We previously discussed the fierce attack that the System of Islam is facing, where efforts are exhausted to cast doubt on the ability of Islam to deal with everyday life, and on its ability to meet the demands of the Space Age - the Age of the Atom ,and on its ability to stand in the face of the current ideologies.

Therefore, our area of study is the subject of ruling and the ruler. And what is meant by ''giving the ruling'' is specifying the position of man with regards to his action - whether he must do the action or leave it, or be given the choice between doing it or leaving it. Added to this, ''giving the ruling'' also means specifying the position of man with regards to material things related to his actions - whether he must take the thing or leave it, or be given the choice between taking it or leaving it. Equally, ''giving the ruling'' also means specifying the position of man with regards to how he perceives things - whether the thing is good or bad, or neither good nor bad. And our area of study is also the subject of the validity - or applicability - of the rulings and legislation on mankind, wherever he is.

In this study we must address two points:

Firstly, we must ask what are the issues that are directly related to man's behavior, where if they are changed, man's actions are changed? Then we must look into the issues that seem to affect man's behavior, such as the place and atmosphere he lives in, his time period, and technological advancement, so that we can better understand their relationship with the changes of legislation related to them.

Second, we must study the method used to derive the legislation and canons, through which we solve man's problems in a way that guarantees the validity and applicability of these laws, despite the time or place.

As for the first point, we say that man undertakes actions in this life using the things Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) created for him in this universe, and placed it under his control. This is so that man is able to satisfy his instincts (species instinct, survival instinct and sanctification instinct) and his organic needs (eating, drinking, breathing, sleeping and ''using the restroom''). There is no action that man takes except that it is driven by the desire to satisfy at least one of his instincts or organic needs. Hence, when a man eats, he eats to satisfy the organic need of hunger, and when he gets married, he does so to satisfy the species instinct. Equally, when a fornicator commits fornication, he also does so to satisfy his ''species instinct'', but he satisfies it in an incorrect way, which we know through the Islamic 'Aqeeda. Also, when he seeks help from Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) to ease his hardships, he does so to satisfy his ''sanctification instinct''. And when he writes a news article, his goal might be to please Allah by spreading the Da'wa, and this too is done to satisfy the ''sanctification instinct''; but if he did it for fame, then it is to satisfy his ''survival instinct''. Or when he watches television for entertainment, if what he is watching is related to religion, then he is doing so to satisfy his ''sanctification instinct''; if he is watching a show related to cooking and health, then he would be doing so to satisfy his ''survival instinct'', unless he is doing so to learn to cook something for himself, then he would be doing so to satisfy the organic need of hunger, and so on.

Therefore, every action man takes in this world is based on an instinct or an organic need that requires satisfaction.

From this we can see that man's behavior is defined as the actions he undertakes in order to satisfy his instincts and organic needs.

The different aspects of the instincts differ depending on the presence of stimulus or the absence thereof, and in terms of strength and weakness, from one person to another. But humans can only act based on these aspects of the instincts, or based on his organic needs. These instincts and organic needs do not change with the change of time and place. A man in China needs food and sleep, and will be agitated if he does not satisfy his ''species instinct'', whether it is through marrying a woman or having an illegal relationship with her, or possibly simply through loving his mother. This is to say that one of manifestations of the instinct can be replaced by another manifestation of the same instinct. For example the sexual inclination of the species instinct to women can be replaced by compassion for the mother, daughter, sister and so on. It is also possible to replace one instinct with another instinct. These motivations are no different with a man in China or a man in the USA, whether he was alive a thousand years ago or will be born a thousands years from now.

It is clear to the senses that if a man did not eat for a certain time he would die. This is how it was, this is how it is, and this is how it will be until the Day of Judgment. He will always be in need of energy from food or medicine or something similar, but he can never become free of his dependency on energy that allows him to do work and put in effort in this worldly life. From this we can see that time and place has absolutely no bearing on changing thoughts upon which he bases his actions, as long as the motivations to undertake the actions do not change.

Man is unique from animals due to his satisfying his instincts and organic needs based on his mental faculty. Animals only care about satisfying their hungers any way they can, but humans have the capacity to think before satisfying. Hence, when man finds a stomach hunger within him, he will first look at what might satisfy this hunger, and then he will think about them and build concepts about them: do they satisfy or do they not satisfy? What do they taste like? What benefits do I gain from eating them? How can I alter them so that they taste better or are made easier to digest? And so on. Thus, man establishes concepts about things.

