(Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut-Tahrir, to the Questions of Visitors to his Facebook Page "Fikri")
Answer to Question
To: A. Ahmed Fuad Fuad
Question:
In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. It was stated in the book Political Concepts (Mafahim Siyasiyyah) regarding the topic "Motives for Conflict between States," page 54, first paragraph, first line: "International conflict from the dawn of history until the Day of Judgment does not deviate from one of two motives: either the love of sovereignty and pride, or the pursuit of material benefits." Then, on the same page in the penultimate paragraph, line 15, it stated: "The most dangerous motive for conflict between states is the motive of colonization in all its forms." The question: In the first paragraph, the motives for conflict between states were limited and restricted to only two motives and no third, as it said, "International conflict... does not deviate from one of two motives." However, in the second paragraph, a third motive was mentioned that was not mentioned in the first, which is "colonization." To put the question another way: Are the motives for international conflict two or three? Because a reader of the two paragraphs notices a contradiction and difference between them; how can they be reconciled? For if the motives for international conflict were two, why was a third new motive, colonization, mentioned?
Answer:
And peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
There is no contradiction between what was stated in the beginning of page 54 of the book Political Concepts—that the motives for international conflict are restricted to two motives: the love of sovereignty and pride, and the pursuit of material benefits—and what was stated on the same page later—that the motive of colonization in all its forms is among the most dangerous motives for state conflict. This is because the motive of colonization falls under the motive of pursuing material benefits. Colonization is the method of the Capitalist ideology for achieving benefits according to their criterion, which is "utilitarianism." This means that colonization refers back to an earlier motive, which is the pursuit of material benefits, and is not a new motive other than the two mentioned at the beginning of the page. If you look closely, you would find that another matter was mentioned which might be thought of as another motive... but the text referred it back to the motive of the love of sovereignty and pride. On the same page, the following was stated:
"(As for the motive of limiting the growth of another state's power, as happened with the states against Napoleon, and as happened with the states against the Islamic State, and as happened with the states against Nazi Germany, it falls under the love of sovereignty; because it is standing in the face of the sovereignty of others.)" End quote.
Just as the motive of limiting the growth of another state's power was not considered a motive outside the two aforementioned motives, similarly, colonization is not considered a motive outside the two aforementioned motives. This is because these two motives are the primary ones under which other related matters are categorized.
Your brother, Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Website
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Google Plus page