It is said on this account that economy is the
understructure of a society and all other affairs are
subservient to it. Whenever it undergoes a change as a
result of the development of the means of production and
the going up of production level, it becomes necessary
to change the superstructure also. But that stratum of
the society which depends upon the old economic system
regards this change as being against its interests and
endeavours to maintain the status quo. In contrast the
newly up-coming stratum attached to new means of
production, considering a change in the situation and in
the establishment of a new system to be in its interest
tries hard to change and push the society and all its
affairs forward to bring them into harmony with the
newly developed means of production.
The intensity of the struggle and the conflict between
these two groups, one decrepit and reactionary and the
other progressive and forward-looking, continues to grow
until it reaches an explosive point and the society with
a revolutionary group steps forward and undergoes a
complete change. The primitive system gives place to the
new and thus the process ends in the complete victory of
the new forces and defeat of the old ones. Thereafter a
new phase of history begins.
This new phase again faces a similar fate. With the
further development of the means of production fresh men
come into the field. With the increase in the quantum of
production the current system loses its capability of
solving social problems and the society once again faces
a deadlock. There again appears the need of a big change
in the economic and social systems. This phase also
gives place to its antithesis and a new phase begins.
And thus the process of change and development goes on
steadfastly.
History, just like nature itself, passes through
contradictories, i.e. every stage of it harbours the
germs of the next stage within itself and gives place to
it after a series of struggles and conflicts.
This mode of thinking in respect of nature and history
is called dialectic and according to it, all the social
values throughout history have been subservient to this
means of production.
Chief Characteristic
Now let us see as to what is the chief characteristic of
the dialectic thinking which distinguishes it from what
is termed as the metaphysical thinking. The exponents of
dialectic thinking mention four principles as the
distinctive features of their doctrine. Let us take them
one by one.
Firstly, they maintain that all things are constantly
moving and progressing whereas, as they assert,
according to metaphysical thinking, things are static
and motionless.
This imputation has no basis. The upholders of
metaphysical thinking do not believe that things are
static . They use the term "Unchangeability" relatively.
Otherwise they also believe that all physical things are
subject to change. It is only metaphysical things which
may be described as static.
Unfortunately the supporters of dialectic logic, being
the adherents of the maxim that the end justifies the
means, concentrate their attention on achieving their
objectives and in doing so, ignore the correctness or
other wise of what they attribute to others. Anyhow, the
principle of motion is not a distinctive feature of
dialectic thinking.
The second principle is that of correlation and
interaction of things. This, too, cannot be considered
to be a characteristic of dialectic thinking. Though the
supporters of this doctrine allege that the rival theory
of metaphysical thinking does not believe in this
principle, yet the fact is not so.
The third principle is that of contradiction. But the
question is whether it is the characteristic only of the
dialectic thinking. Is it a fact that the upholders of
metaphysical thinking totally deny the existence of
contradiction in nature? On this point the supporters of
dialecticism have unnecessarily raised such an uproar.
They base their arguments on the existence of the
principle known in logic and philosophy as the law of
noncontradiction and assert that as the supporters of
metaphysical thinking believe in this principle, they
must naturally deny the existence of all sorts of
contradiction. But the dialecticians conveniently forget
that this logical principle is not even remotely
connected with the existence of contradictions, in the
sense of conflict between the various elements of nature
or the elements of the society or history. Anyhow, the
dialecticians go a step further and assert that the
supporters of the metaphysical thinking because of their
beliefs that all parts of nature, including such
obviously divergent things as fire and water, are in a
state of mutual harmony and compatibility call upon the
various elements of that society to be at peace and on
this basis urge the persecuted not to resist oppressors
and adopt a policy of appeasement and surrender.
We again emphasize that all this is a distortion of the
truth. According to the supporters of metaphysical
thinking contradiction in the sense of divergence and
mutual competition of the various elements of nature
does exist and it is necessary for the continuity of
Allah blessings.
The fourth principle of mutation in nature and of
revolution in history is also not a basic characteristic
of dialectic thinking. It was never mentioned as a
dialectic principle by Hegel, the father of the modern
dialectic method of reasoning, nor by Karl Marx, the
hero of dialectic materialism. It was recognized as a
biological principle of evolution in the 19th century
and was later introduced into dialectics by Ferederick
Inglis, a disciple of Karl Marx. Today it is an accepted
principle of biology and is not the exclusive monopoly
of any particular school of thought. Then what is the
basic characteristic of dialectic thinking?
