I) Saving
The Qur’ān makes a significant departure from the
common economic wisdom by completely ignoring any positive mention of saving
as an act of virtue. Not only that, it goes further in emphasising the
significance of infāq (spending to earn the pleasure of Allah) as one of the
most significant acts of piety. A Muslim scholar has, after quoting a few
verses of the Qur’ān urging the believer to spend in the way of Allah,
rightly concluded that ‘the real spirit [of these verses] is that wealth is
not meant for saving and accumulating but for spending...’ (Sioharvi 1984,
53). Saving, in fact, is penalised by a levy of compulsory zakāh
(involuntary infāq) every year. In short Islam encourages the believer to
spend and discourages them from saving.
It needs to be clarified, however, that extravagant
spending on personal consumption is strongly condemned by the Qur’ān.
Qur’ānic encouragement for spending should, therefore, be understood within
that context as meaning only a believer’s spending on justifiable personal
needs, needs of others -- whether close relatives,
friends, neighbours, or the needy belonging to none of these categories --
and the important national needs of defence, public welfare, or projects of
economic development.
The most forceful condemnation of saving despite the
existence of genuine avenues of infāq is offered in the Qur’ān thus:
To those who accumulate gold and silver, and do not
spend in the way of Allah, announce the news of painful punishment. On the
day when heat will be produced out of that (wealth) in the fire of Hell, and
with it will be branded their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs (and
it will be said): ‘This is the (treasure) which you stored up for
yourselves, so now taste of what you had stored’ (the Qur’ān, 9:34-5).
Not all Muslims, however, believe that the
above-mentioned verse and others carrying similar messages are condemning
unnecessary accumulation of wealth. It is reported that when Ibn ‘Umar (raa),
the companion of the Prophet (sws), was asked about the meaning of the
verse, he said that it referred to a person who accumulates wealth without
paying zakāh on it. According to him the verse was revealed before payment
of zakāh was made compulsory. After the introduction of zakāh, wealth in
possession of an individual is purified even if he accumulates it (Bukhāri,
Vol. 1, 651). Ibn ‘Umar (raa) is also reported to have said that after an
individual pays zakāh, he cannot be blamed even if he keeps his wealth deep
down in the soil. The same is the view of Jābir and Qurtubi, the
interpretors of the Qur’ān (Qurtubi 1952, Vol. 8, 125).
The above view, however, does not seem to be
consistent with the teachings of the Qur’ān. The message these verses are
conveying clearly suggests that wealth is not meant to be accumulated, but
to be spent in Allah’s way. By the expression ‘in the way of Allah’ the
verses mean all those avenues of spending mentioned clearly in the Qur’ān
and Hadīth or any other areas of expenditure falling within the ambit of
those avenues directly or indirectly. The words of the Qur’ān are not
condemning those who do not pay zakāh. Instead, those who accumulate wealth
and do not spend in Allah’s way have been made the target of the
pronouncement of punishment. Spending in the way of Allah is distinct from
payment of zakāh. Allah demands two things from a wealthy believer. First,
that he should pay zakāh due on his wealth and, second, that instead of
accumulating wealth, he should spend it in the way of Allah. The first
demand is legal and an Islamic state has a right to take this by force, if
it deems it necessary, from every citizen. As for the second demand,
although it cannot be forced upon an individual and is left at the
discretion of the owner of wealth, an individual’s real status in the eyes
of Allah is primarily dependent on it. If despite holding vast wealth a
person ignores the plight of the orphans, the destitute, and the poor of his
neighbourhood or overlooks all genuine demands on his wealth for promotion
of the message of Islam, he will not be able to escape stern accountability,
even if he has discharged the legal obligation of paying zakāh. The same
chapter (sūrah) in which the relevant verse appears later mentions the
attitude of the hypocrites who used to consider spending in the way of Allah
a burden on them.
the Qur’ān points out that this love of wealth is an indication of their
hypocrisy and condemns them in strong words. Obviously that condemnation is
not attributable to their inability to pay zakāh. They used to pay zakāh,
even if reluctantly, anyway. Had they refused, they would have been forced
to do so. Their real crime was that despite being wealthy, they were not
inclined to spend on avenues genuinely deserving infāq from the believer.
Such an attitude, in some cases, is a clear indication of hypocrisy (nifāq)
(Islāhi, Amīn Ahsan).
