Taking into consideration the totality of the Islamic economic principles and injunctions and by comparing them with the newly formed economic schools of thought, it can be concluded that the former is neither comparable nor compatible with any of the so-called scientific and applied economic schools of thought. Islamic economics possesses its own special distinctions, which may be summarized as follows:

1. Islamic economics recognizes individuals as owners within the bounds of their own activities, in the widest sense. It recognizes individuals to be in possession of what they trade within the limits of special Islamic injunctions.

Other than this stipulation, the public capital trade rules and restrictions fall under the jurisdiction the hakim (Islamic guardian/ruler). In some cases, he is the owner, and in other cases he is the regulator. In this respect, Islamic economics is based on neither individual ownership with unlimited freedom that results in unbridled capitalism, nor public ownership that leads to total privation of individual freedom.

It is also unlike a mixed economy whose boundaries and limits are ambiguous. Moreover, it contains conditions with regard to communal and individual wealth, which are compatible with human nature, the order of a just society, and overall rights. It bases individual ownership on innate human freedom and common ownership of public interest.

Capitalism and communism in practice dispense with their general theories. The capitalist countries that practise the principles of unlimited individual freedom have transgressed these principles and constantly try to "muzzle and fetter" this unbridled horse of capitalism through nationalization of large production enterprises and establishments. On the other side is the principle of theoretical collectivism, with all their rigidness, which in practice have allowed for individual ownership of housing and farms, by either legal decrees or in accordance with traditions1.

There are obvious violations of their respective principles because these two schools of thought are not applicable to the realities of life. Rather they are by-products of the recent Western industrial economic upheavals. Once these have passed the economy is presumed to return to natural rights.

2. From the Islamic viewpoint the desire for wealth and economic relations are connected with the modes of thought, innate characteristics, emotions, and human instincts. Economic and social environments are a reflection of the combination of these attachments. Since Islamic economics deals with discerning and establishing the limits of these desires for the purpose of appreciation of economic relations, it is not devoid of intellectual assessment and ethical training, or separate from religious (ibadi) and social injunctions.

Although the intellectual, sentimental and legal relations of individuals appear not to be connected, these relations are invisible bonds of the human soul. They are related and affect one another. According to the goals they set and in which they believe humans have different outlooks and relations with respect to their desires and these differences change the forms of the relationship2.

The subject of relations between bodily organs, their functions and interrelationships, and impacts on each other and their psychological effects are so important that they have been placed on the top of psychological and medical problems. No physician can attempt the treatment of an organ of the body without being concerned about its relation to other parts of the body. Likewise, psychological treatments arc related to medicinal ones and the functioning of the organs. The skill of a physician or a psychologist is determined by how well he is able to diagnose these mysterious and complex relations.

The bonds of human affection for one another and with other living things are as complex and mysterious as the relations between the body's organs. Those who think or believe that by considering only one isolated desire or bond i.e. the economic relations, they have diagnosed social ills and have proposed cures are like magicians and snake charmers who having a single magic or prescription, and claim to possess cures for all the diseases in the tribe and can exorcise demons or charm any snake.

By the power of suggestion, they may stupefy a patient or charm a snake but the illness will reappear more acutely and the charmed snake will rise more fiercely once the effect of the spell has worn off. Doesn’t the cure for man's instinctive love of wealth and rebellious soul - based simply on economic relations - resemble that primitive tribal cure?

Islam recognizes the connection between regulating the limits on rights and desires along with the proper assessment of views, the strengthening of faith and the development of consciousness and human values. Islam has prescribed economic injunctions and laws on the basis of these principles. The various Islamic laws are so intertwined with these principles that only in the innermost corners of consciousness and with mature intellect can one comprehend their boundaries and diversity.

3. The limits on ownership and economic relations in Islam are regulated by three factors: (1) individuals, (2) injunctions, and (3) government.

Individuals to the extent of their maturity and by the dictates of faith and responsibility to their conscience are free - like in other affairs - to possess material things. They are allowed to draw benefits from goods that are not owned by others. This freedom in the area of trade is limited to the right of ownership, which has arisen from the activity itself and to the Islamic injunctions and conditions pertaining to the integrity of the trade.

The government of Islam which lies with the Imam, the guardian/ruler or God's vicegerent or the one sent by Him has the authority to limit further the rights of use and ownership by individuals beyond that already prescribed by law, since it is superior to the right of possession and for the purpose of establishing justice and equity in the society's interest.

The precedence of the right of the Imam and the guardian/ruler in all that can be possessed in accordance with their ability to distinguish public interest is their indispensable right. There are texts to this effect such as the verse “…that it become not a commodity between the rich among you" (59:7), or the rule of la zarar (no harm to oneself), which prove doe guardian/ruler’s right to material possession, is above all other rights.

4. From the Islamic point of view, like production, distribution is the natural and innate right of the person engaged in that activity. The individual is free to choose any activity and the act itself becomes the basis of the right of ownership. One of the outcomes of this right is that the owner is free to possess and distribute the products of his activity and of his property. The limitations and laws restricting the use and rights of ownership and the general supervision of the guardian/ruler guarantees systemization, sets limitations on distribution, and prevents unlimited profiteering. Under this limitation and supervision, why shouldn’t the right of possession and distribution be given to the person who produces the goods?

As it was said earlier, it is unnatural that the results of labour and production of an individual’s effort - who has been created free - should be under the authority of capitalists or governments which give them only enough food and provide them with limited means of livelihood like the amount of the lubricant they apply to factory equipment to increase production. Capitalists take away the independence, freedom, and identities of the people, and the most precious of all their things, by deceit and under various pretenses.

If the owner and worker-agent have no freedom in using and distributing them, and distribution I practice is to be limited to the extent stipulated by needs, then the rightful owner has been deprived of his rights and human rights have been ignored. And these are the two fundamental motivations for good behavior and for bringing forth talent.

Although human needs are unlimited and undefined, if distribution is limited to the extent dictated by the needs of the worker or agent, he would have no motivation to produce beyond that which has been recognized as necessary. On the other hand, those who are unable to work do not meet their needs and are doomed. Can one ignore this group of people? Arc they not entitled to rights as humans? And are not most of them also entitled to the right of their past work and as producers or guardians of future talents?

5. On the basis of the Islamic economic principles, the rights of ownership and distribution of natural products are based on the right of possession and distribution of natural resources. That is, land and its resources belong to everyone and the government being the guardian and representative of public interest has the right of supervision and distribution. Any person acquires a right to these resources as determined by the revitalization of the land, extraction of underground resources, and exploitation (hiyazat). An individual acquires rights by making productive use of such moveable natural objects as surface rocks, running water, and animals on land and sea. As long as these relations and claims exist such rights are assured for individuals.

These rights are preserved to the extent that there is no harm inflicted on public interest. Mineral resources and public lands in their natural form belong to the public and their possession is bound to the rights of the public. If someone owns more than is in the public interest, the law of public ownership and the power the government would limit his exploitation and prevent excess profits.

On this basis, the initial distribution of natural resources is the source of production, and at the next stage production regulates distribution, which is the owner's first right. From this point of view the distribution of products is not sufficiently distinguished from production and distribution of natural resources to warrant a separate treatment and make it compatible with production.

This is because production is not limited to natural resources and preparation of final products; it also includes subsequent usage and distribution among the needy. The rights of the market intermediaries (middle men) should also be taken into account. Thus in trade, to the extent that it is a useful service, the right of intermediaries is natural and legitimate3.

Although Islamic injunctions have prescribed this natural right, they have forbidden trade that does not involve useful service. The general and categorica1 prohibition “... eat not up your property among yourselves in vanity” (2:188) points to this issue. In addition to prohibiting usurious and quasi-usurious trade, even in cases where making profit may lead to futile and useless activity, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) has forbidden it. For example, prohibiting purchases prior to possession (qabz) or setting out to greet the caravan and purchase goods before it enters the city are designed to prevent such abuses and undue benefit. The limitations and regulations on trade and the rights to annul a transaction is provided to give ample opportunity to check the product thoroughly and to verify its real worth in order to prevent illegitimate profiteering.

