Social Affairs Policy

Islam is the middle way. Both communism and capitalism have to admit that they fall short of the aim they set out to achieve and cannot deliver what they promised to provide: a happy way of life. Islam, often being blamed to be an outdated medievall system, is indeed the only answer for the future. In the Islamic understanding, the government's prime purpose is to serve the people. Human happiness is at the heart of all regulations for social interaction.

The relationship of the members of an Islamic society are therefore based on reciprocal responsibility, not exploitation. The holy prophet (peace be upon him) said on the basic necessities of life: 'If a person who is charged with work for us (the community) has no wife, he shall have one, if he has no dwelling place, he shall have one, if he has no animal, he shall have one". This is not peculiar to state officials but to every member of society. Each individual is encouraged to give to society his best and is entitled to all his needs met without the excesses of communism which tries to level all people down to a basic minimum, or capitalism which places the individual rights above the well-being of the whole community.

An ideal society as modelled by Islam does not need an expensive bureaucracy to keep basic services going. A society built on mutual care and respect, remembering the common origin and common destiny of man, living in the spirit of brotherhood and good neighbourliness, will naturally look after its weak, disadvantaged, needy, handicapped. or misfortunate members without looking upon it as a burden. A good society is a society which encourages the good aspects which arc abundantly available within the British community, but often dormant or stifled. The materialistic encouragement of selfishness has done a lot of harm to good relations in Britain. A good society strenghens even the weakest, a bad society corrupts even the strongest. Government and administration shoulder a heavy responsibility in keeping the fabric of society together. Social requirements and necessities may not be commercialised. It is grossly immoral to sell back to the people what already belongs to them, as in the privatisation of service industries, or to leave essential care to the bottom line of private balance sheets.

A great deal of social unrest and tension could easily be avoided would we attempt to alleviate understandable frustrations amongst large numbers of society due to economic disadvantage, disabling of activity, lack of purpose, and lack of self-respect due to missing satisfaction of personal success in a more and more anonymous and institutionalised world.

Any remaining form of resistance, for example in trade unionism, meets with systematic oppression and forceful coercion in the interests of a system which has since long stopped to be the servant of the people. If citizens can no longer identify with their politicians and government, sympathise with their fellow-citizens and feel understood in their grievances, society runs an immediate danger of disintegrating. A return to a caring attitude is incumbent before it is too late.