1 THE MATERIALIST CIVILIZATION

Materialism: The Christian misapplication of science

John Locke, the father of secularism said “We can accept any religion, but we cannot tolerate Atheism, because they have no basis upon which to act morally.” 

With the European encounter and assimilation of Muslim learning and science (more importantly the Scientific method of the observation of natural phenomena and the deduction of natural laws by experimentation, courtesy of the translation of books like Ibn Haytham’s Book on Optics) during the 11th-12th centuries from the Crusades in the Levant and Islamic Spain, changed European culture forever.  This had the effect of producing an intellectual revival in thinking and the study of the natural world in Europe – which was later to be called by historians ‘the renaissance’. 

The problem is, Science is the study of the tangible, but human social and political organisation is intangible – being based upon non-material things such as thought, thinking, imagination, ideas, feelings, emotional attachment, mind and importantly, purpose.  Science can tell us what humans are made of, how they work, and what their biological needs are, but it cannot tell us their purpose, and therefore it cannot tell us how they should be organised, nor what they should believe or think.

European thinkers, in awe of the Scientific method, and all the knowledge it had given them about the natural world, began (mis)applying it to study how humans should socially and politically organise themselves, and to what purpose they should strive for in the material world.  The misapplication of science, by mostly Christian thinkers upon the study of human political and social organisation produced a pseudo-scientific conclusion – a materialistic worldview based upon a ‘natural law’ morality (secretly still borrowed from parts of Christian tradition) – this would later become Liberalism and Secularism.

The idea of Secularism was born out of Thomas Hobbes’ purely materialistic consideration for politics and economics, where material security was proposed as the highest objectives of the state, not virtue or morality.  Secular Liberalism only emerged as a political system amongst the Western nations mainly towards the end of the 18th century. Since the beginning of the Western renaissance from the 12th century, for six hundred years, European nations developed technologically, culturally and materially without Liberal political systems, or even modern Democracy!

Atheism: Master and slave morality

• Values
  • Human beings have no intrinsic value.
  • Religion is standing in the way of achieving the highest form of man, the powerful man.
  • The oppressed use good and evil, slave morality, to create within those with the master morality a conscious, which prevent them from their achievements.
  • Values the strong and despises the weak.
  • Nobility are noble warriors vs the base masses who have to be dominated by the nobility.
  • Mankind can only be judged by its highest examples. The average human being has no value whatsoever.
• Purpose
  • Will to power.
  • Will to dominate others.
  • To satisfy ones desires to the maximum extent.
  • To dominate nature, oneself and others.
  • The desire to dominate others is the highest expression of human being.
  • Nietsche wants man to return to his animal self. The animal predator is not wrong.
  • Beyond good and evil. Needs no moral code. They create their own moral code.
• Moral Judgment
  • Moral judgement is not universal, but an arbitrary set of judgements designed by the weak to oppress the strong
  • There is no absolute morality, only moral interpretations.
  • Strictly concerned with this world.
  • Cruelty is not evil. Pity is a vice.
  • If they cannot cause pain to others, they cause pain to themselves. This pain is called conscience.
  • No reluctance to inflict pain on the inferior.  Not morally inferior, but physically inferior in terms of strength.

Secular Liberalism: The Christian misunderstanding of ‘theocracy’

“They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah …” Quran (9:31)

To take religious leaders and priests as lords beside Allah, is rejected by the Quran.  Theocracy, in Islam, is rule by Allah, not religious leaders.  No one has the rights to govern and implement laws which are not derived from Holy Quran and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammed (SAW).  The Quran commands the believers to obey God and those who hold authority (Q.4:59).  The commentary on this verse emphasizes that ultimate authority rests with God.  Men of God derive their authority from Him.  It is also necessary to point out that Islam does not have a system of clergy or priesthood and thus all Muslims have a right to speak for Islam provided that they are capable and qualified.

The atomisation of religiosity as a personal affair, renders the collective aspects of Islam as non-essential, or only conditionally obligated, by separating them cleanly from individual responsibility and (re)defining ‘religiosity’ as an individual matter.  If this is correct, then neither is Jihad or Zakat (as an institution) or the establishment of shar’i trade and mu’amalat, or any collective aspect of the deen is obligated.  Such an Islam is rendered a mere shadow of its actual self.

