his Creator, or slavery of all else. The prevalent Western thought
today is essentially atheistic in nature, for it traces its origins to
a reaction against the Church authority in medievalEurope, which
subsequently became a reaction against religion in general. The effort
wasreally to formulate a philosophical basis independent of religion,
which was to becomethe foundation of the new scientific, political,
economic, social and psychological thought.
This does not imply that all the details of knowledge thus produced
are false, but that in essence, the foundation of all such knowledge
is frail.
Often we mistakenly isolate the Western thought from its original
environment and its secular and atheistic roots, considering it sound
human thought valid for all times and places. Quite often, we even
naively go on to claim, about one or another aspect of this thought,
that our own Deen )religion( asserts precisely the same, or at least
there is no contradiction.
In this article, I give an example of the concept of freedom, that
ismore or less agreed upon in the contemporary world that illustrates
my point.
A free person is one whose freedom is absolute with no bounds
whatsoever. He acts as hewills and does what he wills. However, any
act necessitates knowledge, motivation and ability. An absolutely free
man, thus, must possess absolute knowledge, perfect motivation and
limitless ability. This is outright impossible. No actor canpossess
absolute knowledge, motivation and ability unless he is totally
independent and self-sufficient of others and needs no knowledge or
skill fromothers, for that would violate absolute freedom.
Hence, the claim of the advocatesof democracy that man cannot befree
if he obeys a law that is not of his own making, is essentially
correct. However, they admit thatman must live in a society, and this
social life necessitates the existence of a State that commands,
prohibits and watches; and the laws whereby the State carries out all
these activities cannot be made by all the constituents of society.
Though the participation of individuals in a democratic system is
more, than in alternative systems, the enactment of laws is inevitably
the work of a minority of individuals who constitute the legislative
system. It follows that even in a democracy, the people are not really
free except to a small extent.
In fact, we argue that even participation in the enactment of laws is
not a guarantee, for individual freedom for the individuals will
invariably be dictated by the desires of their lower selves.
An individual who deprives himself of Divine guidance ends up doing
all that his lower desires demand or his lust dictates -- like
engaging in excessin food, drinking wine, drugs andobscenity. Such a
human being -- and the likes of this abound in the West today -- is
not free. True, he may not ostensibly be a slave of another human
being, but he is a slave of his own low desires.
What is the way out of this slavery? The kind of freedom demanded by
Western philosophies, in fact, is outright impossible. All people,
including the atheists, admit that man is not his own creator, or his
own sustainer; his knowledge is earned, not essential, and imperfect,
and that he must depend for his life on factors out of his control.
Sunlight comes from sun, water from rain, vegetation from the land,
and he needs all that, without controlling any of it. So how is
freedom possible? How can he beself-sufficient?
The faithful believe that Allaah is the Creator, the Omniscient and
Omnipotent, Who does as He pleases, and needs no one. Man, on the
other hand, is created, and by virtue of this, is owned by his
Creator. The one owned is a slave, not free. This essential fact of
creation points to man being aslave, not a free entity.
However, he is a slave of the Creator and not of creation like
himself. This slavery to his Creator is the very essence of his being,
whether he likes it or not. In all that he does, he is bound and
limited by the Will of his Creator.
True, man too has a will and freedom of action, but it is his Creator
who decided to give him this freedom of will. Man's will, therefore,
is not absolute, but limited by the Will of his Creator. If the
Creator has the absolute Will, man may will what does notactualize,
and may encounter what he does not like.
The Creator who made for His creation natural laws that are beyond the
domain of human will, also made the laws of Sharee'ah -- a code for a
life of willing submission to Allaah, without which true success --
worldly or heavenly -- is impossible.
Doing what you will against the will of Allaah even with your
ownproperty is a challenge to His authority, as mentioned in the Quran
)which means(:"They said: O Shu'ayb! Does your salaah )prayer( enjoin
you that we should forsake what our fathers worshipped or that we
should not do what we please with regard to our property?"]Quran
11:87[
Pharaoh also thought his opinionsuperior and dictated it to his
people, as mentioned in the Quran )which means(:"Pharaoh said: 'I do
only show you what I see, and I do but guide you to wise
policy'."]Quran 40:29[
But the Creator Lord says )what means(:"No just appraisal of Allaah do
they make when they say: 'Allaah sends down nothing to man )by way of
revelation(.'"]Quran 6:91[
And )what means(:"Does man think that he has been left aimless?"]Quran 75:38[
And )what means(:"Say: 'See what things Allaah has sent down to you
for sustenance? Yet you hold some things unlawful and others lawful
)without authority from Allaah(.' Say: 'Has Allaah indeed permitted
you, or do you attribute lies to Allaah?'"]Quran 10:59[
We conclude that the assertion that man is free or must be free, in
the absolute sense used widelyin the West, is utterly falsified by
reality. Furthermore, such an assertion negates belief that manis a
slave-servant to Allaah and must obey His decrees. Even some Christian
authors seem to have realized this, among them the famous English
author Lewis who said, roughly: 'I was not born to be free, rather to
listen and obey.'
No comments:
Post a Comment