For some time in the recent past, certain states have based their system of government on particular ideologies dominant in modern times. However, experience has shown that these ideologies have in no way contributed to the fulfilment of cherished goals. Individualism and Marxism came to the fore, and between them shared the majority of countries, sowing the seeds of dissention among them. Individualism made the individual the ultimate end of the state. It, therefore, emphasized and legitimated human rights and freedoms, but only at the expense of the group and the weaker segments of society. The adoption of absolute individualism has led to numerous shortcomings affecting both the individual in relation to his economic rights, and society with regard to its public interests. States adopting individualism were thus forced to tone it down, and even abandon some of its teachings in favour of society, and in a bid to protect weaker individuals. On the other hand, Marxism claimed that individuals' economic rights are the more important aspect, it therefore neglected political rights, suppressed public freedoms, and prohibited individuals, ownership of means of production. The public, represented in a workers' government, was made the absolute power in the state. Marxism explicitly acknowledged worker's dictatorship (or proletariat dictatorship as they called it) for a so-called transition stage ultimately leading to communism and the removal of the state, a fabulous transition which could never occur. The adoption of Marxism by East Bloc countries has only led to economic decline, and suppression of people's freedoms, ultimately triggering popular revolt, and the subsequent toppling of Marxist regimes in East European nations. The Soviet Union itself is reconsidering its political and economic system, so that individuals may enjoy the necessary measure of those public freedoms and human rights most closely related to human nature. It was thus that the two major ideologies, with their extremist and absolute features, have tended to moderate their stands, and abandon exaggeration. Centrism thus emerged as an objective sought by the majority of nations. This Centrism is inherent in Sharia (Islamic Law), since its inception fourteen centures ago. However, it was neglected by most people, and Muslims slackened the process of conveying it to other nations. The message was relayed neither adequately nor appropriately. Meanwhile, Muslims have failed to provide an example, having been swayed by worldly affairs, and distracted by mundane riches, and hence fell apart letting loose conflicts over the perishable aspects of the world. Had humanity followed the Sharia revealed by the All-Knowing Creator, it could have saved itself the pain and confusion resulting from invoking such man-made ideologies, with all their shortcomings, paradoxes and lack of insight. Sharia actually entails principles and teachings that would rectify people's affairs in full accord with God's Commands and man's nature as well. It caters for both the individual and the group without bias or injustice. Human rights and freedoms are fully recognized in relation to man's nature and ambitions, and in way compatible with public interest. The group, too, maintains its own entity, and its interests prevail over those of the individual if and when the two come into conflict with each other, so that the group and its weaker segments are duely protected.
EI-Helw, Prof. Majed Ragheb
"Government Ideologies and Islamic Centrism,"
Journal Sharia and Law: Vol. 1991
, Article 6.
Available at: https://scholarworks.uaeu.ac.ae/sharia_and_law/vol1991/iss5/6