Philosophy of Law

Anour Majid is trying to point out that the Hobbesian state, as representing universal interest rather than class interest, does not apply to Islamic fundamentals and, subsequently, Islamic countries. He seems to be saying that the Hobbesian state is based on equality and human rights, a Westernized idea, and does not apply to Islamic countries. Further, Islamic countries are better off finding their own path to what he calls "expanding the sphere to political freedom." He thinks that the Hobbesian state is, inherently, not a good idea for Islamic countries to pursue because the beliefs of Islamic religion, which he admits to having problems regarding women's right, are entangled into the political structure and cannot be removed. Basically, that universal interest is not the right way for Islamic countries to find political freedom because important Islamic beliefs are beneficial to its success and own identity.

He would seem to agree with the Marxian base and superstructure system. However, I don't think Majid would argue for a socialist state in the Islamic countries. Majid would say that the the Westernized idea of equality and human rights is not necessarily the only way to achieving success in Islam. Human rights and, subsequently, equal rights is a relative ideal and the socialist state will not work in Islamic countries. Thus, it will not bring justice to the class disparities.

I don't think Majid's argument has a Red Herring fallacy because the conflict is not all economic but, most importantly over women's rights. It is most certainly not all economic disputes that separates the Western countries from Islamic countries. It is the unfair and unequal treatment of women and lower-class citizens that gives rise to conflicts, including economic ones.