Secular Liberalism: Neither universal nor neutral (Atheism)

John Stuart Mill, and employee of the British East India company, exclaimed that colonialism and the use of despotic control over colonialised natives was legitimate until they became Liberal.  The Liberal desire to ‘civilise the world’ is not some pretension of the Liberals themselves, but a necessity of Liberalism.  Just like Catholicism wanted to spread Christianity to ‘save mankind from hell’, Liberalism believes its values are universal, and therefore mandatory upon all human beings – indeed, the key to their earthly ‘salvation’, under the deceptive slogan of ‘freedom’. Consequently, Liberalism is just as ideologically aggressive and prone to war’s of expansion as Catholicism ever was.

The understanding of secularism as a neutral form of governance that simply allows everyone freedom to be and do as they will.  This now-well-discredited view is little more than liberal wishful thinking, if not outright propaganda.  Secularism is no more neutral or less ideological than any other worldview or religion.  Secularism does not simply allow people free expression.  To suggest that secular power, would allow Islamic norms to flourish is as naive an assumption as it is dangerous.

Secularism cannot be rationally justified, because in essence it posits the absurd notion that man’s purpose in life should be separate from man’s affairs in life.  Secularism then results in a materialistic re-interpretation of man’s purpose of life, and the imposition of this purpose in place of a former non-materialistic purpose – with no conclusive reason why one is superior to another.  Secularism then naturally ends up being non-neutral to this central question of human purpose, while fooling the people by pretending to be neutral.

Modernism: Secularism is a backward force, and Religion is an advancing force

“…Verily those on whom you call besides Allah, cannot create a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose…”
Quran 22:73

The irony of Liberalism is, while pretending to be materialistic, it borrowed a lot of its rights from Christianity and theology (which is where the term ‘God given rights’ comes from) then quietly divorced from it later on when it wanted to claim ‘universality’ to the world.  Consequently, ‘rights’ can’t be justified using Liberalism.  Feminism cannot be rationally justified either, as basing rights on gender is either arbitrary and unholistic at best, or elitist and sectarian at worst.  If men and women should be exactly equal in everything, as Feminism claims, then why not egalitarianism instead of feminism?

The biggest assumption made by modernists, is that religion is a retrograde force, and that Western advancement, political stability and economic success is the result of leaving religion and implementation of democracy, liberalism, secularism and nationalism.  However history begs to differ.  Christianity was never the reason for the European dark ages, but rather the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of barbarian tribes is the most glaringly obvious reason.

For most of the last 500 years, technological advancement in the West started, and has mostly occurred, under highly religious non-democratic European monarchies and empires. The Liberal Democratic Europe we see today mostly emerged only in the last century [1900-1999]. The vast majority of pioneering Western scientists were not Atheists, nor did they live under Secularism, but rather they were devout Catholics and even clergy (e.g. Roger Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle and even the recent George Lemaitre, discoverer of the ‘big bang theory’…) or protestant Church (e.g. Newton) – and much scientific literature and almost ALL institutes of higher education and research were under patronage by the Catholic [and later Anglican] Church.

If Secularisers want to reject all things that have ever been cited to justify violence and terrorism, they should first reject their own beliefs in the Secular Nation-State and Secular Liberalism, because more terrorism, killing and wars (and colonialism) have been committed in their name, or under their goals.  America has two large and differing schools of thought, Democrat (Liberal liberals) and Republican (Conservative liberals). These two schools fight each other very vigorously in the USA for power, influence and control over laws and policies.  Muslims need to wise up to the arguments of secularism and the hypocritical standards and contradictions that are behind them.

Democracy: Taking one another as lords via arbitrary laws

“And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allah’s Path.  They follow nothing but conjecture, and they do nothing but lie.” (Quran 6:116)

Professor Sayyed Qutb, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, said: “Verily, people, in all the systems of the earth, are taking one another as lords beside Allah.  This is happening in the most progressed democracies as well as in the most declined dictatorships… Verily the prime quality of Rububia is the right of making people worship (Allah), the right of establishing systems, schools of thought, Sharai’ (plural of Shariah), laws, values and standards.  Owing to this, they are worshipping them beside Allah, even if they do not make sujud (prostration) and ruku (bowing) to them, because worship is ascribed to none but Allah – until he (Sayyed Qutb) said -: “And Islam, with this meaning – is the religion for Allah, and which every Messenger came with from Allah. Indeed Allah sent the Messengers with this religion to liberate mankind from the worship of the slaves to the worship of Allah, and from the oppression of the slaves to the Justice of Allah.

