Islam must also be separated as well. It also gave the false perception of Islam as merely a spiritual relationship between man and the Creator, like Christianity. As a result, when a Muslim addresses a Christian, he will address only the religious aspect without addressing the system of thoughts. Should the Christian become convinced, he would replace his "religion" from Christianity to Islam,
he would switch his place of worship from the Church to another place, but he would maintain the same system of thoughts. A masjid to such an individual would be no more than another type of Church. These individuals did not convert from Christianity to Islam. Rather, they changed from being "Christian Capitalists" to "Muslim Capitalists," if such a term is correct. The reason behind this is that their conversion occurred while maintaining the Capitalist system of thoughts, which by itself allocates a certain niche for religion that the individual can fill by choosing any religion he desires.
The Call to Mold Islam within the Western Mosaic
As a result of thinking that the nature of the struggle is between Islam and other "religions," and thinking that these religions share the same platform, some Muslims began to call to mold Islam within the Western mosaic. American society is often dubbed a "Judeo-Christian" society with a Judeo-Christian melting pot. As a consequence, some Muslims expand this definition of American society to a Judeo-Christian-Muslim society that includes Muslims in the American melting pot. In reality, the society is a Capitalist society and is neither Christian nor Jewish.
Some individuals are trying to make Islam part of the Western mosaic and Western culture, thinking that such efforts are a significant achievement for Islam to be accepted by the mainstream. Adding the crescent to the cross and the star, recognizing the Muslim Eids, Muslim participation in the electoral process, and establishing Muslim clubs within the Democratic or Republican parties, characterize this new mentality among the Muslims. They do not realize that the West in general, and America is particular, are Capitalist societies that would not openly accept any religion until it is reduced enough to fit the niche that Capitalism has designated for religion. Pronouncing America as "Judeo-Christian" implies that Judaism and Christianity have been reduced enough to fit their role in the Capitalist society. The push to include Islam in this mosaic will therefore happen only at the expense of reducing Islam to a spiritual religion that the Capitalist society can accept. Therefore, Muslims must realize that Western societies are Capitalist societies which have no relation to any religion and where the role of religion is strictly an individual affair.
Historical Development of Capitalism The Renaissance and the Reformation
The historical environment in which Capitalism emerged and developed is an environment that shaped or occupies parts of the history of the West. The emergence of Capitalism from this perspective was not a universal phenomenon but the product of the historical development of Western thought. Before Constantine imposed Christianity, the West adopted the ancient Greek thoughts from philosophers such as Plato, Epicures, and Socrates. These philosophers generally used to accept the notion of the existence of the Creator, but they thought that the Creator exists within the universe itself, and that the universe emanated from the Creator but was not created by Him. They believed that this universe, including man, is the material or physical manifestation of the Creator. Consequently, according to them, sanctifying man and his intellect, his body, and his actions, could be viewed as a sanctification of the Creator Himself.
When Christianity came, the West embraced it after mixing it with this Creek philosophy. Ideas such as the Manifestation of God in Christ, Man is the Temple of God, Trinity, and the Holy Secrets, became foundations for the new Christian religion. However, this mixture created more conflict. The Greek thought is established on the notion that the will of the human being is the Will of God. On the other hand, the Church kept insisting that people must submit to its will simply because only the Church's will represents the Will of God. As a result of this internal contradiction, a hidden struggle ensued between the Church and the masses in general and between the Church and the intelligentsia in par ticular. The Church extinguished any attempt that challenged its authority. The Church used the kings and the rulers of Europe who, in turn, were ready to do anything to maintain their seats on the throne. As a result, an "unholy" alliance emerged between the Church and the monarchies. The monarchies would provide the Church with the tools needed to control the masses, such as courts, armies, and police. In turn, the Church would sanctify the ruler, claiming that the ruler is the Shade of God on Earth and rules by divine right.' This situation remained for almost a millenium until the 15th century.
During this period, a series of significant events occurred which shook Europe. Constantinople became under the control of Muslims. Europeans became more exposed to Islam and Muslims during the Crusade Wars and even before through Andalus. In addition, corruption spread throughout the Church, and the Church itself opposed the scientific way of thinking. The Church even wanted to control the fields of medicine and science. Many scientists and intellectuals were suppressed and even executed. As a result of these events, the intelligentsia began calling people to abandon religion and to revolt against the authority of the Pope. In the beginning, the Protestant movement emerged and challenged the authority of the Church by claiming that everyone has the right to understand the Holy Book and that the clergy must be regulated. This movement, known as the Reformation, was led by Martin Luther and Kelvin. In reality, this movement is considered the first nail in the Church's Coffin. Although this movement challenged only the Church, it was followed by other movements which challenged the religion itself.
