Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Chapter Three: Our stance on socialism

All well-known socialist doctrines have one European origin, i.e., they were developed in European soil and their roots are deep-seated in European social, political, and economic systems. Socialist view of feudalism, for instance, is European in nature, and is view on religion is the same view held in Europe against the Christina church. Socialist view on capitalism is the same one held against British capitalism in England in the second half of the eighteenth century. Since most socialist thinkers in Europe, as most Europeans, are ignorant of Islam and its history, and of the history of the Arab world, they believe that that the history of civilization began with the Greco-Roman civilizations, and then the European renaissance. Socialist thinkers believed that their theories apply to all people all over the world, and they resorted to the dialectic philosophy to support their theories.

When Karl Marx came up with his socialist theories, he observed the following:

A) British economy theories of Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, among others, which outlined a certain number of significant economic principles, like the one that stipulates that work is the origin of value.

B) The flourishing German philosophy of Hegel, who revived the ancient dialectic philosophy theorized by the Greeks.

C) Attempts, experiments and notions of the French socialism that emerged as a reaction to the French Revolution, especially that it resulted in disappointment, because it was the revolution of the rising bourgeois class, rather than the revolution of the working class. These ideas were expressed in the writings of Saint Simon, LeBlanc, Fourier, Proudhon, among others.

These are the sources cited in the socialist books, and were at the hands of Marx when he began writing his work. Yet, there was another source that socialist books overlooked, which was the biological studies of development of societies, which reached its peak in Darwin's book "The Origin of Species ". That book gave Marx one of the main keys to his idea of the struggle that he borrowed from the field of biology to the field of economic production.

As for the circumstances of the emergence of communism, it was a reaction of zealots in the camp of class war. According to the temperament and conditions of the life of the thinkers who laid down the theoretical outlines of communism, they were filled with enmity and the desire to take revenge. They were like the Greek Furies or other revengeful gods, conspiring when weak, devastating and crushing when powerful, and this group of thinkers and their writings were devoid of morality and ethics.

This abovementioned fact is the reason behind the sense of alienation toward socialism in the Arab or Eastern environment, in addition to its incomprehensible rhetoric and jargon, and its dependence on certain European circumstances that had not occurred in the East. Hence, socialism in the Arab world is hollow, and those who called for it were foreigners, Arabs who imbibed Western culture, and Jews. When certain factors led to the emergence of communist rule in Arab and Islamic countries, this did not appeal to the public. The communist ideology was then confined to the ruling elite that held control of the state and its sources, and of the army, by whose support they reached authority by coup d'état. Hence, the state would have, in a novel manner, the wealth and military power to rule.

This is not to deny that socialism - especially before it was linked to the hated dictatorial authority - represented the European consciousness in the age when the Church gave up its humane role and scholars of politics and economics sided with the rising capitalist trend and saw that misery of workers was their destined lot in life.

In the history of socialism and its development, we should distinguish between two stages: the first one when socialism was an open call to which many thinkers in Britain, France, and Germany had contributed, and the second stage that began with Marx and ended with Lenin, and this stage is called the Marxist stage. This stage was confined to Marxist thought as it was considered the practical side of socialism, while other socialist theories were considered idealistic or utopian.

In the first stage , socialism was the intellectual haven for all free, compassionate, conscientious men who were interested in the social cause. Chief among them was the British Robert Owen, who was in his adolescence a worker and later became an employer. He later gave up his work as an employer to lead the biggest workers' union in the nineteenth century, which was the biggest solidarity union in Britain. He began the first practical experiment to achieve considerable justice for workers by raising wages and lessening working hours, as well as educating workers. He created the notion of cooperation as an alternative to competitive capitalism. He tried to establish a society that lacks the shortcomings of capitalist society in Britain, and in the USA. He was the first one to use the term'socialism' in his speeches. In France, the great thinkers Proudhon, Fourier, and LeBlanc led the socialist discussions, and in Germany La Salle. Generally, socialism in that stage represented justice and fairness toward workers, to save them from capitalist exploitation by any means.