Given the limits on the freedom of trade and the government’s supervision of commodities in Islam, the law of supply and demand in the capitalistic sense does not apply. Demand in common capitalist usage and in its reality is determined by the purchasing power and wealth whereas demand based on Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) arises out of need. In Islam, the supply and provision of commodities will be to the extent of satisfying (kamali) [morally elevating] necessities. In Islamic economics the market cannot become the toy of capitalist greed, which may open the way to "eat in vanity" (2: 188).

Rights arising from land revitalization, exploration or exploitation (hiyazat) arc the primary sources for the distribution of these resources and materials. But these derived rights are not a basis for the right of absolute ownership. The absolute right of ownership applies only to those things (products of land and materials) that are the results human efforts. On the basis of this right the owner of the product of that activity is free in the use of that product; either to consume or depreciate it or to incorporate it into his other activities or into that of other persons in order to initiate a new activity.

The product of work, whether in the form of a commodity or exchange for cash value, is the source and motivation for new activities that leads to new endeavors. In any case the initial labour invested is a contributing factor and establishes an interest in subsequent activities to the extent of their contribution to production. Islamic injunctions have both a prescriptive (ijabi) and preventive (salbi) regulations for all such transactions in order to prevent possible unlawful profits (i.e., profits without useful purpose) and maintaining freedom.4

These derived rights applied to usufruct and distribution resulting from exploration of natural resources arc specific features of Islamic economics. Practical methods of capitalism do not provide just methods for possession and distribution of natural resources. In capitalism, regardless of the methods by which these resources come to be possessed they arc subject to absolute right of ownership, not a limited right to secure profit. As a result, in production and distribution of goods, the initial capital – regardless of how it has been obtained - and the means of production contribute to capitalist profit.

Marxism has assigned the manner of possession of natural resources by man to the evolution of the means of production and to the course of history according to which the relation of man to resources is defined. The differences between collectivism and capitalism center on the issues connected with industrial production whereas those dealing with natural resource arc parenthetical in both schools of thought.

Islam places the foundation and center of human life on natural resources and has neither entrusted them to the powerful hands of capitalism nor to the destiny of the evolution of the means of production. From the Islamic point of view the “hand” which makes vital resources available for exploitation by mankind is the hand of the working human, within the limitations that make him respect the rights of the society.

Since the rights of individuals to possess and distribute resources differ depending on the commodities, they are not defined legally in perpetuity. That is, the right of possession and revitalization of unexploited lands is established to the extent that the work of rehabilitation has been carried out, and the right will last for as long as the land properly utilized. Among resources such as pastures and forests - as well as surface waters - the right of exploitation is established by the person only to the extent he keeps it productive. No one can prevent him from exploiting those resources except in cases involving common interest.

In such cases jurisdiction is preserved for the Islamic guardian/ruler. These injunctions apply equally to rocks one has gathered, a prey he has trapped or caught at se, or a tent he has erected in a corner of the desert. The proof of these rights is established by two conditions: (1) prescriptive (ijabi) and preventive (salbi). Prescriptive proof is the right of exploitation of land, and preventive proof means that there must not be any intention of transgression upon public right or the rights of other individuals, nor must there be any intention of hoarding.

With regard to minerals, the exploration and extraction of the surface of a mine alone does not establish the right over the entire mine. The right over whatever is explored and extracted from the depths of the earth is restricted to the amount that is extracted. The rights of exploration and extraction of mines that are located on the surface or are in a state ready for mining under the ground are limited to the amount extracted.

While preserving individual rights as well as public rights, the Islamic guardian/ruler will levy a tax on lands that he deems prudent to be used for public expenditures. Moreover, a twenty percent tax on all mines is obligatory. These laws are the basis for determining the distribution of natural resources.

6. Since natural resources – land, water, forests, seas, and minerals - are sources of livelihood for human beings and all other creatures, if the limitations on the right to use and distribute them are justly and clearly regulated, then all other matters connected with the means of livelihood would also follow suit, and economic problems arising from economic relations would be alleviated appreciably.

Economists of the industrial era have devoted most of their attention to solving the problems of industrialization and industrial production. But they have not provided just, definite, and clear solutions that would not only be acceptable and satisfactory to the original owners and safeguard their rights, but also would help expand and increase production from these resources. The remedies presented by these economists are neither congenial nor satisfactory for all problems.

In reality the principles of capitalism have no solution; thus, these problems continue to be left to the influences of legal and illegal forces. The collectivist systems in practice also do not have a clear, commonly proven method. Both systems reject feudalism. Yet their proven theories - despite the differences that they contain - are not compatible with different conditions and interests in every economic environment. In so far as their views regarding industrial means of production, distribution of commodities, labour rights and relations, and methods of implementation are concerned, their respective views cannot be applied to natural resources and their derivatives - or to the rights of peasants, farmers, miners, hunters and others - because natural resources in their original forms belong to the public and have no specific owners, whether an individual or a state.

Unlike industrial plants, natural resources generally do not depreciate and their portion that is subject to depreciation and depletion is never in excess of users’ rights of exploitation. Therefore, those who exploit natural resources possess the first right and are the original owners of these resources. For those primary resources that are exploited by the original agent, regardless of the subsequent transformation they undergo, the right of the original agent is preserved in them. Islam respects this right and recognizes its permanence and considers it to be the ‘primary capital’.5

Thus, those who exploit the resources of nature ought to have the right of seniority and the right to consider others as their dependents. Those who constantly open up opportunities for exploiting natural resources with one hand and distributing them to other needy people with another cannot restrict their working hours, methods of exploitation, and quantity of output.

Any restriction on the activities of these agents, and any alteration thereto will cause an anomaly in their lives – and consequently in public life - because they are motivated by needs as well as desires and talents. Their relations and attachment to the lands, gardens, farms and herds are not artificial and imaginary. Their passion for nature and their attachment to resources in nature are similar to those between an infant and its mother’s breast.

Considering these aspects, there are no similarities between the life and psychological traits of persons who live and work with nature and those of workers and wage earners in the factories. The latter, regardless of wages and fringe benefits, do not have the same relation and attachment to the factories and the machines. In addition, their working hours, wages, and production are restricted. Control of the factory and over their work is in the hands of the government or the capitalist who can close down the factory and fire the workers at any time, or switch their jobs and raise or lower wages and working hours.

Consequently, such interference in the rights and the work of the farmers and peasants is a harmful mistake. Interference in their affairs should be only to secure their rights of possession and utilization; to eliminate any infringement upon their rights by any individual or group; and to give them appropriate assistance.

These examples illustrate the difficulties in determining the boundaries of ownership for natural resources and land, improving the conditions of the farmers and alleviating other related problems. They also show the differences between exploiting natural resources and the nature of industrial activities. It is because of these differences that the collectivists - despite their common rejection unrestricted ownership of land and their condemnation of feudalism - share no common views or policies about limiting the desire for ownership of land, whether it should be absolutely nationalized or held jointly by the state and the farmers.

In very few countries - either collectivists or non-collectivists - is the situation of the farmers and ownership over land similar. None of the collectivist leaders or economists have ever claimed that the situation of ownership of land and its relationships can be altered or improved by any form of revolution or by decrees and legislation, as is usually the case where industrial capital and trade capital are involved.

As it was explained and documented in detail earlier, the Islamic view on land is a decisive and natural one. It can be summarized by the following three principles.

First, land and other natural resources belong to the public and are under the supervision of, or belong to, the Imam or the Islamic guardian/ruler. Included in these lands are those are territories acquired by Muslims through methods elaborated in Islamic jurisprudence and also portions of land that individuals have illegally confiscated or taken as fief.

Second, revitalization is the principal source of limited ownership or of priority in possession. According to this principle, the person who works at reclaiming the land has ownership and possession to that part of the land that has been revitalized as long as the act of rehabilitation continues.

Third, the Islamic government and guardian ruler can levy kharaj (tax) on the revitalized land to enhance the public interest for the purpose of improving the condition of laud. Another tax, zakat, should also be collected on the products of the land and initially it must be spent to improve the livelihood of the farmers.

