The declaration of a New World Order has been prompted recently by the precipitate fall of communism although for several decades Islamic literature criticized both communism and capitalism and expected neither to endure. Comparative works were made to demonstrate where each fell short in comparison with an independent system derived from the teachings of Islam.

It will be too rash to conclude that the collapse of communism attests to the fitness of capitalism. As a matter of fact, both share the drawback of being materialistic ideologies, catering to a species that has more than the material side. They both committed another error albeit in opposite directions, and that is the assumption that the individual and the society are in irreconcilable conflict. Communism crushed the individual in favor of society. But what is the society but the individual multiplied? The result was inevitably a crushed society.

Capitalism on the other hand extoled individuality and overprotected it from the claims of society. That imbued the individual with justifiable selfishness, and when this was projected outward its various expressions were classism, corporatism, nationalism, racism, slavery and colonialism. The cornerstone of capitalism is that the only function and sole destiny of capital is to grow and keep growing without limits. When local markets are fully saturated new ones are sought overseas and in the Third World. There is obvious (perhaps willful) blindness to the fact that it is impossible to attain infinite growth on a finite planet. In the feverish race for dollars and more dollars coupled with the planned and active encouragement of patterns of consumerism and planned obsolescence - not to satisfy needs but rather to satisfy comforts, pleasures, and luxuries - natural resources, many irreplaceable, are violated at an accelerating pace. This overkill not only targeted the resources but even the Third World as the vital market and the sacred cow.

Not only are they stripped of their natural resources and raw materials at a meager price (compared to the exorbitant prices they pay to buy the finished products of those materials), they are even prevented from carrying out such projects that might improve their lot and make them less dependent on First World imports. To prevent the Third World from total death by exanguination, they are regularly injected with fresh capital in the form of loans and aid in order to maintain their buying power, to the favor of Western capital. Alas, only a tiny fraction of that aid goes to address the needs of the people. The major part goes to the home-grown elite who form the ruling class and their retinues and who undertake the maintenance of the status quo. They prevent the public debate of the terms and conditions of the loans and aids, block any attempt at supervising their management and establishing accountability for their mismanagement, oppress labor right and allow lax safety procedures, and keep a total ban on unearthing the appalling corruption that has become the hallmark of government in the Third World including much of the Islamic World. This seems to explain two paradoxes. The first is that in many Middle Eastern countries where the more money the West pumps into a country, the poorer it becomes and the deeper in debt. The second is the total betrayal by the major democracies of democratic movements who seem close to gaining power by following the sound democratic process. Invariably the democracies side with the dictators against the democratic aspirations of their people and when necessary support them even with the use of military power. The expression "stability" that is the declared aim of every Western intervention means in real terms the keeping of the best exploitative opportunities for foreign capital even if they are the worst possible for the masses. They and future generations will inherit a rising debt that the GNP is unable to service, let alone pay. This state of affairs is both known and bitterly felt by the people. They see its results in their homes, families and children. They call it injustice and they try to change it, but they are brutally suppressed. Western politics participate in this suppression, and to justify it in the eyes of their people, ready made formulae and terminologies are promptly available (such as eroding the stability or blatant aggression on our national interests.) Until recently it was convenient to call those justice seekers "communists" Since the collapse of communism the new label is "Islamic fundamentalists".

With the gigantic media machine, owned by large corporations and big capital, designed to manipulate and shape public thinking, the masses in the West have so far been easy to swallow the bait and, unsuspectingly, sanction the means and ways of their policy makers. And yet, this is not the worst about the submissive and unsuspecting nature of the people in the West. What they are even slower to grasp is that the voracious appetite of capital and its greedy practice in the Third World is not confined to those far and away places inhabited by those strange and exotic people, but they would not flinch from doing the same at home and to own citizens whenever prompted by the dictates of that sacred principle: growth and more growth, capital and more capital, dollars and more dollars! What else can explain the shifting of major chunks of industry to South East Asia and elsewhere where cheap labor (financially and humanly) can produce cheaper final product which, however, will not be sold cheaper when shipped back home to America. During the process millions of American workers are laid off and join the ranks of the unemployed.

