Against the Narrative of the Now: “Freedom vs Cohesion”

Our Society: Against the Narrative of the Now- "Freedom vs Cohesion".

It is so often the narrative of the now dominant mode of thought that Individual Freedom is at loggerheads with Social Cohesion, and that necessitates the State's exertion of power to limit each our individual freedoms.

But within the Islamic mindset this finds no resonance.

Indeed the Quranic narrative is quite the opposite, that people tend to want to obey authority, and it is that blind obeisance to authority that blinds them, each, to their own individual morality and culpability. 

That man is first a moral creature, and then a social animal. For it is in the society of other men/ women that we find both the ability to do great good, but also far wider harm.

The Islamic mindset is revolutionary in more ways than one, and far deeper than what most assume.

For we believe in the natural goodness of man, that man wants to believe, do good, be industrious, and help others. That when men do those things then they find a satisfaction of soul that no other activity can bring. That man is purposeful, and is happiest when he/she finds their true purpose.

Whereas the first assumption that dominates Western thought, and even the books of our scholarly classes that have not the ability to question the given narrative, is that man is essentially evil. That left to himself, he seeks harm and is selfish, and has no regards for others. And so his individual freedom will always be at someone else's expense.

What is undeniable, even from within both outlooks, is that man is a social animal, that he thrives within the society of others. That people tend to want to gather together to form communities, the nuclei of which are families. That therefore when you think about it, our social cohesion is a given and never was under any threat, until that is "the narrative of the now" conjured that threat into existence.

A consequence of this social nature of man is that some individuals will be raised over others by virtue of their ability.

Where the two outlooks markedly differ is the nature of that authority.

Within the Western mindset, and the "narrative of the now" even amongst our own people, it is that authority commands authority, even that is when it claims to be people-centric, even then it is authoritarian in nature. 

This circularity may seem pedantic, but it isn't, it is a very real occurence that we see all to clear in the hereditary nature of our one time kings and queens. 

But in the Islamic worldview, all things have limits, and to pass beyond those limits is an oppression upon the very nature of things. 

For within that schematic, our Messenger (saw) told us that the inheritors of the Prophets are none other than the knowledgable. And that none can compass ought of God's knowledge, save as He allows them.

It is epitomised in the following remembrances:

SubhanAllah, Glory be to God; how perfect His creation, the Cosmos and our World, how perfect He must be.

Alhamdolillah, All praise and thanks belong to God; the Provider and Sustainer of all.

La ila ha ilal Allah- There is no God save Allah; the One who answers the call of those who believe.

Allahu Akbar, Allah is Greater; The One beyond every Limit.

That authority by its very nature is limited, and to step beyond its limit is to visit oppression on those people whom it is charged with looking to and helping.

When we look at the Sunnah (the method) of our Messenger (saw), we see very real examples of him understanding his limits and acting according to them- and that in regards to the one with the greatest authority, vested with the greatest responsibility.

When we ignore those limits then we come upon the Quranic narrative against the Taghut, the oppressors whom we, naturally and unthinkingly, aid and abett in their oppression against our own selves and our own people. 

That people are moral agents, and it is in the support of those who oppress us in the name of being people-centric, is solely an oppression that we visit upon our own souls, and our own moral wellbeing.

That authority when it is removed far from the people it is charged with helping, and every four years is a far distance, then it takes on a life of its own. And the people in blind deference to it, loose their own individual moral compasses in their support of it. Then expect oppression and wrong. 

For truth and justice can only thrive when people as a collective stand up for it, and stand willingly against oppression. 

And the Islamic paradigm is that the very nature of the Cosmos is moral, pointing towards the Infinitely Merciful, who created Hell as the greatest expression of His moral nature. That He wants man to do good, and His promise is true.

Therefore in the Islamic paradigm, our social fabric is not in need of protection by accepting the over-reach of the State, or any Political authority into our individual and even our communal lives.

What is at threat is our own moral wellbeing when we blindly accept that authority without scrutiny as to when it is of benefit, and when it over reaches into our communal, familial and individual lives. 

Within that paradigm social good is enjoined through a collective that chooses to do so, this is Aal-ee-Imran 104. 

That it springs forth from the collective, and is not imposed via authority from above.

So therefore in the Islamic Paradigm Political authority at the level of Nations is vested with not the internal life of our communities, but with protecting that internal life so that our communities can flourish. 

So it's functions are and should be restricted to

1- War and Peace between other peoples and Nations.

2- Encouraging towards investing for the future as a means of protecting our Nation from the vagaries that our futures might hold.