Atheism and Pragmatism
The intellectuals themselves became divided into two groups as a result of their conflict with the Church. Some intellectuals went as far as abandoning religion totally and started calling for a new ideology based purely on the material approach. These were known as the Materialists or Atheists. This trend remained very weak because the people remained influenced by the Church. However, by the beginning of the 1911 century, this trend materialized, first in the writings of Heigel, who was considered an Idealist, and later on in the works of Carl Marx with his Dialectic approach.' Towards the beginning of the 201 century, Lenin led the Bolshevic Revolution in Russia and attempted to apply the ideas espoused by Marx through the Communist system' However, this experiment failed totally and, before the end of the 20th century, the Soviet Union collapsed.
The second major current, the Pragmatists, were able to compromise between the Materialists and the Church. They recognized the authority of the Church but they restricted this authority to the spiritual and moral aspects. They separated the Church from the State, and the called for two authorities: The spiritual authority, and the temporal authority. The masses in general welcomed this trend because it relieved them from the atrocities and oppression of the Church without any need to deny the religion. Many philosophers called for such a thought, the most renowned being Voltaire, Rosseau, John Locke, and Machiavelli. The struggle itself persisted over a long period of time during which the relationship between the Church and the State fluctuated.
Europe witnessed many revolutions where the kings and monarchs were forced to compromise their authorities, first in Britain, then in America, and later in France. The French Revolution in particular cancelled the monarchy and even oppressed the Church itself. Afterwards, some political developments occurred, such as the unification of Germany by Bismark and the unification of Italy. Within this current of change, Adam Smith emerged calling for Lazze Faire, which means that the economic freedom should be given to the people without any state intervention. The total and official separation occurred in 1776 during the American Revolution, which officially announced the separation of Church and State as part of its constitution.
One can notice that this current of pragmatism that led to the separation of church and state and is now called Capitalism in economy, Democ racy in politics, and Individual liberty in sociology, is in fact a regressive idea. After the West rid itself of the Church's authority, this left a cultural and ideological vacuum which had to be filled. The only existing ideology at the time was the Islamic ideology that was being implemented by the Ottoman Khilafah. Rather than studying the Islamic ideology and culture, many intellectuals instead reverted back to the ancient Greek philosophy in order to revive it and re-address it in a new format under the guise of the scientific method of thinking., For example, the New Classics School of Literature and Thought, headed by Frederick Nietchze, along with the scientific approach, were outcomes of this trend. Translation of Greek literature and thought emerged, particularly Greek tragedies. Therefore, one can say that Capitalism is the modern manifestation of the old Greek philosophy mixed with the scientific approach.
The Greek philosophy by itself cannot create any kind of progress because it was deeply rooted in metaphysics and abstract ideas that have no practical relevance. However, it was this mixing of Greek philosophy with the scientific way of thinking and the Secular thought which ultimately gave birth to a new idea.9 Through the emergence of this new idea, the West was able to progress.
After the middle of the 18" century, Capitalism became firmly entrenched in most of the European nations including the United States. Capitalism became their way of life as well as the source of their culture. Concepts such as separation between church and state, individual freedom, civil liberties, and the nation-state concept, which ultimately gave rise to nationalism, all characterized the Western culture and outlook. Upon adopting Capitalism, the West endeavored to spread these thoughts to the world but did not find any significant response in the beginning except from some Christians residing in the Balkans (which was ruled at the time by the Ottoman State). The Greeks, Serbs, the Romanians, and others, embraced the Capitalist ideas and initiated a series of revolutions against the Ottoman state under the assistance of the West. As a result, most of the Balkans became detached from the state. As for Muslims, they were subjected to Capitalism by force through colonization. Only a small seg
[441 Khalif'ornia Journal: January - June 2000
ment of Muslims, who were deeply indoctrinated by the Western culture through education, embraced Capitalism willingly. Muslims never revolted in large numbers against Islam and applied Capitalism in its stead, the only exception being the rise of Nationalist parties in Turkey such as the Young Turks. However, even this incident was not carried out by the Ummah. Rather, it was a long series of events and conspiracies in which deception and coersion mixed to impose Capitalism upon Muslims in
Turkey.