In fact, the distinctive feature and the real basis of
this school is two fold. One is the doctrine that not
only external realities but ideas also have a dialective
nature i.e. the ideas are subject to the above mentioned
four principles. In this respect no other school of
thought shares the views of this school. (This point has
been discussed in detail in the 1st volume of the book
'The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of
Realism').
The other distinctive feature of this school is that it
interprets contradiction to mean that everything
necessarily nurtures its antithesis within itself and
subsequently gets transformed into it and that this anti
thesis itself passes through the same process. This
doctrine is claimed to apply to both nature and history
both of which, as they put it, pass through
contradictories. According to this school evolution
means the combination of two opposites, one of which is
transformed into the other.
The doctrine of contradiction in the sense of conflict
between different parts of nature and their occasional
combination is quite old. What is new about dialecticism
is the claim that, besides contradiction and conflict
between different parts of nature, contradiction also
exists within each part of itself and this contradiction
takes the form of a battle between the new progressive
factors and the old decadent ones and culminates in the
final triumph of the progressive ones. These two
features are the corner stone of the dialectic way of
thinking.
Hence, it is entirely wrong to consider every school
upholding the principles of motion and contradiction to
be dialectic. Such a mistake has been committed by those
who, having come across the principles of motion, change
and contradiction in Islamic teachings, have drawn the
conclusion that Islamic thinking is also dialectic. The
fact is that according to the dialectic thinking all
truths are transient and relative, whereas Islam
believes in a series of permanent and eternal truths.
Further, to believe that nature and history move in a
triangular form (thesis, antithesis and synthesis) and
pass through contradictories is an essential
characteristic of the dialectic way of thinking. Islamic
teachings do not approve of this belief.
The fact is that this misconception has been created by
the supporters of dialectic materialism. They, in their
discourses, which are never free from an element of
propaganda, give all non-dialectic thinking the name of
metaphysical thinking according to which, as they
allege, all parts of nature are motionless, unrelated to
each other and free from all sorts of contradiction.
They accuse the Aristotelian logic of being based on
these very principles. They assert this view with such
force that those who have little direct knowledge are
often misled.
Not only that, but also those who are impressed by such
statements, if lacking in the knowledge of Islam, easily
come to the conclusion that the principle of immobility,
unrelatedness and absence of contradiction must form the
basis of Islamic thinking. They base their arguments on
the premises that Islam, being a religious creed, has a
metaphysical basis and therefore, its thinking must also
be metaphysical and that metaphysical thinking being
based on the above-mentioned three principles the belief
in them must be a part of the Islamic way of thinking.
Another group, which is somewhat acquainted with Islamic
teachings, presume that Islamic thinking, not being
metaphysical, must be dialectic. As this group
recognizes no third alternative, naturally it comes to
this conclusion.
All this misunderstanding and confusion is the result of
undue reliance on what the supporters of dialectic
materialism attribute to others. Anyhow, as already
mentioned, truth is quite different.
From the above discussion we may draw the following
conclusions:
The new and old ideology
In the present context the young and the old do not
refer to the younger and the older generation and the
conflict between them has nothing to do with the problem
of the so-called generation gap. It does not mean that
the younger generation always supports a revolutionary
movement, or that the older generation is necessarily
conservative. Similarly, confrontation between the new
and the old has no cultural implications either. It does
not mean a confrontation between the educated and the
illiterate. Its significance is purely social and
economic and it simply means a conflict between those
classes which are the beneficiaries of the existing
order and those which are dissatisfied with it and being
inspired by new means of production, are keen to bring
about a change in the existing social structure.
In other words it means a struggle between the
progressive and the liberal minded elements of society
favouring evolution and those that are decrepit and
narrow-minded and tend to maintain the status quo.
Consequent to the fact that social conscience and the
social attitude of man are inspired by his class
position and environmental conditions the privileged
classes, being the beneficiaries of the existing order,
necessarily become obscurantist, whereas the exploited
and deprived classes are stirred to action. This is
entirely different from the question or having or not
having a formal education. Mostly the evolutionary
movements are launched by those who are educationally
backward but, owing to their class position, are
forward-looking and liberal minded.