This road of unbridled capitalism cannot just go on indefinitely and all evidence shows that it will hit a dead end before long, evidence that has been ignored and curtailed and attacked and screwed up, but it is there whether its opponents like it or not. The golden- egged goose of the resources and the sacred cow of the Third World shall not survive for long. Unless there is radical change of course before it is too late, this planet will cease to be sustainable!

What we feel should be called for, however, is not a change of rules but a change of heart. As long as the good old mentality of materialism reigns there is no hope except for a little symptomatic treatment that might delay the inevitable for a brief time but will not prevent it. As long as the prevailing thinking goes in terms of we versus them, North versus South, exploiter versus exploited, rich versus poor, white versus coloured and masters versus slaves (at least servants) there is no hope in the future. The ship of humanity will sink even while the passengers in deluxe and first class cabins further amass more valuables and luxuries. It is farfetched to believe that the politicians and the financiers of the world will have the vision, wisdom and ability to undergo this dramatic self-change. It is also a pity to see them staying the ominous course and leading humanity so close to the edge of the abyss. The only hope is a massive education campaign of the public who as voters remain the final arbiters at the end of the day. If a demand is created for a new way then the politicians will either change or have to get out of the way of change.

What does Islam has to do with all this? Islamic scholars and thinkers (not the terrorists and extremists that the media hold as a fixed mask on the face of everything Islamic) have for several decades been sketching the features of an Islamic system based on the Islamic Shari'a and naturally not a copy of formulas that might have served well in previous times and circumstances. Nor are they to be considered exclusively Islamic or strictly prescribed to Muslims, for the welfare of humanity is a common concern and with our ever-shrinking interactive globe we all face the same destiny. The principal features of this system are:

(1) Man is not the supreme being of this universe but is under the Supreme Being, God! Without God everything becomes possible, as Dostoyevski said, and anything can be rationalized and justified. When man dethroned God he slipped into self-worship. The role of man in this universe is to be God's vicegerent and trustee, so equipped as to be capable of having full mandate over nature but to manage the planet in accordance with the Creator's instructions and not upon man's own impulses and temptations. Neither science (a tool yet in its infancy) nor arrogance (a killer trap) should delude man into playing God... if only man were wise enough.

(2) Ultimate ownership is God's by virtue of being the Creator. Our ownership is a second level ownership. We are free to own and to increase our wealth by lawful means practically without limits as long as we are aware that capital has its rights but also has its duties. The function of capital is not merely to grow ad infinitum but also to fulfil obligations towards society. The assumption (by both communism and capitalism) that there is an inevitable conflict between individual and society does not exist in Islam where the premise is an equilibrium between both and a delicate balance that keeps everybody happy. This balance is not maintained merely by the strong arm of the law, but, of even more importance, by the pleasing of God that breeds happiness in giving. God is always in the equation and is a living reality, a notion of absolute meaninglessness in a materialistic ideology. This new philosophy is achievable and attainable, but of course not under a value free educational system, the tidal wave of media indoctrination, or a society tolerant of injustices. Society is so intercomplementary and integrated that nobody is allowed to live in isolation, either at the epic of riches or at the nadir of poverty.

Over fourteen centuries ago Omar, the second caliph of Islam, decreed that if a man in a town died out of poverty the citizens had to pay his ransom as if they killed him. The community is like "One body.. when one organ suffers the others rally in support", as the prophet said. Every citizen has the right to live at a threshold level of comfort (not merely subsistence), and since living on charity is discouraged, it follows that individual rights include the right to gainful employment. Labor-saving technology is therefore allowed as an answer to labor shortage, but never to economize on jobs and throw the laborers into unemployment. Man takes priority over the machine and the juridical rule is that collective welfare takes priority over individual welfare. This does not mean arrest of technological progress but that it should go hand in hand in dealing with its consequences. Workers are enabled and encouraged to buy shares in their companies in order to blur the polarization between labor and capital and to have a vested interest in the progress of the company.

