While the Student Union was happy with their efforts to have tuition fees cancelled, I believe that they are pushing the university in the wrong direction. In this post, I would like to explain why paying for education is a good thing.

Project Constraints

I remember having a discussion with my previous boss (yes, I do have many discussions!) and he pointed out that the reason why public institutions can’t seem to get projects moving effectively is because, in private companies, projects are conducted under the constraints of time and budget. Since the two are relatively absent in public institutions, projects aren’t carried out in the most efficient and effective ways.

In other words, time and budget constraints are needed for the project to be completed. Constraints do not necessarily mean that the quality of the project is compromised. Or, put in another way, the constraints are needed in order to make the most effective use of the resources available.

If you have a project that can be completed in one day, but the deadline for it is set for a year from now, you might postpone completing the project until you come closer to the deadline. If there is no deadline, you might not even complete the project at all!

When your budget is set to “unlimited,” how will you determine what resources to use to get the work done? How do you choose the specifications for the devices to purchase? A task that can be completed by a computer with minimal specifications can be done on a computer with the most advanced specifications in the market. There is no real reason why the institution should not opt for the best that’s available. There is no real need to reduce costs. Therefore, decisions aren’t made to make the most effective use of the resources available. When the budget is a blank cheque, a team can be assigned to do work that can easily be done in the spare time of a part-time secretary.

Cash Flow

Private companies are established in order to make money. Money is their lifeline. No money, no company (this rhymes so it must be true!).

Therefore, private companies seek to increase their customer base, and to increase their prices as much as they reasonably can. This will help them survive and expand. No money, no expansion (this doesn’t rhyme, so it’s partly true! Companies can expand first in order to make more money).

In order to have more money, companies need to satisfy their customers. Customer care is essential for the success of the company. This means that the company needs to increase the quality it provides and to make the customer’s experience as easy and enjoyable as possible.

A public institution that doesn’t wish to retain or gain customers isn’t interested in either offering quality, or improving the customer’s experience. If you don’t like what’s being offered by the institution, you are directed towards the door. Whether you are happy with the service you receive or not, the employee will still keep his job, and the institution will continue to exist. The customer isn’t involved in the cash flow. He is simply an annoyance the employees would like to ignore and avoid.

Setting Priorities

With the absence of time and budget constraints, who sets what the priorities of a public institution are? What services should be offered, and for what reason? What is a public institution’s measure of success? In a private company, the standard of measurement is clear: the customer, and the success of the company is demonstrated by the amount of profit it can make.

A private company has to take the customer’s interests and concerns into consideration. The customer gets to decide what the priorities are, and what the company needs to invest its resources in. Public institutions in Kuwait spend bucket loads of money on leaflets and public relations campaigns to show how great the institution is and what it has achieved. Money is wasted on amplifying the institution’s achievements, when neither the achievement nor the self-praise contributes anything to the “customers” (referring to their victims as customers is a stretch).

Providing Quality

A private company does not have as many resources, or as big a budget, as a public institution. In this respect, it may be said that its quality will be less than the quality that can be provided by a public institution. We have already mentioned why this is not necessarily the case. But an important point to note is how money is tied to the level of quality provided by a private company.

Customers (usually) pay for a product or a service, they believe, is worth the money they are willing to part with. If a product isn’t worth its big price tag, we either ask for a discount or choose not to buy. A private company takes this into consideration. It sets its prices according to how much its potential customers value the quality of service it provides. If it cannot offer quality service, it reduces its prices. If customers are willing to pay huge amounts of money for its services, it can increase its prices. In this case, it would not be exploiting the interest it has generated. People are getting the quality of service they are paying for.

A private university can attract a handful of customers by providing good education for a small fee. It can increase the services and facilities it provides, and charge a larger fee. The more students it attracts, the more money it can make, and the more quality it can provide. Quality is tied to the amount if interest there is, which is expressed in the amount of money the university has attracted.

