"Kama tulivyokwisha kuwasilisha, Uislamu unasimamia yote yaliyo mema, yenye afya na yanayotamanika maishani. Ni dini ya nyakati zote, vizazi vyote na jamii zote, lakini kwa kuwa ulimwengu wa Kiislamu katika karne nne zilizopita umekuwa katika hali ya kudorora kusikokoma, sehemu ya sheria ya Kiislamu inayoshughulikia matatizo ya kiuchumi ilibaki bila kubadilika. Basi kwa nini tusiukubali Uislamu kama imani ya kuhuisha roho zetu na kusafisha mawazo yetu, kisha tukakumbatia ukomunisti kama mfumo wa kiuchumi wa kutatua matatizo yetu ya kiuchumi, kwa kuwa hautaathiri kwa vyovyote muundo wetu wa kijamii au kipengele chochote chake? Hivyo tutaweza si tu kulinda maadili yetu, mila na desturi zetu za kijamii, bali pia kuwa na mojawapo ya mifumo ya kisasa kabisa ya kiuchumi ya wakati huu ili kutatua matatizo yetu ya kiuchumi." Hoja kama hii iliyotolewa hapo juu ni sehemu ya mchezo wa kishetani ambao wakomunisti wamekuwa wakiucheza kwa muda mrefu sasa. Mwanzoni, walichukua msimamo wa uchokozi dhidi ya Uislamu Mashariki na kutoa shaka mbalimbali juu yake. Lakini walipogundua kwamba hilo limeongeza zaidi mshikamano wa Waislamu na Uislamu, walibadilisha mkakati wao na kutumia udanganyifu na hila. Hivyo wakasema kwamba: "Ukomunisti haingiliani kabisa na Uislamu, kwani kimsingi ni jina jingine tu la haki ya kijamii na unasimamia wajibu wa dola kwa raia wake wa kuwapatia mahitaji ya msingi ya maisha. Je, mnamaanisha kwamba Uislamu unapinga haki ya kijamii kwa kudai kwamba unapinga ukomunisti? Hakika Uislamu hauwezi kupinga mfumo wa aina hiyo unaojengwa juu ya haki ya kijamii."

"As we have already submitted, Islam stands for all that is good, healthy and desirable in life. It is the religion for all times, generations and societies but as the Islamic world during the last four centuries has been in a state of constant depression, the portion of the Islamic law dealing with economic problems remained static. Why shouldn't we then adopt Islam as a creed to edify our souls and purify thoughts and embrace communism as the economic system to solve our economic problems as it would in no wise affect our social set-up or any aspect thereof. We shall thus be able not only to safeguard our morals, social traditions and customs but also have at the same time one of the most modern economic systems of the present times to-resolve our economic problems" The reasoning such as this given above is a part of the diabolical game the communists are out to play now since a long time. To begin with, they adopted an aggressive attitude towards Islam in the East and cast various doubts about it. But when they found that this had rather increased Muslims' attachment to Islam, they changed their strategy and resorted to fraud and deception. Thus they reasoned that: "Communism does not at all interfere with Islam, as it is basically just another name for social justice and stands for the responsibility of the state towards its citizens to provide them with the basic needs of life. Do you mean to say that Islam is opposed to social justice by alleging that it is opposed to communism? Surely Islam cannot oppose such a system based on social justice".

Hoja hii ya kishetani inafanana na ile iliyotumiwa na wakoloni hapo awali.

This diabolical reasoning is similar to that resorted to by the imperialists before this.

Walianza pia kuishambulia Uislamu waziwazi, lakini walipoona kwamba hilo lilikuwa limewatahadharisha tu Waislamu na kwamba walikuwa macho, wakageukia njia nyingine.

They too had started with attacking Islam openly but when they found that it had only put the Muslims on their guard and they were watchful, they resorted to another course.

Walisema: "Magharibi wana nia tu ya kueneza ustaarabu Mashariki; Uislamu unawezaje kupinga ustaarabu wakati wenyewe ndio baba wa ustaarabu?" Waliwahakikishia Waislamu kwamba wangeweza kupitisha ustaarabu huu wa Kimagharibi bila kuacha Swaumu zao, Sala zao, na mazoea yao ya kiroho, ingawa walikuwa na hakika kwamba Waislamu wakishashindwa na ustaarabu wao hawataweza tena kuhifadhi tabia yao ya Kiislamu, matokeo yake ni kwamba ndani ya vizazi vichache ustaarabu huu utawashinda kabisa. Walithibitika kuwa sahihi. Kwa sababu hiyo, baada ya muda ukatokea kizazi miongoni mwa Waislamu ambacho kilikuwa hakijui kabisa Uislamu, bali kilihisi chuki dhidi yake bila ujuzi wala sababu yoyote.

They said: "The West is interested only in the spread of civilization in the East; how can Islam be against civilization when it is itself the father of civilization?" They assured the Muslims that they could adopt this western civilization without giving up their fastings, prayers, and mystic practices, although they were sure that if the Muslims once succumbed to their civilization they would no longer be able to retain their Islamic character with the result that within a few generations this civilization would overpower them once for all. They proved right. Consequently, there arose a generation among the Muslims after some time who was completely ignorant about Islam, who rather felt a repulsion from it without any knowledge or reason whatsoever.

Huu ndio mchezo huo huo wa udanganyifu na hila ambao wakomunisti wanaucheza leo.

It is this very game of fraud and deception that the communists are playing today.

Wanasema kwamba Waislamu wanaweza kubaki Waislamu mara moja, wakaswali, wakafunga, na kutekeleza ibada za kiroho, na pia kukubali ukomunisti kama mfumo wa kiuchumi, kwa kuwa haugusi dini yao hata kidogo. Basi kwa nini wasite kuukubali? Lakini wanapotoa hoja hiyo, wanajua vizuri sana kwamba Waislamu hawatabaki Waislamu tena wakishawishika na kuukubali. Katika hali kama hiyo, hakika watawaunda upya baada ya miaka michache kulingana na falsafa yao ya maisha, na kuumaliza Uislamu na kila kitu unachosimamia, kwa sababu zama tunazoishi ni za mwendo wa haraka na nguvu za mabadiliko, jambo linalomaanisha kwamba mabadiliko makubwa yanaweza kuletwa kwa urahisi katika kipindi kifupi kiasi. Lakini licha ya ukweli huu wote, kuna Waislamu wengi wanaojiruhusu kwa hiari kudanganywa na hoja hiyo isiyo ya kweli, kwa kuwa inawapa angalau kisingizio cha kuepuka juhudi kubwa katika kutekeleza majukumu yao yasiyopendeza kama Waislamu, na pia inawaahidi uhuru kutoka katika kazi nzito ya kutafuta njia yao wenyewe, kutumia akili zao wenyewe, na kujitahidi katika shughuli zenye kujenga. Wangependa zaidi kukaa tu na kuota ndoto zisizo na maana, na kuacha wengine wawaongoze.