In the second stage , Marx came. He was a genius with encyclopedic knowledge (he used to memorize Shakespearean texts, and got his PhD in Greek literature, and he was a student of Hegel). Marx managed to reach to a mathematic formula by which surplus value taken by capitalists can be calculated. Marx's theoretical nature led him create the notions of philosophical materialism and historical materialism. He considered that ownership of means of production is the decisive factor of the development of history. He thought that every system of production bears its antithesis according to Hegelian dialectic thinking, and that capitalism would lead to socialism, which would replace capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. In brief, Marx managed to make socialism a specified, compact theory', after it had been an open, free call.

Socialism as discussed in this book would be confined to that second stage, i.e. Marxian theorization and Leninist application of it, as these notions are what occur to people's minds when socialism is mentioned, and because pre-Marx socialist ideas are now unremembered history confined to books, not vivid in the memory of people.

Of course, we cannot present here an explanation of Marxism and Leninism; we would confine our argument to elements of difference and agreement between Islam and Marxism, according to the view of the Islamic Revival Call.

Elements of difference

First: denial of divinity and creation:

When Marx made materialism the origin of his dialecticism, he excluded the existence of God the Creator of the universe. He perceived divinity as an ancient popular myth. This perception is the main element lacking in communism, and this lacking element is the origin of the deviance of communist thought. Yet, we should refer to the circumstances that led to that grave error. The ecclesiastic theology and the complicated concept of trinity, as well as the concepts of personified god, son of god, mother of god…etc. led thinkers and scholars in the Christian society to reject the ecclesiastic notion of God, and this mythological maze that could not be judged by reason or instinct. The church, along its history, sided with nobility and monarchs. Bishops had their sears in the House of Lords side by side with feudalists. When the peasants' revolt occurred in the sixteenth century in Germany, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, stood against the peasants and counseled the nobility to crush this revolt in a severe manner. What reinforced the opposing view of communism toward religion was that few Europeans knew enough about Islam and its miraculous concept of divinity, because crusades isolated Europe from Islam.

Hence, Marxism rejected the institution of the church, but this does not excuse them from the grave error of rejecting the notion of divinity altogether. Communists ignored on purpose these important questions: what is universe? Is it just heavenly bodies like suns, moons, and galaxies? Is it self-made? Did it create its own precise laws? Did it exist by chance? Who created it? How could we accept the notion of existence by chance in the world of determinism? Is this development of universe random? How random elements developed this creative, precise design in life. Who set in motion all existent things from minute nuclei to huge galaxies? Who created the human body whose wonders are being discovered until now by science?

When we see a perfect portrait of someone or a natural scene, we recognize that a painter made it, not nature. Nature, for instance, cannot bring iron from mines, rubber from trees, glass from sand, and create cars within a period of millions of years of evolution.

The notion of 'millions of years of evolution' is the capital notion for the advocates of self-evolution, which is a materialistic evolution of primitive creatures to the intelligent human being. This explanation does not answer two questions: how laws that control the universe and the heavenly bodies are so precise, and what is the secret behind this life. A period of 'millions of years of evolution' cannot alone suffice to achieve a quantitative or qualitative development in living creatures just because change is latent in them. God put laws for that development, while the passage of 'millions of years' is a mere catalyst, not the original factor. 'Millions of years of evolution' can change the nature of some substances, but it cannot put laws of moving of heavenly bodies or give the tough of life on lifeless matter.

The notion of God belongs to reason. When there is reason and will, then there is God, and many regulations, laws, sequence, causes and effects. That is why when the Holy Quran reasons with unbelievers and calls them to believe, it sometimes scolds them saying: ''Do not you have reason?''

This verse agrees with reason: ''Or do they deny the existence of God? Have they themselves been created without anything that might have caused their creation? "(52:35).

It is wrong to assume that peoples in modern age in Europe, the USA, and elsewhere do not believe in God, or that Muslims are the only believer in God. A good percentage of these peoples believe in God in approximately similar ways akin to Muslims, and to instinct. Yet, this kind of belief is not strongly related to Christianity, because the notion of God in the church is no longer believed by most people, either due to its incomprehensibility or due to lack of acceptance of it by reason and logic. This kind of belief lost its efficiency, values and commitment, but it prevented total spiritual hollowness created by the ignoring of the notion of God or having lesser alternatives. No one denies the notion of God in the west except obstinate people who insist on their false notions. God describes such people in the Holy Quran: "Thus, step by step, We bestow from on high through this Quran all that gives health to the spirit and is a grace unto those who believe in US, the while it adds to the ruin of evildoers "(17:82)

