Islamic economic system
ECONOMICS is a science concerned with production, distribution and consumption of goods, services, wealth and resources. It plays a significant role in the social structure of Islam, so significant that Allah did not leave the economic aspect of life to be determined by pure human intellect and experience, but made it the subject of Revelation.
The Quran categorically promises peace and plenty for those who follow the Divine Code and for those who turn away from it, it promises scarcity (20:123,124). In this verse the term maeeshat has been used from which comes the word mashiyaat the translation of economics recognised by all.
The Quranic order of life does not put off the realization of its fruits until after death. The economic conditions of a people constitute a pragmatic test for the soundness of the revealed guidance. Those who do not ensure that the poor are provided their due help, will ultimately taste hell (69:34,35)(76:8,9,10). Nobody has seen hell, but its taste is quite evident when the poor, exploited and the downtrodden masses unleash their fury on the wealthy. Those who have the means must help the needy without prejudice (30:38, 2:215).
Surah Inam (6:11) contains an assertion that there is no one moving with life whose sustenance has not been assured by Allah. Surah Bani Israel (17:31) assures mankind in particular, that they should not kill their offspring fearing poverty, since Allah provides sustenance for them as well as for their offspring. But with this solemn assurance on the one hand, we see on the other hand millions dying of hunger and struggling for food. Does this indicate non-fulfilment of the responsibility solemnly assured by Allah? No, that is unthinkable. How do the two positions reconcile? Surrah Yasin (36:47) shows that where human efforts and affairs are concerned, Allah’s responsibility is discharged not directly but indirectly through human beings. Allah does not feed the hungry directly; the social order established to enforce Divine laws feeds them.
The mutual relationship between the individual and the Islamic social order is an unwritten agreement — a contract with Allah, in which the individuals surrender their life and possessions to Allah in return for Jannah (9:11). Of these, life and possessions are tangible and identifiable commodities and the seller (Believer) is a living being. The other two, God and Jannah, are abstract and intangible. In precise economic practice how can it be possible to strike a bargain with the buyer (God) with the price missing, or at best remaining in imagination? “Selling one’s life to Allah is an empty slogan, a deluding mirage used as a tool by the religious oligarchy to hoodwink and emotionally mislead the ignorant masses. The contract can be meaningful only when it is realized that God and Jannah are as real as man and life. Only bringing God and Jannah into intimate and vital relationship with living human experience can do this.
This is exactly what the Quran does, there is undoubtedly a Jannah which will be attained after death, but according to the Quran, the life of Jannah can also be attained in this world provided a social order is built on the lines given by God. The main characteristics of this earthly Jannah have been cited in Sura Taha (20:118) wherein none will remain without food or clothes none will suffer thirst nor heat. In other words, in the earthly Jannah no one remains unprovided with the basic necessities of life.
Muslims are those who give preference and priority to the needs of others than their own. (59:9) The Quran even admonishes those namazis who are ignorant of man’s needs and fail to provide food to the hungry and sit on the sources of nourishment. Such worshippers (namazis) disgrace their religion (107:1-7).
Physical needs have a prior claim on man. Hunger is the most powerful of these needs. A hungry man has no eyes for values and will only turn to higher interests when his hunger is appeased. Before engaging in good deeds, man demands an assurance that he and his children will not starve for want of food. The Quran gives this assurance. “We will provide you and your children” (6:152, 17:31, 29:60).
The Islamic economic and social system lays down certain fundamental principles, the foremost being that the earth cannot be the property of any individual. It is a means of production and shall remain available for the needy in an equal manner. (41:10) There (in the land) is sustenance for you, those for whom you do not provide’ (15:20). It is thus clear that land, like water, air, heat and light, is God’s gift to all men. For a man to claim proprietary rights of them is tantamount to claiming equality with God.
Surah Al-Waqiah (56:63-73) discusses the cultivation of land and the role of the tiller. It is clear that this Divine programme we participate in is a joint business venture in which the capital investment is made by God and we contribute only labour; while we must hand over the rest to God, that is to the needy for the development of society.
Allama Iqbal in Bal-e-Jibril, expresses this idea in terms of exquisite beauty and concludes: ‘Who nourishes the seed in the soil?/ Where no ray of light penetrates?/ Who raises clouds from the waves of the ocean?/ Who drove hither favourable wind from the West?/ Whose is the soil, whose the light of the Sun?/ Who has filled the ear of corn with pearly grain?/ Who has taught the seasons to change with regularity? Landowner! The land is neither thine nor mine’.
The second principle is that surplus money, the basis of capitalism, should not remain with individuals. Surah Baqra (2:219) contains a question and its answer. The question asked by the faithful is: ‘How much money should we keep open for the social order for meeting the needs of the needy?’ The answer given by the Quran is ‘Say’ whatever is left, after meeting your own needs. The word sood or interest is not to be found in the Quran.