They say that the Muslims can at once remain Muslims, can pray, fast and perform esoteric rituals and adopt communism as an economic system, for it does not at all meddle with their religion. Why should they then hesitate in embracing it? But while thus arguing they know very well that Muslims will no longer remain Muslims if they once but succumbed to its temptation. In such a case, they are sure to remold them in a few years' time after their own philosophy of life and put an end to Islam and all it stands for because the age we are living in is one of rapid movement and dynamism which means that great changes can very easily be brought about in a comparatively very short period of time. But in spite of all these facts there are very many Muslims who willingly allow themselves to be hoodwinked by such a spurious reasoning as it provides them with an excuse at least to avoid hard struggle in carrying out their unpleasant duties as Muslims promising them at the same time freedom from the cumbrous task of finding their own way, use their own reason and exert themselves in constructive activities. They would rather just like to sit down and dream idle dreams and let themselves be guided by others.

Tunasisitiza hapa kwamba, kimsingi, Uislamu hauipingi mfumo wowote ambao kimsingi haupingani na kanuni zake na unaolitumikia jamii ya Waislamu katika kutatua matatizo yao yanayotokana na mabadiliko ya hali ya maisha. Ukweli, hata hivyo, ni kwamba ukomunisti haukubaliani kabisa na itikadi ya Kiislamu ingawa katika baadhi ya mambo unaweza kufanana nayo juu juu. Jamii ya Waislamu ambayo tayari inamiliki mfumo bora zaidi haiwezi kuupita Uislamu na badala yake kuchukua ukomunisti, ubepari au ujamaa wa kimaada, ingawa unaweza kuonekana kufanana nao katika baadhi ya mambo, kwa kuwa Mungu ameamuru waziwazi: "Na wale wasiohukumu kwa yale aliyoteremsha Mungu, basi hao ndio makafiri" (5:47).

We would at this point like to stress the fact that in principle Islam does not oppose any system such as is basically not antagonistic to its principles and serves the Muslim community in solving its problems arising out of the changed conditions of life. The fact, however, is that communism does not at all see eye to eye with Islamic ideology although it might in some respects superficially resemble Islam. The Muslim community which already possesses the best system cannot pass by Islam and instead adopt communism, capitalism or materialistic socialism though they might in certain respects appear to be similar to it, for God has expressly commanded : "And they Who do not judge in accordance with that which is revealed by God, they are indeed the unbelievers" (v : 47)

Je, tunaweza kweli kukumbatia ukomunisti na bado kuendelea kuwa Waislamu? Jibu ni hapana kubwa, kwa sababu tunapoutumia ukomunisti (ambao kwa makosa au kwa udanganyifu unaelezwa kuwa mfumo wa kiuchumi pekee), tunaona kwamba unapingana na Uislamu kwa nadharia na pia kwa vitendo. Mgongano wao hauepukiki kwa sababu rahisi kwamba hauwezi kusaidiwa wala kuepukwa.

Can we in reality embrace communism and yet live on as Muslims? The answer is a big No, for, when we apply communism (erroneously or dishonestly described as being a purely economic system), we find that it is opposed to Islam in theory as well as in practice. Their collision is inevitable for the simple reason that it cannot be helped or avoided.

Kwamba kinadharia zote mbili zinapingana katika mambo mengi kiasi hicho inaweza kuhukumiwa kwa urahisi kutokana na mambo yafuatayo:

That theoretically both stand opposed to each other in so many respects may well be judged from the following points:

Kwanza, ukomunisti unasimama juu ya msingi wa kimaada tu: hautambui chochote isipokuwa kile kinachopokelewa na viungo vya hisia. Kisichoweza kutambuliwa na viungo hivi vya hisia kinachukuliwa kuwa si cha kweli, ni upuuzi na hakina uwepo wowote kabisa, au kikiwepo basi ni kidogo sana kiasi kwamba hakistahili kujali hata kidogo. Engels alisema: "Maada ndiyo kitu pekee halisi duniani". Nao wanaovutia maada wanasema: "Akili ya binadamu ni udhihirisho tu wa maada inayoakisi mazingira ya nje ya kimaada yanayoizunguka". Wanaendelea kusema kwamba kile kinachoitwa roho hakina uwepo huru kabisa wa chenyewe, bali ni zao la maada. Hivyo tunaona kwamba ukomunisti ni itikadi ya kimaada tu, inayodharau aina zote za imani ya roho, ikizitaja zote kuwa si za kisayansi. Itikadi ya Kiislamu, kwa upande mwingine, inakataa kukubali kupunguzwa kwa upeo wa shughuli za binadamu namna hiyo, au kumshusha binadamu hadi viwango vya chini vya kuwepo. Badala yake inamtazama binadamu kama kiumbe anayetamani kupaa juu katika ulimwengu wa roho na fikra, ijapokuwa anatembea duniani na ana mwili wa kimaumbile. Wala mahitaji yake hayakomei kwenye chakula, makazi na kutosheleza hamu ya tendo la ndoa kama alivyodai Karl Marx. Huenda swali likaibuka katika akili za baadhi ya wasomaji wakati huu: Falsafa hii ya kimaada inawezaje kutuathiri ilhali sisi hatutakuwa na uhusiano nayo? Tutakubali programu ya kiuchumi ya ukomunisti tu na kuendelea kushikilia imani zetu zote za msingi, Mungu wetu, Mtume wetu, na mfumo wetu wa kiroho. Hayo hayawezi kuathiriwa na programu ya kiuchumi tutakayoikubali, kwa kuwa ni kitu tofauti kabisa na mambo yaliyoelezwa hapo juu, na kina uwepo wake huru. Mtu yeyote asidanganyike na dhana hii, kwa kuwa, kama wakomunisti wanavyoshikilia, kuna uhusiano mkubwa kati ya mfumo wa kiuchumi na itikadi ya msingi, mtazamo wa kiitikadi na mtazamo wa maisha wa watu fulani; haviwezi kutazamwa kimoja kimoja: vinaunganishwa kwa karibu, kwani vimejengwa juu ya mfumo uleule wa kiuchumi ambao umesimama juu ya falsafa ya maisha ya kimaada tupu, kama ilivyofafanuliwa na waanzilishi wa ukomunisti Engels na Marx katika maandishi yao.