Marxism avoided the discussion of the question of divinity as the only rational solution to the question of existence: i.e. the existence of the universe and its minute, precise laws, and the existence of the human being and human emotions, sentiments, life, intelligence, and conscience. Communism denounced the notion of God and creation without presenting convincing alternative. This fact shakes the depth and objectivity of communist thinkers, starting from Marx onwards. They are in Islamic perspective, people who discarded truth only to believe in mere falsehood, they feel irritation by the mention of God, and feel happy by the mention of mundane things, and they believe that this worldly life is the only one and nothing would happen beyond death, and death itself comes by time only.

When socialism denied the existence of God and the impact of religion on societies and individuals, it lost ethics and values, discarding all philosophical principles that formed the European conscience. Hence, socialism fell into the same quagmire of capitalist ailments: cynicism and alienation, whereas Christ said, ''Man does not live by bread alone''. It is usual that opportunism was prevailing in individuals, parties and states, which believed in socialism. Socialism at the hands of Lenin, Stalin, MaoTse -tong, and communist ruling parties in Asia and Africa, imposed a kind of terrorism on people and caused more than one hundred million people to lose their life. Value and sanctity of human life comes only from God, and if they came from human source, they fall short of being appreciated. The Holy Quran asserts that religion places great value on human life, ''…If anyone slays a human being - unless it be in punishment for murder or for spreading corruption on earth- it shall be as though he had slain all mankind… '' (5:32)

Second: refusal to suppress the character of the individual:

As socialism rejects God as the Creator of the universe and its laws, it overlooks the human being and its role in society. It disregards the role of human will to run society, crushing the individual in social classes. This stance is a regression, or more straightforwardly backwardness, as this stance places human beings to ancient eras before the advent of religions saved them by granting them a sacred spirit, conscious conscience, and distinctive character, before the emergence of intellectual revolution that lifted the banner of liberty and achieved it in many fields.

In ancient eras, primitive human being thought that angry gods and impetuous powers of nature controlled society and the universe. This control was attributed as well to the ruler who personified the gods, rulers then had full control of life, death, work, and granting liberty, prosperity, and grace on his retinue as long as he was pleased with them. Other people, then, did not have individual characters, as it was dissolved within their tribes or classes, not to mention staunch loyalty to the ruler.

With the advent of Christianity, man was saved from this disgraceful position, because of the link between human beings and God that gave people dignity. Religion crystallized human conscience and soul. The Church presented logical, stable, if not true, notions of the universe and society that gave stability to human beings for a while. Man became the master of the earth, which is the center of the universe, and heavenly bodies revolve around it. The universe moves according to the will of God, Who reward the righteous and punish the evildoers. Christianity presented objective criteria that allowed equality for all people in society. The church struggled against usury and corrupt methods of trade and imposed just dealings and care for the poor. It hindered the counter development as the eighteenth century industrial revolution could have occurred a century or two before that when the engines and machines were fabricated, but governments and churches banned their use.

Yet, many factors interfered to change the course of things, because of the overbearing authority of the church, and its corruption and riches. Popes, cardinals, and bishops isolated themselves from the public and from monks, priests, and believers. The church moved away from its erstwhile values upon which it was founded, and it worked for its interests, collaborated with aristocracy and monarchy against the public.

On the other hand, Christianity focuses on the soul, salvation, and sin, which allowed many historical factors, related to its origin, to formulate the Christian trend of thought that says that the Christian religion should not interfere with political and economic affairs. Its true message is the salvation of soul by glad tidings, love, and setting a good example, and the church should not interfere between Man and God, controlling will and conscience of human beings. These trends gathered momentum due to many historical reasons, and to sayings of Christ, and the two magnates of Christianity Paul and Peter. Other powers of development presented Christian trends of thought that glorified hard work and asceticism and saw success as the sign of righteousness and God's favor. This climate paved the way to the emergence of 'ascetic capitalist' who would realize success by accumulation of profit and reinvesting it. This capitalist would not enjoy pleasures of life unless in later stages of his life and he would perform Christian acts of charity like building a church, a school, or an orphans' house. After a long journey through history, capitalism allowed the gradual return of usury, discarding care for the poor and just dealings. Hence, the climate paved the way for the emergence of full-fledged capitalism.

