For years, we have ignored our true needs, chasing after some fantasies as if they were necessities of life. Sometimes unable to discern what our real needs were, and other times mistaking some of our luxuries for needs, we tied our lives entirely to such luxuries and lived in contradictions. What we pursued at times not only failed to meet our true needs but increased them; so much so that, just like a person whose lungs are parched from thirst drinks seawater in an attempt to quench their thirst, only to become more dehydrated, we too become dependent on fantasies that do not address our needs. We have become slaves who will never be able to escape the shadows of gloom.

The only thing we really need as a society is to escape this foolish game of blind-man’s bluff, and bring to life our deep-rooted religious, national, ethical, and educational disciplines. If, during this period of great need, we ignore our own concept of a sound culture, does this not neglect and destroy the soul of our society?

In our conception of civilization and culture, the human being and humane values have always been priorities. Despite this, how have we come to adopt a worldview that contradicts our long and rich history, spiritual roots, and heritage? By adorning ourselves with many unfitting fantasies, we have destroyed both our social harmony and our national stature. Indeed, whether due to ignorance or lack of judgment, we have blindly welcomed many imported elements that have replaced our rich values and history, all the while we merely watched. Unfortunately, during this miserable period, our minds became slaves to our whims and desires; our reason was bound by tradition; our willpower was weakened; and our judgment was impaired by the narrowness of imitating others – thus, we have lived in misery as victims of the age, chasing one luxury after another.

In this period of gloom, trapped within the triangle of our logical deficiencies, moral weaknesses, and intellectual insufficiency, we have submitted ourselves to death as if caught in the Bermuda Triangle. We resembled lifeless corpses, and our intellectuals were truly pitiable. These intellectuals failed to see the bigger picture of natural phenomena and events as a whole. They were deficient in analysis, they meekly advocated imitating others, and they pathetically engaged in self-denial. They thought they were making progress, but they stumbled and crashed, failing to overcome obstacles.

But we have no right to blame others; ultimately, we were the ones who blatantly strayed from the path of truth, and thus, it was our responsibility. In fact, nobody should ever attempt to blame science, technology or other reasons like “we are surrounded with adversaries.” Science was innocent, technology sinless; we, especially the semi-educated intellectuals, were the ones who developed and shaped science and technology as we wished. We made all of life blindly dependent on them. Therefore, if we must find the culprit, we should first look among ourselves.

Indeed, we have been the ones who have failed to interpret the human being, the universe, and all the events within it in reference to their true Owner; instead, we derived incorrect meanings and attributed everything to nature and worldly causes. We made even the clearest, most evident things incomprehensible. We perceived – and led others to perceive – that there was no purpose in the existence of this book of the universe – despite its crystal-clear statements – and its custodian – the human being. For some reason, we were incapable of seeing the transcendent aspect of existence and made many unfounded speculations regarding creation and nature. We were neither capable of approaching existence with an analytic perspective, nor were we able to say anything consistent regarding the truths that lie beyond existence. We misperceived, misevaluated and were constantly baffled by these misleading results. With these successive errors, we continuously committed successive sins – sins for which we have been suffering destitution and various afflictions.

When we first began dreaming of revival, things could have been much different. If we had taken a more controlled approach to both matter and spirit, carrying both side by side, our mental, spiritual, and physical actions could have been more balanced. At the very least, those who were able to study could have turned their attention towards metaphysics, faith, and aesthetics that was in line with our considerations, our basic sources of values, just as much as they did to mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and biology. We could have achieved much different, and more beneficial, results for all humanity than what we have today. Alas! Not only did we disregard metaphysics, but we also opposed it, thinking it was necessary for enlightenment. We treated insignificant, material matters with extreme sensitivity while totally ignoring our intellectual, psychological, and spiritual needs. Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” In line with this aphorism, we have produced many who are both lame and blind. Science and research needed to be taken seriously, and we should not have made any mistakes in this regard. Given this, it seems strange that while we devote such attention to the physical dimensions of humanity and existence, we completely ignore the metaphysical. We ascribe everything to matter, physical power, and economics, and we have classified these as the basic factors that will transform the world into Paradise.

No one should ever assume that we underestimate matter, power, or economics. Yet, if today humanity is in a serious state of despair, with generations sinking deeper into conflict, causing greater harm and dishonor, then we need more than what material prosperity promises. Indeed, it is quite clear that despite all efforts, a materialistic perspective cannot fulfill people’s need for meaning or achieve much in terms of societal peace. Unfortunately, we placed a great deal of importance on mundane considerations and material wealth – some of us even considered them indispensable. While trying to escape the superstitions that denigrated our spirituality – which is a praiseworthy effort – many of us became entangled in the superstitions of materialism, which rejected much of our heritage. As we strayed from our national roots, we found ourselves trapped in a cycle of instability. In searching for answers, we went from one extreme to another – from strange mysticism to the most extreme materialism, with its myths and the idol of naturalism. While trying to escape the jinn we fell into Satan’s devious trap.

