It is quite natural that the same force which is now regarded as 'moral...

It is quite natural that the same force which is now regarded as 'moral,' at a later stage, after coming into conflict with its counter force, would become 'immoral,' as it would then play a reactionary role, and the new rival force would become 'moral.' Hence morality is relative. What is moral at one stage, is immoral at a higher and advanced stage.

From the viewpoint of Christianity, its relation with the opposite group, judged by it to be opposed to progress and salvation, is that of softness and mildness. Only this kind of relation is morally right. According to Neitzsche, the only moral relation is the relation between the powerful and the weak. There is no moral value higher than power, and nothing more immoral than weakness. There is no sin greater than the sin of being weak.

According to Marxism the relation between two economically opposite classes is nothing but a relationship of antago­nism translated into acts of violence. In this relationship, the acts of violence committed by the exploiting class are immoral for being anti­progressive, and the acts of violence committed by the exploited are morally justified.

The relationship between newly emerging forces and old forces is that of continuous conflict.tand in this conflict morality is invariably on the side of new forces. All the above-mentioned ideas are rejected by Islam. Islam does not confine morality to pacifism, persuasion through mild and peaceful manners, cordiality and love, as preached by Christianity. It holds that occasionally force and power are also moral.

For the same reason Islam regards struggle against tyranny and injustice as a sacred duty and under certain conditions makes jihad, which means armed struggle, an obliga­tion. It is evident that Neitzsche's view is absurd, anti-human, and decadent. The viewpoint of Marxism is based on the supposed mechanism operative in the development of history. Contrary to it, Islam regards violent confrontation with the opposing retrogressive group as a second alternative not the first.