Log in

View Full Version : Islamic economy



Enragé
17th May 2006, 22:29
an article i found years ago, recently came across it, just thought i'd post it. Pretty nice actually.



Islamic Economy is Islam’s answer to Western ideologies like capitalism and socialism. Within the Shia school of thought the late martyrs Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari, Ayatullah Mahmood Taleqani and above all Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir Sadr have explained the principles of Islamic economy. Since then others have followed writing in this tradition.

Like capitalism, Islamic economy accepts private property. Like socialism, Islam seeks a classless society where all receive pay according to their need and their labor. How does Islam achieve this synthesis? Islam Islam marries private property with a classless society by making private property the right of the many instead of the privilege of the few.

Need

Shahid Taleqani said “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need” is “the first slogan of Islam.” How does Islam define need, though? It does so in two ways. First is what Baqir Sadr called “general reciprocal responsibility.” This covers basic biological needs. None should go hungry, homeless, cold or untreated for disease in true Islamic system. In short, there should be no absolute poverty under Islamic rule. This is an immediate obligation on the Muslim community.

Second is what Baqir Sadr calls “social balance.” This covers social needs – namely the need for all in society to enjoy a single “common standard of life.” People should live not just in physical comfort but in dignity. According to hadith Baqir Sadr cites, those below the common standard of life should be “joined to the people” so they can live “without difficulty and without dread.” This is a long term goal that may require a great deal of time and effort.

Work

Shahid Mutahhari said “the Islamic principle” is “work according to one's ability, entitlement according to one's work.” Once people have their needs met, people receive the rest of their pay according to their work. Different people’s work is not equal, so their pay should not be equal either. People naturally have different abilities and talents. This is not just because of differences of training or opportunities. Instead it is a natural fact. One person’s labor is not necessarily equal to another’s. These natural differences are different from the inequalities of race and caste systems. The only economic inequality Islam allows is the natural inequality of labor.

Ownership

According to Shahid Baqir Sadr, work is the “source of ownership” and “basis of private property.” Workers have the right to own the product of their labor. Whereas work and need are “primary instruments of distribution,” ownership is a “secondary instrument of distribution.” Islam thus acknowledges the priority of labor over capital. Capital is derivative, an extension of labor. In fact, capital for Baqir Sadr is actually “stored labor.”

Natural wealths cannot be private property because they are not stored labor. However, what people extract from nature with their labor becomes their private property. Islam prohibits hoarding money and lending it out at interest because only real physical capital (buildings, tools, etc.) are stored labor – not money. Similarly, Islam prohibits speculation, gambling and monopoly because like interest these profits are not tied to the value and performance of real capital.

All have the right to own their stored labor. None has the right to own more. People can trade the products of their labor. Yet if some end up with more than their stored labor and others without, then those with more are living off the labor of those without. The haves force the have-nots to work for a wage. This is what happens under capitalism. While Islam does not agree with Proudhon that “property is theft,” the Islamic rule would appear to be that property beyond one’s stored labor is theft. If some under an Islamic system work for a wage, it is by choice rather than compulsion.

Historical Example

Muslims can find an example of Islamic economy from Islamic history in the Islamic State of the Prophet Muhammad. Prior to the Prophet, the ruling Quraysh tribes controlled all of Mecca’s main economic resources: the marketplace, the caravans, the pilgrimage and the natural resources. The Prophet made these available to all. Now anyone could set up shop for free without capitalists or the state in the way. The Prophet thus created a society of small proprietors who owned their own cattle, farms and businesses.

Since the Industrial Revolution two hundred years ago, certain industries are too large for small businesspeople such as those of the Prophet’s time to own. For these kinds of businesses, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran created the cooperative sector. This gives workers and consumers ownership of their stored labor instead of capitalists or the state.

LSD
18th May 2006, 02:56
Like capitalism, Islamic economy accepts private property. Like socialism, Islam seeks a classless society

Those two aims are fundamentally incompatible.

As long as private property exists, so will relations to said property and that nescessitates class society.

Now, I suppose it isn't highly surprising that rabid religious fanatics would entirely ignore materialism, but it is somewhat irritating, especially as they are feigning economic credibility.

So just to clarify there is no value in Islamic "economics". It's just basic liberalism with an unhealthy dose of Mohammed-worship.

Really nothing that a progressive leftist should bother himself with.


People should live not just in physical comfort but in dignity. According to hadith Baqir Sadr cites, those below the common standard of life should be “joined to the people” so they can live “without difficulty and without dread.” This is a long term goal that may require a great deal of time and effort.

It also requires a more practical plan than "joined to the people".

How should poverty be overcome is private property is to be respected and how will "dignity" be maintained in the face of "natural inequalities".

If, as the "hadith" suggests, those with means are obligated to support those below the poverty line, how does that jive with the "right to property"? Who's going to enforce these religious "obligations" and who's going to determine exactly how much is appropriate?

