The word “free” means not being restricted by authority or external force. From this definition we can extract a critical point and that is, there is no such a thing as absolute freedom. We can say that because the human being always submits to something. Whether willingly or unwillingly, we are always going to be restricted by some type of authority, a force we are governed by. These authorities can be divided into two categories, the inner authority and the outer authority.
The inner authority is the driving force behind all our thoughts and actions. This driving force is represented by our vices and virtues. For instance, many of us live our lives under the dictatorship of pride, anger, lowly desires etc while others choose to be governed by morality, patience, reason etc.
All of these authorities involve some type of restriction, whether by choice or consequence. For instance, those who abide by morality will not commit adultery. That is a restriction of choice that is both willfully and happily made. On the other hand, those of us who are enslaved to our pride for instance will suffer the consequence of being restricted from acknowledging what is correct.
The outer authority represents those apparent laws of religion as well as the laws of people such as institutions like parenthood and in particular, governments.
It can be clearly demonstrated even in today times, that most secular and democratic governments place restrictions on freedom. This is made evident with the prohibition of acts such as murder, rape and theft. These prohibitions are enforced with the threat of punishment because not all of us willfully abide by the restrictions of morality. So we can see here how the outer authority serves as a safety net for the inner authority of virtue. Meaning if one does not want to abide by the authority of virtue the outer authority will try and compel them to do so. The wisdom behind this not only protects other members of society from being victims of such crimes perpetuated by vice, but this forced restraint also fosters an environment that prevents the human being from enacting on their inclinations of vice. This offers them an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves so as to one day perhaps willfully adhere to the inner authority of virtue.
Now although there is no opposition to these restrictions on freedoms when it comes to murder and so on, there is debate when it comes to those acts many argue do not hurt anyone. For instance; the freedom to gamble, the freedom to have extra marital affairs, the freedom to engage in public sexual conduct, the freedom to dress provocatively, the freedom to consume alcohol etc.
Although one can quite easily argue that such acts do in fact cause a great deal of harm to society, the argument neglects a critical point.
We mentioned that not all of us willfully abide by the authority of virtue. Or put in another way, some of us are susceptible to lives ruled by vice. So if we foster an environment that provides the tools for the authority of vice to be used, we cannot expect the everyone to not use those tools.
For instance, imagine a group of people bringing a crate of alcohol to the home of a alcoholic. Sure there may be some in that house who drink responsibly but can they really expect the alcoholic too? Are they being fair on this person by providing them the means to destroy his or her life? Is their ability to engage in unnecessary and dangerous acts like consuming alcohol more important then the welfare of the alcoholic? If we use this example in a broader context we can see how selfish human beings can be. That is, doing what we want seems far more important then the welfare of our society as a whole.
However, had the inner authority of virtue been adhered too, prohibitions on such dangerous trivial pursuits like alcohol would have been implemented and thus would have prevented alcoholics. For instance, imagine someone enjoys consuming alcohol. Yet the neighbor of this person destroyed his life because of alcohol. Assuming this person was selfless he would have requested that alcohol be banned in his area even though he enjoys alcohol. That is because this prohibition is the only way his neighbor can get his life in order now that alcohol would no longer be available. In other words, he would rather forsake alcohol to see his neighbor healthy.
So we can see a conflict emerging between the wants of individuals versus the condition of society as a whole. This is essentially the reality of the dispute between the concepts of secularism and theocracy. That is, the secularists defend those freedoms even when it damages society as a whole whereas the proponents of theocracy argue that such an approach defeats the purpose of what freedom is all about.
For instance, imagine society as a whole to be represented by the human body. Now this human body exercises its choice to smoke resulting in the destruction of lungs. Is the choice to smoke more important than the destruction of the lungs? If the lungs could speak it would scream in protest that such a choice is actually an infringement against its right to live and to live free from destruction!
We can see how secularism has confused freedom with selfishness. In doing so it has failed to find the right balance between allowing and disallowing certain freedoms since it has valued individual wants over the health of society. This is precisely why the system of theocracy is superior as it seeks to mirror the inner authority of virtue that values the health of society over individual wants. In other words selflessness over selfishness: virtue over vice.
said...
bismillah wa alhamdulillah.salamu alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuhu.i become so glad when i see islamic blog.alhamdulillah.
may allah help u too.inshaallah.
my english isnt good.but i will read your blog offlin.
iltimasi dua.