On the basis of these principles, which rely on public faith and belief, it is faster and easier to distribute land justly in Islamic countries and to increase production and to eliminate infringement upon the rights of the farmers compared to countries with other laws. In Islamic countries, where due to historical necessities and general conditions of the time the Muslims are compelled to reconsider the situation of farmers and agriculture and change past policies not compatible with Islamic precepts, it is the duty of the governments to undertake the following steps at the outset:

A. Entrust unutilized and uncultivated lands, which are worthy of use and by far exceed that already under cultivation, free of charge among those who are willing to cultivate. They must provide irrigation facilities - which are a simple matter today - seed, and fertilizers free of charge or in the form of loans. In this way the farmers will become the rightful owners of the land, water, and the seed: and without worries about their lands or fear of claimants, they will do their work, increase production, and expand cultivation and utilization.

B. Limit previously owned villages and plantations to farm lands, lands under cultivation and their surroundings, and grant farmers the right to spread seed. These two actions remove obstacles allowing farmers to be free in their activities and independent in their work and to become the rightful owner of their crop. Previous owners will be compelled to provide in any way possible for the livelihood of farmers who are working on their property and to keep them satisfied. Otherwise, farmers may choose to migrate, and the owners would be forced to leave the lands idle or sell them cheaply on installments.

C. Stop supporting the landlords. In Islamic countries, feudalism and ownership obtained through usurpation are not supported by Islamic injunctions and laws that are derived from them. Governments that support the oppressors for their own advantage often have devised laws contrary to the principles of Islam in order to legitimize their policies. Repressive ownership in Islamic countries has never had any other source of support except from such governments. Therefore, if the governments withdraw their support and ban resolutions on behalf of these owners, the latter will no longer have the power to unjustly possess lands, oppress farmers, and infringe upon farmers’ rights.

D. Collect taxes in the form of kharaj and zakat from cultivators and on specific products to a certain extent and spend them co assist farmers for further land rehabilitation.

Where Islamic governments truly wish to bring about a fundamental and deep-rooted change and revolution, promote good economics and ethics, make Islamic countries independent in all aspects and avoid each and every day following a path that would lead them astray and confuse people with their contradictory resolutions and laws, they should implement these four remedies that are in conformity with the faith and national customs, and are the most simple and easy.

However, if they only wish to portray themselves as developed countries, and on par with other and try to imitate them blindly, they ought to know that with such views and intentions they will not succeed.

7. The right of ownership in proportion to the extent of activities begins with the right of usufruct and exploitation of natural resources. This right enters into the area of transactions and exchanges arising from Islamic injunctions, and in the course of time ends at death. Therefore, for the owner and bearer of this right, no right of possession will remain after death and the record of his activities and earning - like the record of his good and evil deeds - will be closed.

The right to one-third of the wealth is an exception for the purpose of compensating the claims of relatives or for charity and fulfilling social obligations, if the amount of inheritance is not sufficient for the livelihood of the inheritors or deserving relatives other than those who directly stand to inherit, or if the public interest warrants so. In that event, the person whose death is imminent could set aside one-third of his wealth for such expenditures.

When death has befallen a person and ended his desires, and ownership and use of his wealth has ceased to exist, the product of his works (the wealth and the estate) must neither be concentrated nor denied to the dynamic and stimulating desires of those entitled to it. Rather the estate muse be divided up and distributed in accordance with the productive capabilities and supervisory responsibilities of the recipients.

It should be noted that in regard to the injunctions on inheritance, three basic principles ought to be observed: (1) the principle of motivation and incentives to do work: (2) the principle of non-concentration and non-idleness: and (3) the principle of distribution of the estate according to productive capability and responsibility.

The motivation in work and effort, the beyond fulfillment of personal needs, is the attachment and sentiment one feels for his children, parents and relatives. Man's motivation for continuous work and effort and his entry into the stage of hardship in life reflect these attachments and sentiments. These are so stimulating and powerful that man often sacrifices his comfort and pleasures and even his life for their sake. Because these attachments are the stimuli for a person’s continuous activities, the objects of these sentiments and attachments have a claim over the products of these activities.

If the estate of a person whose rights have ceased to exist – following his death – is not distributed to his relatives and inheritors, the incentives for work will weaken ad the society’s reward for human ability will be diminished. Thus, to deny inheritance to those entitled to it is contrary to the interest of the society6.

The law of inheritance and the act of prohibiting the deceased from maintaining the estate after his death leads to the division of the inheritance among the recipients in specific proportions, except in rare cases.

The laws of inheritance and its distribution take into account attachments, but the manner of distribution mostly takes into account the interest of the heir and the society. From this aspect, the degree of one’s responsibility towards others and one’s productive capability and distributive ability ought to be taken into consideration. Since man is responsible for the protection of women and as the main agent who initiates the use of wealth, his share in the inheritance of any class is twice that of the woman.

Since the woman is under the care of the man and she is created to bear and rear children and not to produce wealth, once she has taken a husband, she enjoys equal share in the assets. Moreover, because she has no expenditure, and the husband must provide her with everything, her inheritance is a form of stagnant wealth. She is also entitled to keep whatever she earns by working or engaging in business.

This verse expounds three basic principles: (1) differences in talents should not cause unjustified expectations, and animosity towards others must not take place; (2) drawing benefit and usufruct from an activity by male and female, each of whom must benefit in accordance with their work and efforts; and (3) instead of adventitious covetousness and demands each should spend their talent and energy to draw more rewards from the eternal source of power - God.

Considering these innate principles and social relations, the Islamic laws of inheritance – similar to other Islamic injunctions and laws – are very judicious and resolute, like the order of creation. These principles and relationships cannot be understood except by persons of right and resolute thoughts7.

8. After restricting the rights of ownership, usufruct, transaction and prescribing required duties such as zakat, khums and sadaqah, Islamic injunctions also place restrictions on the way goods can be consumed. The restrictions on consumptions definitely increase production of useful commodities while advancing the use of wealth for economic growth and employment of manpower. Also, they prevent the expansion of unproductive8 factories and the production of commodities that are harmful to individuals and the society.

The quantitative and qualitative effects of consumption on income, production and distribution are well known. A person who is engaged in the consumption of harmful and wasteful goods and has become addicted to them will constantly apply his mind and thinking ability at finding other unlawful channel of income, and gradually the ways to theft, embezzlement and stealing from public and private funds will be within everyone’s reach.

In proportion to the increase in the consumption of such goods, the means and factors (of production) to produce goods will also rise (e.g., distilleries, corrupting films, tobacco products, centers of corruption, deviant arts etc.), while by the same proportion the means of producing necessities and morally elevating commodities will decrease. Human energy and productive abilities will deviate from the path toward of perfection of life and mind and ultimately the darkness of material and spiritual poverty will encompass individuals and the society pulling them towards death and general annihilation. This assessment regarding the situation or consumption and income applies to all nations and societies.

Considering the relations among nations, the production and consumption of harmful goods brings humans closer day by day to the brink of annihilation. Consumption and production of goods which undermine human character, decency and intelligence and promote calamity constantly rise to the point where perhaps eighty-percent of human and natural resources arc used to produce such goods and armaments to wage wars that have no logic and human rationale except man's egotism, psychological complexes and the lust for superiority. These same carnal instincts expand and motivate the use of human energy and industrial power for inventions and development of heavy industries to make destructive and weapons that threaten the world.

To this should be added heavy military budgets and training, unutilized energy of the most capable humans, and deviation from the path of production and perfection. If all physical, intellectual and industrial abilities were employed for good purposes, service to mankind, and progress in life and science, no one would remain hungry or without adequate clothing and shelter, or be deprived of the means of livelihood, or remain ignorant even if the human population were to increase several fold. From the earth, the seas and the sky, the gates of blessings would open and the domain of living would expand to include empty deserts and the peaks of the mountains.

This is a clear assessment of the abject life of the children of Adam today. Reformers and men of vision should find solutions, which are based on such straightforward assessment comprehensible to the public. Otherwise, by resorting to formulas and mathematical calculations, most of which are not compatible with the realities of life and psychological complexes and complicated human desires, they cannot solve the problems of life and establish justice for all. The model builders are not unlike those who concentrate on fixing potholes for the comfort of travelers while overlooking the deep wells that await the human caravans every step of the way.