Capitalism began modestly in the cradle of boroughs. Later, with the spirit of adventure and risk in traders, sea voyages set to discover new lands and maritime routes. This was followed by colonialism, plunder and scramble for loot; hence, the accumulation of huge capitalist wealth, which allowed Man to tame powers of nature to serve him.

Thus, the medieval Christian society disintegrated under blows of counter powers, politics was separated from religion and economics, and that stage was crowned by the emergence of full-blown capitalism and laisser-faire economy. For the first time, then, appeared the individual independent character, free from the shackles of the state and the church.

Yet, capitalism presented the economic man, a distinct type of people appeared as a result of the political economy, who did not move or talk except by the motive to earn profits, and even wages fierce battles with workers, consumers, and competitors.

Capitalists later resembled the ancient angry gods, and individuality dissolved in groups by varied degrees. Individual workers could not face capitalist exploitation and formed unions and parties to defend their rights.

This was the state of affairs, and he tried to reform matters but ironically, he aggravated matters! He wanted to free human beings form exploitation, but he made them lose more privileges. PeterDrucker said in that respect, '' [Marx]did not just prove that Man is not free within capitalism, but also proved that he does not possess the faculty to be free ''

Marx made materialism, not the human being, thestaring point. He did not perceive in the human being except physical, animalistic entity. Evolutionary theories that appeared then influenced Marx deeply, especially concerning the origin of man as descendent from higher apes, but evolved in millions of years and during certain conditions, to be upright and his hands evolved to be able to hold things, to emerge later as the human being we know today.

This view opposes the view of religion and humanist philosophies, both added dignity on Man, bestowed on people by God. In Islam, Man is the deputy of God upon earth, and angels prostrated before him, as human beings are bearers of God's soul breathed into them through Adam; hence, human beings are dignified. In Christianity, man is the image of God who sent a son to redeem mankind. TheQuranic verse ''…If anyone slays a human being - unless it be in punishment for murder or for spreading corruption on earth- it shall be as though he had slain all mankind… '' (5:32) refers to the fact that God dignified human beings. Dignity of man had many signs and symbols in other philosophies. Man in the humanist philosophies, which emerged in the liberal revolution of human intellect, became ''an end in itself '', and thanks to these concepts that involved religious notions, human beings had certain sanctity and natural rights - for just being human.

These natural human rights are foreign to communism, which sees human beings as a developed animal, and the factors of this development were more important than the will of human beings. These factors are not just natural, but economic and productive factors as well, in the first place. These factors develop and create relations in isolation from the will of human beings, according to this famous quotation of Marx, ''…social production makes people enter into certain productive and economic relationships, in isolation with their will, and these relationships agree with the degree of the development of material production… ''. Thus, the development of production powers and its relationships impose themselves willy-nilly on the human will.

In light of the above-mentioned idea, we understand the harsh attitude of Marx toward workers and capitalists. Although he sympathized with the former group and cursed the latter group, but he saw that both groups had nothing to do with the dire conditions, capitalist could not help but stride toward their end, while workers had nothing to do except when they link their struggle to changing of relationships and ownership of means of production. We understand as well the underestimation of human rights that accompanied the application of communism, starting from Lenin until now. Application took different forms in many countries of the world. We understand as well the emergence of the notion of 'adapting' of human nature and the attempt to control and tamper with all components of the character of individuals. These practices began with Lenin since the Pavlov experiments with dogs, which led to brainwashing during the reign of Stalin.

In light of this idea, we understand that communist notion of liberty hailed unashamedly by Marxists, which was that liberty wasknowledge by necessity.

Plekhanov explained in his book on history and the individual, considered the most brilliant philosophical, ''…consciousness seen through liberty is work done and preferred by human beings, and necessity is linked mentally to liberty [...]liberty means one cannot break the unity between necessity and liberty, and this overt contradiction is the biggest manifestation of liberty… ''.

This'great' discovery results in the statement that liberty lies in lack of it! Moreover, failing to work what one does already is the biggest manifestation of liberty!