In Western society, it is the society itself that decides what is good and bad, because there is no concept of absolute good and evil.  What is good today, may change tomorrow.  What is good in one place, may be bad in another place.  In a democracy, the majority view determines what is right and what is wrong.  Human rights’ are arbitrary, prone to change depending on society’s current tastes at any given point in time, and lacks any rational justification for where rights even come from in the first place.

Examples of minority oppression under majority rule:

• Brazil, Burma, Israel, India, Bosnia, Congo, Rwanda, Nepal, Thailand, Mozambique – Civil Wars
• South Africa – Half a million rapes a year.
• USA – Highest number of people in prison in the world.

The Colonial Playbook

• Political Influence and Intervention:
  • Installing Friendly Regimes: Colonial powers often supported regimes that were favorable to their interests, leading to prolonged political influence.
  • Manipulation of Political Systems: Through various means, including military intervention or covert operations, former colonial powers have influenced the political landscapes of formerly colonized countries.
• Social Structures:
  • Creating Divisions: Colonial powers often created or exacerbated social and ethnic divisions to maintain control, which can have long-lasting effects on social cohesion and governance.
• Cultural Hegemony:
  • Education Systems: Colonizers often established education systems that promoted their own culture and language, sometimes at the expense of local traditions and languages, leading to a form of cultural dependency.
  • Media Influence: Control or influence over the media in former colonies can shape public opinion and cultural attitudes in ways that favor the former colonial power.
• Economic Agreements and Globalization:
  • Trade Agreements: Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements can sometimes favor the interests of the more powerful, former colonial country.
  • Globalization: In the era of globalization, economic and corporate influence often reflects the interests of former colonial powers.
• Economic Control and Exploitation:
  • Resource Extraction: Colonial powers often exploited the natural resources of colonized countries, exporting valuable materials back to the colonizer’s country while leaving the local economy dependent on single-resource exports.
  • Control of Trade: Colonizers typically controlled trade policies, creating a situation where the colonized countries were forced to trade primarily with the colonizer, often at unfavorable terms.
  • Monetary Systems: Establishing a monetary system dependent on the colonizer’s currency can create long-lasting economic ties and dependencies.
• Debt Dependency:
  • Loans and Aid: Offering loans, aid, and development projects, often with strict conditions, can create a cycle of debt and dependency.
  • Structural Adjustment Policies: International financial institutions, influenced by former colonial powers, often impose structural adjustment policies that can lead to increased dependency.
• Technological Dependency:
  • Infrastructure and Technology: Colonial powers often built infrastructure and technology systems that were designed to benefit them and might continue to exert control through technological dependencies.
• Military Presence and Security Dependency:
  • Military Bases: Establishing and maintaining military bases in former colonies ensures ongoing influence.
  • Security Assistance: Providing security assistance or engaging in defense pacts can create a dependency for protection and military hardware.

Colonialism: The usual justifications

1. National Security and Defense:
   • Self-defense: Nations often argue that their actions are necessary for self-defense against perceived threats, whether they are military, terrorist, or security-related.
   • Preemptive or preventive actions: Governments sometimes claim that their actions are aimed at preventing potential future threats before they materialize.
2. Geopolitical and Strategic Interests:
   • Strategic alliances: Some actions may be justified on the basis of strategic alliances or geopolitical considerations, where the interests of one nation align with those of another.
   • Resource control: Control over critical resources, such as energy, minerals, or trade routes, may be cited as a justification for certain policies or actions.
3. Humanitarian and Moral Reasons:
   • Humanitarian intervention: Governments may argue that their actions are driven by a desire to protect human rights, alleviate suffering, or prevent atrocities.
   • Promotion of democracy and freedom: Some nations claim to act in the name of promoting democratic values, human rights, and freedom, both domestically and abroad.
4. Historical or Legal Claims:
   • Historical or legal rights: Nations may cite historical or legal claims to justify their actions, particularly in territorial disputes or conflicts.
   • International law: Governments may argue that their actions are in accordance with international law or treaties.

Colonialism: The nationalization of the Caliphate

The civilizing mission intends to make us like them.  A major element of fascist ideology is its stated goal to promote the right of a supposedly superior people to dominate, while purging society of supposedly inferior elements.  The Doctrine of Discovery is a principle of international law that justifies European Christian nations’ claim to land and territorial rights over non-Christian territories. It originated from a series of Papal Bulls (decrees) in the 15th century, notably the Dum Diversas (1452) and Inter Caetera (1493), which gave Christian explorers the right to claim lands they “discovered” and the sovereign authority over those lands. This doctrine effectively sanctioned the European colonisation of much of the non-European world and had profound impacts on indigenous peoples, often leading to their dispossession and subjugation.