The overall situation of the inhabitants of the earth are similar to those of the inhabitants of a remote village where the chiefs or headmen take advantage of old disputes and deep-seated psychological complexes of the indigent villagers in order to perpetuate their own authority; they expend the villagers’ fruits of labour on making clubs and cudgels, daggers and knives, or opium and gambling.

Occasionally, on the pretext that a child from one neighborhood has struck a dog of another, or someone from the other neighborhood has roused the horse in this neighborhood, they induce the villagers to clash, shed each other’s blood, burn each other’s crops, and kill one another’s livestock. The villagers then present whatever is left of their crops to the agents of the chiefs while they remain hungry and without adequate clothing and shelter. Amid this, the wise men with good intentions are preoccupied with the study to find methods of production and equitable distribution rather than working to establish an environment of peace and security, guidance and co-existence, and restrain from wasteful consumption!

Islam has prohibited any consumption that is not conducive to public livelihood or advancement of faith, intellect, and science. In some instances, such as drinking, gambling, facilities for acts of debauchery, hoarding old and silver dishes, unlawful pleasures, abject lust, and corrupting arts, Islam has issued explicit prohibitive injunctions. In other cases, there arc general prohibition pertaining to the production, importation, purchase and selling of commodities that are determined to be harmful and unnecessary.

From another standpoint, no other creed has encouraged and bolstered contributions and expenditures from one's possessions for public livelihood and charity and for the elevation of intellect and morality like Islam. Such charitable contributions by decree and as a duty are incumbent upon every Muslim.

“And in their wealth the beggar and the outcast had due share.” (51:19).

And even before individual responsibility, it is the Islamic government that is duty bound and responsible to supervise overall consumption and public trusteeship.

Military spending, which comprise the largest item in the backbreaking budget of societies, are restricted within Muslim societies on the basis of Islamic injunctions and regulations about wars. However, since wars are dependent on conditions and the general beliefs of people of the world and are, thus beyond Islamic jurisdiction and laws, limiting military expenditures and wars cannot be achieved except through international peace treaties. Islamic countries under today's conditions are not immune to violations by warmongers and aggressors; in fact, they are the center of events. Consequently, Muslims must not he heedless of the verse.

If someday people of the world, weary of wars, come to their senses, and either consciously or unconsciously understand the aims of Islamic wars (as stated in this verse below), and reach out in amity and harmony to one another, the Muslims, in accordance with their Islamic duty, will take the lead to coexistence:

9. In the Islamic territories and within their jurisdiction, laborers and wage earners are not the slaves of the capitalist class or subdued by the state. These groups are themselves free and are also free to work for their livelihood provided they work to the extent of their needs.

In industrial environments and factories of the West, which deal directly with workers and their difficulties, it was imagined that labour difficulties and disputes are due only to industrial development and expansion. Therefore, those who advocate improvements in workers conditions have sought such solutions as reduced working hours, increased wages, and secured rights for workers through insurance, unemployment benefits, health care and retirement benefits. These solutions are related only to such working environments and are limited to the conditions of the workers in the West.

The collectivists consider nationalization of industries and government ownership as the only solution to all individual, social and labour problems. In their view, nationalization is the only magical and healing medicine for all material, spiritual and moral ills. In reality however, neither the difficulties are due to factories nor does the solution lie in private, collective or state ownership. The root of all difficulties, complications and pressures brought upon the workers, and worker discontent is that profit maximization has become the goal and the growth and permeation of these goals have become a practice and policy. The monopoly of the means of production, hoarding of goods, and usury, originate from here.

Whether the person who hoards, or the monopolist and the usurer are individuals or groups or the government, the sinister and poisonous consequences of unbridled capitalism leads to deprivation of freedom and extraction and exhaustion of the physical and mental resources of the workers, wage earners, and others who belong to his class.

Islam withers the roots of this filthy habit with its deeply rooted spiritual teachings and through its explicit and firm injunctions and laws that bridle the greedy while securing freedom for workers and wage earners. In such an environment, capitalist strongholds cannot take root, let alone become formidable fortresses defying workers and wage earners. It is within the walls of monopolies, hoarding. Profiteering, and bankruptcies that workers are compelled to put their lives and energy at the disposal of capitalists who are backed by law and the government which allows them to drain the last breath of workers' lives and then discard them like scum without feeling a sense of responsibility.

Islam and its laws are far above allowing such foul thoughts and actions and brutality to have an opportunity to grow and expand, or to remain silent before the laws that sanction such practices. Under the Islamic law and injunctions, wage earners are free to act, as they want. They can earn wages under equal and fair conditions or share in the profits or in the capital. The employer - whether a private owner or the state - cannot unilaterally determine the amount of work and the workers share in the profits or wages. The injunctions pertaining to mudarabah (limited partnership between workers and the owner), muzara’ah (temporary sharecropping contract), musaqat (irrigation contract), ja’alah (standard predetermined rewards) and ijarah (lease or rent) in Islamic jurisprudence are based on this very freedom of actions and equality or rights9.

In Islamic jurisprudence financial contracts and the resulting profits and returns are based on the initial activity. Capital is the product of the initial activity that went into exploitation of natural resources. Profits are generated as a result of combining the primary and secondary activities while paying attention to differences in talents, which give rise to differences in the value of the activity. Since the original source of value and, hence, ownership emerge as the result of the initial activity and subsequent activities, later workers at subsequent stages cannot necessarily be the sole owners. Moreover, the means and tools of production do not receive a share in the profits.

Prom the Islamic point of view, the owner of capital is the one who owns the resource or that which is derived from it. Therefore, the persons who cultivate the land or exploit it are not agents of any other person. Also, the owner of seed, bulbs, and saplings own the fruit of the trees, and if he does not have a contract with the landlord or the owner of the tools, he is only obliged to pay them for the right of use; the farmers do not share in his profits. This principle also applies to industrial output. The primary (original) capital is no more than the primary resources.

The wage earner is the one who transforms this capital into other forms without being the owner. In the final analysis, everyone should receive benefits of his own labour and deserves to keep whatever he has obtained10.

One of the distinctions of the Islamic economic system is that it preserves the independence of financial acquisitions and provides for the growth of human dignity within the society. If we accept that the actual form of society does not take shape outside of the legal relationships among individuals and classes, combined with the individuals’ independence and dignity while observing the rights of others and the administration of collective rights and promoting fraternal relations meant to preserve the independence of the individual by the society and not vice versa, then we must also accept that because individuals possess two characters – individual and social -they have the freedom to possess the products of their works while at the same time accepting limits on their possessions and rewards in in the interest of the public. This, however, does not imply that the society possesses an independent legal character separate and distinct from the totality of individual rights.

Since the government must be representative of individuals and not of a particular class, and it must not possess characteristics distinct from those of the individuals, or have any duty but to preserve individual and collective rights, it has no right to limit or deprive the individual or group of his freedom or independence in the name of protecting the supreme interest of the government or the society.

Since the Islamic view of the individual, the society, and the government is not beyond what was elaborated above, it not only has allowed individuals to be independent and free to own the fruits of their activities subject to collective rights, but it also has considered freedom a necessary, inalienable and paramount right. Without securing this right, the people will not be happy or encouraged to cooperate with the society and express their talents even if every physical comfort and means of livelihood was provided.

Capitalism is based on the premise that individuals are free and independent, and it supports free (laissez faire) economy. But with the growth of a profit-seeking class, individual freedom and independence will ultimately be destroyed or tied to the interest of this class.

Since Marxism is based on the revolutionary ideology of a particular class, it is not devoid of class despotism. It denies individual freedom and independence. On this basis, the state acquires and independent legal status and becomes the representative of a special class. Inevitably the rights of other individuals and classes arc ignored and undermined.

Therefore, to absolve itself, Marxism alleges individual freedom, democracy and parliamentarism as being the ways and the means capitalism promote itself. To what extent this allegation is valid or otherwise – given the circumstances in various countries – is not discussed here. Rather, what should not be overlooked is that freedom and independence are the foremost human desires.

The experience of recent centuries and overall studies have established that progress in production and comfortable living will be better obtained if they are established alongside individual rights, without which a lasting and deep-rooted collectivism cannot prosper. This is because in an environment where freedom is curtailed and favorable conditions for the growth of the general public does not exist, the way is always open to a few opportunists and privilege seekers to dominate others.