The students that pay to enter a private company usually (though not always) appreciate what they are paying for, and make full use of the education they are provided with.

In Kuwait University, there is no connection between the student’s interest in getting into the university and the level of service the university provides.

If Kuwait University students ever complain about the standards of teaching at Kuwait University, or any other aspect of university life, my simple answer to them is: “You’re getting what you paid for.“

The Process

Before I discuss the issue of Islamization thoroughly, we need to remember that Islamization is the process of installing Islamic law as the source of legislation. This means that Islamic law was not the law, and the case is made for its adoption by the country, not in 5 or 10 year’s time, but now.

For the Islamists, it is not part of their vision to see Islamic law being used in the country in the distant future, but this is at the top of their agenda, and they are pushing for it at every chance they get.

The Rise of Islam

While the case is made by the Islamists that Islamic law is the solution we are in desperate need of to tackle our personal, social, economic and political problems, they overlook the fact that the process of Islamization that they are promoting is contrary to the way in which Islam itself was promoted by the Prophet (peace be on him and his family).

Islamists want to make use of the law in order to change people’s moral conduct. But the Prophet never approached morality in this way. Islam did not begin as a government or any other political establishment. It began as a moral movement that promoted a re-evaluation of society’s beliefs and customs, and offered a worldview that promoted individual thought and upright character.

Islamic scholars usually draw a distinction between the verses of the Holy Koran that were revealed in Mecca (i.e. during the early days of Islam) and the ones revealed in Medina (i.e. the later stages of Islam) because the former concentrated more on beliefs, principles and moral virtues, whereas the latter dealt with civil law, warfare, political relations, etc. The process of Islamization reverses the formula, and rather than begin with moral guidance through rational persuasion, they seek to promote morality through political force.

The Law and the Culture

It is important to bear in mind that the rise of Islam demonstrates the Islamic way of bringing about social reform. In other words, it presents us with the process we must use, if we wish to act in accordance with Islam. We cannot simply work towards the end results (Islamic beliefs, upright conduct, etc) while overlooking how these issues are meant to be approached. And we certainly cannot look for shortcuts, which is what the Islamists are looking for.

By using the threat of force, the Islamists hope that they can mould society in any way they wish. They completely ignore the validity of their process, and do not take into consideration the role culture plays in a society.

Islam sought to change the culture before it established the law. The Prophet wanted to change the way people thought, not by intimidation or compulsion, but with reason. He wanted to change their conduct, not by force or with threats, but by setting an example and encouraging others towards the values he was promoting.

The prohibition of intoxicants is usually given as an example of how Islamic law did not immediately demand that alcohol be banned from Muslim society. The Prophet gave the reasons for why people should not drink alcohol, but he did not prevent people from drinking, nor did he punish them for drinking.

Islam came to instill the values that are proper to a prosperous society, and the law came later on to codify the moral values that society upheld and consented to.

Looking at the Islamist approach to politics, we find that the Islamists seek to add more restrictions on people so they can develop in them the values the Islamists associate to Islam. In other words, the less people know, the less choices they have and the less they can do, the more moral they can become.

There is total disregard for the current values that people uphold, no use of reasoning to promote “Islamic” values and no consideration for the consequences their policies will have on people’s personal adoption of Islamic values. Islam has to be obeyed, no matter what people think or how they feel about it.

Is this an Islamic attitude?

Understanding the Law

Apart from the fact that the Islamist agenda ignores the actual process the Prophet used to introduce Islam in Arabia, it also makes unsubstantiated claims about the nature of Islamic law and misinterprets the law through false principles and wrong application of Islamic teachings. We will look at all these issues, and relate them to some positions the Islamists in Kuwait took regarding a couple of issues.

