society and individuals

Society and Individuals
Originally printed in Arabic
by Hizb-ut-Tahrir
17th of January, 1972
1st of Dhu’l Hijjah, 1391
Many intellectuals, writers and authors in the free world discuss issues related to the
society and analyze it with the assumption that it is a group of people in a country or
that society is a country inhabited by the population.
They use terms such as ‘issues of the society’. ‘reviving the society’, ‘material needs
or issues of society’... etc., meaning the individuals.
The western world controls most parts of the world, including the Islamic World, by
imposing and inculcating its culture and the concepts that emanate from it. Therefore,
this perception or concept, or this meaning of the society is ingrained in the minds of
the people in the Muslim world, especially in the minds of the intelligentsia. This
definition influenced many of the leftists, with their trends and colors, despite the
obvious flaw in this definition.
Socialism does not agree with this definition or the fact that this definition is contrary
to socialism itself. Yet this definition remained prominent amongst the intelligentsia.
Hence, this concept of the society is one of the fundamental thoughts adopted and
conveyed by the West and its culture. Since the objective is to eradicate the perilous
Western culture from our territories, it is important to clarify the meaning of society
in a comprehensive manner.
The correct and comprehensive definition of society is a group of people with
relationships that exist between them. The definition cannot be confined to the people
alone. The group of people will simply be just that, a group, but will not be
considered a society. What characterizes a society and what makes societies distinct
from one another is the nature of the relationships that exist in each society. The
people in any country per se are the same human beings. However, each society is
distinct according to the relationships that exist that define their transactions, whether
they be political, economic or social.
The elements that comprise a society are Individuals, Thoughts, Emotions and the
System. What brings a relationship between people is the interest, such as buying and
selling, education, eating, socializing, etc. If an interest exists, a relationship will
emerge. The interest will be built on concepts towards the issue. If the thought of the
people was agreed upon, this interest will be mutual. If their thoughts differ regarding
the issue, some will view it as sharing interests while others will not. They may view
it as harmful for them and thus no relationship will be established. What brings the
relationship into existence between them is their agreement and their thoughts must be
unified towards something.
Maslahah is the first element in bringing the relationship into existence. However, this
is not sufficient by itself. Their emotions must also be unified towards this interest.
Their acceptance and rejection was unified if their pleasure and dissatisfaction was
unified.
However, if their emotions are dissimilar, no relationship will exist, even if some
thoughts are agreed upon. In this case, these thoughts are just philosophical in nature,
such as those found in Greek Philosophy.
Fikr (the thought) is not a concept unless it is related to a specific reality and
connected to the emotions. Thus, with the existence of this thought and emotions (i.e.,
a true concept), a relationship will be established.
However, this relationship will not materialize unless if the system, which organizes
this relationship exists. The relationship will not be fruitful by simply unifying the
thoughts and emotions.
It is the system which organizes the interests. As a matter of fact, the system which
organizes the interests, even if by enforcement, will produce thoughts and emotions.
Therefore, the system vis a vis the composition of the society, is a very important
factor, although it has less importance than the thoughts themselves because changing
the thoughts will change the concepts.
Therefore, it is a mistake to keep employing terms such as “issues of society” while
neglecting the discussion related to nature of the people’s relationships. Therefore,
reshaping the society means to transform the relationship and not just reforming the
people by themselves without changing the relationship.
Changing the society means changing relationships. Change does not entail replacing
the tools that people use in their daily lives. Thus, replacing the old washing machines
with new ones or replacing the broom with an electric vacuum, or replacing the old
Serwal with the modern pant, cannot be considered as a style or approach to reform
the society. Replacing one tool with another has nothing to do whatsoever with
changing the society.
It is true that these tools may wield an influence upon the thoughts and emotions but
this influence is superficial. It is not based on any profound understanding. This
influence is transitory and is easily displaced. This approach does not target the real
objective of change, which is to replace the existing relationships in society and thus,
it does not reshape the society in a correct manner. Reforming the society is by none
another by changing the thoughts, emotions and the systems.
Although this is the case, this misunderstanding influenced the people, as individuals
and groups prevented them from the correct revival. It made the people running in
endless loops or circles for many years.
The definition of society in politics (the manner in which the people’s affairs are
taken care of) has greater ramifications. Misunderstandings in this arena have
compounded the problem to the degree that it has wrought disastrous results within
the Ummah.
It is this catastrophe which subconsciously changed the people and steered them in the
wrong direction, devoid of any comprehensive and productive thought. It compelled
them to imbibe the western culture to an intoxicating level. The Western culture
capitalized on this misconception about the society and feasted on the hapless set of
conditions that it had fumbled upon.