This is no more than standard idealistic religious "tithe" nonsense. Holding up "charity" as same sort of "solution" to the inherent disparity of class society.

Well, the reality is that rich people are not "charitable" as otherwise they wouldn't be rich. Oh, they might give out a few bucks now and then, but imagining that "tithes" can compensate for wage-slavery is pure and absolue delusion.


Different people’s work is not equal, so their pay should not be equal either.

In other words, the clerics "deserve" their big houses. :rolleyes:


People naturally have different abilities and talents. This is not just because of differences of training or opportunities. Instead it is a natural fact.

And who is to judge these "natural differences"?

Without the "Prophet" around anymore (may he blah blah blah... fucking reactionary homophobic bigot :angry:), how are us "mere mortals" to determine the proper "value" of various "labours"?

Should we take a page from the "infidels" in the west and leave it to the "market"?

Wouldn't that make Playboy a more "valuable" commodity than the Koran, though?! :o

Well, we can't allow that blasphemy, can we! I guess, this time, we need to suppress the market to make sure that the words of the Prophet (may he live forever in blah blah blah... :lol:) are read by all.

Also, we can't allow "immoral" property or "indecent" dress, so "property" rights only extend so far. Also, that whole "anti-poverty" thing only applies to Muslims and only applies to Muslim men since women aren't really supposed to own anything.

Oh, and also work is a "duty" of Muslim workers so any attempt at trade unionization is clearly an affront to Allah (glory, glory, hallelujah). <_<

Don&#39;t get caught up in this cheap "third way" bullshit. Once again, religion proves its class allegiance and loyalty to the status quo.

There is simply no room for reactionary idealism is revolutionary materialism.


Workers have the right to own the product of their labor.

Really? And how can that practically work within an "Islamic economy"?

If one owns the product of one&#39;s labour, what role does the boss have? Perhaps more importantly, what role does the market have?

The way that market economics work is that one is functionaly obligated to sell at the price that the buyer dictates. That means that even if one requires more than another is willing to pay, they are forced to comply to the "dictates of the market".

Pragmatically speaking, that makes one&#39;s "ownership" somewhat nonsensical as although "Islamic economics" might respect labour rights in theory, it&#39;s practically nothing more than repackaged capitalism.

Workers in the "Islamic Republic of Iran" do not control their own labour, they, like all other workers around the world, sell their labour to the capitalists.

The formation of society is not dictate by religious "intent", but by the practical material reality of productive organization.


If some under an Islamic system work for a wage, it is by choice rather than compulsion.

Of course it is... :rolleyes:

They "chose" to be poor and work for a wage; likewise, I&#39;m sure that they "chose" to starve, as they do en masse across the Islamic world.

This "argument" is no different to the one routinely peddled by cappies, namely that the poor are "too lazy" to be rich. Needless to say, it&#39;s complete and utter crap.

hassan monwar al-moudjahid
18th May 2006, 06:35
great article.....but i am more on the side of ali shariati, because unlike iran, real islam does not allow clergy like the ayatollah. there needs to be more muslims like shariati in order to set up an example of a true islamic society, since in theory there are none. by the way, in islam women are allowed to own property, i dont know about iran or saudi arabia, but they are psuedo-islamic any way. u shouldnt bother posting things like this, because most people on here are intolerant and reactionary of anything religious, and they degrade their replies with mindless insults and cursing. then again marxists have all the answers.....

kawa
21st May 2006, 22:06
islam says "god owns", and an old sahabe (friend of mohamad) said that if god owns everything people cant own them while it means you are like god (and saying this is the biggest sin in islam) so he claimed that private property is a sin in islam

hassan monwar al-moudjahid
23rd May 2006, 07:16
exactly. in the same sense, we dont own money. God entrusts money to us to use it for his purposes, i.e. the benefit of whole mankind, without any regard to social class, as with property. i assume many people here like lsd arent familiar with PRE-islamic arabia and its tribalism, and paganism, and capitalism. tawhid means the recognition of ONE God and eliminating all other dieties. in capitalism, money is a diety. and there is no historical tie between the customs of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and those of the arabs that preceded him. the arabs before muhammad were some of the most wayward, backward, tribal peoples of all times (not to say that there still arent any now). so u cant say muhammad represented "arab" customs, rather a revolution sutable for all humanity.

Johnny Anarcho
6th June 2006, 05:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:57 PM

Like capitalism, Islamic economy accepts private property. Like socialism, Islam seeks a classless society

Those two aims are fundamentally incompatible.

As long as private property exists, so will relations to said property and that nescessitates class society.

Now, I suppose it isn&#39;t highly surprising that rabid religious fanatics would entirely ignore materialism, but it is somewhat irritating, especially as they are feigning economic credibility.

So just to clarify there is no value in Islamic "economics". It&#39;s just basic liberalism with an unhealthy dose of Mohammed-worship.

