|
Society and Individuals - What is a society |
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 (benefit) 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 sarong 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 ruling or political system and the other example is related to the 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 not 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, they viewed the role of ruler as nothing but to provide the funds for the country as one monolithic unit. They adhered to these baseless concepts despite their harmful 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.
|
|
It's time for you to make the biggest influence, by writting your notice and vote
on the article. It's your personal inspiration for others! |
|