According to that theory, Stalin claimed that his 1936 constitution is the most democratic one. Communists claimed in any state they controlled that their ruling system - and not capitalist democratic systems - included vast space for liberty!

It is clear that the theory linking liberty to 'knowledge by necessity' as a definition of liberty was a bad one designed to deceive people. It is a fact that sometimes necessity places a certain framework or constraints on liberty and a motive to bypass liberty, but matters are not recognized by their restrictions or by their contrary notions. For instance we cannot say that white is black just because black makes white prominent. Linking liberty to 'knowledge by necessity' was a kind of deception because necessity has many interpretations without control. Every day bears witness human superiority over necessity, and what was necessary yesterday becomes handy today. This definition could be mentioned when we talk about the relation between human beings and nature, and that necessity inspires human beings the desire to be free and conquer nature. This definition would turn into a way to accentuate human power that is stronger than necessity. Mentioning this definition in the field of social relations was meant to show that the socialist state is a necessity that absorbs liberty. This includes the relationship between production and ownership of means of production by the state. Anyway, liberty in this perspective has no other meaning but submission and compliance, to justify the hegemony of totalitarian governments.

This communist definition is a distorted version of the Islamic view of fate[21] (exemplified in sayings like 'no harm would befall Man unless ordained by God', 'God choose the best for Man', and 'if we knew what is forthcoming, we would choose present reality'). This overt resemblance shows that the communist definition is a distorted version of the Islamic view on fate, which links it to God the Merciful, the Compassionate, the Perfect and the Absolute. No one could monopolize rule in the name of God. Whereas necessity in communism, as a notion, is merely the blind and deaf relations of production that has - without human beings - no vision whatsoever, except that necessity is represented by the communist state and its clique. Whereas in Islam, some thinkers reached the idea that Man is not a puppet in the hands of fate, but free to choose, and that God is Just by necessity. This notion surpasses any thought by soviet thinkers for their state or party.

To get the larger picture, we should mention that liberty was always a European ideal, because European civilization is humanist in nature and nationalist, especially in its notion to make human beings face fate and powers of Greek mythology and aim at getting rid of them, and not submit to them. In pagan Greco-Roman European civilization, Europe did not know celestial religions and their notion of liberty. Religions in general and Islam in particular, are based on people's belief in liberty. Religious belief cannot be without human willingness and emotional acceptance and conviction. That is why religions place human beings in higher status as they are the means to build religious societies, and make the heart the bastion of belief. Religions acknowledge individuals, their distinctive characters, dignity and liberty.

What concurs with that notion is that he Holy Quran opened the door for all to advise people to perform good deeds and avoid evil ones, and makes all relationships based on justice. Islam liberated its believers gradually from the social stigma of slavery, as it is the negation of liberty. All liberties result from the belief in the individual, one's heart, and one's conscience. In all the above-mentioned cases, Islam contradicts [Marxist/ Leninist] socialism in its means to crush the individual and liberties of people, and its dictatorship.

Third: rejection of Leninist socialist state:

What can we expect from a theory that denied the existence of God and crushed the individual character of people, if it reached the ruling system? In our book titled ''Islam as a Religion and a Nation, not a Religion and a State ", we prove that authority is the main distinctive characteristic of the state, and without it there would be no state. Authority corrupts ideology, values and beliefs. For instance, authority corrupted values like liberty, justice, equality...etc. and the best of values - religions- when authority, for instance, turned caliphate into hereditary monarchs system. Another example is Christianity - the religion of love and tolerance - turned by authority into the terrible inquisition courts. Authority corrupts all values and religions, but what if the ruling theory of this authority is corrupt in itself? Marx sowed seeds of evil and corruption n socialism when he denied the existence of God and based his socialist theories on the philosophy of dialectic materialism. Marxist socialism crushed the character of the individual, and when it reached state authority, socialism turned rabidly aggressive by authority. Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky grew the seeds sown by Marx, and they reaped terrorism, dictatorship, bloodshed, injustices, torment prisons, and forced unpaid labor that made the roman one dwindle in comparison.

The worst thing in this horrid socialist rule was that people became worshippers of modern idols like Lenin and Stalin, and their fanatic advocates of communism tried to apply it in China, Sudan, Cambodia, Indonesia,…etc. which added more false idols like MaoTse -Tong and Ho Chi Minh, among others, who killed and tormented millions of people. Victims of Lenin's socialism are forty to fifty millions of people.