Some modern Muslim writers, however, insist that
saving is to be encouraged in an Islamic society. For instance, one of them
states that saving in an Islamic society should be regarded as positive
behaviour because the Qur’ān ‘emphasises that the desire to save is a part
of human nature’ (Qureshi, D.M.). In order to prove his point, the author
has quoted a few verses of the Qur’ān, one of which can be translated thus:
Fair has been made in the eyes of men the love of
things they covet: women and sons; heaped-up hoards of gold and silver;
horses branded and cattle and well-tilled land. Such are the possessions of
this world’s life. But in nearness to Allah is the best of the goals (to
return to) (the Qur’ān, 3:14).
The reason why some of the writers have erroneously
concluded from such verses a message very different from what they seek to
convey is that the style adopted in these verses has not been properly
appreciated. The Arabic word used in such verses -- al-nās (or sing. al-insān),
generally translated as men (or man) -- draws some of those readers not
properly aware of Qur’ānic styles of presentation to conclude that what is
being conveyed in these verses is some commonly observable aspect of human
nature. However, although the words al-nās and al-insān are general, their
connotation in the context of many of the Qur’ānic verses is a certain
category of people who are devoid of wisdom and godliness and are,
therefore, drawn into the worldly temptations in a way that they are unable
to appreciate the spiritually higher values presented to them by the Qur’ān
(Islāhī, Amīn A.). In other words, the mention of love for heaped-up hoards
of gold and silver is not meant to convey the message that love of them (and
saving them) is a part of human nature and therefore commendable; we have
seen above that the Qur’ān condemns those who accumulate gold and silver. On
the contrary, love of these worldly possessions has been condemned as a
human weakness worthy of being discarded. After all, if all Qur’ānic verses
using the words al-nās and al-insān were to be interpreted to convey the
meaning of some legitimate aspect of human nature, what aspect of that
nature are the following verses referring to? ‘Nay, but man (al-insān) does
transgress all bounds’ (the Qur’ān, 96:6). ‘Truly man (al-insān) is, to his
Lord, ungrateful’ (the Qur’ān, 100:6). ‘Verily man (al-insān) is in loss’
(the Qur’ān, 103:2).
It has been claimed that ‘Muslim economists, [sic]
agree that savings are a necessary, though not sufficient[,] condition for
more growth and development’ (Chachi). Chapra believes that savings should
be positively encouraged in an Islamic society and that it would be
desirable to inculcate saving and banking habits among the masses. Al-Naggar
has expressed his conviction that the basis of dynamic economic growth is an
increased volume of saving.
However, the very appeal for saving in the modern
society is contrary to the real spirit of the Qur’ān. The basic theme of
these appeals is security against unforeseen financial hazards of the
future. The Qur’ān declares that the advice of refraining from spending in
the way of Allah is from Satan ‘who scares you from poverty...’ (the Qur’ān,
2:268). Some writers might dispute the conclusion drawn from the
above-mentioned and similar verses by pointing out that the message of
verses such as the one quoted is relevant only in the context of a set of
conditions where infāq is being ignored because of saving. The objection is
valid only in a context where the necessity of infāq is non-existent. It is
hard to imagine any such context.
Some others might argue that in a situation where a
Muslim nation needs rapid economic progress through large-scale investment,
saving for investment should, for religious purposes, be regarded as
equivalent to infāq because of its role in the economic advancement of
Muslims. The argument, however, cannot be accepted. First, because if
spending were ever to be declared equivalent to saving to allow Qur’ānic
teachings to appear more meaningful to the modern-day economists, then all
other Qur’ānic injunctions could also effectively be argued to be suggesting
just the opposite of what they actually mean, to suit the point of view of
some other modern thinkers. Second, because there is no unanimity even
amongst the economists on the opinion that savings lead to investment. In
fact, it has been argued that under some conditions ‘the more people spend
on consumption, the greater is the incentive for businessmen to build new
factories and equipment’ (Samuelson). Keynesian economists, in fact, view
savings as a leakage out of the circular flow of money (Wilson) and consider
it desirable for currency to circulate; on the contrary, accumulation of the
means of exchange for its own sake is seen as undesirable (Baldwin and
Wilson).