In Islam the premise is that God remitted the sustenance of the poor in the wealth of the rich.. and in a new world order the principle may be carried over to international proportions. Another rule in Islam is that money as an instrument cannot breed money unless coupled to some kind of production, hence usury is unlawful in Islam. In recent decades much has been written on usury-free banking, and indeed a number of banks not only in Islamic countries but also in Europe and America have pioneered the experiment.

(3) The ONENESS of humanity as a single family sharing the common grandparentage of Adam and Eve should be emphasized and taught to the children from a young age together with the inherent equality of human beings. It is unfortunate that both science and religion were misused in Europe (and America) to concoct evidence of the natural superiority of the white (or Aryan) race over the others. Such evidence is now dead and buried, but the legacy continues. Until now, in most churches in the West Jesus is imaged as a white blond man with blue eyes and not like the rest of the Palestinians. The evidence of racism in the West practically pervades all aspects of life, and we dare say the will to change it is yet to gather sufficient momentum. An uphill battle for civil rights in America has been going on over the past decades, and in spite of palpable progress one cannot say that the bitter taste of slavery has been washed away. Equality is not a set of legal specifications but primarily a state of mind.

So far the black man in America has not heard the word "Sorry" from the white man for the chapter of slavery that tarnishes the history of the white civilization (the yellow - Japanese - Americans did receive an apology and reparations for their internment during World War II.) Racial tensions continue to erupt, and although regrettable, they often find justification like the Los Angeles riots in the near past. Every time there is a call and a few efforts to improve the economic lot of the blacks; although good, it misses the root etiology. Neither bullets nor dollars will come up with permanent and real solutions. Only when everyone in the depths of their hearts feel and believe that every other human being is a dear and equal brother or sister will real change occur. This cannot be decreed by law, but it is a function of education. There is every reason, and not just this racial issue, for an educational revolution in schools and all other educational channels to restructure the human mentality on new lines which hopefully lead to a new unified and compassionate humanity putting life into our slogans of freedom, fraternity and equality, not only within national borders (and to hell with the others) but on a global scale.

This should be coupled by a real effort at development of the Third World. It has been estimated that the subsidy Europe pays to its farmers is enough to cause such a turn around in the Third World as to eliminate the problem of hunger the world over. Such an idea was summarily scoffed at in a (philanthropic) meeting of former ministers and prime ministers from various countries that was held in Europe. Neither the stoppage of subsidy nor the developing of the Third World were considered a live option, the former for political expediency and the latter as political strategy.

(4) Another human faculty that has been rapidly eroding and needs to be restored is the faculty of self-restraint. Although it is the principal distinction between man and animal, the mentality of modern times seems to have played havoc with it. A young man who was arrested shooting at passing cars on a free way and killing some people had only this to offer as explanation "I felt like killing someone." This is not a lone example. Statistics on crime clearly indicate that this has become a social phenomenon rather than an exception as anyone watching the news bulletins or reading the papers can confirm. The lack of a sound value system and the appalling lack of resistance in the face of impulses and temptations are underlying factors, and the key to change can be found with education and the media. If there is a Day of Judgment, as Muslims and others believe, then one cannot envy the media moguls when they are faced with their role in publicizing and promoting violence, pornography and licentiousness. Speak of the unspeakable, then speak of the unspeakable, and it naturally becomes speakable. Our young then explore and experiment until it becomes a social addiction.

Unfortunately, some states are setting in subtle ways the example to its youth of recourse to naked power especially when they are strong beyond limits and their adversary is weak beyond limits. The fig leaf called values and principle often falls down when the military giant cracks down on some aggression with all its might and practically against no resistance; when a worse aggression follows the same giant pulls back because "the task would not be easy". Regard to human life is abysmal both as we attack it or refrain from protecting it. One of the powerful but revealing phrases said during the Gulf War was that of a military leader: "We are not in the business of counting bodies", but that, of course, meant the bodies of the other side.