History would never forgive Lenin for losing the chance of a lifetime, when he ascended to power in the name of workers who considered him their savior from capitalism and submission to the mercy of wages. He had the unprecedented chance to establish socialist rule based on justice and freedom, and to replace capitalist work relations with socialist work relations. Yet, nothing of the sort happened, and he did not stand in the middle of the route like most democracies, but devised the extreme degree of workers' exploitation, worse than the capitalist one, based on the theory ofTaylorism , devised by the American engineer Fredric Taylor. He made use of all workers and imposed on them blind obedience to overseers of workers. Taylor debilitated workers' unions and syndicates by annexing them to the socialist party as the Porte-parole of the socialist party to the masses. When workers' opposition movement emerged, headed by brilliant original elements in the socialist party, Lenin was furious and accused these elements of syndicalism and anarchy. He issues a decree to ban any opposition to the decisions of the socialist party, and gave unlimited authorities to Stalin the secretary of the socialist party, at the time, to crush and quell any opposition[22] . His aide was Trotsky the minister of defense, who bombed the marine baseKronstad with its sailors who made the first revolt against socialism. He was the one who devised the style of taking hostages to coerce others to do what he wished. He militarized work and workers by making syndicates like barracks that employed pressure and military force. He authored a booktilted ''On Defense of Terrorism " to justify the right of the state to practice all sorts of terrorism.

Military tyrants like Caesar, Augustus, and Napoleon, tyrannized people on the pretext of military rule restrictions. Lenin and Trotsky quelled liberty, and their means to quell it were based on primary principles to make quelling unavoidable method, and a desired virtue or integral part of the work of the state!

Although socialism rejects Nazism and Fascism, yet both ideologies learned lessons of Bolshevist. We can say that Hitler and Mussolini were disciples of Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin was the first leader to establish the most powerful central intelligence agency with unlimited authority, and he named it 'the shield of the revolution '.

We do not exaggerate if we say that political thought did not suffer such setback and backwardness as happened in socialist state base on the principles, means, and ends of Lenin and his disciples. The socialist state became the curse of this era, caused the death of millions of people, made other millions suffer torment in dungeons of prisons, and forced other millions to unpaid work camps. The first victims of the socialist state were the workers.

We refuse the Leninist socialist state altogether, and see it as a setback to human progress. Its only merit was that it proved that any attempt to buy justice and sell liberty is a lost deal that would make human beingslose both justice and liberty. The socialist experiment made people realize that freedom is liberty of thought, opinion, and expression, and that liberty should be tae cornerstone of any state that respects the human being. Any call or justification to strip people of this liberty is false.

Elements of agreement:

When socialism raised the banners of materialism, it was honest with the reality and sentiments of people. The vast majority of people cares for its life conditions in the first place, and cares for earning their living. They work all day long and their salaries or wages determine their standard of life, satisfaction of needs like nourishment, clothing, and shelter, and the standard of health, culture, and psychological state, consciousness of life problems like poverty, debts, and disputes.

Political democracy overlooked this important aspect - ignored before by the church - and this lacking element was serious, but socialist claimed to bridge this gap, but it could not do this in reality.

Hence, the benefit of socialism was that it showed and denounced the opportunism and exploitation of capitalism, called for the right of workers to revolt against this injustice, and presented methods to control the reins of this exploitation. Socialism in that way presented a great service to the cause of social justice for the common people. The Revival Call accepts the main principle that capitalism is opportunist by its very nature, but this opportunism could be controlled and kept to a minimum by forming syndicates for workers and reinforcing these syndicates by culture, knowledge, and proper organization.

The materialistic element should not be ignored; people should eat and drink before they can think and theorize. The Holy Quran says, "Let them, therefore, worship the Sustainer of this Temple, Who has given them food against hunger and made them safe from danger "(106:3-4).

