World Problems

Question:-

It has been suggested that there is a clash of civilisations. Can the present global political situation be described as a war between Islam and the West, a war of the West against Islam and a war by Islam against Infidels?

Comment:-

The real war is between good and evil, between the forces, causes or processes of spiritual evolution and spiritual degeneration, between the Ideal and the Anti-ideal. This, in Islamic terms can be regarded as a struggle between submission to Allah, Islam, and non-submission, rebellion or opposition to Allah, Kufr. It is a mistake to suppose that all who call themselves Muslim are in reality Muslim who have submitted to Allah, and that all who are not known as Muslim are in reality not so. It is also obvious that people are a mixture of good and evil and submit to various degrees. They are Muslim to various degrees. But there are people who identify themselves with Islam and others that do not. People take one side or the other in the struggle between good and evil or between different communities. Most actions and situations have good and evil features in various proportions. So the global political situation is not as simple as some people think and judgements based on personal preferences or prejudices do not turn out to be helpful, but are themselves part of the problem.

However, it is possible to take the more obvious clashes between the Western and Islamic cultures as an example of a much wider and often subtler conflict that constitutes a problem throughout the world.

Critic:-

There are much more urgent world problems than those that appear to engage Muslim minds. That is probably why Muslim countries are so backwards.

Comment:-

There are many poor and undeveloped countries and the causes for this are many and not necessarily ideological, but geographical, climatic, historical and political. But everyone, whether rich or poor, is tried and judged by what they are given, by their inner and outer advantages and disadvantages. Greater advantages bestow greater responsibilities.

It is true that poverty, disease, ignorance, lack of education and effective organisation are great world problems. But the fact is that these are caused by something much more fundamental. Developments that eradicate these problems depend to a large extent on the amount of wealth that is available within a nation. But even so, the progress made in these directions is not necessarily beneficial to man. A problem is a contradiction between two things and refers to someone or to particular condition where this is the case. A distinction has to be made between illusory and real problems for human beings. An illusory problem is one where the contradiction is between an external condition that is misunderstood and a desire that is also misunderstood and does not refer to any real need or benefits. A real problem is one where there is a contradiction between a psychological, social or environmental condition and a need or value that refers to a real benefit. The solution to an illusory problem is no real solution and can waste resources and even do more harm and increase the problem. Therefore, correct knowledge is required to identify the problem and correct knowledge, motives and actions are required to solve it.

It is well known that the number of people who actually contribute to the inventions, enterprise and development of ideas is relatively small and that the greater number of people who benefit from them is confined within national borders. If there were no national boundaries then people, materials, goods, ideas, enterprise and expertise would tend to distribute themselves much more evenly through the world. But the borders are not just between nations, but there are borders between families, groups, classes and individuals, and these are reflections of the borders within the minds. It is mostly a problem of distribution than of resources or production, and mainly of fellow feeling and Will. And this will is corrupted by greed, arrogance and lust. But the problem is not just wickedness of motives, but also of stupidity of thought and ability to act effectively. It is these human limitations that lead to selfishness, rivalry, aggression, conflict, tensions, anxiety, suspicion, oppression, bias, prejudice, lying, excuse making, self-deception, fantasy and the pursuit of delusions. These are disabling maladies that have psychological, social as well as environmental consequences owing the pressure on resources.

The problem reduces to a question of human development. As experience accumulates and knowledge, expertise and organisation progresses, there is an increasing gap between those who have the power and control in politics, commerce and culture and majority of people. In the hierarchical organisations that have been developed mainly to increase wealth, power and prestige, power tends to be concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people at the top while the majority become increasingly powerless. There is much ruthless power struggle, ambition and manoeuvring and remote control from the top without experience of the practical at the shop floor. It is of course easier to order others to do things than to do things oneself and this allows much to be done that would not be done otherwise. Though the need for education increases it tends to be purely intellectual while the feelings and motives remain stunted. There is, therefore, an increasingly dangerous unbalanced development.