From this brief summary of the historical evolution of Capitalism, one can conclude the following facts:
1. Capitalism emerged within a specific historical context, which is the Western environment, and this environment was characterized by a specific setting that was unique to the West. From its inception and throughout its evolution, the development of Capitalism was not a global occurrence but was strictly a Western phenomenon that depended upon certain factors which only existed in the West. While the Capitalist thought itself is global in the sense that any nation can adopt it, the environment which gave rise to this thought cannot be generalized." The problems and issues which the West faced during the Middle Ages and throughout this time period were not characteristic of the entire world.
2. Capitalism is not a product of intellectual discussion. Rather, it was a pragmatist solution to the conflict between the church and the intellectuals. Only after reaching this compromise, the intellectuals started building upon this idea intellectually. However, the compromise itself, which established the fundamental doctrine of the entire Capitalist thought structure and system, was the product of a reaction to those that claimed to represent the Will of God on earth and the atheist current which denied religion altogether.
3. Oftentimes, the Capitalists claim that the call to Islam is a backward trend to calling people to return to an idea that was born fourteen centuries ago. However, even based on this very same criterion, Capitalism is a call to return back to the Greek thoughts in a new guise. Hence, those Muslims who are calling for Capitalism are the most backward elements of the Muslim Ummah because they want Muslims to abandon Islam and to adopt philosophies prior to Islam." In this context, one can notice many Secular groups calling for ancient civilizations such as the Pharonic civilization of Egypt, the Phonecians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians. By promoting these pre-Islamic civilizations, the Muslims would begin to identify their roots to these civilizations, which would exasperate the existing divisions and make the task of unifying the Muslims more obtru
sive.
4. The transformation in the Muslim countries to Capitalism was not a natural process. Muslims never embraced Capitalism. It was a transformation which relied upon force and deception, and this trend continues until today. In addition, one can notice that even Muslims who adopt Capitalism do not embrace Capitalism wholeheartedly and with full conviction. Rather, they adopt Capitalism after attempting to reconcile Islam with Capitalism or due to the ignorance of the intellectual basis for Capitalism.
The next section of the article will examine the core ideas which collectively comprise the intellectual foundation of Capitalism, in addition to presenting the Islamic perspective and discussing the fallacies of these
ideas.
Endnotes: .
' Two striking examples of Capitalist ideas which are presented to Muslims nowadays detached from their creed are the concepts of democracy and human rights. Democracy as a term refers to the notion that "sovereignty belongs to the people." Based on this notion, the people have the right to determine their own system of laws, their own standards of measurement, and their own criteria for judging right and wrong. Such an idea contradicts with the fundamental notion in Islam that sovereignty belongs to Allah in the sense that only Allah has the right to dictate the system and standards for humanity. The human being has only the authority to understand these laws and implement them. However, the idea of democracy is presented to the Muslims detached from the issue of sovereignty. Rather, the notion of democracy is marketed to the Muslims as being represented by certain institutions such as shura, electing the Khalifah, and expressing one's opinions. As a result, the democratic idea is presented in a manner that deceptively appeals to the Muslims, and the issue of sovereignty is never mentioned.
In addition, the concept of human rights is presented to the Muslims as a universal idea that all human beings share. In actuality, the idea of human rights stems from the Capitalist definition of the human being, the society, and the relationship between the human being, the society, and the state. However, the notion of human rights is marketed to the Muslims as similar to certain Islamic principles that call for the sanctity of life, property, and human dignity.
I It is not sufficient for the hukm not to contradict Islam for it to be considered a valid hukm. The hukm itself must be derived from Islam, and there must be evidence from the legislative sources to indicate that such a hukm exists. Any rule that is not taken from Islam is considered a Kufr rule, even if the rule seems similar to Islam and appears not to contradict Islam. For example, the civil marriage in contemporary societies is very similar in many of its aspects to the Islamic marriage; however, this type of marriage cannot be considered Islamic simply because it is not derived from Islam.