Firstly, communism rests on a purely materialistic basis: it does not recognize anything save that perceived by sense organs: what is not perceivable by these sensory organs is unreal, nonsense and has no existence whatsoever or if it does exist it is so insignificant that one need not at all bother about it. Engels said: "Matter is the only real thing in the world". And the materialists argue: "Human reason is just a manifestation of matter which reflects the external material environment surrounding it". They go on to say that what is called soul does not at all have an independent existence of its own but is rather a product of matter. Thus we see that communism is a purely materialistic ideology which ridicules all forms of spiritualism dubbing them all as unscientific. Islamic ideology, on the other hand, declines to concede such a narrowing down of human spheres of activities or degrade man to such low levels of existence. It looks upon man rather as a being that aspires to soar high in the realms of spirit and thought although he walks on earth and possesses a physical body. Nor are his needs limited to food, shelter and sexual gratification as Karl Marx claimed. A question might at this stage be raised in the minds of some readers: How can this materialistic philosophy affect us when we shall have nothing to do with it: we shall adopt only the economic program of communism and retain all our basic creeds, our God, our Apostle, and our spiritual system. These cannot be affected by the economic program we might adopt as it is something quite different from the things described above and has an independent existence of its own. Let none be under this illusion, for as the communists hold, there exists a strong affinity between the economic system and the basic creed, ideology and outlook upon life of a people; they cannot be viewed in isolation: they are closely interrelated, for they are based on the same economic system which is raised on a purely materialist philosophy of life as has been clarified by the communist pioneers Engels and Marx in their writings.

Kwa mfano, wakomunisti pia wanaamini katika uyakinifu wa kidiyalektiki. Wanashikilia kwamba ni mgongano wa pande zinazopingana (wenye nacho na wasio nacho, au wafanyakazi na wenye mitaji) ndio kipengele pekee halisi ingawa cha kuficha nyuma ya maendeleo yote ya kiuchumi na kibinadamu ambayo wanadamu wamepata hadi sasa, kuanzia enzi ya kwanza ya kikomunisti, kisha utumwa, ukabaila, ubepari, na hatimaye enzi ya mwisho ya kikomunisti. Kwa uyakinifu huu wa kidiyalektiki ndio wanauhalalisha msimamo wao na kuthibitisha kwamba ukomunisti hatimaye utashinda katika vita vya kiitikadi vilivyopo sasa. Wanadai kuwa kuna uhusiano wa karibu wa kisayansi kati ya ukomunisti na nadharia hii ya uyakinifu wa kidiyalektiki, ambamo hakuna nafasi kabisa kwa dhana yoyote ya Mungu, Mitume Wake, wala ujumbe wao, kwani kwa kiburi chao wanafikiri mambo haya yote ni matokeo tu ya mwingiliano wa nguvu za kiuchumi. Hayana maana wala umuhimu wowote nje ya hali za kiuchumi zilizoyazaa. Kwa hiyo yanapoteza umuhimu wake wote katika maisha ya binadamu na hayana thamani yoyote katika kufasiri au kufafanua maisha, wala kuamua malengo yake ya kweli. Kipengele pekee na cha pekee chenye umuhimu ni njia za uzalishaji, ambazo zikibadilika, huathiri uwepo mzima wa binadamu na kuuleta mapinduzi. Udanganyifu na udhaifu wa mtazamo wa wakomunisti kuhusu historia ya binadamu unathibitishwa wazi na ukweli kwamba unashindwa kutoa maelezo yanayoridhisha ya mapinduzi makubwa yaliyoletwa na Uislamu huko Arabia, kwani hauwezi kuonyesha mabadiliko yoyote katika njia za uzalishaji wa kiuchumi katika Rasi ya Arabia, wala katika ulimwengu wote wa Kiislamu wa wakati ule, ambayo yangeweza kusababisha kuibuka kwa Mtume Mtukufu katika sehemu hiyo ya dunia akileta pamoja naye mfumo kamili mpya wa maisha.

The communists, for instance, also believe in dialectical materialism. They hold that it is the conflict of the opposites (the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' or workers and capitalists) that is the only real though insidious factor behind all economic and human progress that mankind has achieved so far starting from the first communist age and moving on to slavery, then feudalism, capitalism and then final communist age. It is with this very dialectical materialism that they justify their standpoint and prove the final emergence of communism as the victor out of the present ideological warfare. They claim that there is a close scientific relationship between communism and this theory of dialectical materialism, in which there is no place whatsoever for any concept of God, His apostles or their message, for in their arrogance they think that all these things are but merely an outcome of the interplay of economic forces. They have no meaning or significance apart from the economic circumstances that engendered them. As such they lose all their importance in human life and are simply worthless in interpreting or defining life or determining its true objectives. The one and the only factor of importance is the means of production which, if changed, affects the whole human existence and revolutionizes it. The fallacy and weakness of communists' view of human history is amply proved by the fact that it fails to offer any adequate explanation of the great revolution brought about by Islam in Arabia, for it cannot point out any change in the means of economic production in the Arabian peninsula or even in the whole of the contemporary Islamic world that might be referred to as having caused the emergence of the Holy Prophet in that part of the world bringing with him a completely new system of life.

Ini kutosha kuonyesha kwamba Uislamu na ukomunisti vinasimama kinyume kabisa, kila kimoja kikiwa upande wake wa pili. Basi inawezekanaje kusemwa kwamba vyote viwili vinapatana? Waislamu wanaoamini Rehema ya Mwenyezi Mungu na Neema Yake kubwa inayowakumbatia viumbe wake wote, na wanaoamini kwamba ni Mungu Anayewatumia Mitume Wake kuwaongoza kwenye njia iliyo sahihi, na wanaoamini kwamba Uislamu hauko chini ya shinikizo za kiuchumi bali unapaa juu zaidi yake, wanawezaje kuukubali kwa kutokuadhibiwa ukomunisti unaoshikilia kwamba hatua zote za maendeleo ya binadamu zimeamuliwa na mwingiliano wa nguvu zinazopingana peke yake, hivyo kutoacha nafasi yoyote kwa mapenzi ya Mungu wala kwa kipengele kingine chochote au mpango wowote isipokuwa ule unaotolewa nao na hali ya kiuchumi, shinikizo la mahitaji?