The response to these developments tend to be in three different directions:- (a) Frustration, rebelliousness, opting out, protest in word and action and violence that may be wrongly directed. (b) Conformity or taking advantage of the situation to promote ones own self-centred interest and ambitions at the expense of others. (c) Resignation and escapism in alcohol, drugs, excitements, sport, fashions etc. There is a trend towards irresponsibility, even to do what is beneficial to the individual himself, for frivolous pursuits and for psychologically, socially and physically unprofitable, wasteful and even harmful trivialities.

These trends are, therefore, degenerative. This can be seen by the proliferation of newspapers, magazines, video and television films and other media that are devoted to scandals, gossip, smear campaigns, rabble rousing, irrational opinions, hysterics about trifles, fantasies, propagation of prejudices and superstitions, reports based on little or twisted knowledge.

Critic:-

The modern major political problem is the increasing terrorism in the world which is threatening to destroy civilisation and stop all progress, and which the Western nations are fighting. Hopefully, Muslims will join this campaign and the Imams and preachers of Islam will speak out against terrorism in their mosques and communities.

Comment:-

It is a question of identifying the problem. Why do you think there is so much terrorism? Is it because of the differences in wealth? Or is it because of Political Injustices? Or is it because of prejudices? Or is it because of differences of culture, ideologies or value systems? Or is it just because there are criminals with primitive motives who have taken advantage of technologies to benefit themselves at the expense of others?

Owing to technological advances the peoples of the world that used to be more or less separate from each other have become much more inter-dependent. There is a process of globalisation, of unification, to which humanity has not yet adapted. No accommodation or relating factors have developed to deal with the differences of interests, cultures and values that arose in isolation and are now brought together. The present state of the world consists of the suffering that re-adjustment requires, the agonies of a new birth. The problem is made worse by the differences in power and wealth as between nations as well as within them.

What do you mean by terrorism? Are you speaking of people who commit criminal acts for their own benefit? Or are you speaking about psychopaths? Are you including those who encourage or instigate violent acts against others or whole communities? And does your term also refer to people who react and retaliate and fight against oppression and injustice?

There are many different kinds of Muslims with a range of knowledge, discernment and opinions. They are not all the same. Only a very small percentage of Muslims commit violence and have various reasons or causes for doing so. There are many others who do so also. Some Muslims do speak out against terrorism but not much publicity is given to them. Publicity is given to acts of violence regarded as terrorist, but the opinions or complaints of the perpetrators is not given any publicity while that of politicians, often hypocrites, is given massive publicity. This one sided information creates prejudices It is a cynical plot, sometimes but not always an unconscious one. Therefore, some people resort to terrorist actions as a means of drawing attention or as a retaliation for injustice and terrorism against them.

Many people know that the invasion and destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq, justified by means of lies, and support of Israel against Muslim lands has radicalised Muslims, but Western leaders like Prime Minister Blair continue to wear blinkers and deny responsibility for the rise in terrorism and this hypocrisy is given publicity by the media. Ignorance, delusion and hypocrisy, deliberate suppression of facts, deliberate invention and falsification of information and mass deception of the population that most political masters indulge in for their own or supposed public interests cannot possibly solve world problems but increases them. This surely must constitute a major world problem.

We all know that the USA has nuclear weapons, Britain and France have them and even Israel has nuclear weapons. We also know that it is the USA and Britain that have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and that they have surrounded Iran with their military forces and threatened to attack it, and yet they want to prevent Iran from having Nuclear weapons to defend itself against this obvious aggression! It is this type of Political hypocrisy that causes terrorism. Many other countries, including North Korea, are in a similar position and they justly claim that they need to develop Nuclear Weapons as a defence against the threat from US belligerence. Certainly the USA has military bases in many parts of the world and bullies all nations to conform to the self-interest of those who control the USA. This does inevitably create resentment, provoke retaliatory actions and makes it necessary for all nations that wish to remain independent to acquire, if they can, nuclear weapons and effective means to deliver these. This of course threatens the threateners, and we have a vicious circle of mutual provocation. It is impossible that this political self-centredness that flouts the welfare and interest of other nations can ever produce peace. The conflict so caused diverts huge amounts of human and natural resources from useful constructive efforts. Such actions cannot be regarded as intelligent or virtuous.