' A question may arise as to whether the doctrine of Secularism constitutes an Aqeedah or not. The Aqeedah is a fundamental thought which attempts to answer the following fundamental questions: What came before life, what will come after life, what is the purpose of this life, and the relationship between this life with what preceded it and what will follow. The Secular doctrine provides an answer to the first and most important question (what was before life), by stating that such an issue should not be discussed in the public arena but instead should be left to each individual to resolve on his or her own. By answering the question of what came before life in this way, the issues of what came after the life and what the relationship between this life to what was before and what will come after become irrelevant. The Capitalist response to these remaining questions - that they are irrelevant - by itself constitutes an answer to these questions. Because the Capitalist doctrine provides an answer to all these questions, then this doctrine constitutes an Aqeedah which defines a unique point of view towards life.
I The concept of reform is unique to the Capitalist society. Because the implementation of Capitalism by its nature creates poverty, vast inequalities in wealth, and various other social ills, the concept of reform was adopted by Capitalism as a safety valve to mask its effects. This institution serves two purposes:
1. If the problems accumulate beyond a certain threshold, then the people may become agitated, which will lead to them initiating an intellectual process that may bring the entire Capitalist thought and its system into question. However, the institution of reform kills this momentum from the onset by providing services to the people and satisfying some of their needs.
2. Any human being who sees the problems of society would naturally be instilled with a desire to change the situation, and this energy would push him towards working for a comprehensive change. Reform work provides an outlet that would divert this innate momentum from working towards a comprehensive change towards patching up some vices of the society. Meanwhile, the fundamental cause of the problems, which is the existence of the Capitalist system, remains unresolved.
In the Capitalist societies, religious institutions are often used as institutions of reform because of their ability to appeal to the emotions of the people. By working under the banner of a Church, Synagogue, or Masjid, depending on whether he is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, the individual would feel that he is doing something for a valid cause. In actuality, such individuals are being used by the Capitalist system to dampen the impact of its inherent flaws, thus legitimizing the existence of the system as a result.
Capitalism
5 This period in history is often referred to as the "Middle Ages."
6 Heigel upheld the notion that thought precedes matter, while Marx claimed that matter precedes thought. However, both denied religion and used the Dialectic approach in their argument.
1
In reality, the revolution led by Lenin contravenes the very basics of Marxism. According to Marx, the revolution must occur in a Capitalist society as a result of a class struggle. No such class struggle materialized in Russia at the time. Furthermore, Russian society before Lenin was not Capitalist but a feudal society ruled by the czar. Thus, one can say that Communism or Marxism collapsed much earlier than the official collapse of the Soviet Union. As an ideology, Communism collapsed even before Lenin.
I It should be noted that the scientific way of thinking existed long before it was adopted by the West. It was known that ancient civilizations practiced certain scientific studies. In addition, the Muslims advanced in the sciences long before the West adopted it. What is addressed here is that the West adopted Greek philosophy and mixed it with the scientific way of thinking, and this mixing is what gave rise to the Capitalist thought and culture.
I One of the most far-reaching consequences of the meshing of Greek philosophy with the scientific method was the age-old issue of "science vs. faith" that predominates Western intellectual discourse. The intellectuals claimed that facts could only be substantiated through empirical evidence derived from the scientific methodology. Any idea that could not be subjugated to the scientific process was dubbed as philosophy or theology. This view had a profound impact in undermining the credibility of religion as something which could not be proven intellectually. To counter this argument, the Church adopted the notion that religion could only be taken on faith and not through scientific research. In addition, the Church espoused the idea that the function of interpreting the religion and religious scriptures was reserved only for the clergy. As a result of this position, the West was able to successfully detach the intellect from religion.
10 The question may be asked: Did the notion of separating the Creator from life ever exist in societies prior to the West? One can find many examples where the general idea of "Secularism" prevailed. For example, the Qur'an mentions a dialogue between the prophet Shu'aib and the people of Madyan:
"They said, `0 Shu'aib! Does your prayer command that we abandon what
our fathers used to worship, or that we abandon doing what we wish with
our property?"' [TMQ 11:87]
Thus, in many ancient societies, the notion of separating the Creator from the life affairs did exist as a general idea. However, as a crystallized system of thoughts, Capitalism began in the West towards the end of the Middle Ages.
" This argument by no means indicates that the correct standard for judging the validity of an idea is how old or new the idea is. The only valid criterion for judging the idea is whether the idea itself is correct, regardless of when the idea or thought was conceived. The example mentioned is only for the purpose of illustrating that the Capitalists have no grounds for their oft-mentioned argument that "Islam is a regressive idea" based on the time factor.
Back to Main Page