To maintain their authority, they will lead the society in any direction they please and bend principles to fit their desires. There would be no spiritual hindrances, such as ethical integrity and piety, or social hindrances, which constitute the supervisory power of the people.

To complete this discussion, the concept of class, the reasons for the emergence of class privileges, and methods to prevent them should be discussed further and in greater depth. (See next chapter).

11. In the field of economics, as in spiritual relations and social attachments, Islam has fixed principles and evolving laws and injunctions. The fixed principles serve as the source and origin for the evolving injunctions ad as the base for public relations. The injunctions dealing newly emerging issues and problems must conform to the fixed principles and be in the interest of the public. On this basis, Islamic injunctions are both permanent (fixed) and evolving. A society that is governed by these principles and injunctions is not stagnant. Its past and present, old and new fabric will not be torn into shreds.

This subject has been explained in detail under Islamic jurisprudence. It is the subjugation and self-resignation of the Muslims before the foreigners and their puppet regimes that has immobilized the Muslims in every respect and, consequently, has paralyzed the economic system of Islam as well as that of other areas. The hegemony brought about by the class system and Western oriented capitalism in Islamic countries, along with the stagnation and a halt to Islamic jurisprudence, has created in some a misunderstanding that Islam supports the capitalist system.

In Islamic jurisprudence, which is the source and guarantor of Islamic laws and injunctions, no general or specific injunctions can be found that is in the interest of special individuals or classes and detrimental to others. If in some instances and legal issues, there appears to be a trace of capitalism, it is due to the influence of the milieu. The principles of Islamic jurisprudence and injunctions - with their creative potentials and unparalleled and important functions – express, demarcate, and determine the rights, limits, and relations within the standards of truth, justice and fair play.

It is incumbent upon the ulama and mujtahids to discern and deduce Islamic rights and limits, because their thoughts stem from the verses of the Qur’an, sound traditions, practices of the awliya’ (infallible guardians) and clear and open mind. The notable and salient features of the principles of Islam are what those who practice ijtihad and deductive reasoning must employ to delineate derivative injunctions and compose answers to newly emerging issues.

They have no right to deviate from the principles, or violate – even lightly – any of these sound principles. The bases for the legal injunctions and economic relations in Islam are the verses of the Qur’an and traditions that abound with calls for administration of justice, truth and qist (equity). The call to establish equity – which means a just portion, share or receipt), has been repeated in more that twenty-five verses of the Qur’an, including the following:

A command or call to establish concepts and meaning synonymous with qist (equitable distribution and giving due rights) and not ignore giving an individual or a group his/its due rights was also mentioned at other times in various verses of the Qur'an. Among them are verses prohibiting bakhs (to ignore and infringe upon irreplaceable rights):

Using the content, syntax, and words of these Qur'anic verses and others like them referred to earlier in this discussion, Islamic scholars and mujtahids have been able to set forth the legal problems encountered and economic relations in the form of specific and clear injunctions. In regard to problems and issues that arise, they must express opinion and fill the vacuum and discover the meanings on the basis of these principles.

Therefore, the duty of a Muslim scholar and thinker is indeed to discover and to adapt. Other economic schools and legal principles are in the process of formation and experimentation and, therefore, do not shed a far-reaching and well encompassing light on new problems and minute details. Unlike Islamic principles, the new principles do not rest on a strong foundation on which to build upon.

12. According to what has been said, Islamic economics is based on the principles of truth and justice, and does not rest on the interest of a special group or class. From the Islamic point of view, the emergence of class privileges is not an inevitable, essential carnal feature or an irremediable social necessity. It is the outcome of the deviation - of individuals and the society - from the principles of truth, justice, and the notion of transgression and as a result of colonialism and oppression, which is taking root. The form of society reflects on the relationships between individuals as manifested in the thoughts, minds, and morals of the people. Any change in the thoughts and souls of individuals will be reflected in social relations and the form of the society.

In the course of history and in different contexts - in both large and small forms - we have observed the emergence of integrated and classless societies providing a definite testimony that the emergence of classes is not a historical necessity. That groups resort to truth and justice in confronting others and consider their own views to be the right one is clear proof that right and justice are real.

What is relative and variable are the context and adaptations. If we regard truth and justice to be merely relative, then we must not consider the excruciating whips of the slave masters and the sharp swords of the landlords upon the bodies of the slaves and peasants as unacceptable and cruel. On the contrary we ought to consider slaves and peasants worthy of torment and stop complaining about the capitalists and colonialists and stop lamenting and whimpering.

Would it be correct to conceive of justice and truth, and the all-comprehensive and general desire of man, to be the result of class war? Can wars and class differences that are the bases of transgression and oppression ultimately become a source of justice and blessing? If the infrastructure is always war and contradictions, how is it conceivable that someday the suprastructure will emerge as peace and coexistence?

According to Islam, the real infrastructure – comprising man and the human spirit – is built on the human desires. To transform the human spirit, it is necessary that faith in justice and truth be recognized and strengthened. It is with such transformation that the foundation and features of the society change13. People become subject to the existing environment and its constraints only when they themselves have been transformed into involuntary instruments.

A careful look at, and an examination of, the totality of Islamic injunctions and laws would reveal to any clear-sighted person that these injunctions are not based on, or derived from, class environment, or favor one class at the expense of another. They are based on the principles of truth and justice, and the corrupt state of feudalism or capitalism and slavery has not had an influence on the formulation of these injunctions. This in itself is a dismissal of the notion of creative power and mastery of class structure and its undisputed impact upon the formation of societies, intellect and governments. Understanding this fact, however, is very difficult for those who themselves have been the product of a class-ridden society.

In the next chapter, the reasons for the emergence of class privileges, slavery, and slave trade will be discussed. We will also look at the maintenance and trading of slaves and the remedy sought by Islam to eliminate slavery.

13. Before explaining the injunctions and regulations concerning the financial relationships and ownership, the Qur'an directs the thoughts and beliefs of the monotheistic individual to the original basis and source of all rights and ownership of the manifestation and forces of nature. The belief that all beings arc the creation and property of the Source, Creator, and Lord of the Universe is the origin of faith in (divine) unity (tawhid). Here are some references in the Qur’an:

God has created and endowed man with reason and possessions that he can employ his senses, his mind, and his limbs to uncover the secrets and characteristics of creatures so as to make effective use of them. Accordingly the Qur’an has portrayed this powerful thinking phenomenon above all other entities as “the caliph”.

This monotheistic orientation, on the one hand, and the vicegerency of man on the other, make the “caliph” so responsible, and set forth the duties of the caliphate, that man can neither exceed his limits nor can he be remiss in his critical responsibilities.

Although he is free, independent and able to make choices, because of his position the caliph is constrained to enforce the will and attain the objectives of the Sovereign Lord of Creation. For a caliph who must discover the secrets and fruits of creation by his penetrating intellect and power to possess, which have been given to him, who must reshape the resources for forces of nature into forms that are fully realigned and useful, and who must extract and deploy the benefits in accordance with the will of the One who has given life to all beings and handed down these injunctions and laws; these injunctions and limitations define public rights in matters pertaining to the caliphate. To violate these restrictions is to violate the caliphate and to betray the munificent Lord.

Every Muslim monotheist, therefore, has an obligation to enforce the will and the commands of that true owner of all things, being himself His property, caliph and deputy. This obligation supersedes his responsibility to keep the faith, to respect and preserve the rights of others, to maintain public security and to enforce the injunctions.

14. A monotheistic person, who regards himself as a representative or the owner of all things and the implementer of his commands, and who does not regard himself as being fully empowered in the act or taking possession, cannot have an independent view of the Creator’s property and estate. In light of this, wealth and possessions are nothing more than a means of attaining humanitarian aims and objectives and for elevating the stature of man.

The idea that wealth is an end itself in economic relations or something to be used as a means for satisfying passions and in the realization of depraved animalistic aspirations arises out of human intellectual deviation, short-sightedness and perversion. This deviation of thought and outlook is the most potent cause which leads classes and societies to follow individuals, and like tem, to seek to amass wealth in any way possible and to exploit human beings for production, profit-making and accumulation of wealth.