This is quite sufficient to show that Islam and communism stand diametrically opposed to each other. How can the two be said to be at one then? The Muslims who believe in the Beneficence of God as well as His immense Grace embracing all His creatures and who believe that it is God Who sends to them His apostles to guide them aright and who believe that Islam is not subject to the economic exigencies but ascends far above them, how can such Muslims adopt with impunity the communism which holds that all the different stages of human progress are determined by the interplay of the opposing forces alone, thus leaving no place for God's will or any other factor or initiative save that lent to it by economic existence, the pressure of need.

Pili, mwanadamu kama anavyotazamwa na ukomunisti ni kiumbe tu kisichofanya kitu, ambacho mapenzi yake hayana umuhimu wowote mbele ya nguvu za kimaada na za kiuchumi. Karl Marx alisema:

Secondly, man as viewed by communism is just a passive being whose will has no importance whatever in the face of the material and economic forces. Karl Marx said:

"Njia ya uzalishaji wa njia za kimwili za kujikimu huweka masharti ya mchakato mzima wa maisha ya kijamii, kisiasa na kiakili. Si fahamu ya watu ndiyo inayoamua kuwepo kwao, bali, kinyume chake, ni kuwepo kwao kwa kijamii ndiko kunakoamua fahamu zao."

"The mode of production of the material means of existence conditions the whole process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not tile consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, it is their social existence that determines their consciousness”.

Katika Uislamu, kwa upande mwingine, tunaona kwamba mwanadamu anatazamwa kama kiumbe hai chenye hiari yake mwenyewe, ambayo iko chini ya mapenzi ya juu ya Mungu peke yake. Anasema Qur-aan Tukufu: "Na amewatiishia kila kilichomo mbinguni na kilichomo ardhini, kama neema itokayo Kwake" (xlv: 13).

In Islam, on the other hand; we find that man is viewed as an active being with a free will of his own that is subject to the higher will of God alone, Says the Holy Qur'an: “And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth" (xlv: 13).

Hivyo Uislamu unaweka wazi kwamba ni mwanadamu anayefurahia mamlaka na nafasi ya juu kabisa duniani hapa, huku nguvu zote za kimaada na kiuchumi zikiwepo kutekeleza matakwa yake. Uislamu wenyewe ni mfano halisi wa jambo hili. Maendeleo yake hayakuwekewa mipaka wala kuelekezwa na mchakato wowote wa ubishi wa kimaada (dialectical materialism). Waislamu wa mwanzo hawakuwahi hata kwa dakika moja kuhisi kwamba hali ya kiuchumi ya mwanadamu peke yake ndiyo iliyokuwa na nafasi ya kuamua hatima yake, au kwamba ni kitu kilicho nje ya udhibiti wake wa kufahamu, kama alivyosema Marx. Badala yake, waliunda uchumi wao kwa makusudi kulingana na mwongozo wa Mwenyezi Mungu na Mtume Wake ﷺ, wakijenga mahusiano yao yote ya kijamii juu ya mafundisho ya Uislamu. Waliwaacha huru watumwa bila kuzingatia faida za kiuchumi wala kuchochewa na kitu chochote cha kiuchumi kufanya hivyo; na kwa kweli, hawakuwahi kushuhudia kuanzishwa kwa ukabaila (feudalism) katika ardhi zao, ingawa ulikuwa mfumo ulioenea zaidi kwa karne nyingi barani Ulaya na duniani kote. Kupitishwa kwa uchumi wa kikomunisti kwa lazima kutaleta kupitishwa kwa falsafa ya kikomunisti, falsafa inayomfanya mwanadamu kuwa kichezeo tu cha nguvu za kiuchumi zinazofuata njia yake kwa kujitegemea kabisa na mapenzi ya binadamu, kwani hazibadiliki njia yake wala haziwezi kuathiri uendeshaji wake kwa namna yoyote, kwa kuwa haiwezekani kabisa, na hivyo haifikiriki.

Thus Islam makes it clear that it is man who enjoys supreme power and position on this earth with all the material and economic forces being there to do his bidding. Islam itself is a case in point in this respect. Its progress was not limited or directed by any process of dialectical materialism. The early Muslims never even for a single moment felt that the economic existence of man alone played a decisive role in shaping his destiny or that it was something beyond his conscious control as Marx said. They, on the contrary, did consciously shape their economy in accordance with the guidance of God and His Apostle basing all their social relationships on the teachings of Islam, They freed slaves without any consideration of economic gains or initiative inducing them to it; and they did in fact never witness the establishment of feudalism in their lands although it had been the most prevalent system for centuries in Europe and in the world at large, The adoption of communist economy must inevitably lead to the adoption of the communist philosophy, the philosophy which makes man a mere plaything of the economic forces that take their way quite independent of men's will for they can neither change their course nor can they affect their working in any way as it is simply impossible and, therefore, unthinkable.

Tatu, kama tulivyokwisha kubainisha katika sura ya "Umiliki wa Binafsi," ni karibu haiwezekani kutenganisha mfumo wa kiuchumi na falsafa ya kijamii iliyo nyuma yake.

Thirdly, as we have already pointed out in the chapter on "Private Ownership," it is next to impossible to divorce an economic system from the social philosophy behind it.

