The courtroom fell silent as Ahmad introduced the next focal point of his case: the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). It was a term that glittered with the promise of innovation and progress, a harbinger of technological marvels meant to uplift humanity. Yet, Ahmad’s voice carried a somber weight as he began his discourse, peeling back the veneer of optimism to reveal the darker realities that lay beneath.
“The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” he began, “is not merely an evolution of technology. It is a revolution of control—a quiet coup that seeks to redefine our lives, our freedoms, and even our humanity.”
The Allure of 4IR
Ahmad first painted a picture of the promises that 4IR carried. It was a world of unparalleled connectivity, where the Internet of Things (IoT) seamlessly linked every device, where artificial intelligence (AI) augmented human capability, and where biotechnology extended life expectancy and eradicated disease. Smart cities promised efficiency, autonomous vehicles offered safety, and the fusion of the physical and digital realms promised convenience beyond imagination.
But Ahmad asked the court to pause and reflect. “When did convenience become the metric by which we measure progress? When did efficiency outweigh the value of freedom and dignity?”
He reminded the audience that while 4IR claimed to elevate humanity, its mechanisms threatened to reduce individuals to data points in a vast algorithmic web. The innovations it promised came with a cost—a cost that few had considered deeply enough.
The Internet of Bodies: From Innovation to Intrusion
Ahmad delved into one of the most controversial aspects of 4IR: the Internet of Bodies (IoB). Unlike the Internet of Things, which connected devices, the IoB proposed connecting human bodies to the digital ecosystem through biosensors, implants, and genetic modification. It promised real-time health monitoring, enhanced physical abilities, and even the possibility of merging consciousness with machines.
But Ahmad warned of the ethical abyss that lay ahead. “The human body,” he said, “is not a commodity. It is not an interface for technology to exploit. To integrate humanity into the IoB is to reduce the sacredness of life to a digital transaction.”
He spoke of the risks of surveillance, where every heartbeat, every movement, every thought could be monitored and monetized. The IoB, he argued, was not a gift to humanity but a tool for unprecedented control, wielded by those who sought to consolidate power.
Biometric Currency and Economic Enslavement
Turning to the economic implications, Ahmad highlighted the role of biometric currencies in the 4IR agenda. These digital currencies, tied to individuals’ biometric data, promised a cashless economy, free from fraud and inefficiency. Transactions would be instantaneous, transparent, and secure.
But Ahmad pointed out the inherent dangers. “When currency is tied to your biology,” he said, “you are no longer free. Your access to the economy becomes a privilege, not a right.”
He illustrated the consequences with chilling clarity: A farmer unable to trade his produce because his biometric data did not align with state standards. A worker denied payment because his health metrics flagged him as unfit. A citizen excluded from society because his digital identity was revoked.
“These are not hypotheticals,” Ahmad stated. “These are the realities of a world where technology governs humanity, rather than serves it.”
The Automation Paradox: Progress at What Cost?
Ahmad shifted his focus to the promises of automation and AI, pillars of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Automation was heralded as a solution to inefficiency, capable of replacing human labor in industries ranging from manufacturing to healthcare. AI, with its capacity for learning and adaptation, promised to solve problems beyond human capability.
Yet Ahmad questioned the human cost of such progress. “What happens,” he asked, “when the value of human labor is replaced by algorithms? What becomes of purpose, dignity, and the right to contribute?”
He described a world where millions were rendered obsolete, where livelihoods were sacrificed at the altar of efficiency. He warned that the benefits of automation, concentrated in the hands of the few, would exacerbate inequality and leave the many to grapple with the existential question of their place in society.
The Ethical Abyss of Genetic Modification
Finally, Ahmad addressed the most profound threat of 4IR: the manipulation of life itself. Genetic modification, he argued, was no longer confined to curing disease or enhancing health. It was evolving into a tool to engineer humanity according to the whims of those in power.
He spoke of designer genes, where parents could select traits for their children, not based on health but on preference. He described a future where genetic hierarchies replaced social structures, creating a caste system dictated by DNA.
“This is not progress,” Ahmad declared. “This is a perversion—a betrayal of natural law and the sacred balance of creation.”
Resistance Through Fitrah
As Ahmad concluded, he turned once more to the principles of deen al-fitrah, the natural order that underpinned his argument. He reminded the court that progress was not measured by technological advancement but by the preservation of harmony, justice, and dignity.
“The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” he said, “is not inevitable. It is a choice—a choice to prioritize convenience over freedom, efficiency over humanity, and control over justice.”
He called upon the court, and by extension humanity, to resist the allure of 4IR and to reclaim the principles of fitrah. “We must remember,” he concluded, “that technology is a tool, not a master. It exists to serve us, not to redefine us.”
The courtroom buzzed with the weight of his words. Ahmad had not merely critiqued a technological agenda; he had laid bare the existential questions that it raised. What does it mean to be human in a world increasingly governed by machines? And how do we ensure that progress does not come at the cost of our very essence?
These questions, Ahmad argued, were not just legal or philosophical—they were deeply personal. They demanded answers not from governments or corporations but from every individual who cherished their freedom and humanity. It was a call to resist, to reflect, and to act—not for the sake of the past, but for the promise of a future rooted in justice and truth.