It sanctions all forms of oppression and aggression, and thereby blocks the way to a universal growth and equitable production and distribution15. Because of their implications on all aspects of the spiritual and material life of mankind, these two types of outlooks - one viewing wealth as an end, the other viewing it as a means - have been matters of special concern for all prophets and visionary reformers, and especially for those who follow the teachings and injunctions of Islam. The endeavors or our sainted leaders to bring about such intellectual transformation and broadened vision must not be seen merely as spiritual and ethical advice for individuals; they must be seen rather in terms of the changes and admirable effects they have brought to all aspects of human affairs16.

Those who look at such teachings superficially and regard them as individual responsibilities meant to be applied for mosques and temples, do not see, or do not wish to see, the fact that society is nothing more than an aggregation of individuals, and that the spiritual and moral qualities of individuals are what determine or change the goals of a society, and lead the population towards or away from good or evil.

Economic relations between individuals and between the individual and the society are like the relationships between the organs and members of the body and with the body as a whole. Each organ of the body takes in food and converts it into some other substance, and after consuming or storing it, passes the remainder on to the body at large for the other members. The production, distribution, absorption, and expulsion of nourishment are not the final objectives of the bodies of living beings.

The ultimate aim, after protection and growth, is the preservation of the species. This is accomplished in plants by means of fruits and seeds, and in animals through procreation. Human beings do not stop at this. All physical production and distribution activities are transferred to the powers of the intellect and the ability to discover and create. Because of this, human talents and gifts become manifest and increase.

The production and distribution of natural resources in the body of the society as a whole must not exceed its natural and observed limits, in order that everyone, in accordance with his intellectual and physical abilities, may partake as needed of nature's resources, convert them to food or other commodities, or make them available to the public so that each person can take what he needs.

Every member of the society, through continuous cooperation with other members, can carry out this vital responsibility; in this way the channels of access will be opened to the good things of nature and everyone will benefit. The final consequence of all these toils and efforts will be first of all, improved health for the individual and the society, and then a strengthening of the foundation of intellect and morality, in order that people can stand up aided by the powers and lose their need for the earth’s cradle, and be prepared for a great ascent to paradise.

With the sort of perspective and the habit of thinking in terms of the afterlife - in which humanity regards wealth in the economic relations of ‘the world’ as a means and a preliminary process - man can arrange his life for the purpose of achieving higher aims.

Since the watchwords of this perspective have a salutary effect on the ordering of life, in promoting the concept of taking just enough of what is needed from the endowments of nature for the purpose of achieving higher aims, and on economic relations, a great many of the verses of the Qur'an and the sayings of the great leaders seek to guide thinking toward this truth.

In the Surah of “the Cave”, after explaining idea such as this through a parable about two people and their fate, the Qur'an presents the reality of this world as follows:

In the following verses the Qur'an declares that adopting a depraved life and setting one’s sights on it carries with it seed of rebellion, a place in hell, and it causes heedlessness:

The commander of the faithful ‘Ali, peace be upon him, has discussed the world and its wealth at various times and in various ways: he has compared them with each other in the hope of opening the eyes of those who accumulate and search for wealth and make it their goal. His Holiness compared the nature of wealth with that of knowledge and reason in various short sayings, in the hope that these short sayings would circulate among people, be remembered, and open the eyes of the greedy.

‘Your wellbeing does not lie in your having enormous wealth and numerous children, but it rests on your being highly educated and forbearing’18.

‘…knowledge protects you, and you have to protect wealth’19.

‘Wealth decreases if you keep on spending it and knowledge increases the more you make use of it.’20

‘Knowledge is the ruler and wealth is its subject.’21

‘Those who amass wealth, though alive, yet are dead to the realities of life, and those who gather knowledge will remain alive.’22

‘What you get through wealth disappears as soon as wealth disappears.’23

‘There is no greater wealth than wisdom, no greater poverty than ignorance and no heritage greater than culture.’24

‘No wealth has more utility than intelligence and wisdom ...(and) no deal is more profitable than good deeds.’25

These are samples of the views of the infallible leaders of Islam on wealth and its relations, handed down in the hope that they will open the eye of humans and be used to awaken and employ human talents and endowments, and prevent these precious endowments from being used in the acquisition of property and wealth.

These fourteen principles, which (in my view) constitute the characteristics of ownership under the economic injunctions of Islam, summarize part of the issues and discussions, which have been raised previously in this book. The implications and applicable details - documented and otherwise – are not discussed. Therefore, an Islamic ruler, as such must be competent to exercise independent reasoning on religious matters or be guided by his contemporaries who have such competence, and he must have these responsibilities. The first is to implement all documented injunctions: the second is to make inferences and apply them to existing conditions.

In his executive capacity, just as he controls public resources, supervises production and distribution, and manages public and governmental revenues, he also is charged with securing the lives of individuals. In this sense, the right of the government takes precedence over individual rights.

The perfect model of Islamic society and government, with respect to relations among Muslims and between Muslims and the government, takes the form of the one that emerged at the dawn of Islam following the migration of the exalted Prophet and the Muslims to Medina. In order that this congregation is never forgotten, the city of Yathrib was named Madinat ur-Rasul (The City of the Prophet). In this model city, some of the private wealth of the Ansar was turned over to the Muhajirun, and wealth was controlled by the government, with the exception of small amounts of private wealth and special allotments of the spoils taken in the crusades.

Wealth was divided equally and according to need among all the people. There was no distinction between individuals, and no distinction between the ruler and the subjects except in matters of state administration. There was no visible difference between them in attire or housing. Everyone considered himself a responsible participant in public affairs, and, as noted previously, this superb model of collective effort and sharing was largely preserved until the time of the caliphs.

Later on, the Islamic world took on a capitalist hue, and it deviated from the principles of that initial model. This coloration even had an effect on the judgment of the jurists in such a way that in some of their legal writings - which are not clearly documented and well connected - there are clear indications of environmental influences. There are examples to be found that illustrate those malpractices, which must be studied separately. Under the circumstances in which he finds himself, the author of this volume has neither an orderly mind, nor a good memory. Moreover, he lacks access to the necessary books and documents.

Since I lack the capability and strength to do more. I must confess that the content of this work has not been presented in a systematic, organized or complete fashion. What is being submitted for the consideration of the thoughtful reader in the way of documents, sources, and conclusions may be viewed, to a certain extent, as the clear path of Islam with respect to the principles and relationships of ownership. It is hoped that researchers and thinkers who are blessed with freedom, peace of mind, and access to documents will correct the errors and supply what is missing.

Since social researchers and economic theorists of this age largely regard class distinction and slavery to be products of the nature of ownership and financial relationships, it appears that a complete consideration of these two issues also requires a discussion of the Islamic point of view.

• 1. After the communist revolution in the Soviet Union, several views at various centers have since been expressed regarding the ownership status of small farmers. In some instances, limited ownership has been allowed whereas in others freedom of ownership has been curtailed.
  The following news item was reported on the Day16, 1343 (January 6, 1964) issue of the (Iranian) daily Ettela’at:

  Moscow – Pett Shelest, the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine has written an article in Pravda vigorously defending private production of agricultural products. He writes that many restrictions that have been imposed on the private production of agricultural commodities in recent years must be lifted. The Communist Party of Ukraine, he adds, is ready to assist farmers who are willing to produce selected agricultural products. The Central Committee of the Communist Party and the provincial government of Ukraine have adopted policies concerning private ownership rights so that more rights would be assigned to the kalkhuz, the workers, and the farmers. Moreover, the Central Communist Party of Ukraine is willing to assist those farmers who would like to raise cattle.