And even worse still, amidst such turmoil of thought, some, having completely lost their faith, have reduced the truths of humanity, matter, and the universe to the domain of the senses, insisting on following “materialism,” “positivism,” and “naturalism,” while refusing to accept anything else. Some have preferred to follow various theories of knowledge which could be likened to some of the early philosophers’ ideas on mind and soul. Thus, they attributed every aspect of the universe and creation to reason, completely ignoring human emotions and how these feelings perceive the world. During this period, as we abandoned our most important sources of reference, we continuously faltered amidst the confusion of thought and constantly competed with one another. Because these long years were spent in unproductive conflict, we have made no progress.

Even today, our ancient heritage remains a source of dispute, and we are often unable to do more than gossip about it. Sometimes we seem so focused on destruction, as if programmed to do nothing but tear things down, we pretend to be on the right side and try to show our destruction as construction. Thus, we continue our age-old conflicts. We have destroyed countless monumental values in a single blow, and as we did so, we constantly envisioned that we would replace them with even better values. What a great pity! So many centuries have passed, yet we have been unable to put in place even fake copies of what we destroyed.

If we had submitted ourselves to the True Owner of existence, we could have ended this chaotic situation and achieved a new revival with the power, discipline, virtue, and wisdom generated by faith in God. However, this does not mean that such an endeavor is impossible in the future. Yet, to date, it is somewhat difficult to say that we have actually accomplished anything of true significance. To make real progress, it is essential to raise a generation of faith and revival. A generation that is not confined to the calculations of today, but considers tomorrow and the days beyond. A generation that is as much the children of today with their actions as they are bound to eternity and to the reckoning of a very long future. A generation with faith and discipline.

A healthy, promising society requires the raising of a generation with these qualities. A society that consists of selfish individuals who work only for the interests of their own families is merely a mass deprived of communal qualities. The strength of a society is directly related to the harmony between its members, and such harmony depends on a deeply rooted and transcendent fraternity and love that flow from people’s hearts. If we are not capable of saying or achieving anything more effective or influential than in the past, what is the point of raising our voices to sound as if we are?

Our society today is obliged to begin anew by turning toward the essential dynamics upon which our magnificent past was established. If society cannot actualize its values of faith and unity, and thus revive its cultural heritage, then it appears difficult, if not impossible, to escape the current chaos by certain mere technological power and scientific advances. I believe that to overcome the various crises we presently face, it is necessary to stimulate faith, love, enthusiasm and hope across all segments of our society. We must reinterpret faith based on its original sources and according to the perceptions of our age. If a religion is stifled in terms of its spirit and separated from its divine origins, only to be confined to the interpretations of a banal worldview, then that religion cannot provide what is needed of it, nor can it voice a new message to the world. A religion God sent to humans so they can attain happiness both in this world and the hereafter cannot depend on individuals’ pleasures or their arbitrary interpretations. Such a religion cannot be regarded as a mere set of principles designed for worldly, materialistic interests and transient joys. The message of a religion cannot be restricted by interpretations contrived for the benefit of certain individuals or to conform to the requirements of a particular period of time. Doing so is to destroy that religion and replace it with our own aspirations and desires.

As to why “faith” has been stifled in our recent history, one can point to factors such as fanaticism, a lack of vision, and the disloyalty of some of the faithful, as well as the hostility of its disbelieving enemies. “Faith” was sent to convey a message and to penetrate the hearts of people, but to do so in its original form. It did not appoint others as its spokesperson, and no one had the right to speak on its behalf. And yet, in our age, where “expertise” and “specialization” are emphasized in every field, many of us feel confident, like experts to speak about matters of religion without shame or embarrassment. If only religion were also granted its own voice. There is so much more to say on this subject, however, it would exceed the length of this article.

Darwin himself agreed on better adaptation, and increasing complexification, but wholly rejected the idea that the evolutionary progress of organisms had any kind of moral implication. He understood the ‘improvement’ implied in ‘progress through evolution’ in a functional rather than an ethical, moral, or social sense.