“Islamic law is unchanging”

The most popular claim Islamists make regarding the nature of Islamic law is that it is unchanging, and is suitable for all times and all places. This is a claim Islamists find difficult to think beyond or without. It forms the framework of their thinking, and they cannot understand Islam in any other way. They view change as something negative (which is one of the reasons why they are conservatives) and think that it creates uncertainty and undermines Islamic teachings. Besides, God knows the nature of man and his needs, and God’s knowledge cannot become outdated.

But this is a claim that the Prophet neither made nor acted on. Islamic law went through several changes during the time of the Prophet, and the study of Islamic law takes into account the abrogated verses (Ar. mansukh, i.e. the verses whose application is replaced) and the abrogating verses (Ar. nasikh, i.e. the verses that came to replace the abrogated verses). This is something stated in the Holy Koran, and Islamic teachings don’t hide this fact.

So if Islamic law went through several changes during the time of the Prophet, is it appropriate for us to say that from the Prophet’s death onward, Islamic law cannot be changed?

For us to answer this question appropriately, we must take into account why Islamic law should be open to change.

It is narrated that Imam Ali (peace be on him) was asked about the Prophet’s instruction for the Muslims to dye their hair, and whether Muslims were still obliged to do so. Imam Ali replied that, during the early days of Islam, the Muslims were a minority and subject to abuse. The Prophet encouraged the Muslims to dye their hair so that they can appear more youthful in relation to the rest of society, and thereby presenting themselves as a strong community. But after the Muslims became powerful, it is no longer necessary to give such an impression.

It is also recorded that the second caliph, Caliph Umar, suspended corporal punishments during a drought.

What both incidents show is, at least, an understanding of Islam amongst prominent Muslim figures that Islamic law was open to change, given the conditions in which the Muslims live. And not only do Islamists overlook conditions (conditions are subject to change, and Islamists do not like change), they also ignore the context in which Islamic law was implemented during the time of the Prophet. “Why did the Prophet give such a ruling?” is not a question Islamists tend to ask, which distorts their understanding and, therefore, implementation of Islamic law.

Islam in Context

In a lengthy narration on the abrogated and abrogating verses, Imam Ali pointed out that many Islamic rulings were not based on universal laws, but were an extension of the existing customs of Arabia. This, Imam Ali explained, was part of God’s mercy in that He did not introduce laws to a people that they were unable to cope with, or which strongly conflicted with their expectations.

And while Islamists may rationalize the universal applicability of Islamic law, they must be aware of the rulings which are bound by the society in which Islam was born, and which prominent Islamic figures, such as Imam Ali, who is regarded as one of the key interpreters of Islam, did not claim to be universal.

Distorted Teachings

As I have already mentioned in the article “the Islamization of the Law,” the interpretation of Islamic law is a crucial element that we need to address before we can claim that the law we are promoting is actually Islamic (i.e. in accordance with God’s message).

There are many principles that need to be taken into consideration when interpreting Islamic law, and I have only touched on some of them. But to help explain the Islamist interpretation of Islamic law, I would like to look at two issues that were raised in Kuwait by Islamists:

Banning Valentine’s: Apart from the fact that this is a top-down approach to promoting Islam, the Islamists wanted to ban the celebration of Valentine’s because they considered it indecent, and because it is a celebration that Islam does not recognize. Not every interpretation of Islam would accept these arguments. For one thing, celebrating Valentine’s is only indecent depending on the individuals celebrating it. No one can claim that it is indecent for a married couple to celebrate Valentine’s.

As for Valentine’s being a non-Muslim celebration does not immediately cast it off as forbidden for the Muslims to celebrate. Islamists have low tolerance for celebrations and occasions that do not belong in the Islamic calendar. Some even object to celebrating birthdays, including the Prophet’s birthday, because it’s a day that the Prophet himself did not observe.

But, again, the interpretation of Islamic teachings does not make it clear whether the Islamist interpretation is justified or not, and it certainly cannot speak on behalf of all Muslims.

Opposing the weekend shift: When Kuwait wanted to shift its weekend from Thursday-Friday to Friday-Saturday, the Islamists opposed the move, and claimed that regarding Saturday a holiday is Islamically forbidden, because it imitates the Jews, which the Prophet has warned the Muslims about.