Practices which are harmful to and create hurdles in the growth and progress of humanity have been collectively called Al-Riba by the Quran. It includes loans; interest on it is only one aspect of Riba. The hoarding of wealth, exploitation of the hard labour of others and usurping their due is also Riba. In general, wealth earned through wealth is Riba.
The third principle is that wealth shall circulate throughout the different strata of society and not only through the upper stratum (59:7). Those who defend capitalism argue that a communistic society deprives man of the incentive to work and that in a capitalistic society there is full scope for private enterprise and individual initiative. Everyone works because he knows that he will enjoy the fruits of his labour. National wealth increases and the people are hardworking and prosperous. Capitalists however fail to realise that while making the rich richer, it has often driven the poor to the verge of starvation. In a communist set-up man is hardly free. He is a mere cog in a gigantic machine; a member of a highly regimented society.
The Quranic social order shall be established in stages and not overnight. ‘Verily the promised revolution is sure to come; there is doubt about it yet most of mankind believe not ‘(40:59). This is what the West is afraid of. To some extent they have been successful in getting rid of communism, but in picking Islam as their next enemy they have erred.
The policy of killing Muslims is not going to destroy the Islamic economic concepts; rather a large majority of the people in the West are curiously turning to study Islamic values. This is a war they are not going to win; as the Quran proclaims that ‘All man-made systems will eventually fail and die, only the true Islamic economic political and social system will survive the test of time and dominate. The Quran proposes diverse measures to guard against the accumulation of wealth in the hands of few. Usury i.e. money earned through capital is declared to be unlawful and a war against God (2:275).
Man is advised to help his parents, relatives and others in need. By prohibiting hoarding, it ensures that money is kept in circulation. Muhammad (PBUH) never hoarded a single penny throughout his ‘life, nor owned any property. There are all claims of being Ashiq-e-Rasool, but nobody follows Muhammad (PBUH) in this respect. Islam prescribes compulsory social insurance through the system of Zakat which is altogether different from charity. The conventional assessment of 2+ per cent of one’s wealth appears to be retrogressive, as it has remained stagnant for centuries like the Muslim mind and society. Through Ijtehad, this has to be changed and made progressive according to the needs of society.
The Fifth principle of the Quran is that no one shall subsist on the earnings of another and that expecting those who have become incapacitated everyone shall work. The Quran calls them Mutrafeen who lead an easy life on the earning of others and mentions three groups. One group consists of those who take with even balance and give less (with an un-even balance). Another group comprises those who inherit money, land, property, etc., by reason of birth and collect more wealth as a consequence. (89:20) The third group is made of priest-craft. Surah Tauba (9:31) refers to such clerics and says that the majority of them eat up the earnings of others without having any right to it and thereby stand in the way of the benefit of humanity. In respect of the earnings of women, the Quran says that they have full rights over what they earn (4:32). All monetary transactions should be formally documented (2:282).
Islamic economic system is a liberal, progressive, productive and intensely responsive order from social point of view. While it definitely tends to control capital, it insists on man’s pursuit of the absolute values and the service of whole mankind. It is distinctive and cannot be equated with communism on account of its antithetical evaluation of free enterprise, private property and class struggle, nor with capitalism on account of Islam’s uncompromising opposition to the institution of interest. Supreme value is given to human self and its development. This distinguishes Islam from other systems.
Winding course of peace process
EVER since former Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visited Islamabad in January 2004 to attend the Saarc summit, government officials have been making optimistic predictions of an early breakthrough in dialogue with India on Kashmir.
Developments during the last two years, however, do not warrant such optimism and yet our leaders at the helm remain buoyed by hope.
The last two years have certainly witnessed a flurry of diplomatic activity and a series of unilateral proposals by Pakistan to carry forward the process, and yet the solution remains as elusive as ever. The Indians, adept at the game of subterfuge, have made no substantive or reciprocal move, while making full use of Pakistan’s CBMs to maintain the fiction that the process is moving ahead; and is “irreversible”.
The Oct 8 earthquake has, in a very strange way, proved a catalyst for the process and also invited international attention, particularly of the US and the West. The humanitarian aspect of the tragedy generated an unprecedented emotional climate and our leadership got carried way without taking a hard and sober look at the implications or the fallout of their moves.
The Line of Control was declared “irrelevant” and proposals were made for demilitarization and self-governance in Kashmir almost in a casual manner without fleshing out the contours of the proposals or anticipating the Indian reaction or even considering domestic opinion. The result has been more intransigence on the part of India and more confusion and division.
India not only rejected the demilitarization proposal, but renewed its demand that terrorist acts across the border be stopped completely before any proposal could be given serious consideration. It also claimed that Kashmiris already enjoyed autonomy and democratic rights within its constitution and had a “popular government” elected through free and fair elections”.