Logical continuity of history
Evolutionary stages of history are linked with each
other by a natural and logical bond. Each stage has its
own place and cannot be moved forward or backward. For
example, capitalism is the middle link between feudalism
and socialism and it is impossible for a society to pass
directly from feudalism to socialism without passing
through capitalism. Such a happening will be in a way
similar to what was termed by ancient philosophers as
"abrupt jump" i.e. passing from one point to another
without passing through any of the routes connecting
them. This will be as if the human seed, without passing
through the foetus stage, reaches the delivery stage, or
a new-born child, without passing through childhood,
becomes a fully grown-up youth, or that "B" who is the
son of "A" should take birth before "A" comes into the
world.
That is why the supporters of this logic gave the early
socialists, who wanted to lay the foundation of
socialism merely on ideology, ignoring the compulsion of
history and logical continuity of its stages, the name
of idealists and called their socialism fantastic.
Contrary to early socialism, Marxism is based on the
logical continuity of historical stage.
Not only is an abrupt transition and traversing several
stages in one leap not possible, but it is also
essential that every phase reaches its natural climax
before the evolutionary process takes the final form.
For instance, feudalism, or for that matter capitalism,
has its definite course which must run gradually so
that, at a historical moment, a change may come about.
To expect any stage to come, before the stage prior to
it attains its climax, is tantamount to expecting a
child to be born before completing its foetal stages. In
such a case the result may be an abortion, not the
delivery of a healthy child.
The fight between the new and the old is the basic
condition of the transition of history from one stage to
another and is an essential factor in the evolution of
human society. Such a fight is always sacred. Similarly,
the extermination of the old elements is lawful, even if
they do not commit any act of aggression, because
without doing so the society cannot be pushed forward
towards evolution. On the basis of this logic lawful
fights need not necessarily be defensive, or with a view
to forestalling an aggression.
Not only is the struggle against the old by the new
lawful and sacred but every other action also, which
paves the way for a revolution and accelerates the
evolutionary process, is equally lawful. Thus, all
subversive and disruptive activities, with a view to
creating dissatisfaction and unrest, widening the split
and deepening the conflict, are sacred. As stated
earlier, evolution depends on a revolutionary and
violent change of one contradictory to another and such
a change does not materialize unless and until the
internal conflict reaches its boiling point and the
breach becomes the widest. Therefore, anything which
widens the gulf accelerates the transition of the
society from lower stage to a higher stage. As unrest
and discord may play such a role, they are also lawful
and sacred, according to this logic.
In contrast, such measures as partial reforms,
appeasing and pacifying action and redress of
grievances are considered to be wrong and improper.
They are supposed to serve as an anesthetic and are,
therefore, tantamount to a betrayal of the cause.
Such actions obstruct the way of evolution as they,
at least, temporarily narrow the split and thus
delay the revolution. These are the conclusions
which may be drawn from the materialistic approach
to history.
Chapter seven
The Human or Natural Approach
The human approach to history is just the opposite of
the materialistic approach. It gives basic importance to
man-and human values, both in relation to the
individuals and the society. From the psychological
point of view it considers itself to be composed of a
set of animal instincts which are common to both man and
beasts and the other set of higher instincts, religious,
ethical, inquisitive and aesthetic which are peculiar to
man and distinguish him from the animals.
From the philosophical point of view it considers a
society to have two aspects. Firstly, it is composed of
individuals, each of them having a mixture of high and
low qualities. Secondly, as a whole, it has its own
variety of attributes which are the eternal
characteristics of man in general. A Persian poet
expresses this fact thus:
"This sweet water and this saltish water in every vein
of creatures will flow till the Day of Resurrection. "
Here a vein refers to the veins of the society i.e. man
in an indefinite and general application. In some
individuals sweet water flows i.e. good qualities
dominate and in others saltish water flows i.e. bad
qualities are more numerous and remarkable. This
position will continue so long as man exists on the face
of the earth. The death of individuals makes no
difference to it. Anyhow, with the evolution of man and
human society the position will certainly improve a
great deal.
|