What the Islamists failed to recognize is what sort of imitation the Prophet has warned the Muslims about. The Jews worship a single God, but does that mean the Muslims have to be different, and worship two gods? The Jews observe a day of rest, so does this mean the Muslims cannot regard Friday a day of rest?

The imitation the Prophet warned us about is not in their observance of the Sabbath, or any other religious ritual, but it is in the ways they have deviated from God’s instructions. The Islamists have incorrectly applied an Islamic teaching to an issue to which the teaching did not apply.

We, therefore, see that the Islamist call for Islamization is not what the Islamists make it out to be. It is not a pure application of Islamic law, since they have dismissed the Islamic process of promoting Islam, they do not understand the nature of Islamic law, nor interpret its teachings correctly. Rather than be drawn towards Islamization by judging the call from a distant, we must try to understand exactly what is meant by it, and to listen carefully to what is being called for.

What is Islamization?

In essence, Islamization is changing the source of a country’s civil law from a secular source to Islamic law (Sharia). Many Muslim countries regard Islamic law as one of the sources of legislation, whereas Islamization demands that it becomes the sole source of legislation. Islamization is the process of adopting Islamic law as the law of the land. This is an important point to bear in mind. Islamization does not only defend the use of Islamic law as the source of legislation, but makes a case for its adoption as such. In other words, it is not simply in favour of Islamic law, but makes a case against its alternatives.

The case is made for the Islamization of the law based on the argument that God, who has revealed the religion of Islam, has also revealed to us the laws by which we should govern our lives and our social affairs. And since we are Muslims, we are expected to judge and rule according to God’s laws, and no other law. Besides, since God is our creator, He is more acquainted with our needs and knows what the most suitable political system for us is. Man-made laws, on the other hand, are limited by the ignorance of those who made up the law.

Secular law, according to the Islamists, is based on ignorance and a limited view of existence. Secular law is perceived as materialistic and lacking a broader vision that encompasses spirituality and morality. Besides, secular law either perceives the government, or the citizens, as the authority in the country, whereas the Islamists regard God as the ultimate authority. Therefore, the law should be dictated by Him, and to accept an alternative is a sign that we are undermining God’s authority and ignoring His blessings, of providing us with a political system that is designed according to His knowledge of mankind. “The Creator knows His creation more than His creation knows itself.”

The fact that Islamic law is not the source of legislation in Muslim countries is viewed by the Islamists as the primary source of the ills that the Muslims are living through. By adopting Islam as the source of the law, we will be able to overcome our political, economic and social problems. Without Islam as the source of law, the Muslims are destined to fall and face further ills and agonies.

This is the foundation of the argument for the Islamization of the law. But if we dig deeper into the message being presented, we will realise how misleading and meaningless it is.

Why is it Misleading?

The Problem of Interpretation

The argument for the Islamization of the law is overly simplistic. It is based on the claim that our understanding of Islam is correct, and that we have understood the message of Islam and its laws precisely how God wants us to understand it. In other words, how we will implement Islamic law will be the way that God wants us to implement it. The only obstacle standing in the way of an Islamic heaven on earth is the acceptance of Islamic law as the source of legislation. Everything else, apart from possible corruption, will be Islam in practice.

However, the very fact that Muslim scholars disagree over what constitutes Islamic law, and that the schools of thought in Islam disagree on almost every possible issue in Islamic law, should be a sign that what we consider to be “Islamic law” might not be what God intended the law to be. If we have misunderstood God’s law, it is no longer divine. It does not come with God’s sanction. Our understanding of the law must exactly match what God has ordained. Any distortion in the interpretation of Islamic law renders it man-made. There is no escaping this fact.

The questions that we should ask are: What interpretation of Islam will we recognize as God’s law? Why would we accept this interpretation over every other interpretation? Will all Muslims be judged according to one interpretation, or will each sect be judged according to its own interpretation of the law?