Darwinism – Spencerism

By some analogy to its biological counterpart, Social Darwinism argues that the struggle for existence among humans may be expected to yield social progress, just as struggle among human communities does produce evolutionary adaptive results. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), English sociologist and philosopher, was the pioneer of this approach, so much so that Social Darwinism might, in many respects, be better called ‘Social Spencerism’. Spencer was raised in the competitive atmosphere of the Industrial Revolution and remained one of the great champions of laissez-faire economics. It was he who coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ to describe natural selection, although he was never a convinced Darwinist. He had already accepted a progressive view of human society, and the idea of biological evolution, during the 1850s, before Darwin’s theory became public. For Spencer, Malthus’s ‘law’ of demographic change was the dynamic agent of social development, constantly forcing societies to progress economically in order to escape the pressure of limited resources. At the same time, he was convinced by Lamarck’s arguments for evolution and began to see the possibility of constructing a synthesis that would unite all aspects of natural and human evolution under the same laws.

Social Darwinism and the American Way

Social Darwinism received some of its widest support in the U.S where the laissez-faire economics developed in England and France in the late 18th century was vigorously espoused, and where, after the successful War of Independence, rights of the individual (especially in the form of freedom from government interference) were enthusiastically promoted. The leading Social Darwinist in American academic circles was William Graham Sumner (1840-1910), Professor of political economy and social science at Yale which, under his influence, became a kind of pulpit for Social Darwinism. His ideas were derived chiefly from Spencer. He viewed the capitalist system with great favour because it allowed the free play of the ‘competition of life’. Unlike Spencer, he was very pessimistic and didn’t look forward to a future state of equilibrium. The well-known industrialist and philanthropist, Andrew Carnegie (1 835-191 4), held the view that individualism, private property, the law of accumulation of wealth and the law of competition promoted the highest and best in human achievements. Other businessman liked to see (and present) themselves as successful survivors in the struggle for existence. For example Rockefeller said: ‘The growth of a large business is merely survival of the fittest…’. Interestingly, many rich American industrialists and businessmen found no difficulty in accommodating Christianity to the Darwinian idea of a competitive struggle which ‘necessarily’ eliminated the weaker parties in the struggle.

War of nations and races

It is not surprising that Social Darwinist arguments were readily extended to the conclusion that evolutionary progress of mankind is furthered by inter-racial or inter-national struggles. The theory of evolution could be and was used in justifications of wars for national or racial supremacy. The best known writer in this vein was the German historian Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896). In his ‘Politics’, he argued that the weak must perish, and that they perish ‘justly’: ‘The grandeur of history lies in the perpetual conflict of nations, and it is simply foolish to desire the suppression of their rivalry.’

Though Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) never stated explicitly that he was drawing on Darwin’s theory of evolution, we can easily see the Hitlerian doctrine of racial superiority a kind of Darwinism carried to logical extreme of madness. (Darwin himself might have had some racist tendencies. For example, he wrote: ‘The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.’)

Influence on political ideology

Spencerian Social Darwinism reached its peak of influence in 1882, when Spencer visited U.S. for an extensive lecture tour. But that tour also coincided with the beginning of questioning and reaction. Leading the reaction was Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913), a geologist and a professor of sociology. Ward took his stand on the side of nurture in the growing controversy of nature vs. nurture. His thoughts can be described as reformed or liberal Social Darwinism, repudiating the struggle doctrines of the laissez-faire school in favour of emphasis on social improvement through attention to the conditions of the social environment.

Australia, in the period from 1860 to 1885, saw the most frequent advocacy of Spencerian evolutionary ideas. Many Spencerian, Darwinian and Malthusian ideas and slogans were repeated by politicians, businessmen, academics, and journalists, just as in the U.S. But the succeeding period of economic depression dampened the enthusiasm, again as in the U.S., and criticisms began to develop and made themselves felt in the 1880s.

Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, various political and intellectual ideologies were clearly inspired to some degree by Social Darwinism-militarism, colonialism, racism, Nazism. Even socialism and anarchism were influenced by this doctrine. Marx and Engels were much interested in Darwin’s work, and used his theory to underpin their notion of the historical evolution of class struggle.

Essentialism and relativism

The influence of Darwinism on philosophical ideas was considerable and many-sided, but the precise way this influence worked is by no means easy to state in simple terms. Generally, Darwinian theory promoted or assisted the decline of Essentialism and the concomitant rise of relativism in many branches of philosophy. The doctrine of essences, all allegedly ‘ultimate explanations’, was driven out of philosophy. The American school of philosophy called ‘Pragmatism’, developed in the 1870s, was self-consciously influenced by Darwinism, some of its proponents being firm believers. Notably, Chauncy Wright (1830-1875), who, to Darwin’s considerable pleasure, defended the Darwinian theory against the perceptive attacks of some Catholic scholars. Charles Pierce (1839-1914), after his careful study of Darwin’s work, envisaged a kind natural selection process acting on ideas.