Kwa hiyo, ikiwa tunakubali ukomunisti kama mpango wa kiuchumi, ni lazima pia tukubali bila shaka falsafa ya kijamii inayoambatana nao, ambayo inasema kwamba jamii ndiyo kitu pekee cha kweli, na kwamba mtu binafsi hana umuhimu wowote isipokuwa kama mwanachama wa jumuiya. Msimamo huu ni tofauti kabisa na ule wa Uislamu, kwani Uislamu unampa mtu binafsi umuhimu mkubwa na unamtegemea yeye zaidi kuliko jamii katika kutimiza malengo yake. Uislamu humstaarabisha mwanadamu kutoka ndani, ili atekeleze kwa hiari wajibu wake wote kama mwanachama wa jumuiya. Hivyo unamwinua mwanadamu hadi nafasi ya kuwa mwanachama mwenye fahamu wa jamii, mwenye mapenzi yake mwenyewe, anayechagua kazi yake pamoja na mahali anapotaka kufanyia kazi kwa uhuru. Anafurahia uhuru wa kutii amri za mtawala au kukataa kumtii iwapo mtawala atavuka mipaka iliyowekwa na utii kwa Mwenyezi Mungu na Uislamu. Hivyo Uislamu humfanya kila mtu kuwa mlinzi wa maadili ya jamii, mbali na kumwajibisha kuondoa aina zote za maovu. Lakini jambo kama hilo haliwezi, kwa sababu dhahiri za kisaikolojia na kivitendo, kutokea katika jamii ambamo mtu binafsi amepunguzwa hadhi kuwa kibwengo kisicho na maana au kielelezo cha binadamu kisicho na thamani, ambaye hatima yake inaundwa na kudhibitiwa na serikali pekee, kwa kuwa serikali hiyo peke yake ndiyo inayodhibiti njia zote za kiuchumi za uzalishaji. Mwisho, tunapaswa pia kukumbuka kwamba falsafa ya kikomunisti imejengwa juu ya dhana kwamba kipengele cha kiuchumi peke yake ndicho kikuu katika kuamua na kuunda mahusiano mbalimbali ya kijamii ndani ya kundi la kijamii. Uislamu hauondoi wala kupunguza umuhimu wa kipengele cha kiuchumi katika maisha ya mwanadamu, wala hauipuuzi umuhimu wa msingi thabiti wa kiuchumi kwa maisha ya kijamii ya jumuiya, ili fadhila za kimaadili na kijamii zistawi. Lakini haichangii kabisa wazo kwamba maisha si chochote zaidi ya uchumi. Pia haamini kwamba iwapo matatizo ya kiuchumi yatatatuliwa, matatizo mengine yote ya jamii nayo yatatatuliwa kama matokeo yake. Ili kufafanua jambo hili, hebu tuchunguze baadhi ya mifano halisi ya maisha. Tuseme kuna vijana wawili wenye hali sawa ya kiuchumi. Mmoja wao anaelekea kwenye anasa za mwili na amezama katika hamu zake za kimwili, na amefungwa kabisa na hizo. Mwingine ana kiasi cha kutosha cha utajiri wa kimali, na sehemu kubwa ya nguvu zake za ziada anaitumia kupanua upeo wake wa kiakili au wa kiroho kwa kupata elimu au ujuzi fulani. Je, vijana hawa wawili wanaweza kuchukuliwa kuwa sawa, na kesi zao kuzingatiwa kuwa zinafanana? Je, wawili hawa wanawakilisha kiwango sawa cha fadhila, wema na mafanikio katika njia zao za maisha?

Therefore if we accept communism as an economic program we must also inevitably embrace along with that the social philosophy it offers and which states that society is the only real thing, the individual having no importance whatever save as member of a community, This is a position quite contrary to that taken up by Islam, for it attaches great importance to the individual and relies more upon him than on society for the realization of its ends. Islam civilizes man from within so that he would willingly discharge all his responsibilities as a member of a community. Thus it elevates man to the position of a conscious member of society with a will of his own, choosing his own job as well as the place he would like to work in freely. He enjoys freedom to comply with the orders of the ruler or refuse to obey him if the ruler should happen to transgress the bounds set by obedience to Gad and Islam. Thus Islam makes every individual a guardian of the community's morals besides holding him responsible for the eradication of all forms of evils. But such a thing cannot for obvious psychological and practical reasons happen in a society wherein the individual is reduced to the status of an insignificant midget or a worthless manikin whose destiny is solely shaped and controlled by the government as it alone controls all economic means of production, Last, we must also remember that the communist philosophy is based on the assumption that it is the economic factor alone that is supreme so far as the determining or molding of the diverse social relationships within a social group are concerned. Islam does not deny or under-rate the importance of the economic factor in human life nor does it ignore the importance of a sound economic basis for the social life of a community so as to make the moral and social virtues flourish, But it does not at all contribute towards the notion that life is but-economics. It also does not believe that if economic problems are solved all the other problems of the society will also be solved as a result thereof. To make this point clear let us, however, consider some particular cases from life. Supposing there are two young men of a similar economic status, the one being inclined to voluptuousness and engrossed in his animal passions and completely enslaved by these, while the other enjoys a reasonable portion of material prosperity and spends most of his extra energy in broadening his mental or spiritual horizon by acquiring some knowledge or skill. Can these two young men be treated as equals and their cases considered as identical? Do the two represent an equal degree of virtue, goodness and success in their respective modes of living?

Tuchukue mfano wa mtu mwenye haiba kubwa, ambaye watu humsikiliza kwa heshima na wako tayari kutekeleza ushauri wake bila kusita, na mwingine ambaye hana haiba yoyote na ni dhihaka tu miongoni mwa marafiki zake. Swali ni hili: je, kutatua matatizo yake ya kiuchumi kunaweza kumsaidia mtu wa pili kwa namna yoyote ile? Je, anaweza kuchukuliwa kuwa anaishi maisha yenye utukufu kama yale ya mtu wa kwanza?

We may as well take the case of a man with a strong personality to whom the people listen with deference and are ready to act upon his advice readily and still another goodfor- nothing fellow, who has no personality but is just a laughing-stock among the circle of his acquaintances. Now the question is, can the solution of his economic problems help the latter in any wise? Can he be deemed to lead a life as glorious as that of the man in the former case?

Tukichukua kisa kingine, tunaweza kuuliza kama mwanamke mwenye neema na uzuri anaweza kwa namna yoyote kulinganishwa na mwanamke asiye na neema wala uzuri hata kidogo. Je, kuondolewa kwa vikwazo vya kiuchumi kunaweza kumsaidia mwanamke mbaya sura kutatua matatizo yake?

Taking still another case we might ask if a woman endowed with grace and beauty can in any way be matched with a woman devoid of all grace and beauty. Can the removal of economic hurdles help the ugly woman in resolving her difficulties?