Hence, satisfying one's hunger comes before worship and a reason for it. Islam established certain systems to satisfy human needs without violating the divine laws for Muslims. Islam does not encourage poverty and debts, and urged people to enjoy the material bounties of life without excess, that is why we cannot blame socialism for its interest in materialism; on the contrary, it showed helpfully that the natural order of things for the vast majority of people is to satisfy the material needs and then other needs. Religions affirm this fact in particular; God created Mankind and know the necessity to satisfy materialistic needs of people to preserve their biological entity. Divine religions complete the other side of people, which is their humanist natural need for thought, values, spiritualities, and faith. The advent of religions presupposes the satisfaction of the materialistic needs, and religious values curb the predominance of materialistic aspect of life over human beings. Hence, it is the idea ofcomplementarity , not struggle, between materialistic and spiritual needs, and Islam acknowledges the notion of satisfying materialistic needs in a healthy, wholesome, lawful ways, and rewards these efforts as well.

God created Adam from earth, and then breathed life into him; thus, the earthly formation of Man, and consequently his bodily needs, precedes the divine breath of soul into him, which carried spiritualities and values into Man. divine religions presupposed a certain shortage in people that they cannot fill themselves.

Islam cares equally for both the materialistic and the spiritual aspect of human beings. Some religious doctrines denied the materialistic necessities as something evil, whereas socialism disregarded the spiritual aspect altogether, claiming that religion is the opium of the masses. This was a serious error in Marxism, which should have realized that caring for the materialistic aspect does not mean necessarily denying the spiritual aspect of human beings, and that materialistic satisfaction at a certain point declines, according to the law of diminishing return. Satisfaction without control means that people are carried away to pursue profits, wealth and luxury. This aspect is capitalist and unacceptable, especially by socialism. It is noteworthy that materialistic needs are individual by nature, whereas values are communal and collective by nature. Society does not attain progress and cohesion except by principles and values that is why Marxism in its overlooking of values appears amoral philosophy and it seemed to be betraying its supporters and people, which paved the way for dictatorship. It is a random, unjust attempt to compare the importance of the materialistic and the spiritual aspect of human beings. No aspect is more important than the other one, but they complement one another. Early classical socialist thought was idealistic in making values and spiritualities above its main foundation, as this was static link between values and materialism, and in fact, both aspects should be in a state of ongoing interaction.

Yet, the materialistic needs are nearer to the human being as a biological creature who has to breathe, eat and drink, get sheltered from hot or cold climate…etc. If biological, materialistic needs are not satisfied, human beings cannot enjoy beauty and art, may get nervous and short-tempered in a low mood, and would fall prey to tendencies like evil, aggression, flattery…etc.

Deprivation of materialistic needs prevents individuals in society from having a strong religious sense and spiritual sentiments. If conflict arises between the two aspects, the materialistic one would prevail, at least for most people, because, unlike spiritual needs, it is related to the existence of human beings. The practical step in Islam to prevent such state isZakat (alms) to ensure economic solidarity and to provide justice on all levels. Justice may not necessarily provide materialistic sufficiency, but it prevents worst sentiments that might be caused by deprivation. Deprived people would see they are not alone, and justice would ensure the best distribution of wealth, and bridge the gap between the filthily rich and the impoverished. Talking about spiritual values in the presence of abject poverty cannot possible happen, as it refers to corrupt system, and makes it hard to order people to submit to it.

Yet, the materialistic aspect does not fill the void in the human soul; on the contrary, it might fill the stomach and influence thought, but some other important components of thought need values and principles that the material cannot provide. These values might exceed in importance the materialistic aspect when people withstand torment, imprisonment, abject poverty for their beliefs. Marx himself exemplified this when he lived in poverty for the sake of his beliefs and was against hegemony of certain powerful attitudes.

If the materialistic aspect constitutes high priority to the vast majority of people, a few people place higher priority to thought and beliefs, and these few represent most of philosophers, prophets, scholars, poets, men of letters, men of knowledge, and great artists. These are the influential elements in a given society, and under their banners and beliefs, common people move. This does not indicate necessarily that their ideas are right, for it might be primitive or wrong, but in general, they are away from the materialistic criteria of profits and losses.

This distinction between the materialist elements and its influence over the intellectual elite makes matters rightfully arranged and renders justice for all, combining the importance of materialism and the importance of values, beliefs and thoughts without contradiction. Under the banner of thought, humanity progressed. Yet, at the same time, materialistic needs of the masses and powers of production have great influence over this progress as well to make the progress route contribute to achieving prosperity to the public.