  In 1921, Lenin had also agreed to a re-establishment of small property ownership.
  [Note: The article to which the author refers in this passage could not be verified as cited. It is possible that the correct date has been misprinted in the Persian text. – tr]

• 2. For example, different organs in the body perform separate tasks while connected with the whole body, yet through the spinal cord they are all connected with the brain. Thought and intellect affect them in some ways, and any change in one organ also affect others.
• 3. In the decree of the commander of the faithful (Imam ‘Ali), peace be upon him, to the governor of Egypt, Malik al-Ashtar, referred to earlier, useful functions which the merchants and craftsmen perform in production and distribution have been mentioned and the utility of the work acknowledged.
• 4. In accordance with this principle, a person renting a house is not permitted to sublease it at a higher rental price unless he has introduced additional alterations on the property. Similarly, a person who has accepted a contract to perform a function under mudharabah in exchange for a share in the profit, is not permitted to entrust the job to someone else and reap a profit for a task he has not performed. As explained earlier, usury was prohibited for this very same reason. These injunctions are accepted by all, some, or most of the Muslim jurists.
• 5. Since capital is the starting point and the catalyst for other activities, and subsequent transformations are performed on the initial input, the right of ownership must be preserved throughout all stages. It is a source of benefit. The means and equipment that are later utilised to change and alter the initial capital and the labour employed to achieve this transformation are utilised to complement and further benefit from the initial capital. Therefore, labourers have no right beyond the amount of depreciation and their wages. Thus, the workers do not share in the profits on the initial capital.
• 6. Just as habits, attributes, and physical indispositions - some of which are acquired - are generally transferred to the next generation and taken together as an important factor in the evolution of living beings, the material products of activity and effort too are the natural right of the next generation which is the recipient of these habits and attributes. Indeed, the heir is a new manifestation of the past and - as said before - attachments and sentiments are themselves effective stimuli to efforts and activities. Therefore, inheritance is the natural and preferred right of the heir. Indeed, the heir is a real partner in the inheritance. It should be noted, however, that only the estate that is the result of fully lawful activities of the bequether will be subject to inheritance. It is a fact that in addition to prescribed legal and trade injunctions in verses dealing with inheritance, many times the following verse (with a difference in pronoun) has been repeated:

  “ ….., after any legacy they may have bequeathed, or debt (they may have contracted, hath been paid)…..” (4:12).

  Therefore, before distribution of the estate, all the rights, whether mentioned in the will or not, must be accounted for and the estate purified. On the issue of inheritance these two verses should not be overlooked:

  “Give not unto the foolish (what is in) your (keeping of their) wealth, which Allah hath given you to maintain; but feed and clothe them from it, and speak kindly unto them.” (4:5).

  “Prove orphans till they reach the marriageable age; then, if ye find them of sound judgment, deliver over unto them their fortune; ……” (4:6).

  As the discussion in the verse centers on the acquisition of financial rights, what is meant by “foolish” and “sound judgment” has to do with financial possessions. That is, wealth due to those who are mentally incapable of making productive use and lack the wisdom to spend it legally, belongs to the public and stays under the control of the Islamic ruler. The implicit argument for “wealth which Allah hath given you to maintain” was presented earlier. It is inferred from the verse that wealth, depending upon the social conditions, belongs to the society and is to be spent for social development and that the individual’s rights are secondary and incidental.

  Therefore, the inheritance of those who are not mentally capable of holding possessions - and lack clear-sightedness to spend the wealth legally - will become public possession and will be taken over by the Islamic ruler in accordance with “…. What is in your keeping…”. Once the heir has attained proper maturity his wealth will be returned to him (“……which they have earned….”).

• 7. We do not refer to the imitators or self-resigned who have no opinion or thoughts of their own, and express views in order to gain women’s support or have other motives. Specific injunctions dealing with inheritance of women - similar to other legal rulings on the rights of women - have no bearing on the position and respect for women and do not degrade the position and status befitting a woman or her dignity. Also, a Muslim should at least obey the Divine Legislator who encompasses all the best to the extent of obeying temporal laws or following the advice of a physician.

  Muslims should resort to means other than reasoning and logic only when it is necessary to prevent the rebelliousness of those who have gathered in an Islamic society and, in the name of Islam, neither obey the Divine law nor follow a course that is in the interest of the society.

• 8. Referring to production facilities set up to produce wasteful goods that brings no benefits to the society [Note of Al-Islam].
• 9. Mudharabah: It is a contract between the agent/worker and the investor. Both sides share the profits by mutual consent, and the investor bears the losses. If the agent/worker agrees to receive a specified amount of profit, he is entitled only to that amount. If the investor abrogates the contract the agent has the right to claim wages. If a dispute arises regarding the amount of the capital or the profit of the agent/worker, the claims receive priority

  Muzara’ah: It is the contract between the owner of a piece of land and the agent/workers. The landlord should provide irrigation, fertilizers and other means as well as the seed (according to the preferred opinion).

  Musaqat: It is similar to muzara’ah. The agent in such a contract, shares in the profit.

  Ja’alah: It is a unilateral contract (or proclamation) which promises to reward the person who performs an activity, with no time limit specified. For example, one might declare that anyone who digs a well or clears the rocks off a parcel of land will be entitled to a certain amount in return or will share in the profits.

  Ijarah-ye-Shakhs: It is a covenant to perform an activity or to implement an exercise within a certain period of time.

  In none of these contracts does the agent have the right to sublease his contract to others at a higher return than that already agreed upon (with the first party) that would enable him to earn a profit for a task he does not perform (himself). The Islamic jurisprudence regulates the implementation of these contracts and the resulting profits. The original source of capital is the primary work performed on the natural resources. Since ownership originates with the initial work, as long as the original owner continues the effort and does not relinquish it, the right of ownership remains effective. The succeeding agent/worker are neither entitled to wages nor share in the profits. Because the means and instruments of work are the tools of human activities and do not directly share in the initial profit, their owner can either receive wages or may be allowed a share of the profits.

  If the right of the original agent/worker has somehow ceased, the succeeding agent/workers become the owners of the commodity or share in the profits to the extent of their activities. According to Islam, in all these transactions and contracts, the profit that has been obtained is the result of a combination of labour and capital. If we accept that the capital presently being used is the result of work embedded in the primary resources and the right of the previous agent/worker is preserved, then we must agree that the accruing profit is the result of past and present activities. Therefore, if capital were stagnant and incapable of being combined with work, it would have no use from the Islamic viewpoint, such as riba’.

  Thus, in mudharabah, for instance, if the fixed profit is contemplated, it would not be legal because it would transform the form of the contract to usury. The economic difference between usury and other forms of transactions and exchanges is that in usury a profit is drawn from an immobile and stagnant capital. In leases involving properties and standing structures, although profit is received from fixed capital resembling usury, they involve depreciation. The collected rent is legal. In usury, however, the capital is neither immobile nor does it depreciate. The usurer, in any case, receives interest and the amount of capital remains fixed.

  In conclusion, according to Islamic principles, keeping capital idle is illegal, but capitalism restricted to certain activities and governed by Islamic injunctions is not. This form of capitalism does not have the power to deprive workers of their freedom, unlike ordinary capitalism with the likes of the law of demand and supply and laissez fair economy.

  In addition to the rules and injunctions governing transactions and the requirement to avoid direct and indirect losses (according to the principle of la zarar), which is applicable to everyone, the government has the authority to intervene, supervise and act, or it can assign prices to commodities that are considered as necessities to prevent them from becoming subject of profiteering by the greedy.

  The public guardianship of the Islamic ruler necessitates that the previous workers receive satisfactory and legal wages. If their wages and profits during the period of employment were not enough, or if they could no longer work, their livelihood – to the extent of their needs –would be provided for from the general revenues.

• 10. The commander of the faithful Imam ‘Ali, peace be upon him, speaking of crusades in the path of God and booty taken in war has said: “If you (a certain Abd Allah ibn Zam’a, who requested a share of the public treasury) have not participated in Islamic wars and other affairs, you should know that one gains only what he earns.” This statement is clear testimony that a person has a right to gain from his labour.
• 11. If a person supposes that these emphatic commands regarding the establishment and administration of qist are mere advice and sermons, he has not understood the meaning and intention of these verses. The tone, different interpretations and emphases of these verses are testimony that a legal ruling had been intended. The injunctions and laws where matters (issues) have been identified must be codified on the basis of these commands. The Islamic guardian/ruler is the guarantor of qist and bakhs. The commander of the faithful, peace be upon him, in sermon 127 of Nahjul Balaghah says: In his distribution of wealth, he should not lean toward a group and deprive another group of their rights and shares”
  (Note: The author’s citation of Sermon 127 could not be verified either in the Arabic or the Persian version of the Nahjul Balaghah. The nearest one can get to the meaning intended by Taleqani is given in Sermon 134: “Nor must he fear nations, so that he seeks the friendship of some and treats others with enmity.” The translation provided here is based on the author’s interpretation. – tr)
• 12. Interpreted differently the same fact has been repeated in surah al- Anfal:

  “That is because Allah never changeth the grace He hath bestowed on any people until they first change that which is in their hearts…” (8:53)

• 13. Through a redirection of the souls of man, Islam was able to change the nature and relations of the society. It presented a perfect model of justice and well-defined rights to the people in an environment of plunder, restricted trade, and oppressive rules by domineering aristocrats, the Arab chiefs, and kings. It was able to apply this model to different environments.

