Mouood Mouood English Edition
The foregoing indicates the difference between a moralist and an economic school of thought. A moralist does no more than invite people to act with justice, and discourages them from unjust acts. He does not determine any standards of justice, nor does he establish any criteria for determining injustice.
He leaves these up to any good sense of his listener or follower.
However, in Islam, any socio-economic methodology presupposes the relevant standards and criteria of justice as applicable to an Islamic economy. Had Islam allowed the people themselves to determine its concepts of justice ‘and injustice, and to come to an agreement on a set of rights by taking into consideration the conditions of their living, their needs, and contemporary values, it would have meant that Islam’s role was that of a moralist only. While Islam offers advice to people and discourages them from being unjust, and invites them to justice, it also states clearly its concept of justice and injustice. This is independent of any individual opinions held on these matters.
Islam itself clarifies and distinguishes between the just and unjust paths concerning production and distribution of wealth. For example, Islam regards forcible ownership of (fallow) land, without rendering it cultivable, is an act of oppression. On the other hand, if the land is reclaimed and made cultivable, the, developer becomes entitled to own the same. Further’, Islam considers it an act of oppression to increase wealth by means of usury, However any increase in one’s wealth due to legitimate earnings is treated as just and fair. In these and similar other cases, Islam clarifies the limits of justice and injustice.
It is also true that Islam encourages the rich to help the poor, but it does not stop there. The Islamic government concerned is religiously obliged to upgrade the living standards of poor to a sufficient level.
According to a tradition attributed to Imam Musa Bin Ja’far (a.s.) a Wali al-‘Amr1 has a specific responsibility concerning Zakat. The Imam is reported to have said that it is incumbent on the Wali al-‘Amr to collect Zakat and dispense it according to the divine commandments. This would necessitate division of Zakat collection into eight parts, including that of the poor and the needy.
The dispensation should be so made as to provide an allowance (to the authorized person) that is sufficient to take care of his household needs for one year. If, at the end of a year, it is found that some amount of the Zakat allowance is still left, it should be returned to the authority concerned. Then, if the poor continue to be in need, the authority concerned has a duty to provide the necessary subsistence allowances.
Clearly, the social responsibility and the necessity of securing a good life for everybody is deemed to be an Islamic duty. This is definitely more than mere advice. It involves compliance with a socio-economic requirement as a matter of social responsibility, which is treated as one of the major responsibilities of Wali al-‘Amr in Islam, so that the Islamic authorities are duty-bound to look after the poor and the needy by all means. This represents just a small part of the foundations of a socioeconomic system in Islam,
Islam envisages appropriate practice of whatever it preaches. To illustrate this point, let us consider an Islamic tradition and the relevant Islamic practice. The tradition says: “Those who go to sleep, after dining to their hearts’ content, and in a state of insensibility to the sufferings of their neighbour(s), who remain hungry and restless through the next morning, do not actually believe in God and the Day of Final Judgement.”
The relevant Islamic injunction lays .down that a Wali al-‘Amr is charged with the responsibility to under-take the maintenance of the poor and the needy until the latter- are no longer in need of help.
While the above Islamic tradition may be construed as even a moralization, the relevant practice cannot evidently be treated as such. No doubt, the Islamic practice is action -oriented to a vital aspect of socioeconomic welfare.
Furthermore, it may be recalled that Zakat has been treated as an important act of worship (in that the tax-payer obeys not only the divine commandment in this regard, but earns virtue in this world for the hereafter), while its practical socio-economic implications, too, are emphasized.
The foregoing explanation shows that the overall responsibility of Wali al-‘Amr concerning Zakat and its dispensation is rendered practicable through the relevant provisions, so that Zakat represents not only a significant individual act of devotion, to God,’ but a vital .socio-economic methodology, of Islam, too.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, I reiterate my inability to understand how those who dismiss the Islamic socio-economic methodology as no more significant than a set of moral exhortations can bestow a distinctive importance to capitalism and communism as socioeconomic system! Specially, we have a right to ask how capitalism and communism are entitled to, or deserve to be called “systems”, while denying the same title to the socioeconomic methodology of Islam?
The Shari’a laws of Islam are geared to improving the same conditions which capitalism seeks to improve under its own rules. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Islamic judgments differ from that of capitalism. Then, how can anyone legitimately proclaim capitalism to be an economic system, and the Islamic socioeconomic system to be only a collection of moral orders and advices
In the above context, let us ‘consider two’ more examples to prove that the Islamic views on the economic matters are at least as efficacious as those of the other economic, schools of thought. The first example concerns the question of private ownership, around which the main differences between the economic or socioeconomic systems revolve. From the point of view of capitalism, private ownership is the principal consideration or the general rule, while public ownership is a subsidiary or exceptional matter.
This can mean that all kinds of wealth and the natural resources, should be privately owned, unless any exigency of circumstances demand public ownership of some of these, On the other hand, Marxism favours public ownership as the principal consideration, Moreover, it rules out private ownership of natural wealth and industrial raw materials production, unless and until private ownership becomes inevitable.
In contrast, Islam prescribes a different method, in that it allows private-cum-public ownership, within clearly defined limits. The Islamic treatment of the socioeconomic problems evidences at least as much discernment as that of capitalism and communism. Even so, the perspicacity of these three schools of socioeconomic thought has resulted in the emphasis on private property in one, public ownership in the other and private-cum-public ownership in the third one. The reasons for which are rather intriguing!
The second example concerns profit, interest, or other income realized through ownership and rental, or loaning, of real assets and means of production, as in capitalism. Earnings of this kind involve no actual work on the part of the earner and, as such, are prohibited in communism.
Thus, what is admissible in capitalism is inadmissible in socialism or Marxism, so that usury and rental are basic to capitalism and antagonistic to Marxism, Islam chooses a third alternative, in the sense that it considers income derived from ownership and rental of some real assets and means of production as legitimate, and some others as illegitimate. For instance, it prohibits usury and earnings derived from it, while it treats some other income derived from rents as legitimate.
Thus, capitalism and Marxist Socialism (communism) are at loggerheads with regard to endorsement of usury and rental (earnings without work). Capitalism bases its approach on the principle of man’s economic freedom. Marxist Socialism, on the other hand, considers work to be the determinant of the legitimacy of one’s earnings, in as much as a property-owner who does no work is not entitled to any wages or rental. The Islamic approach, too, is based on its own ideology concerning wealth production and distribution. While Islam prohibits a capitalist from seeking an increase in his wealth through usury, it permits a landowner rental from his tenants.
The Capitalist, Marxist (socialist, communist) and Islamic approaches, explained above, involve different points of view, all concerning the question of wealth distribution, Then, how come the capitalist and the Marxist positions, and not that of Islam, are regarded as “systems”!
Notwithstanding what the skeptics say or do not say, the fact remains that Islam does represent a socio-economic school of thought of its own distinct from that of the others.