The claim that Islamic law is divine, only according to the interpretation of the Islamists, is far-fetched. In the least, the Islamists need to offer proof for why their version of the law is divine. To simply make the claim in order to win support for their agenda is misleading. Before calling for the Islamization of the law, the issue of interpretation should be addressed.

The distinction is made by the Islamists between God’s law and man-made law, when the issue of interpretation reveals that “God’s law” could be just as “man-made” as any other law, if it is misinterpreted. But a law that is enacted with divine authority, when it lacks God’s sanction, is much worse than any man-made law, because it will commit injustices in the name of God, and quash any opposition to the oppression, in the name of God.

Misrepresenting the Alternatives

Islamists don’t represent secular laws as they are, but they attach labels to them to undermine their credibility. The issue of “man-made” law is intended to undermine the value found in secular laws, since their origin is human ignorance (as if humans are incapable of reaching valid conclusions through reason and observation). As I have mentioned above, Islamic law can be just as man-made, depending on how accurate the interpretation of it is, but presented as though it was divine, making it far more dangerous than any secular law.

The greatest danger found in the call for the Islamization of the law is the blame it places on Western political systems for the social ills found in Western countries. In other words, it is taken for granted that the political system causes moral corruption, with total disregard for the role culture plays in society. That is, the incidents of rape, crime, violence, substance abuse, etc. aren’t considered social ills, but the consequences of the political systems found in the West. This is not only a grave misrepresentation, but goes to show how the Islamists plan on reforming society. I will re-visit this issue in a future post.

Defining the Problems and the Solutions

It is important to note that the political and social problems taken into consideration when presenting the case for Islamization are defined according to Islamist terms. Segregation is a clear example of this. Does Islam actually prohibit interaction between the opposite genders? And are mixed schools (or mixed gatherings, in general) to blame for the social problems that the Islamists have claimed them to cause?

The case for Islamization defines its own problems and its own solutions. Before accepting these definitions we must question their credibility.

Why is it meaningless?

For an agenda to be meaningful, it must have a specific meaning. It cannot hold more than one conflicting meaning. An agenda that “means everything” means nothing. Therefore, the very fact that Islamization doesn’t actually define which interpretation of Islamic law is being referred to, what this will practically mean and how will the law be executed makes the issue of Islamization completely meaningless.

Those who support Islamization, in the name of implementing God’s laws, do not know what they’re getting themselves into, what kind of political system they are calling for and what sort of society they will be living in.

Why is the Call to Islamization Popular?

The primary reasons for the popularity of Islamization is that it is both misleading and meaningless. People accept the claim that it is a call to the implementation of God’s laws, without realising how complex a task it is to actually define what God’s laws are. They assume that, as Muslims, it is their obligation to judge by God’s law, and readily accept the call of anyone who seems to demand that we fulfill our obligation.

Everyone who accepts the call to Islamization has associated his or her own understanding to “Islamization.” They offer their own explanations to what sort of society they would be living in, and what kind of laws will be enacted, but fail to realise that those in power may have an entirely different understanding to what “Islamic law” actually is.

The popularity of the call to Islamization is the crossroads between hope and the desire for change, and those who have placed their hope in Islamization believe that the Islamists can deliver on their promises, as though God Himself has promised a positive outcome.

We often associate politics with power-hungry politicians, and damn politics for being corrupt and corrupting, choosing to keep ourselves away from it, rather than to participate in it. But politics is far more important than we think, which makes our participation and contribution to the political process much more necessary.

The primary reason for the infamous reputation of politics is the lack of a popular definition of what politics means, and what it doesn’t mean. Often, the association is between politics and some (unfavourable) political practices. And while there is certainly exploitation of the political system in any country, politics isn’t defined by these practices.