  With the sudden industrial transformation of Europe in the Middle Ages, people were subdued and their talents and energies were frozen in the factory atmosphere. Then they were subjected to fate and an environment which reduced them to involuntary instruments. The same people revolted as soon as they felt a breeze of freedom. To some observers and to those seeking solutions, this unique feature of the industrial West became a yardstick for measuring past history and offered the only solution for the future.

• 14. The verses pertaining to God’s sovereignty in matters of ownership, the caliphate of man, and the subordination of all creatures to Him were cited previously in an earlier chapter.
• 15. Since the time man came to regard wealth as a means of acquiring power and security, and as its power to subjugate souls has increased with the growth of its influence, there have always been clear-sighted men of goodwill who have tried to counteract against this situation with teaching and training, and sometimes, through the imposition of laws. They have tried to enlighten the minds of man and to open the eyes of the people to enable them to see property and wealth as a means to an end.

  The teachings of the prophets in elevating and enlightening the minds and in destroying the idol of wealth - as they destroyed the idols of old, which were themselves actually manifestations of the worship of wealth - has had a stabilizing effect on the thinking of mankind. For this reason, before the Industrial Revolution, although the problems related to production and distribution of wealth were always part of the relationships of life, they were not considered the only ones or the most important ones.

  After the Industrial Revolution, the monstrous idol of industrial production reared its head and steadily loomed larger and larger. It summoned nations, states, landlords, peasants, employers and workers into its presence and made them bow down before it, and brought with it the most important and complex difficulties in the life of mankind. The emergence of industrial development in the West coincided with the decline in the intellectual influence of religious institutions and a growing public fear of their teachings. The principles of the teachings of the prophets were buried behind a facade of empty religious rituals, which were part superstition and part oppression, and which served to support oppressors and retard the development of reason and knowledge.

  What little remained of them lacked the appeal necessary to keep the common people in control of themselves on a plane above the level of the concerns of wealth and passion. The more the inner appeal of religious teachings and faith in their principles weakened, and the more the influence of the idol of the modern age - with its wealth and its marvels – expanded, the more influential were its governments and authorities over the thoughts and will of the people.

  Ultimately, the unspoken motto of a public obsessed with the worship of industry and wealth came to be: “let expenditures of all intellectual and physical talents and capabilities of humanity be dedicated to the cause of industry and increase of wealth.” Since the end result of a preoccupation with wealth and property and sacrifice of all humanity has at its disposal is the intellectual perversion of man - like other forms of idolatory - it leads to deviation and destruction, and runs counter to nature and the straight path. This form of slavery inherently leads to animosity and class conflict. The natural response to this is the emergence of revolutionary ideologies and hostility.

  The tyrant of capitalism maintains that everything, from science, industry and war, to peace, government, society and ethics exist to increase wealth. The progressive socialists say that all these things are derived from some form of wealth. It is no exaggeration to say that both camps regard wealth as object of worship and creator: they both express agreement on this principle, only in different terms.

  In this sense, the differences between the two points of view are incidental: they revolve around the ways to increase production and to allocate and distribute goods. Since the root of the problem – that is idolization of wealth and production – is common and is firmly entrenched in both points of view, this spiritual and intellectual problem cannot be solved using plans and conceptualization of these schools of thought. In practice every problem they solve will generate new ones. Ultimately, being unable to find a practical solution for the problems they create, they relegate the final solution to history, taking refuge in their imaginary flight from the realities of life, deceiving themselves with hopes for the future.

  Although the solution to the problem, as noted earlier, comes from humanity itself, such solutions are both difficult and simple. They are difficult because the power of guidance and leadership is in the hands of people who are themselves ruled by wealth and the passions arising from it: it is not easy to push them aside and liberate people from their spell. But they are at the same time simple because the instinct, unfettered reason, and the teachings of the prophets, especially in the East, support and cultivate the idea that man is too lofty and precious to be ruled and owned by wealth and to make it his objective.

  If a group of such people is assembled - and is provided with even minimal guidance and leadership, by people who are free and endowed with high aspirations - it will attract the subjugated and weary people of the world who are fed up with the worship of wealth and the contradictory views of its idolatrous spokesmen, and the wars that it produces. Examples of such guidance, and the societies it produced, have always existed in the world. They can be seen even today in the East, which is the cradle of spiritual teachings.

  The economic slogan of this type of society ought to be “let production and its growth and wealth and its manifestations be used to promote tranquillity, and to foster, train and realize the potentials of man.” On the same basis, distribution is regulated with the power of the government, and its responsibility belongs to all the people. This practical procedure can destroy the monstrous, ubiquitous idol of the age of industry and science and lift the blinding darkness it has created.

  The command to spend money “for the sake of God”, which appears throughout the Qur’an and is one of the first conditions of faith and duties of a Muslim, is intended to bring about this change of orientation and to promote an awareness that production and distribution must be carried out in the interest of public wellbeing.

  “Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them” (2:3).

  The broad and true meaning is that wealth and its growth are universal goals, both for individuals and for the state. It is either a misapprehension or a disregard of reality to think that if the growth in wealth is not a goal, production will decrease or public wellbeing will not increase. Achieving the highest possible level of economic output, when that is the primary objective, necessarily involves ignoring the individual and his talents. Talents thus do not develop independently as they should, and are not employed freely. Consequently, production, which is the result of work and initiative, does not take root.

  Conversely, if the goals are set higher than the level of production itself, barriers to the independent development of talents are removed and motivations are stronger. Although this condition is achieved slowly and over a long period of time, its roots are deeper and its material and spiritual rewards will continue to increase. The reason for not making the growth of wealth and assets as the goals, is to instead replace it with the perfection of man and his elevation to the next life as his main goals. These and other such objectives are not easily comprehended by the ordinary people under the present world conditions; the point is that property must come to be regarded as means and not an end. It must first become a means of satisfying needs and maintaining life, and an impetus to motivation and awakening. To paraphrase the Qur’an:

  “ …… your (keeping of their) wealth, which Allah hath given you to maintain …..” (4:5).

  The wealth must flow easily through the veins of the society so that each member can share in it and benefit from it in accordance with his needs and capabilities. Then it must become a means of employing talents, and finally, a means of elevating reason, intellect, and thought.

• 16. The criticism of this world and admiration of the next world by religious people – in the widest sense of these two terms – are intended to broaden the vision and elevate the aspirations of humanity to a level of perception beyond the domain of the animals. The profound impact of such an internal revolution in ordering and instilling the principles of happiness cannot be ignored.
• 17. A cradle cannot be regarded as a lifelong dwelling place of a child. The function of this temporary phase of life is to enable the child’s body and organs to become strong so that he can stand on his own feet. The Qur’an called the Earth a cradle to point out to its inhabitants that the purpose of life here is to strengthen their intellectual and moral powers so that they can be free of the Earth and depart from it.

  “Lo! the Day of Decision is a fixed time,” (78:17).

• 18. Nahjul Balaghah, #94, p 282.
• 19. Nahjul Balaghah, #146, p 289.
• 20. Nahjul Balaghah, #146, p 289.
• 21. Nahjul Balaghah, #146, p 289.
• 22. Nahjul Balaghah, #146, p 289.
• 23. Nahjul Balaghah, #146, p 289.
• 24. Nahjul Balaghah, #54, p 278.
• 25. Nahjul Balaghah, #112, p 284.