href="#ulink_63cd4538-1ce2-5836-bf9e-a8f9187dca95">
CHAPTER 2
The Islamic Paradigm Through History
We sent our Messengers with clear signs, and sent with them the Book and the Balance so that people may establish justice.
(al-Qur’ān, 57: 25)
Islamic belief has a reputation for being easily understood ..., its most essential elements can be set forth rather simply.
(Marshall Hodgson)1
Is the Islamic Economics paradigm significantly different from that of conventional economics? While there is a great deal that is common between the worldviews of most major religions, particularly those of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, it is not possible to say the same about Islamic and conventional economics. The paradigms of both disciplines are radically different. The Islamic paradigm is not secularist, value-neutral, materialist and social-Darwinist. It is rather based on a number of concepts which strike at the root of these doctrines. It gives primary importance to moral values, human brotherhood, and socio-economic justice and, unlike its Marxist or capitalist counterparts, does not primarily rely on either the state or the market for realizing its vision. It rather relies on the integrated roles of values and institutions, market, families, society, and the state to ensure falāḥ or the well-being of all. It places great emphasis on social change through a reform of the individual and his society, without which the market and the state could both perpetuate inequities.
The Qur’ān and the Sunnah together spell out the essential ingredients of the Islamic paradigm so clearly that there is little room for ambiguity. If there are differences of opinion, these are in the details. Hodgson has, hence, rightly stated that “the Islamic religious tradition, for all its diversity, has retained a certain integrity; distinctly more so than say, Christianity and Buddhism.”2 An effort is made below to clarify some of the central ideas of the Islamic paradigm that are relevant to economics.
The fundamental Islamic belief is that this universe and everything in it, including humans, has been created by the One and Only God. All human beings are His vicegerents and brothers unto each other. There is no superiority of one over the other because of race, sex, nationality, wealth, or power. Their sojourn in this world is temporary. Their ultimate destination is the Hereafter where they will be accountable before God. Their well-being in the Hereafter depends on whether or not they live in this world, and fulfil their obligations towards others, in a way that helps ensure the falāḥ of all.
One of the things that seriously affects the well-being of all is the way in which scarce resources, which are a trust (amānah) from God,4 are utilized. God, the Creator and Owner of these resources, has provided certain values, rules of behaviour, or institutions, within the framework of which human beings are expected to use these resources and to interact with each other. These values have not just been given to any one specific group of human beings, but rather to all people at different times in history through a chain of His Messengers (who were all human beings), including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and, the last of them, Muḥammad.5 Thus, according to Islam, there is a continuity and similarity in the value systems of all Revealed religions to the extent to which the Message has not been lost or distorted over the ages.
The Prophets, however, did not just bring values. They also struggled to reform their societies. Socio-economic and political reform is, therefore, the major thrust of the Islamic Message. To accept ‘what is’ and not to struggle for the realization of the vision or ‘what ought to be’ is a vote in favour of prevailing inequities and doing nothing to remove them. Such an attitude is not justifiable within the Islamic paradigm. The mission of human beings is not just themselves to abide by Islamic values but also to struggle for the reform of their societies in accordance with these. This is what is meant by righteous living. Ansari has aptly emphasized that the “essence of the Qur’ānic message to man is to live righteously”.6 Righteous living enables the use of scarce resources in a way that ensures the well-being of all, and, thereby, promotes not only individual peace of mind but also social harmony.
Human beings are, however, free to choose. They may either live up to this mission or reject it, except to the extent to which their behaviour harms themselves or others or undermines the very foundations of the society or civilization. This freedom to choose is emphasized in several verses of the Qur’ān, one of which says: “This is an admonition; whoever wishes, may take the road to his Lord” (al-Qur’ān, 73: 19).
True well-being within the framework of the Sharīʿah (Islamic teachings) is not necessarily realized by concentrating merely on maximizing wealth and consumption; it requires the satisfaction of both the material and the spiritual needs of the human personality in a balanced manner. While material needs include proper food, clothing, housing, education, transport, security of life and property, and all other goods and services that contribute to comfort and real well-being, spiritual needs include nearness to God, peace of mind, inner happiness, family and social harmony, and the absence of crime and anomie. Resources being limited, excessive emphasis on one may lead to a neglect of the other.
Both material and spiritual needs are closely interrelated. Islam does not, therefore, recognize any watertight distinction between them. Spiritual needs are not satisfied merely by offering prayers. Rather, all human effort, irrespective of whether it is for ‘material’, ‘social’, ‘educational’, or ‘scientific’ goals, is spiritual in character as long as it contributes to real well-being in conformity with the value system of Islam. Working hard for the material well-being of one’s own self, family and society is as spiritual as the offering of prayers, provided that the material effort is guided by moral values and does not take the individual away from the fulfilment of his social obligations.
It is unanimously agreed by Muslim jurists that one of the important objectives of the Sharīʿah is to reduce hardships and to make the life of all individuals more comfortable (al-Qur’ān, 2: 185; see also 5: 6). Nevertheless, more may not necessarily be better than less under all circumstances, as conventional economics would have us believe. Much depends on how the additional wealth is acquired, who uses it and how, and what the impact of this increase on the overall well-being of society is. More would be better than less, if the increase were attained without weakening the moral fibre of society and social solidarity, or raising anomie and ecological imbalance. Ideal behaviour within the framework of this paradigm does not thus mean self-denial; it only means pursuing one’s self-interest within the constraints of social interest by passing all claims on scarce resources through the filter of moral values.
Living in conformity with moral values helps promote a balance between individual and social interest and helps actualize the maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah (the goals of the Sharīʿah, or the vision of Islam, hereafter referred to as the maqāṣid), two of the most important of which are socio-economic justice and the well-being of all God’s creatures.7 Justice has received such a prominent place within the maqāṣid, that it is difficult to conceive of Islam and injustice surviving together in a truly Muslim society.8 Injustice could prevail only if Islamic values are not able to gain a firm foothold. This would in turn thwart the realization of true well-being, accentuate tensions and social unrest, discourage individuals from putting in their best, and thus retard development. However, while conventional economics assumes the prevalence of self-interested behaviour on the part of all individuals, Islam does not assume the prevalence of ideal behaviour. It adopts the more realistic position that, while some people may normally act in an ideal manner, the behaviour of most people tends to fall between the two extremes