There are three interdependent ethical problems here:- (a) The politicians that control national policies and actions are of course focal points through which the collective human vices of the nation manifest themselves without moral censorship, because they are regarded by themselves and others, as not acting for themselves but for the nation. (b) Secondly, a distinction is made between individuals and collectives such as organisations, industrial corporations and nations. Though individuals are required to obey moral standards, this does not apply to these bodies and there are few laws that control international affairs. (c) Thirdly there are also double standards in that what is regarded as good or evil when done to the citizens of their own nation is regarded as the opposite when done to the citizens of rival nations. All this is the result of the tendency to form boundaries that circumscribe an area where limited human attention can be concentrated. This includes and excludes, causing competition but also conflict.

In order to keep their lucrative seats, politicians have to support the leaders of the political parties that nominate them. But they also tend to have shares in the profit making businesses and industries. Apart from this it is those who own the industries who also finance the Political parties and their propaganda machines. They also own the media of information through which their desires and opinions and selective and often invented or "spun" information can be propagated. It is, therefore, their interests that dictate Political Policies. Much of Politics and Business consists of criminal activity and many of the Politicians, Businessmen and Controllers of the culture have psychopathic and criminal tendencies and would be regarded as criminals in more enlightened cultures and prosecuted accordingly.

Critic:-

But Politicians do have some superior expertise, knowledge and intelligence. This makes them leaders and they are expected to lead and form public opinions. They also have to reflect public opinions or else they will not be elected. Their ability to manoeuvre between these two requirements is limited. A nation consists of several different communities, especially because of immigration and this creates a clash of nationalities, races, cultures and religions that exaggerate differences. This is particularly so in the case of Muslim immigrants who appear to have completely different ideas and value systems from the natives.

Comment:-

When faced with differences or any other problem, it is possible to act in seven different ways:- To try (a) to expand horizons so as to include all, (b) to encourage mutual adjustment and find a middle way, (c) to find some reconciling factor that allows co-operation for instance through discussion and treaties (d) to force integration by domination, changing and absorbing the other, (e) to keep the different communities apart by constructing barriers, (f) to do nothing and let events take their course, (g) to take sides and promote conflicts.

There are people who act in each or even several of these ways. In some places the less intelligent course prevails. We see various senior government Ministers who hold power and prestige, continuing their attack on Islam and inflaming religious differences by subtle as well as crude means. Churches mount campaigns against Islam, and even religious leaders such as the Pope. All this incites citizens to acts of persecution which also brings retaliation. How much tolerance are Muslims expected to have?

Critic:-

Muslims bring it on themselves by terrorist or violent acts that inevitable provoke retaliation.

Comment:-

As is often the case, you have narrowed the discussion to Muslims whereas it was meant to deal with a general world problem. However, it does provide an example.

It is not difficult to see that only a very small minority of Muslims are engaged in fighting and not all are terrorists. Some are even in the military fighting against terrorists. Some are retaliating to the terrorism against them. Why should Muslims condemn these? Indeed, why are Muslims required to condemn terrorism when terrorism against them is condoned? This is not justice. Is it a plot to divide Muslims and to disable Muslim opposition to oppression and Western attempts to impose their values on Muslims and destroy Islam? That is how it seems to many Muslim.

These verbal attacks on Islam and Muslims cannot be isolated from the military attacks on Muslim countries or from political and economic policies that also discriminate against them. These things interact and are aspects of a single phenomena. There is most certainly a war between different value systems, the Western secular and the Islamic. But there is also a struggle in Islam between traditionalism and modernism. It is a struggle by the traditionalists who wish to maintain Islam as it was centuries ago against the changes demanded by the scientific, technological and organisational development of the modern world to which there has not yet been an Islamic adjustment. It is unlikely that the Western campaigns will be able to destroy Islam or that their military actions in Muslim countries will be successful. These acts of aggression encourage more recruitment against them and the campaigns become more costly. Eventually, there will have to be a compromise from which both might learn.

These things, though topical, are being given here rather as examples of things that are much more widespread.

Critic:-

Regarding the controversy about the veil Muslim women wear, it is certainly divisive. Muslims have been allowed to come and live in Western countries. They should respect our culture and conform to our ways and integrate with the local people.