Two examples bear testimony to this reality. One example is related to the Nidham ul
Hukm (ruling or political system) and the other example is related to the Nidham ul
Iqtisad (economic system). These two examples are alluded to because these were
targets of the misconception and it profoundly influenced the concepts and behavior
of the people.
The West posits that the sovereignty belongs to the people, the leadership is collective
and the people are the source of the three branches of authority. Those concepts are
related to the relationship in politics (tending to the affairs of the people). These
concepts emerged in the West because of the political oppression which occurred at
the hands of the kings and princes in Europe and by the colonialists in America.
Owing to this oppression, the intellectuals launched many attempts to uproot the
landscape in which the oppressors were well ensconced.
Eventually, the intellectuals had their day and everything was returned to the people
in order to remove the political oppression upon them. While they realized that ruling
is not related to these concepts, they feigned forgetfulness in this respect.
According to these intellectuals, society is defined as a group of people. They viewed
politics as the ruler and his subjects. They did not look to politics as ‘fostering the
affairs of the people’ or as ‘the relationship of the people with those who are fostering
their affairs.’
Therefore, they considered a group of people as a society and that this group rules
themselves by themselves. They remained distant from the true meaning of those
concepts and plausibly adhered to the concepts, even though the reality is actually
something else. They misunderstood that the people per se do not rule and don’t wield
any degree of authority. Authority is rooted in Nixon in the United States, Brezhnev
in the Soviet Union, Pombido in France, etc. However, they speciously parroted the
notion that the people rule. They did not realize that the people don’t adjudicate. but
rather it is exercised by judges who have studied law and jurisprudence. As it is
impossible for the people to assume executive authority, it is equally impossible to
assume judicial authority. With this entrenched and undeniable kernel of reality, they
continue to argue that the people are running the judiciary in the same way the people
are taking care of the ruling or executive authority. They didn’t realize that the people
don’t legislate, let alone the representatives. The legal experts legislate and the
government simply enacts the law. Even with this realization, they continued to foist
the idea that legislation is within the purview of the people. They did not realize that
the people select the ruler and they are note empowered to remove the ruler. Also, the
ruler is the one who singly controls the judiciary and holds the position of authority.
Still, it is posited that there are three authorities: executive, legislative and judiciary
and that the people are the source for these three branches. They are remiss in
recognizing the discrepancy between these concepts and the nature of ruling. What
blinds them from reality stems from the misconception of society, political oppression
and their manner of thinking that this oppression will be far reaching unless the
people are in the position of authority.
Regarding the second example related to the economy, two main phenomena
triggered the intellectuals to spur discourse about providing the people with
commodities and services from the extant wealth: 1. the suffering of Europeans from
the oppression by the elite and the great economic disparity between people 2. what
America underwent during the dominance of the oppressive colonial powers and their
exploitation of the country’s resources, in addition to their discrimination of wealth.
Thus, it was realized that people will take harness from the wealth and resources
according to their ability. Based on this understanding, they concluded that scarcity is
the crux of the economic problem. Thus. the conundrum was that a perceived lack of
services and commodities were not sufficient enough to meet the unlimited needs of
the people.
Therefore, the need for wealth stems from the nation and not from individuals. Thus,
society itself was characterized as poor and not the individuals per se (the group of
people and not the individuals). According to this, thinking was concentrated on
providing the wealth in the society, thereby quantitatively increasing product levels
which was arbitrarily deemed as sufficient for the needs of this group and not of
individual needs.
They realized that economy specifically entails the need of the individual and not the
need of the people as a group. Meanwhile, the oppression of the elite intensified and
the gap between individuals widened. Despite this realization, they perpetuated the
basis of their argument, i.e., the economic problem is rooted in scarcity. These
economic concepts remained dominant in the West and their intellectuals. They
bucked the fact that society is simply a group of people and they failed to realize that
economy involves the relationship between the people and the one who is responsible
for providing for their needs. It is not a fund in which one contributes to and
subsequently each one takes from it according to his capability. Therefore, viewed the
ruler as nothing but to provide the funds for the country as one monolithic unit. They
adhered to these baseless concepts despite their hamful effects on the society’s well
being.
These concepts that the Western intellectuals espoused regarding ruling and economy,
are built on incorrect set of concepts about society.
Therefore the most important thing for the people, even in the West, and in particular
Muslims residing in the Muslim world is to adopt the correct concepts of the society
and to disregard and counter the falsehood that hails from the minds and mouths of
the Western intellectuals.
Thus, in conclusion, it must be emphasized that society is a group of people
comprised of relationships, concepts. emotions and the system. It is not simply a
country nor a group of people. Based on this fundamental concept about the society,
correct and productive relationships in different areas (such as the social, economic,
political and international realms) will be established. The focal issue which attention
must be paid is the nature of relationships in society.