3- The protection of our communities from internal enemies, that are organised and a threat.

4- The collection and administration of the Zakat, poor tax.

The Modern State that seeks to supplant community, and even family. That focuses on education and health and law, is not purvue of Political Authority within the Islamic Paradigm.

And for it we are the much freer.

Economic Foundations, deconstructed

Economic Foundations

Economists tell us that they are concerned with the redistribution of limited resources to meet unlimited demands.

That mantra defines and limits their scope towards a trade off between competing demands, a zero sum narrative that means that they expect and accept that some will be losers, but that at roots is not what makes a good trade.

A good trade occurs when two parties value what they have in their hand less that what the other holds. And more importantly in the making of the trade, they value what someone else holds more than what they hold

This is the basis of a barter system, that eixsted before a common unit of exchange came into the picture. And this means that both actually gain when they make the trade.

The barter system still exists alongside our monetary system in the discipline of brokerage, whereby a third party acts to bring together two such parties to make a mutually beneficial exchange between them.

So what did money add into this equation?

It made more efficient the ease with which you could sell your wares because at the point of sale you deferred the decision of what you needed to a later future date, and also because there was no direct trade between two parties each requiring the services of another, it meant that you could store up your capital for when you needed it more - and commensurately that in a World of fluctuating prices of things- that you could make a loss. This would happen when you would sell your wares more cheaply, because of ease, than if you would have in response to a broker approaching you (since the broker represents an already interested party).

It is in brokerage that you are guaranteed your fair price, however because brokerage requires mutual interest between exchanigng parties, it means that it essentially excludes not well differentiated or mass produced product.

The Messenger of God famously said to not go to the farmer before he had reached the market. Because farmers are in the business of not well differentiated products.

This also gives us the standard that each person has the right to gain their fair value, for their wares at trade.

Now look again at the foundations of Economic theory- that there are limited resources and unlimited demands.

First that there are limited resources.
In the 80s whilst schooling in London, part of our GCE Physics project was to look at efficiency savings with cars. We were constantly told that the gas and oil would run out within a decade. Today we have found more oil than we could ever have imagined beneath the Earth's crust. I am not here disputing the validity of being prudent with the use of resources, for the Messenger (saw) also told us to save water. And water is probably mans' greatest resource. But what I am disputing is the generality of the idea of a limited resource as being the defining conditions of an economic theory.

The second is that man is governed by desires that can be summed up as being unlimited in nature. Within that assumption is the seed that man cannot be truly happy unless their each desire is met, or at least has the opportunity of being met.

Now that this is starkly put out in the open. Ask yourself are you happiest when your each desire is met? The assumption therefore of economic theory which is the foundation stone of our society is that poor people are unhappy.

Whilst this is highly questionable, it gives you an idea of the type of society that economic theory would have us build, and do not be deluded it is not that it seeks a society that maximises happiness, but one that defines happiness in what you own, control or have.

Most definitely within the specifics of any situation there are competing demands for limited resources, but an economic theory that bases itself upon generalising that to define the society that we should all aspire to live under is a stretch that should be checked by scrutiny and not be allowed to cudgel us with fine words of science and rationality and math.

In the Islamic paradigm every discipline of action or thought is given by it’s purpose, because within that paradigm the whole of the cosmos is imbued within purpose.

The purpose of economics can be gauged by examining what it does:

1) The control of money, since Economists are in general directly or indirectly employed by the State (indirectly where they try to interpret the actions that the State has on the economic welfare of their employers/stakeholders), and their main means of control is through the supply of money either directly through printing it, or indirectly by setting base interest rates that determine the supply of money through investors choices, or by issuing bonds and thereby raising short term funds for the immediate needs of the state.

2) Justification of Choice. Whilst most economists would argue that they inform choice, the reverse is often more true, that they are used to justify choices already made.

3) To provide a benchmark through which to judge choices, based in the main on "regret" of not making optimal choices, in terms of economic gain that could have been had. In this instance reducing all actors' purposes to one of monetary gain over another, whilst ignoring multiple motives that govern choice.

4) To interpret or gauge market behaviour ahead of it coming to fruition. Von Newman and Morgensten in the Theory of Games provided a framework for judging optimal (monetary) strategy. And this then provides a justification for acting in such a way.

The idea then that economics is in the business of maximising man’s happiness is really at odds with what it does.

Within the Islamic paradigm the purpose of society is to reduce oppression to better free man so that he is better able to appreciate the majesty in which God, the Most Merciful, should be held.

When we allow economics to define our society then we allow it to enter into that sphere of our lives that defines who we as a people want to be, and we are the worse for it.