Ethics

Darwin himself was one of the first to consider the relationship between ethical theory and evolutionary doctrines, as when he argued that altruism might have had an evolutionary origin. He tried to show how ethical behaviour would have survival value, and thus might become established in human societies. But Darwin didn’t take the further step and say that one might distinguish between right and wrong by considering what had happened during the course of evolution, or where it was going in future. Evolution in itself did not provide an ethical code. Herbert Spencer, however, went beyond Darwin and hinted that this would be a possibility, as he wrote, ‘The conduct to which we apply the name good, is the relatively more evolved conduct, and … bad is the name we apply to conduct which is relatively less evolved.’

Such opinions were countered by T. H. Huxley in his 1893 essay, ‘Evolution and ethics’, saying that one cannot possibly draw any moral or ethical conclusions from a consideration of the course of evolution, evolution and ethics are quite distinct. Although his arguments were quite persuasive, others went on attempting to derive ethical norms from the evolutionary process.

Exclusion of the supernatural

Darwinian theory was purely naturalistic; it made no appeal to entities such as God, divine spirits, hypothetical intellects, final causes, souls or Platonic ideas. By providing an alternative naturalistic explanation of design, Darwin made it seem less necessary to construct a view of the world that invoked some kind of supernatural being. Darwin’s theories therefore gave considerable support to materialist interpretations of the world. The old mind/body dualism of Descartes and his followers would be replaced by a monistic materialism. This attitude proved particularly attractive in Germany, in the writings of the members of so-called ‘Monist League’, the work of the philosopher/biologist, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) being particularly prominent. Haeckel, once regarded as a progressive liberal opposed to the excesses of arbitrary state power, has (in the light of more recent studies) come to be considered as one of formative influences on German Nazism. The three main strands in his thought were German Romantic Idealism, scientific positivism and materialism, and Darwinism. But Haeckel’s materialism was interestingly different; for him, atoms were endowed with souls.

Also drawing on biological evolution, although less directly, was the philologist and nihilist professor, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), particularly in his poetic-philosophic discourse work Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He believed that by a proper exercise of will, certain men might evolve into a world-elite of ‘Ubermenschen’ or Supermen. Superman would be his own master and might succeed to the rank and authority traditionally associated with God.

Metaphysics

Henri Bergson, a French philosopher, (1859-1941), accorded primacy to spirit and intuition, rather than matter and analysis. Metaphysics was concerned with spirit and intuition, and he sided with the metaphysicians. Bergson’s evolutionism, though all-pervasive in his system, was very different from Darwin’s naturalistic, mechanistic or materialistic doctrine of evolution by natural selection. It is clear that Bergson far transcended the hard ground of Darwinian science and moved on to the lusher fields of speculative metaphysics. In its time, his work Creative Evolution aroused considerable excitement and enthusiasm.

On the subject of metaphysics Darwin himself was somewhat sceptical: ‘To study metaphysics as it has always been studied appears to me to be like puzzling at astronomy without mechanics.’ He felt that one who had explained the (biological) origin of man, who knew what a baboon was, had done more to explain man than Locke.

Religion

Darwinism’s impact on religion can be summarized by saying that it undermined religious beliefs, and was one of the major influences in encouraging agnosticism. Its naturalistic structure opposed the teleological basis of Christianity and other religions. Between 1830 and 1875, we observe an evolution in British society and particularly British scientific society. In 1830s, science as a profession was just beginning, and because of the peculiarities of British higher education there were strong links between science and organized religion. The next forty to fifty years saw those links weaken and break; and evolutionism, particularly Darwinian evolutionism gained the opportunity to be used. Darwin succeeded where Chambers (who proposed a designed evolution) failed, because Darwin had earned respect as a scientist. So for this change in Victorian Britain, the Darwinian Revolution was part cause and part effect.

Conclusion

Evolution, one of the fundamental discoveries and concepts in modern thought, is central to modem biology and to the use of biology in modern society. Without it, genetics, physiology, ecology, and every other aspect of biology would lack coherence. Evolution has also added new perspectives to the discussions on scientific methodology. More dramatic (and famous) has been the theory’s extra-scientific impacts. Evolution has been and probably will remain a doctrine that has consequences for our understanding of the nature of man, and the purpose (or lack of purpose) in his existence. Also, because of its social implications, as in human genetics, evolution is a subject highly charged with emotion, and much of the literature on it suffers from unspoken and often untested assumptions. It is very difficult to discuss the theory with objectivity. Discussion of it tends to spill over to virtually every area of discourse in the humanities and social sciences: Sociology, Economics, Politics, Theology, Philosophy, Psychology, Anthropology, Literature, and Music.