But, of course, man does not satisfy his instincts and needs based on these concepts alone. Man is an elevated and civilized being, and must have other concepts, unrelated to the things he is thinking of specifically and whether they satisfy or not. These concepts are none other than his concepts about life, the concepts he reached when he solved his greatest problem, the concepts that defined man, life and the universe for him in a manner that gives him a specific outlook on life. These concepts establish for him his thoughts towards life, towards the things he wishes to use, and towards even the thoughts he was raised to accept.

Regardless of whether these concepts are called the ''Aqeeda'', according to the meaning of the word, or not, it definitely includes a criterion for man's actions that prevent him from doing certain things and impose others on him. A Muslim, for example, was given these thoughts, where Halal and Haram are his criterion for his actions and behavior. Therefore, he knows that pork satisfies his stomach hunger, but his thoughts about life that stem from his Aqeeda - which, by the way, he did not reach based on his analysis of pork, nor from any perception of harm in it - these thoughts prevented him from satisfying his stomach hunger in using this means. On the other hand, another person accepts the most advanced research that suggests he drinks a small amount of alcohol, as long as there are perceived benefits in it, despite the clear dangers of using it, since his viewpoint on life that does not care about such dangers, since his viewpoint on life is purely material. From this, we see how the behavior of a Muslim differs from that of the second person due to their concepts about life, even though they both see that alcohol has benefits and harms.

Thus, actions are based on his concepts about things, added to his concepts about life: his Aqeeda.

The question that asks itself is: What are the factors that directly affect the thoughts that guide and specify man's behavior? Does time and place play a role? How do advancements in science and technology affect these thoughts? And what effect does the environment that one lives in have on them?

As for concepts about things, a careful look shows that all people almost have a unified view on them. Hence, people agree that apples feed hunger and are healthy. Even if some people do not like apples, they do not disagree that they are good for you, that they are red or green, that they can be squeezed into a juice, and so on. The effects of such concepts on man's behavior are not great.

Science and technology might have some effect on man's actions, where it might expose the ill effects of certain things on man's health, and thus people will stay away from it. But it is clear to see that these studies are prone to change and adjustment almost daily. Furthermore, the newly discovered ''harms'' might only harm Person A, and not Person B, and hence actions based on these studies are prone to constant change and instability, making the task of managing them and legislating for them unstable and untrustworthy. We can clearly see the large amount of research done regarding the harms and dangers of drinking coffee, but despite this, most people on earth continue to drink it.

In the early 1930s, the USA passed laws making alcohol illegal, imposing very harsh punishments with these laws, but the American populace only increased in their desire to drink, despite all the studies the government produced that exposed its harms. This also happened in the Soviet Union, during the term of Gorbachev. But we see that approximately 1.25 billion Muslims - with a few exceptions - voluntarily abstain from drinking alcohol due to the presence of concepts from their Aqeeda that its use, which clearly demonstrate that a person's concepts about life have the greatest effect on a person's actions.

What is the effect of the place on actions? Mountains, hills, rivers, and the like, all have absolutely no effect on a person's actions, rather what does have an effect is the environment one lives in, i.e. the influences in society, and not the houses or marketplaces.

So, then, what effect does the environment have on a person's actions? A person living in an environment that is based on certain concepts, such as ''freedom'' and seeking personal benefit, will make a person's actions constantly based on seeking these personal benefits. From this we see that a person born in an Islamic environment will take his concepts from his environment, whereas a westerner will take from his society the concepts of seeking personal benefit, and will act based on them. People in Egypt are unique due to certain characteristics related to actions they inherited, which do not exist in the area of Syria, for example. Thus, a person living in one place will have different behavior than someone living in a different place.

But formulating legislation that brings man happiness and elevates him, and establishing laws that solve his problems in life in a correct and fitting manner, protecting him from falling to the level of corruption on the earth, make such concepts that emanate from the environment the last thing people should resort to. This is due to their great influence by traditions and practices that are mostly based on ignorance and a backwards way of thinking. They are also affected by inheriting ideas from previous generations, not having taken much care in checking the validity of these inherited ideas when formulating their solutions for life, much less verifying that they are the best possible solutions. To top it off, these ideas are all based on the analysis of human minds, which contradict each other, whether it be when determining good from bad, or deciding what is best for mankind, or establishing justice, devising solutions for man's problems using the human mind will lead man far away from what is best for him.

