As 2013 comes to a close, many are warning about the effect of a range of UK government cuts to the funding of public services and how that will affect some of the elderly, services delivered by local councils and may even lead to the closure of hospital wards. Why? Because money is scarce and the government has to reduce the budget deficit so "everyone has to tighten their belt" and share the pain.

Go back a few months and remember the spending on the London Olympics. It was a grand public celebration - something Britain does well. A recent opinion poll showed an overwhelming public view that the Olympic Games were enjoyable, cheerful and worth the money. It created a feel-good factor in many of the public as they saw the UK projected in the most positive light as an advanced, tolerant, multi-cultural society. The public saw many British gold medallists of Somali, Afro-Caribbean and other origins. Due to the current austerity, there are now reports of families struggling to afford food and children going hungry. In the feel-good fog, the extravagant nature of the games seems to have been forgotten.

The original promise was that the Olympics would cost between £2 billion and £3billion. It eventually cost just under £9bn. While the government was preaching austerity due to the dire financial situation in the country, earlier in the year the government was able to allocate even more money for the Olympics opening ceremony. It was as if the Treasury had signed an open cheque for the Olympics hence costs rose and rose until it reached nearly £9 billion. Most of the money went to well-heeled consultants, designers, contractors and sports administrators.

Before the Olympics, London Mayor Boris Johnson talked of a "fantastic boost" to London tourism and David Cameron talked of an "extra £13bn profit to British business abroad." Such claims have proved to be wishful thinking as many tourists stayed away from London during the busy Olympics period.

Temporary stadiums were built in Stratford, East London - despite questions about how much they will be used after the Olympics. At the time, challenging this strongly seemed like blasphemy. It was also unfashionable to mention the fact that British medal "heroes" of the games, nearly all needed millions in public money, spent on high-cost equipment and training - in order to win their medals. Questioning the money spent was tantamount to spoiling the fun. After all, the London Olympics were a success and lets now look forward to Rio De Janiero 2016, and "let us allocate more money so we can win more medals" than London 2012.

Obviously, £9 billion might have been spent on worthier causes including hospitals, more care for the elderly or many much needed infrastructure projects at a time when those out of work are facing higher energy bills and we are seeing a rise in the number of people depending on food banks for free food - which they cannot afford.

The spending on the Olympics indicates the ease with which a democratic government could generate general hysteria to validate reckless spending on an event (that generated a feel good factor) while cutting back on essential hospital and school services. An atmosphere was created whereby those who dared question such priority by a government that had spent the entire year telling everyone to tighten belts - met vitriol.

What are the values that allow such misplaced priorities? What are the values that allow the abandoning of the elderly in old people's homes while their children wash their hands of them in order to ‘enjoy' their own lives? What are the values that prioritise the fun and feel good of a few weeks of Olympics over providing basic services to the wider public?

Some voices in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are advocating that we emulate the West. They fail to account for how secular Western capitalist societies promote individualism and short-term enjoyment which then allows that to be prioritised over providing services for the poor and the wider society.

The Prophet (saw) said:

"لَيْسَ الْمُؤْمِنُ الَّذِي يَشْبَعُ وَجَارُهُ جَائِعٌ"

"He is not a believer whose stomach is filled while the neighbor to his side goes hungry." [Al-Bayhaqi]

So in the Islamic Khilafah "Caliphate" state, Muslims understand that Islam mandates that it is forbidden for some in society to live in splendour and extravagance whilst others go hungry or are in need of basic services. This ensures that citizens in the Islamic Khilafah "Caliphate" state account the ruler if they neglect this duty or have misplaced priorities and seek to spend on frivolous White Elephants - like palaces, and ski resorts in the desert- as the UK government did with the Olympic games.

Taji Mustafa
Media Representative of Hizb ut Tahrir in Britain