Really nothing that a progressive leftist should bother himself with.


People should live not just in physical comfort but in dignity. According to hadith Baqir Sadr cites, those below the common standard of life should be “joined to the people” so they can live “without difficulty and without dread.” This is a long term goal that may require a great deal of time and effort.

It also requires a more practical plan than "joined to the people".

How should poverty be overcome is private property is to be respected and how will "dignity" be maintained in the face of "natural inequalities".

If, as the "hadith" suggests, those with means are obligated to support those below the poverty line, how does that jive with the "right to property"? Who&#39;s going to enforce these religious "obligations" and who&#39;s going to determine exactly how much is appropriate?

This is no more than standard idealistic religious "tithe" nonsense. Holding up "charity" as same sort of "solution" to the inherent disparity of class society.

Well, the reality is that rich people are not "charitable" as otherwise they wouldn&#39;t be rich. Oh, they might give out a few bucks now and then, but imagining that "tithes" can compensate for wage-slavery is pure and absolue delusion.


Different people’s work is not equal, so their pay should not be equal either.

In other words, the clerics "deserve" their big houses. :rolleyes:


People naturally have different abilities and talents. This is not just because of differences of training or opportunities. Instead it is a natural fact.

And who is to judge these "natural differences"?

Without the "Prophet" around anymore (may he blah blah blah... fucking reactionary homophobic bigot :angry:), how are us "mere mortals" to determine the proper "value" of various "labours"?

Should we take a page from the "infidels" in the west and leave it to the "market"?

Wouldn&#39;t that make Playboy a more "valuable" commodity than the Koran, though?&#33; :o

Well, we can&#39;t allow that blasphemy, can we&#33; I guess, this time, we need to suppress the market to make sure that the words of the Prophet (may he live forever in blah blah blah... :lol:) are read by all.

Also, we can&#39;t allow "immoral" property or "indecent" dress, so "property" rights only extend so far. Also, that whole "anti-poverty" thing only applies to Muslims and only applies to Muslim men since women aren&#39;t really supposed to own anything.

Oh, and also work is a "duty" of Muslim workers so any attempt at trade unionization is clearly an affront to Allah (glory, glory, hallelujah). <_<

Don&#39;t get caught up in this cheap "third way" bullshit. Once again, religion proves its class allegiance and loyalty to the status quo.

There is simply no room for reactionary idealism is revolutionary materialism.


Workers have the right to own the product of their labor.

Really? And how can that practically work within an "Islamic economy"?

If one owns the product of one&#39;s labour, what role does the boss have? Perhaps more importantly, what role does the market have?

The way that market economics work is that one is functionaly obligated to sell at the price that the buyer dictates. That means that even if one requires more than another is willing to pay, they are forced to comply to the "dictates of the market".

Pragmatically speaking, that makes one&#39;s "ownership" somewhat nonsensical as although "Islamic economics" might respect labour rights in theory, it&#39;s practically nothing more than repackaged capitalism.

Workers in the "Islamic Republic of Iran" do not control their own labour, they, like all other workers around the world, sell their labour to the capitalists.

The formation of society is not dictate by religious "intent", but by the practical material reality of productive organization.


If some under an Islamic system work for a wage, it is by choice rather than compulsion.

Of course it is... :rolleyes:

They "chose" to be poor and work for a wage; likewise, I&#39;m sure that they "chose" to starve, as they do en masse across the Islamic world.

This "argument" is no different to the one routinely peddled by cappies, namely that the poor are "too lazy" to be rich. Needless to say, it&#39;s complete and utter crap.
We dont worship Muhammad, we worship Allah. Muhammad is Allah&#39;s Prophet.

Severian
6th June 2006, 11:59
"Islamic economy" is obfuscation.

Obviously the same economic system has not existed steadily from the origins of Islam to today&#33;

This appears to be the official economic ideology of the current Iranian regime, or elements in and around it.

In practice, of course, Iran today is far from a classless society&#33; Even Ayatollah Ali Montazeri - who at one point was Khomeini&#39;s designated successor - had to acknowledge this, saying the clerics had become corrupted by wealth in power.

As LSD points out, this is inevitable in the context of private property and the market (possible but not inevitable without them.)

The "Islamic economy" of Iran is, in fact, capitalism.

There&#39;s a certain amount of social-democratic style nationalized and waqf-owned industry, some welfare programs and sham workers control. But that&#39;s not a product of "Islam" - its a concession to Iranian workers&#39; and peasants&#39; deep history of struggle, including 3 revolutions in the 20th century. In 1979, the mullahs had to give ground and pretend to be against capitalism in order to avoid being swept away by another revolution.

All the other supposed "Islamic economies", from Afghanistan to Sudan, have been even worse; some mix of capitalism and feudalism basically. There&#39;ve been plenty of reports of outright slavery in Sudan.