To achieve better ease of economic exploitation of the individual Muslim lands, the colonial powers, primarily Britain and France actively sought to weaken and detach these Muslim lands from Ottoman control, by the creation of divisions amongst the Muslim peoples of the Ottoman lands, and detaching them from central control by the Ottoman Caliph without officially announcing the independence of any state at that early stage.  To achieve this they taught and spread a notably new type of Western concept which would create a sectarianism designed to overcome the bonds of Muslim brotherhood/sisterhood (Ummah) upon which Ottoman political attachment rested.

This new and artificial sectarianism would be known as nationalism and, with European deniability, knowingly lead to full blown nationalist movements that would detach completely the various Muslim lands from control by the Caliph.  The multiple revolts and nationalist tensions made the coming British, French and Russian invasions and division of the Ottoman state easy; and following World War 1, they would pursue three main objectives against the Muslim world – strategic control of the region, the permanent division of Muslim lands, securing long term exploitation of it resources, and the removal of Islam as a way of life.

The threat of a superior way of life, Islam

A cursory glance at the Western civilization that dominates the world today reveals to us that it cannot guarantee tranquillity for man.  On the contrary, the Western civilization is the cause for man’s deep-rooted misery and suffering.  This civilization which adopts as its basis the separation of religion from life’s affairs is contradictory to man’s nature, thus giving no weight to the spiritual aspect in society, and it views life as only benefit and makes the attainment of benefit as the foundation for the relationship between men.  Thus it inevitably produces nothing but perpetual misery and anxiety.

As long as benefit is the basis, conflict over it will naturally increase and the reliance on force to establish relationships between people will be natural.  Thus, colonisation is natural to the followers of this civilization since benefit alone remains the basis of life, and any morals will be unstable.  Hence, it is natural for any good morals to be shunned in life in the same way that the spiritual values were neglected, and life established upon competition, struggle, aggression and colonialism. The spiritual crisis in the people, perpetual anxiety and widespread evil all over the world today serve as glaring and oppressively clear indictments of the results of this Western civilization.

The ‘threat’ of Islam according to the Secular Liberal worldview, was not that it would convert the world by force, but that it was a competitor to Liberalism, in offering the world a way of life.  Islam was simply judged to be an obstacle and rival to the new Liberal world order – a world order mandated by the Liberal claim to its own universality. In response, Islam would be have to be defeated, but not by directly destroying the books from where it came, since that was impossible.  Rather, Liberalism would using intellectual, cultural and military assault, create a change of political system in Muslim lands, and render Islam obsolete from political life.  As Alex de Tocqueville posited, a detachment of Islam from political life would whither it, and cause it to die. Early Liberal thinkers didn’t have a problem with Islam existing in a limited ‘defeated’ form as merely a spiritual belief – because most Liberals were Protestant Christians, and believed that what they had done to Christianity, and Catholics, could be repeated with the theology of Islam. But the first step would be to politically gain control and cultural influence of the Muslim world, in order to execute the Liberal program.  Many Western politicians and strategists, since even before World War 1, looked at the concept of a Caliphate as a big obstacle for their imperial designs in the Muslims world (i.e. cheap resource extraction, strategic military projection against other powers).

Islam is the cure for arrogance

1. Pride in Material Wealth and Status:
   • The Quran warns against individuals who become arrogant due to their material wealth, social status, or worldly possessions. Such individuals may look down upon others who are less fortunate, believing that their material success makes them superior (Quran 18:32).
2. Rejection of Guidance and Truth:
   • Arrogance can manifest when individuals reject guidance and truth, particularly when it conflicts with their preconceived beliefs or desires. They may refuse to accept the wisdom of God’s message or the counsel of others, thinking they know better (Quran 16:22).
3. Refusal to Acknowledge One’s Own Flaws and Sins:
   • The Quran emphasizes the importance of self-awareness and humility in recognizing one’s own flaws and sins. Arrogance can arise when individuals refuse to admit their mistakes or wrongdoings, thinking that they are infallible and beyond reproach (Quran 41:53).
4. Superiority Complex
   • Arrogance can lead to oppression and wrongdoing toward others, as individuals may feel entitled to mistreat those they consider inferior. This type of arrogance often results in social injustices and conflicts (Quran 2:205).