These concepts, taken from the environment, become the first port-of-call for the thinker when working towards change, and it is clear that drowning in this corrupt ocean will cause a much greater delay and impediment in man's elevation and revival, because the corrupt reality is changed through fundamental and comprehensive thoughts related to man, life and the universe. There is no room for thoughts inherited from great grandfathers by their sons living according to these practices and traditions.

It is true that the environment one lives in has an effect on man's actions, but the legislation that is used to fix the situation of mankind must not be affected by the environment in any shape or form. This is what we are addressing in this study, keeping in mind that it is not the place which affects man's actions, rather it is the thoughts present in that place that affects man's actions. These thoughts will be the same as the Aqeeda (creed) that a person adopts as a criterion for his actions. If we wanted to take the thoughts present in society as a source of legislation, we would need to take into account all societies in the world, and we know the universality of Islam. This would mean that we did not take Islam from Wahi (revelation), rather from the environment, and that would mean the destruction of Islam.

It might be said that a person living in Canada, which allows gay marriages and considers it valid, will be affected by these thoughts - and hence his actions - due to his living in such an environment, which would in turn change his concepts about life and finally change his opinion and behavior regarding marriage, due to the relations that he establishes.

And the answer to this is that this logic is weak. The discussion here is regarding the best legislation for mankind, not drowning in the throes of reality and submitting to the ideas of man.

We previously stated that science and technology have a minor effect on behavior, through the research done on the benefits and harms of certain things, but other than this, there is no effect worth mentioning. Therefore, the relationship between man's progress on earth in terms of science and technology and his behavior regarding satisfying his instincts and organic needs is insignificant, and usually has no effect on the process of legislation. Even though the research done on such matters can be useful on occasion, it can in no way be considered a deciding factor in legislation. The primary influence in people's behavior is the concepts one carries about life, correct or incorrect, strong or weak.

From here we say that man using an automobile does not affect his inherent human design, where he, for example, would no longer need food or drink, nor does travel by airplane have any effect on man's needing to satisfy his species instinct, whether it be through marriage, fornication or otherwise.

Therefore, the greatest effect and the deciding factor in the matter of legislating and establishing laws is man's concepts about things, in addition to his concepts about life. While time, place and technological advancement all have little or no effect in this legislation.

This study now takes us to looking at these concepts, so that we might see who has the right to legislate, and how can we be sure of the correctness of these laws, or whether they are suitable for mankind, or whether they will lead to solving man's problems in life, today, tomorrow and for the rest of time. 

Comment

Some questions might arise, how come Maldivians were able to agree on the fish of distribution amongst fisherman whereas the majority of the modern business partners are in complete conflict with each other ? Is the problem of fish distribution somehow different from the issue of business profit sharing ? So, how come the people can harmoniously agree on fish distribution whilst constant bickering is a common trait amongst many business partners ? what is so different between this 'traditional' issue and 'modern' issue ?

Some might try to answer these question by saying that people in the traditional society were righteous and they became corrupt due to the present ruler. So we ask, how did the righteous people so corrupt when a problem of similar nature needs to be tackled in this age ? The agreement regarding the issue of fish distribution was not the result of piety or righteousness. Rather it was perceived at that time that without giving a fair share of daily fish catch for every fisherman it would have become impossible to operate fishing vessels as every fisherman held a vital rank in the vessel. Hence the livelihood of the entire community would have been in jeopardy. So, it was agreed that the best to satisfy the survival instinct was to give a fair share to every member (partner) in the vessel. However with the introduction of Capitalist financial system, its viewpoint on life and the paper money the dependence on others is not required for satisfying the survival instinct. Similarly traditionally people thought that by having more children better livelihood can be guaranteed because more children means more hands can be utilised in fishing or agriculture. This scenario has changed drastically in this age. The usurious banking system have opened many avenues for people to satisfy their survival instinct without depending on another person. Had people carried sound concepts, the solution to the traditional problem (fish distribution) could have been extended to new realities such as business partnerships. But in line with Darwinian theory of progression of ideas, people's fragile concepts have been changing according to the environment. So it is not surprising that nowadays many do not bother to bring up their kids because dependence on them is not a requirement for survival in this age.

Tradition cannot compete with ideologies

Archive