Ndiyo maana fikra ya Kiislamu huweka msingi wa kwanza si katika thamani za kiuchumi bali katika thamani zisizo za kiuchumi, hasa thamani za kimaadili, kwa sababu inaamini kwamba ni thamani zisizo za kiuchumi zinazounda msingi wa maisha ya binadamu. Kwa mpangilio sahihi wa thamani hizo kunahitajika juhudi na hamasa angalau sawa na zile zinazohitajika katika thamani za kiuchumi tupu. Kwa hiyo, inasisitiza uhusiano wa kudumu kati ya Mwenyezi Mungu na mwanadamu, kwa kuwa ni uhusiano huo wa kiroho baina ya mwanadamu na Mola wake ambao ni njia bora ya kustawi kikamilifu kwa thamani za kimaadili katika maisha ya kila siku. Huyainua binadamu kutoka katika kiwango cha maisha ya kawaida ya kuchosha, ambapo hawana tofauti na watumwa wa mahitaji yao ya kimaada na wamekabiliwa na ushindani, chuki na uhasama wa ndani kwa ndani, hadi kwenye kiwango cha juu zaidi, cha juu mno, ambapo wako huru na tamaa hizi duni za kidunia, na ambapo wanaishi katika ulimwengu uliojaa wema, uzuri na upendo.

It is because of this that Islamic rationale gives basic importance not to economic values but to the non-economic ones, the moral values in particular, for it believes that it is the non-economic values that form the basis of human life for the proper organization of which at least as much exertion and enthusiasm are called for as those needed in the case of purely economical ones. It, therefore, stresses a perpetual relationship between God and man, for it is this very spiritual bond between man and his God which is an excellent means for the full flourish of moral values in practical life as it lifts men from the plane or their humdrum existence where they are no better than mere slaves to their material needs and subject to internecine rivalries, hatred and rancor, to a higher, far higher plane where they are free from all these base earthly passions and where they move in a world permeated with virtue, goodness and love.

Kwa mtazamo mwingine, Uislamu unaona nguvu ya kiroho katika maisha ya mwanadamu kuwa ndiyo yenye umuhimu wa kwanza, kwa kuwa ni mali yenye thamani kubwa sana kwa binadamu duniani, mbali na kuwa na ushawishi mkubwa katika hatima yake kama binadamu. Ikiwa itapewa uangalifu unaostahili na kupangwa kwa ufanisi, inaweza kuwa si dhaifu kuliko wakala mwingine yeyote wa kuunda jamii ya binadamu, ikiwa ni pamoja hata na wa kiuchumi. Badala yake, inaweza kuthibitika kuwa yenye ufanisi na nguvu zaidi kuliko wakala wengine wote wa mabadiliko ya kijamii. Waislamu wanaweza kupata ushahidi wa kutosha katika historia yao wenyewe wa kuwashawishi juu ya ukweli wa kauli iliyotajwa hapo juu.

From a still another standpoint Islam holds the spiritual force in human life as of primary importance, for it is a very precious possession of man on this earth besides exercising a powerful influence on his destiny as a man. If it is paid proper attention to and organized efficiently it might prove not less powerful as an agent shaping human society than any other including even the economic one. It might rather prove far more effective and powerful than all the other agents of social change. The Muslims might find enough evidence in their own history to convince them of the truth of the above statement.

Hivyo basi tunaona kwamba khalifa wa kwanza Abu Bakr alisimama imara mbele ya tishio la kuritadi mwanzoni mwa utawala wake, ingawa Waislamu wote, wakiwemo watu kama Omar bin Al-Khattab, hawakuunga mkono msimamo wake wa kupigana vita dhidi ya makabila yaliyoasi. Hata hivyo, aliendelea kusimama imara kama mwamba na hakuyumba. Alipata wapi msukumo wake? Je, ulikuwa ni nguvu ya kimali, au hisia ya ustawi wa kiuchumi, au ni nguvu fulani ya kibinadamu iliyomtegemeza katika mtihani ule? Hakika, hakuna kati ya hizi iliyomhimiza wala kumuunga mkono katika kipindi hicho chenye uzito mkubwa wa maisha yake. Lau angeweka imani yake kwa mojawapo ya hizi, asingethubutu kupigana dhidi ya vikwazo vile vikubwa katika wakati ule tete katika historia ya Uislamu. Ilikuwa ni nguvu ya kiroho pekee iliyompa Abu Bakr nia, azma na ujasiri wa kusimama dhidi ya waasi, ambao hatimaye walishindwa na kurejea tena kuwa Waislamu wema kama walivyokuwa awali, wakiacha kabisa uhasama wao kwa Uislamu au Waislamu. Huu ni sura muhimu sana katika historia ya binadamu, inayoonyesha jinsi nguvu ya kiroho yenye fahamu inavyogeuka kuwa nguvu ya kimali na kiuchumi, jambo ambalo halina mfano katika historia.

Thus we find that the first caliph Abu Bakr stood firm in the face of the threat of apostasy in the beginning of his rule although all the Muslims including men like Omar bin Al-Khattab did not support his stand to wage a war against the defecting tribes. Still he remained firm as a rock and did not flinch. Whence did he derive his inspiration? Was it a material power or the sense of economic well-being or was it some human power that sustained him in that ordeal? Surely, it was none of these that inspired him or backed him up at that momentous period of his life. Had he put his faith in anyone of these he would have never dared fight against such odds at so precarious a moment in the history of Islam. It was the spiritual power alone that gave Abu Bakr the will, determination and courage to stand against the rebels who were finally subdued and turned once again good Muslims as before, leaving off their hostility towards Islam or Muslims once for all. This is a very significant chapter of human history showing how the conscious spiritual energy is transformed into material and economic power such as has no parallel in history.

Hali kadhalika ilivyo kwa Omar bin Abdul Aziz, ambaye kwa nguvu yake ya kiroho peke yake aliondoa dhuluma ya kisiasa na kijamii iliyosababishwa na Bani Umayya wa mwanzo. Alirekebisha dhuluma hiyo na kuifanya jamii kuwa bora kwa mafanikio, akirejesha kanuni za msingi za kijamii za Uislamu. Ndipo uliposhuhudiwa muujiza mkubwa wa kihistoria na kiuchumi: hapakuwa tena na mtu maskini wala mhitaji yeyote aliyeonekana katika jamii nzima ya Waislamu.

Similar is the case with Omar bin Abdul Aziz who with the help of his spiritual force alone swept away the politico-social injustice created by the early Ommeyeds. He rectified the injustice and successfully reformed the society resuscitating the underlying social principles of Islam. It was then that the great historical and economical miracle was witnessed: there was no longer any poor or needy man to be met with in the entire Muslim society.