Politics defines the way in which a country is run: what laws will be enforced and how they will be enforced. The political system in a country is the process by which political affairs are managed. For example, in a democracy, the citizens are given a greater role in deciding what laws are to be enacted, whereas a dictatorship would limit public participation, and grants the government, or an individual, the authority to make the law and decide how it will be enforced.

This is an extremely broad look at what politics is. Rather than give a detailed definition of politics (I will go more in-depth in the next political post), I would like to touch on the importance of politics, and what role it plays in our lives.

Since the political system in a country determines its laws, all citizens will be affected by the system that is used, and those that participate in the system. The authority to rule a country maybe handed over to a criminal, or a saint. The system may be the same in both cases, but those involved are different and, therefore, the consequences will be different. If a system limits the participation of a country’s citizens, then the issues addressed by the government may not touch on the real problems being dealt with by the population, making the government ineffective and, to a large degree, a hindrance to the progress of the nation.

Therefore,

If you wish to see the government deal with the problems being faced by you, and your country as a whole,

If you wish to exercise your intellectual freedom, without having restrictions placed on what you can read, see and say,

If you wish to exercise your spiritual freedom, to act according to your own conscience, without being fed the convictions of others,

If you wish to exercise your religious freedom, to practice your religion according to your convictions,

If you wish to exercise your financial freedom, to be able to work and earn money for your work, without it being confiscated by the government,

If you wish to exercise your political freedom, to be able to take part in the political process, and affect the way your country is run,

If you wish to have a say in how your country deals with other countries, and the degree of its involvement in the affairs of other countries,

If you wish to hold the government accountable for how it uses the country’s money,

If you wish to see the courts judge objectively, without concern for the backgrounds and political pull of those concerned,

If you wish to have your life and property protected,

You must work to ensure that the right system is implemented in your country, with suitable people running it, for a conscious and educated population that work for the well-being of all citizens, and for the protection of each citizen’s rights.

You can never escape the effects of politics, but you can decide what your contribution will be.

If your life matters to you, then so does politics.

For those who didn’t join, they’ve certainly missed out…

As I’ve already mentioned in my previous article, there is more to the walkathon than meets the eye (or greets the foot). It’s not simply a physical exercise, but an exercise in trying out something new, and being prepared to push your limits. We can easily become accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and fear anything that’s not part of our routine. And although I participated last year, I still felt that it’s a new experience for me, and was excited about it as the month of March approached!

All my preparation for the race was at night, and I was worried that I might not be able to handle the afternoon sun on the day of the race. But the weather was perfect for the race. It was a sunny day, but there was a cool wind as well that made walking a joy.

The feeling of taking part in a race is very different to walking on your own. The fact that hundreds of people are walking together towards a common goal is very motivating for me. It would have been nicer if people shared the same spiritual goal of doing their best, but the fact that many participants were keen on cheating wasn’t very pleasant.

When I finished the race I felt a sense of accomplishment, and wanted to continue walking. The weather was still beautiful and the experience was great. I wanted to walk back to the starting point, but knew that it would take much longer going back. A few short minutes later my excitement dropped and I realised how tired I was, so I willingly hitched a ride with my sister

Looking back at the experience, I know now that I can powerwalk faster than most participants, but couldn’t keep it up for a long time. Had I practiced more, things would have been different. I also realised that I’ve had better days in terms of my energy levels, and I should have determined what I’ve done in the past to boost my energy levels, and replicated the same conditions.

As for the organization of the event, the only suggestion I would make is for the referees to immediately disqualify anyone caught cheating, rather than to simply take their numbers down. When people register for the event, they should be told that their bibs will be confiscated if they are disqualified. That way, they won’t be surprised if they are asked to hand over their number. This will give more encouragement for other participants, especially when they see 50 or more people in front of them close to the finish line, but they don’t realise how many of them will be disqualified.

I personally didn’t give my number at the finish line, because I thought there were too many people in front of me that there was no point in wasting my time.

For those who opted out, I would certainly encourage them to reconsider their positions for next year.