Engels in his letter to Schmidt (fifth Augustus 1890) had to admit that he and Marx are to blame for the extremism of their disciples who thought that materialism is the only influential factor. Yet, he excused himself for not correcting this image by certain circumstances and lack of time; nevertheless, this cannot justify the grave error in the edifice he erected with Marx to be a new Mecca for the disciples and maniacs.

Even when materialism constitutes highest priority of people, it could not hold this position for long, as when a certain degree of satisfaction is reached, materialism becomes self-defeated and satisfaction diminishes. That is why communism succeeded in poor countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, when it promised providing food for all hungry people there. However, such promise does not attract rich people, whose appetites demand the best, and communism would not provide that.

Some may think that when communism provides even distribution of food, it does something great and it should be regarded as a benevolent call and should be applied by all. Yet, the point of contention is that communism does not offer anything but material welfare, and sometimes fails to do that in the best manner in most communist states, whose governments gains a lot in return for giving very little for people, and eventually people would not gain material welfare and they would lose freedom.

Emphasizing materialism and diminishing the intellectual aspect is not something to be proud of! Animals do not know except the materialistic factor, and humanity has the distinctive characteristic of recognition of values and ideals. Man is a sublime being, and this sublimity is a source of inspiration for people and makes them enjoy a humane life in the real sense of the word.

***

Useful ideas introduced by socialism include production and economic planning and nationalization of means of production. These ideas prevent waste, chaos and competition of capitalism, uncontrolled by the mechanics of the market, and prevent individuals from exploiting workers and farmers.

The USSR applied central planning and nationalization by brutal, violent ways, not only stripped proprietors and capitalists of their wealth, but murdered them as well. This was among chief reasons behind the downfall of the USSR. Centralized planning meant adding governmental bureaucracy to state economy, with its slow pace and complexity. The desire to gain profits diminished and it was the reason for work. Competition dwindled and it was the criteria of success and efficiency. Thus, economy in capitalist countries resembled a racehorse, while in the USSR was like a slow turtle.

Nationalization, after it was applied forcefully and caused the murder of many people who owned nationalized property, was meant to prevent exploitation and opportunism. Ironically, when the USSR was the only owner of means of production, nationalization became a form of state capitalism and not socialism per se despite all sloganeering. In the absence of liberty and political transparency, the ruling system combined evils of economic exploitation and political tyranny. Hence, the 'socialist' state in fact was a tyrannical capitalist state without liberty and justice.

Islam prefers socialist aspect of hard working of energetic intelligent people in any field as ambition leads to prosperity, progress and independence. Ruling systems should encourage such values without exploiting public categories like workers or consumers, allowing transgression of profiteering and competition, or wastage of resources, typical of capitalist societies. Yet, we cannot accept the removal of private and individual ownership altogether. For instance, we cannot castrate males to make them abstain from having sex. We should be courageous enough to accept complexities of necessities of life and manage to minimize any negative impacts. Islam does this by presenting a kind of guidance to the national economic policy to achieve welfare of people. What capitalists lose because of justice in distribution would regain it by preventing wastage of resources in fierce competition. In Islamic states, there should be a sense of commitment and accountability for public responsibility, stemmed from voluntary faith reinforced by laws and proper regulations as well. This is lacking in both capitalism and socialism as they stemmed from pure materialism without morals.

The legitimacy of these regulations is based on two principles: the first one is that ownership is deputized in Islam, as all property is originally owned by God. This is not empty rhetoric as God is the Creator of all matter. God deputized Man to benefit from wealth and resources found on earth. The second Islamic principle is that God prohibit misuse of right guidance, and if it occurred then its perpetrator discarded divine guidance and justice. The state has the fundamental right to direct economy according to the responsibility, knowledge and for the welfare of public. Yet, this does not deny that the original principle is liberty and ownership.

The state should enter into fields of investment that capitalist refrain from investing in them or help them with subsidies to urge them to enter these fields. Yet, the state should not run economic establishments, as governments are not capable of this mission, and if it did, failure is doomed to happen. Nationalization, if succeeded, would turn the state into a god who would control livings of people and this would not benefit people. Successful nationalization is a waste; a failed one is a catastrophe.