Kwa hiyo, Uislamu unatoa umuhimu wa kwanza kwa nguvu za kiroho, kwani hautaki kumnyima mwanadamu faida kubwa na za ajabu ambazo nguvu hizo zinaweza kumletea. Lakini wakati huo huo haukai bure, wala hauikatai njia za kimwili za kufikia lengo lake. Uislamu unaamini katika miujiza, lakini hauupendelei ule ungojeaji usio na kazi wa miujiza ya kiroho kutokea. Kanuni yake elekezi ya kudumu badala yake ni: "Mungu huzuia kwa Mamlaka yale ambayo hayazuiliwi na Qur'ani".

Islam, therefore, gives foremost importance to spiritual power, for it does not want to deprive man of the great and miraculous benefits it can bring to him although it does not at the same time sit idle nor does it refuse material means to realize its end. Islam does believe in miracles but favors not the idle waiting for the spiritual miracles to happen. Its constant guiding principle rather is: “God restrains with Authority that which is not restrained by the Qur'an".

Kwa upande mwingine, ni vigumu kabisa kwa wanadamu kujitahidi kufikia malengo yao ya kiuchumi kwa namna ambayo ukomunisti unapendekeza, kisha wawe na uwezo wa kuzingatia thamani za kimaadili au kuboresha maisha yao ya kiroho, kwa sababu umuhimu uliopitiliza unaopewa kipengele cha kiuchumi katika ukomunisti unapendelea maendeleo ya upande mmoja tu. Jambo hili linaweza kulinganishwa na kiungo kilichokua kupita kiasi cha moyo au ini la mwanadamu; matokeo yasiyoepukika ni kwamba kiungo kama hicho kilichokua kupita kiasi katika mwili wa binadamu huzuia maendeleo sahihi au utendaji kazi wa sehemu nyingine.

On the other hand, it is next to impossible for men to exert themselves towards the realization of their economic ends in the way communism suggests and then be able to pay any attention to the moral values or betterment of their own spiritual life, because the exaggerated importance given to the economic aspect in communism favors but a onesided development only. It may be likened to an outgrowth of human heart or liver the invariable result being that such an outgrown organ of human body hampers the proper development or functioning of other parts.

Tunajua kwamba kuna watu wanaochukizwa na mlinganisho wa kifalsafa kati ya Uislamu na ukomunisti kama tulivyojaribu kufanya hapo juu, kwa kuwa wanaamini kwamba majadiliano ya kinadharia kama hayo hayana uzito wowote, ni ya ziada tu na hayana maana yoyote. Kwao, ni matatizo ya kivitendo pekee yenye umuhimu, na kwa mujibu wa mtazamo wao, matatizo hayo yanapaswa kupewa kipaumbele kamili juu ya mambo yote ya kiakili. Wanadhani kwamba mambo yatakwenda vizuri na kwamba hatuhitaji kujisumbua na maswali ya kiakili tunapokubali mfumo fulani wa maisha, isipokuwa tu kuhusu kama unaweza kutekelezeka kivitendo. Hivyo wanashindwa kuelewa jinsi Uislamu na ukomunisti vinavyoweza kugongana wenyewe kwa wenyewe katika maisha ya kila siku. Wao wanaondoa kabisa uwezekano wowote wa mgongano kati ya hivyo viwili.

We know that there are persons who feel aversion from such a philosophical comparison of Islam and communism as we have attempted above, for they believe that such theoretical discussions carry no weight and are rather superfluous and signify nothing. To them only the practical problems have importance which as such, according to them, should be given all possible precedence over all abstract considerations. They think that the things will be all right and we need not bother about any abstract questions while adopting a certain system of life except its practicability. Thus they are at a toss to understand that Islam and communism can ever come into conflict with, each other so far as practical life is concerned. They rule out all possibility of such a conflict between the two.

Hatushiriki dharau yao kwa upande wa kinadharia au wa kifalsafa wa tatizo hili, kwa kuwa tunaamini kwamba mambo hayo mawili hayawezi kamwe kutazamwa kwa kujitenga moja kutoka kwa lingine.

We do not share their contempt of the theoretical or philosophical aspect of the problem, for we believe that the two can never be viewed in isolation from each other.

Hata hivyo, tutaonyesha baadhi ya tofauti za kivitendo kati ya Uislamu na ukomunisti ili wazizingatie. Baadhi ya tofauti hizo zinaweza kufupishwa kama ifuatavyo:

However we shall point out some of the practical differences between Islam and communism for their consideration. Some of the differences may be summed up as follows:

(1) Uislamu unashikilia kwamba jukumu halisi la mwanamke ni kuendeleza kizazi cha binadamu. Kwa hiyo, haumhimizi kuacha ufalme wake na kufanya kazi viwandani na mashambani, isipokuwa, bila shaka, katika hali za haja ya kweli, yaani pale asipokuwa na mtu wa kiume wa kumtafutia riziki, awe baba yake, kaka yake, mumewe au jamaa wa karibu. Lakini ukomunisti unamlazimisha mwanamke kwenda kufanya kazi viwandani au mashambani kwa saa nyingi kama wanazofanya wanaume. Hata tukiacha kwa sasa falsafa ya msingi ya kikomunisti inayokataa kutambua tofauti yoyote kati ya kazi na muundo wa kisaikolojia wa jinsia hizi mbili, uchumi wa kikomunisti kwa asili yake unategemea kuongeza njia za uzalishaji wa mali hadi kikomo cha mbali kabisa. Ongezeko kama hilo linawezekana tu ikiwa wanajamii wote watatoka na kujitahidi viwandani, maabara na mashambani. Mwanamke naye atalazimika kubeba mzigo sawa na wanajamii wengine, na ataacha kazi wakati wa kujifungua tu. Matokeo yake, watoto watalelewa kwa wingi na serikali, katika mchakato unaofanana na uzalishaji wa wingi.

(1) Islam holds that the real duty of a woman is the propagation of the human race. It, therefore, does not encourage her to leave her queendom and work in factories and fields, except, of course, in cases of genuine need, that is to say, in case she has no male bread earner, be he her father, brother, husband or a near one. But communism makes it obligatory for woman to go out and work in factories or fields for as many hours as the men do. Even if we overlook for the time being the underlying communist philosophy which refuses to recognize any difference between the functions as well as the psychological make-up of the sexes, the communist economy by its very nature rests on the basis of effecting increase in material means of production to the farthest possible limit. Such an increase is possible only if all the members of the community should go forth and exert themselves in factories, laboratories and fields. The woman too will have to bear an equal burden along with other members of the community and will be off her work during the period of her confinement only. The children1 shall as a result thereof be brought up wholesale by the state in a process similar to that of mass production.