(5) War and Peace - The rules of war in Islam are very clear and were explicitly delineated by prophet Mohammad himself. First it has to be of a defensive nature, or to remove oppression wherever it might be, following what is now called a just cause. Alliance to stop aggression was expressed in the Quranic verse: "If two parties among the believers fall into a fight, make you peace between them: but if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of God. But if it complies then make peace with justice and be fair, for God loves those who are fair." (49:9) Alliance with non-Muslims for a just cause is all right. An example is the treaty with the Jews of Madinah to defend it jointly against the disbelievers at the time of the prophet. Another example is the reference by the prophet to a treaty long before Islam between the tribes of Makkah to join together in supporting the oppressed, and his comment "That was an alliance before Islam but if -in Islam- I would have been invited to it I would have joined it." The prophet's explicit instructions to his armies were strict in that they should only fight against belligerents not against women, children, old people. Non-Muslim religious people in their hermits or houses of worship should not be harmed, nor enemy trees cut or set on fire as a war measure, nor animals be targeted or slaughtered except for food. When one reviews these stipulations it becomes obvious that they cannot be practicable under conditions of modern warfare. Perhaps World War I was the last where fighting was fairly confined to military personnel. Starting with the Spanish Civil War in the thirties the rules began to change as evident in World War II, the Korean War and the Viet Nam War. The two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagazaki speak for themselves as does the carpet bombing of the Vietnam war and its "free fire zones", killing not only people, animals and plants but also the soil itself.

Some people would therefore take it that those Islamic war ethics are now theoretical and cannot hold in our modern age, perhaps like many other Islamic precepts. Their logic is obvious. Muslims and others, however, look at the issue from another perspective. Since modern warfare is so devastating, then war itself should cease to be an option in conflict resolution. War should be obsolete just like slavery! Surely humanity at this epic of civilization never attained before, and as it goes into the second millennium and heralds and celebrates a New World Order, is capable of devising another instrument of peace making than war. Perhaps independent courts of justice can settle differences between nations. In the near past Egypt and Israel fought over the Sinai. When a disputed pocket of land later on presented an obstacle, it was settled peacefully through international arbitration without a drop of blood-shed. After all, war does not differentiate between right and wrong but only shows who is stronger and possesses more destructive power. It is a bad omen that the New World Order was announced on the occasion of an overwhelming military strike. Subsequent decisions raise suspicion that what was new in the New World Order was no more than the old order except that it is presided over by one adversary instead of two.

It is certainly no big deal to establish courts of law capable of honest and impartial handling of conflict (this excludes the United Nations and its Security Council). The success of such an idea revolves totally around one pivot, viz that the civilized countries decide to be.. .. civilized! It takes truth, and nobody would ever say they are against truth, but they are. Truth is a value; and regrettably politics have no heed for values, and this is the real threat the world faces. Will the strong accede to justice as decided by law or continue the theme that might makes right? Will the military-industrial complex give up the doctrine of living under a war system that has to justify itself by some war or another every now and then? Can justice be accepted in apportioning the cake of the world resources and the cost of replenishing them? Of course not, that would be blasphemous to the masters of the current order unless things change, and change will not come from above. It will come from below upwards, from the grass roots.

(6) The Ecology - For the sake of making dollars to buy their food, service their debts, arm their military and police to protect their dictators and satisfy the insatiable appetite of their rulers and elite, the poorer side of humanity in developing countries are depleting their natural resources. On the affluent side of humanity, and with the same goal of making more dollars to make the rich richer, to enhance their consumeristic patterns, increase their luxuries and indulge in their pleasantries, the industrialized world are violating, poisoning, polluting and killing the ecology. This happens at a time where our science and technology are capable of influencing the biosphere in a dramatic and unprecedented way. And it happens at peace time, apart from the devastating and permanent damage that a full scale modern war is capable of causing. We borrow from the future at an extravagant rate, whereas sane and reasonable estimates tell us that we are incurring a debt our future generations will not be able to pay. Remedial measures and workable suggestions have been prescribed, but the obstacle, as expected, has always been those who hold the reins of power, the custodians of unbridled, greedy, selfish, gluttonous, short-sighted capitalism. As the Quran says "There is the type of man whose speech about this world's life may dazzle you, and he calls God to be his witness about what is in his heart, yet is he the most contentious of enemies. But when he prevails, he goes about the earth spreading mischief and destroying tilth and progeny; and God loves-not mischief." (2:204-205)

Of real significance, however, is that the ecology movement outside the sphere of politics is gaining momentum. On Earth Day 1990, one hundred million people in 140 countries showed up for the largest grass-roots demonstration ever. These cannot be ignored by the politicians or else they loose their votes. May be it is time to establish an international ecological agency, and world governments would participate in it with the prior agreement to voluntarily heed its recommendations, recommendations that, of course, should not be oblivious to the question of justice.