Comment:-

This controversy appears to be part of the increasing intolerance in the West, including Britain. It is caused by extremists on both sides and irresponsible politicians who fan the smouldering prejudices based on community differences. They preach globalisation on the one hand and intolerance on the other. Much hypocrisy is involved here. Certainly the veil covering the face is not a requirement in the Quran, but it is something for Muslims to discuss not others.

As for integration, are the British upper classes integrated with the lower classes? Are those who live in the luxurious neighbourhoods integrated with those who live in rows of terraced houses? Do show business people integrate with the factory workers? Did the British and Europeans when they went into India, Africa, Australia and the Americas conform to the local culture? Is it being suggested that in order to integrate all Indian Restaurants should be closed, for example, and that British people who eat Indian food are traitors? Do religious groups, including Christian ones, that do not approve of fornication, adultery, prostitution, pornography, drunkenness, drug abuse, violence, crudity, gossip and other moral degradations that are becoming prevalent integrate with those who indulge in these? Or is it only Muslims who are required to do so? Does democracy mean that minorities are expected to be assimilated by the majority so as to create a uniform mediocrity that has no possibility of progress? Then everyone will find themselves in some kind of minority and we will have a tyranny.

We are living in a multi-cultural world that has shrunk owing to technological advances and made people inter-dependent. This creates the problem of tolerance On the one hand there are differences between people that must be recognised for the welfare of all and on the other there must be some kind of common ground that allows mutual understanding and cooperation or else conflicts will continue to grow and destroy all. What is more, this variety and interaction is stimulating and beneficial to all. It invigorates and expands minds and human possibilities. All people should realise this and respect each others differences and cultures.

In a shrinking world, a method must be found that allows people to live according to their own value systems. There is a need for new modes of organisation. It seems that there is, or was until recently, greater multi-cultural and multi-religious tolerance in the USA than in Europe, owing due to the fact, no doubt, that it is a country with much space, a country made by immigrants from the rest of the world. But the increase in population there also causes a pressure for uniformity and conformity.

Critic:-

People are a mixture of good and evil and this has to be taken into consideration. What do you think the solution to the problems you mention?

Comment:-

Human beings have values and one does not condone evil but tries to eradicate it progressively, otherwise there is no progress.

It will be necessary to severely prosecute politicians, journalists and propagandists that lie. No secrecy of any kind should be tolerated in matters that concern the public, be it in politics, industry, commerce, civics or culture. In fact, all power should be taken away from politicians. The present crop of politicians can be sidelined gradually by firstly creating an Alternative National Assembly (ANA). The members of this will not represent territories, but various communities or societies on a proportional basis. That is, these communities will have a number of representatives that is proportional to the size of the communities. As support for this Assembly increases, it will be withdrawn from the Politicians.

When Truth, Goodness and Justice are valued then all policies in all fields must be based on research, knowledge and expertise and should be in the hands of those who acquire these in the various fields. This includes Politics, Law, Journalism and Arts. Each field of expertise should have its own Department and organisation that send representatives to the National Assembly. But they will also be members of the Local Assemblies to which all citizens belong and where exchange of ideas can take place. The chosen Leaders of these Assemblies including the Head of the State, who is assisted by a body of advisers, have co-ordinating and supervisory powers rather than dictatorial one, to ensure that all things are run in an ethical and efficient manner. They preside over three sections, each requiring expertise:- (a) Information gathering and distribution, including research and education (b) Planning (c) Execution.

The Industrial system must be reformed to enable full partnership of all workers and this should also involve their health, social welfare and education. The Educational system will also need transformation to one that concerns itself with human development, of Consciousness, conscience and will, rather than merely with fitting them as cogs in the industrial machine or providing them with only intellectual and physical skills. Not just facts, but also meaning and values must be taught and moral education must be given emphasis to refine feelings and motives.

There should be eventually a single global military force under the command of a United Nations Organisation where all Nations are proportionally represented. This Military/Police force keeps order throughout the world and gradually removes all national borders. All other affairs are left to local organisations. People can then migrate to places which they find most congenial. Free Trade and movement will ensure the distribution of wealth.

----------<O>----------

Contents