Kwa hiyo, ikiwa tutakubali uchumi wa kikomunisti, matokeo yake yasiyoepukika ni kwamba mwanamke atalazimika kuacha nyumba yake na kwenda kufanya kazi nje, maana yake, mojawapo ya taasisi za msingi za Uislamu, yaani familia, ambayo ndiyo msingi ambao muundo wote wa maadili na uchumi wa Kiislamu unasimama, na ambayo inaonyesha kwamba kazi halisi ya mwanamke ipo ndani ya nyumba yake wakati mwanamume ndiye mwenye kazi za nje, pia itapigwa pigo la kufa.2 Ikisemwa kwamba kwenda nje kufanya kazi viwandani hakutakuwa lazima kwa mwanamke, basi hilo bila shaka litakuwa ni msimamo usiolingana na ule unaoshikiliwa na ukomunisti, kwani wakomunisti tayari wameweka wazi msimamo wao katika jambo hili. Sasa kwa upande wa kuongeza uzalishaji, tunakubali kwamba hilo bila shaka ni la kweli na lina umuhimu mkubwa kwa uhai wa binadamu. Lakini halihitaji kwa namna yoyote kupitishwa kwa uchumi wa kikomunisti, kwa kuwa wakomunisti wenyewe walikopa njia za kuongeza uzalishaji wao kutoka ubepari wa Ulaya.3 Kuanzishwa kwa dola ya Kiislamu hakukatazi kwa namna yoyote matumizi ya njia za kisasa kabisa za uzalishaji wa kilimo na viwanda kwa manufaa ya kimaada.

Therefore, if we embrace the communist economy an inevitable result of it will be that woman will have to leave her home to work outside which means in other words that one of the fundamental institutions of Islam-family-the bedrock on which the whole superstructure of Islamic morality and economics rests and which shows that woman's true function is within her home while man is to do the outside work, is also dealt a fatal blow.2 If it is said that to go out and work in factories will not be necessary for woman then surely it will be a position alien to that upheld by communism, for the communists have already made their stand too clear on the point. Now so far as effecting an increase in production is concerned, we admit that it is undoubtedly genuine and of vital importance to human existence. But it does not in any way call for the adoption of communist economy, for the communists themselves borrowed the means of increasing their production from the European capitalism.3 The establishment of an Islamic state does in no wise forbid the use of the most modern means of agricultural and industrial production for material benefit.

(2) Uchumi wa kikomunisti unategemea udikteta kamili wa wafanyakazi (proletariat), jambo linalomaanisha kwamba dola peke yake ndiyo huamua kazi zinazofanywa na raia mbalimbali, bila kujali kwa namna yoyote uwezo wao au mapendeleo yao. Dola peke yake ndiyo inayodhibiti fikra zote, matendo yote, vyama vyote pamoja na malengo yanayopaswa kutimizwa navyo. Hapa ni lazima pia kutofautisha kati ya udikteta wa mtawala mmoja na udikteta wa dola (wafanyakazi). Kwani katika kesi ya mtawala mmoja inawezekana kabisa kwamba awe na tabia njema na ya unyenyekevu, mwenye kujali sana ustawi wa nchi yake, na wakati mwingine hata akubali kushauriana na wawakilishi wa wananchi, wa kweli au wa uongo, kabla ya kuamua jambo au kutunga sheria. Lakini uwezekano huu wote hauna nafasi kabisa katika udikteta wa wafanyakazi au wa dola, kwani dola hiyo inajishughulisha hasa na uchumi peke yake na kutimiza malengo yanayoilingana, kwa mkono wa chuma. Hicho ndicho kinachoashiriwa na jina lenyewe, yaani udikteta wa wafanyakazi.

(2) The communist economy rests on a full-fledged dictatorship of the proletariat, which means that the state alone decides as to the functions performed by different citizens without any regard whatsoever to their respective aptitudes or likings. The state alone controls all thought, acts, associations as well as the ends to be realized by them. At this point we must also differentiate between the dictatorship of a single ruler and the dictatorship of the state (proletariat). For, in the case of a ruler it is just possible that he be of a congenial, modest character with the welfare of his country very dear to his heart and may even at times condescend to consult the representatives of the people-real or falsebefore deciding a matter or enacting a law. But all these possibilities are simply out of question in the case of a dictatorship of the proletariat or state, concerned as it primarily will be with the economics alone and the realization of such ends, as suit it, with an iron hand. That is what is signified by the very name-dictatorship of the proletariat.

Kwa kasoro za ukomunisti zilizotajwa hapo juu, tunaweza kuongeza nyingine: haina msingi imara, na kwa sababu hiyo mara nyingi huonekana ikichezea nadharia na vilevile matendo. Kwa mfano, mwanzoni ilitetea kukomeshwa kabisa kwa umiliki binafsi wote na ikadai kuweka sawa mishahara ya wafanyakazi wote wa aina mbalimbali, lakini ililazimika kuachana na msimamo wake kutokana na shinikizo la mazingira, kwani ilionekana mapema kuwa ni bora kuruhusu umiliki binafsi kwa kiasi kidogo na tofauti ya mishahara ya wafanyakazi kulingana na bidii na juhudi zao. Hivyo ukomunisti ulibadilisha msimamo wake, ukaacha mambo mawili ya msingi kabisa katika falsafa ya Karl Marx, na ukasogea karibu zaidi na msimamo wa Uislamu. Je, sisi Waislamu tunawezaje kujihalalisha kuacha mfumo wa maisha halisi na wa pekee wa kweli ambao ubinadamu daima hurejea kwake, kila unapojaribu mfumo mwingine wowote?

To the drawbacks of communism enumerated above we may add yet another one: it has no sound basis because of which it is often seen mucking around with theory as well as practice. Thus for instance, to begin with, it advocated an outright abolition of all private ownership and claimed to bring on a par the wages of all the different workers, but was forced to abandon its stand due to the pressure of the circumstances, as it soon found it better to allow a limited amount of private ownership and a difference in the wages of workers in proportion to their enthusiasm and pains. So communism shifted its position thus turning its back on two of the most fundamental elements in the philosophy of Karl Marx and coming as much nearer to the standpoint of Islam. How can we Muslims justify ourselves in forsaking the real and only true system of life such as humanity is all the time driven back to, whenever it toys with any other system?