(7) Population Issues - The world population is growing at a pace that far exceeds that of available resources. Concerns are therefore quite legitimate about the population explosion, and since most of the population increase occurs in the Third World, the latter has been accused of irresponsible behavior and targeted for blame by the West. Disciplinary action has been considered, and a number of countries that provide aid, including the U.S.A, entertained the idea of linking that aid with fertility regulation and family planning achievements. Worse than that, in an article titled "Would Machiavelli now be a better guide for doctors than Hippocrates?" (World Health Forum, vol. 14, 1993 p. 105), Dr. Jean Martin reviews some Western opinions that question the advisability of some vaccination and other programs in the Third World since they allow the children to live, impact the resources and eventually repeat the cycle of famine and death; in other words, this is a call to setting limits on the reduction of mortality in the Third World. A shift from humanitarianism to "pragmatism" sounds logical, hence the inclusion of Machiavelli's name in the article.

That there is a problem, nobody can deny. That there is need to avail families who wish to use them (without coercion) of safe, reliable and accessible contraceptive methods is also a fact, and Islam has no qualms with that. Our only reservation is that putting the blame of the population problem solely and squarely on Third World countries is not telling the whole truth, for the issue is really multifaceted. It ignores the fact that the birth of one baby in the United States "imposes more than a hundred times the stress on the world resources and environment as a birth in, say, Bangladesh", wrote Paul and Anne Ehrlich of the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University, in National Geographic Magazine. They drew the distinction that while population problems in poor nations keep them poor, population problems in rich nations are destroying the ability of the earth to support civilization (Michael Henderson: Hope for a Change. Grosvenor Books, Salem U. S. A., 1991, p.24).

The way to reduce population growth in the Third World was debated (especially at the World Population Conference at Bucharest, 1974). Although historical precedent (studying what did happen in Europe that brought down fertility rates) and common sense (a known phenomenon is that insecurity is a natural stimulus of fertility) indicated that development is the cause and not the outcome of reduced fertility (development is the best pill), yet the capitalist countries put a disproportionately high emphasis on fertility regulation in the Third World. The matter is indeed more than philanthropic or an altruistic regard for the welfare of humanity. In the Summer 1991 issue of Foreign Affairs a report (originally prepared for the US Army Conference on Long Range Planning) by Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute, warns against the implications of the proportional increase in numbers of the Third World nations for the international political order and the balance of world power. After three generations, he notes, eight great grand parents in the West will share only four or five descendants against over three hundred for much of Africa and the Middle East; therefore, the leading countries of today will be the little countries of the future.

The National Security Study Memorandum 200, a study of "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests" (dated Dec. 10, 1974, classified by Harry C. Blaney III, declassified July 3, 1989 Executive order 12358, Released / US National Archives June 26, 1990) is a very educative document, revealing the complex political, economic and military implications and the solid realities of the world in which we live. Population factors might be the seeds of revolutionary actions and the expropriation or limitation of foreign economic interests. Poverty, population growth and population youth would urge development, induce review of foreign investment terms and conditions, and even boost military growth if conscription to the military is seen as a viable alternative to unemployment. The document sometimes imparts the feeling that industrial countries are already waging a pre-emptive war against underdeveloped countries.

It would seem to us that a New World Order should be geared to the needs of our global village, for that is what our planet is becoming. It should not presuppose the inevitability of dividing the world into "haves" and "have-nots", and hence the inevitability of a fight to the death between them. It requires of the rich to be humble, content and willing to give up many luxuries that their life-styles incorporate. They are not vital necessities. The reward is the happiness of providing the vital necessities for the major part of the human family. What else can be more conducive to happiness? God must be brought to the equation!