We mean by ‘the horizon of hope’: travelling beyond the visible dimension of existence and considering existence as a whole, all parts of which are inherently interrelated, without which it is impossible either to perceive things and events as they really are or to grasp the essence of existence and its relation with the Creator and the relation between Him and ourselves.Scientific investigations in which each discipline conducts its own discourse in almost complete separation from others, and the dominant materialistic conception of science which has so extensively compartmentalized existence and life, are far from discovering the reality of things, existence and life. When the present specialization and compartmentalization is observed in, say, the field of medicine which deals with man as if he were made up of many discrete mechanisms, it becomes to see easy how dire are the consequences of the approach of modern materialistic thinking to man, life and existence. This approach strips existence of its meaning and connectedness and presents it as discrete elements consisting only of matter.

However, the only way to comprehend and value life and existence in all its interrelated dimensions is to experience existence through the prism of spirit and metaphysical thinking. Neglect of this way means forcing reason to comment on things beyond its reach and imprisoning intellectual effort within the confines of sense-impressions only. Whereas when we heed the sound of our conscience or inner world, we will perceive that the mind is never content and satisfied with mere sense-impressions. In history, all the great, long-lived and inclusive modes of thinking have been developed upon the foundations of metaphysics and spirituality. The whole of the ancient world, from Hebrews to Arameans, from Hindus in India to the Muslim peoples of Arabian and Turkish lands, was founded and shaped under the influence of Sacred Texts such as the Qur’an, the Bible, the Vedas and Upanishads, Denial or forgetting of anti-materialistic Western thinkers, scientists and philosophers such as Kant, Descartes, Pascal, Hegel and Leibnitz means ignoring one of the essential strands in Western thinking. We can only imagine a new, better world based on knowledge or sciences, if we look at the concept of science through the prism of metaphysics. Muslim peoples have so far not been able to develop a concept of science in its true meaning, namely one derived from the Qur’an and centuries-old Islamic traditions moulded mainly by the Qur’an and the practice of the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings. The application of science or technology by an irresponsible, selfish minority has brought to mankind more disasters than benefits. Muslim peoples, if they want to be saved from centuries-old humiliation and contribute to the foundation of a new, happy world at least on a par with the West, should give up repeating old-fashioned positivistic and materialistic theories and put forward the products of their own thoughts and inspirations. This, of a certainty, requires awareness of the pains and troubles they have been subject to for centuries and it requires exerting great efforts to define them and produce cures and solutions for them. A true concept of science is one that will provide us, in the light of spirituality and metaphysics, with a comprehensive, inclusive view which affirms the intrinsic and unbreakable relation between any particular scientific discipline and existence as a whole. This is so because only a concept which can embrace the whole in its wholeness is truly worthy of being called scientific, Seeing existence as discrete elements and trying to reach the whole from those disjunct elements will only end in drowning amid the multiplicity of things. By contrast, embracing the whole and then studying the parts in the light of the whole will enable us to reach sound conclusions concerning the reality of existence.

Spirituality and metaphysics also provide the range of art with their widest dimensions. It may even be said that art can only attain its real identity through spirituality and metaphysics. For what an artist does is to discover man’s inner world with all its feelings, excitements, expectations, frustrations and ambitions, and its relations with the outer dimension of existence, and then present them in certain forms according to the medium being used, Art is the expression of man’s inner essence being in continuous movement to return to its source. In other words, an artist is one who, uniting the inspirations flowing into his spirit from things and events, from all corners of existence, and bringing together all ‘noumena’ and ‘phenomena,’ can present things to us in their wholeness.

We should recall once again that the most important source of science, thinking and art, and even virtues and morality, is metaphysics. With a sound mode of thinking based on pure metaphysics, the entirety of existence can be perceived and it becomes possible to view existence from the top downward as a whole and to travel through its deeper dimensions. Without spirituality and metaphysics, it is impossible to build a community on sound foundations. A community devoid of sound foundations cannot be saved from begging from others and continuous shaking from a kind of ‘heart disease.’ Communities that have not been able to build their identity on sound metaphysical concepts are subject to identity crises. To build a new, happy world where human virtues and values are given due prominence and are effective in shaping policies and aspirations, the world’s peoples, Muslims most certainly included, need urgently to rediscover and re-affirm the spirituality and metaphysics taught in the God-revealed religions.