Recalling Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s meeting with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh in Dhaka on the sidelines of the Saarc summit, an Indian spokesman claimed that the Indian prime minister had told Mr Aziz that “clearly there was a lack of autonomy in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and there have been no popular elections at all in Gilgit and Baltistan to determine the wishes and aspirations of the people there”.
Our leadership, in its obsession for a settlement on Kashmir during its incumbency, has embarked on a slippery path of concessions and “out of box” solutions, undermining the entire edifice of Pakistan’s juridical and political position that rests on the UN resolutions. The tendency to offer half-baked ideas and solutions is amazing, be it the concept of the division of Jammu and Kashmir into seven regions, presented as food for thought at an iftar dinner in 2004, or an ill-conceived and vague proposal for self-governance. All these ideas have only led to divisive feelings among Kashmiris and created more questions than answers. This cavalier approach also encouraged the Mirwaiz to float his idea of a “United States of Kashmir”.
Prime Minister Aziz had talked of the “trust deficit” between India and Pakistan as being responsible for the lack of progress on Kashmir and other related issues. Such proposals without due consultations with the Hurriyat Conference and other stakeholders could also create a “trust deficit” with the Kashmiris. The statement of the APHC leader Gilani confirms such apprehensions.
It is not understood what we are trying to achieve by floating such ideas when India has repeatedly declared that there would be no redrawing of borders in Kashmir and President Musharraf has rejected the idea of sanctifying the Line of Control as the international border.
We have earlier experienced the negative fallout of public diplomacy in the Agra fiasco. Why do we continue engaging India on a series of proposals through the media? Our contradictory policies and offhand proposals can only dilute our stand and weaken our resolve. India is just not willing to oblige Pakistan with any tangible response.
The Kashmir issue is a highly sensitive and complex one and demands extreme care and caution when it comes to solutions. To have any meaningful impact and followup, the proposals made by Pakistan should have been well constructed and discussed and debated by parliament and then formally presented to India for the right impact. Press statements suggest that the proposal has the support of Kashmiri leaders across the Line of Control. The Mirwaiz also claims that his idea of a ‘United States of Kashmir’ has the full support of President Pervez Musharraf.
It must be realized that India insists on an open-ended negotiating process to buy time to consolidate its position, both internationally and with the APHC leadership, which had a detailed round of talks with Manmohan Singh in September 2005 and is likely to meet him again. The Indian strategy is to concede to their demands of release of prisoners and improve the human rights situation; to wean Kashmiris away from Pakistan through internal settlement and thus bury the issue.
New Delhi also believes that militant organizations would lose their relevance if the talks with moderate APHC elements succeed. India has already succeeded in its international campaign to completely change the complexion of the freedom struggle in Kashmir, equating it with terrorism and insurgency fuelled and financed by Pakistan.
India is stalling any meaningful dialogue on Kashmir because the stalemate or status quo doesn’t hurt it. During the last two years, it has achieved its major objectives of trade and commerce and people-to-people contacts. Kashmir, the so-called ‘core’ issue, has been put aside and is effectively no longer an impediment in the normalization of relations — thanks to Pakistan’s impatience and compulsive urge to facilitate talks by offering yet more unilateral concessions to India.
India will continue to obfuscate the main issue by introducing alien or unreal issues or repeat its strategy of linking the bogey of cross-border terrorism to the Indian response. India was dismissive of the self-governance proposal — “Even the very deliberations on the matter were deviation from our stated policy”; it maintained.
Our policy planners are living in a world of their own, believing that the Kashmir issue will be resolved in the next couple of years and that the US or any other power is interested in its early resolution. American interest is only to the extent that bilateral relations between Delhi and Islamabad don’t deteriorate to impact adversely on its policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Period.
There is consensus among some Pakistani analysts and strategists that India is just not interested in any solution of Kashmir. Even Foreign Minister Kasuri has made his frustration public, regretting that the Indian response has fallen short of expectations. Practitioners of diplomacy ranging from veteran diplomat Agha Shahi to former foreign minister, Assef Ahmad Ali, agree that our policy towards India needs to be more realistic. There is no need to rush into any solution, make any more concessions that compromise our international stand or legitimacy.
Assef Ahmad Ali reflects the dominant feelings of Pakistanis when he says: “We have no confidence in India, which holds no good intentions towards Pakistan.” Agha Shahi has also cautioned our policy planners that negotiations with India on Kashmir is a futile exercise. The Indians are merely buying time to pursue their own agenda and pre-determined policies. This is their considered advice distilled from long years of experience of dealing with India.
It is about time that government listened to this advice and gives up chasing the ghost of an early breakthrough. Bilateral issues like Kashmir are not resolved by wishful thinking or media bravado or by making emotional appeals to India for political generosity. If war is too serious a matter to be left to the generals, so is peace; perhaps much more.
The writer is a former ambassador.