There is, however, a strong belief that despite the fact that saving is a
leakage from the income stream, it is still very essential to save in banks
because in that way funds are channelled back into the expenditure stream as
the borrowers of those funds use them in spending in the economy (Ranlett).
Although this suggestion is quite valid, it is inconsistent with the Islamic
teachings which emphasise spending. What is saved by a depositor in a bank
is saving from his personal point of view whether it is actually channelled
back into the economy or not. From the Islamic point of view, funds
available with an individual, if not required to be saved for a necessary
future need, should either be spent on others or invested directly in a
project. The suggestion that financial intermediaries enable people to help
others with the savings is again unacceptable from an Islamic point of view,
since Islam wants, first and foremost, that spending on others should be
done with true intentions of pleasing Allah by helping them. The help
extended to others through financial intermediation, on the contrary,
amounts to helping others by pleasing oneself in receiving interest or
profit from banks.
Saving which is normally done by individuals to
achieve personal gains can never be regarded as equivalent to infāq, which
basically entails a personal sacrifice on the part of the one spending. The
motive of the saver is just the opposite of the one doing infāq who, as
mentioned above, spends to earn the pleasure of the Almighty, purify his
soul, and ensure a place of success in the hereafter.
Whereas infāq is an act of benevolence, saving is invariably done for
selfish motives.
II) Optimum Utilisation of Resources
Islam calls for maximum exploitation of economic
resources and, as a consequence, their minimum wastage. The only constraint
to this general principle is a situation where it conflicts with the
requirements of ‘adl. In discussing the rights of orphans in an Islamic
society the Qur’ān asks the responsible members of society to look after
their property and hand over their possession only when satisfied about
their ability to handle them properly. It warns the guardians thus:
And do not hand over the possession to those weak of
understanding your economic resources which Allah has made a means of
support for you, but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words
of kindness (the Qur’ān, 4:5).
The verse is an example of the sort of delicate
balance Islam urges the believer to strike between economic efficiency and
social justice. It is clear from the verse that whereas it is not permitted
to allow the means of production to go waste because of the inability, for
one reason or another, of the owners, it is also not permitted to snatch
away the ownership of those means from the legitimate owners, as has been
done in case of socialist revolutions. The reason why the owners have to be
deprived of possession of those resources is also clarified by the words
‘which God has made a means of support for you’, that is, since economic
resources, if properly utilised, ultimately contribute to the welfare of all
members of the society, they cannot be left at the mercy of their owners to
go unattended. The owners, however, cannot be denied a share in the fruits
of the output of the assets owned by them.
The following statement of the Prophet (sws) is in
complete harmony with the spirit of the Qur’ānic verse quoted above:
Every landlord should farm his land but if he cannot
do that, he should let his brother farm it’ (Muslim, Vol.4, 172).
The words ‘he should let his brother farm it’ imply
that the user owes a rent to the owner unless the owner himself forgoes the
rent which is better for him to do, if it is possible. The case of financial
assets also falls within the scope of this guidance. If an individual has
additional funds after he has spent on the legitimate avenues of spending,
then those funds should be invested for the larger interest of the
community.
However, if the owner chooses to invest them for his personal gain, he may
do so provided he does not get involved in unIslamic financial deals, the
most prominent of which is an interest-based arrangement.
III) Right of Ownership
Islam definitely allows individuals a right to own
property. As we have seen in the sub-section above, ownership of property is
not allowed to be taken away even if their masters are inefficient economic
agents. The fact that the Qur’ān mentions the Islamic law of inheritance in
considerable detail
is enough to refute the claim of those who believe that Islam is against
ownership of private property.
Those who hold the view that Islam condemns private
ownership of property fall into two categories: those who suggest that, much
like socialism, Islam allows the ownership of those assets only which an
individual earns himself,
and those who believe that an ‘individual’s unlimited right to property has
no warrant in an Islamic economic system ... because no economic programme,
aiming at social justice, can succeed without substantially pruning the
private property system’ (Naqvi).
The former argument is sometimes seen to be based on
the following Qur’ānic verse: ‘That man can have nothing but what he strives
for’
(the Qur’ān 53:39). It is argued that since, according to this verse, man is
not allowed to have anything except what he earns, no one should be allowed
to own anything other than what falls strictly into that category (Naqvi).
The argument is unacceptable for two reasons: first, because if the
interpretation of the verse is accepted, then the law of inheritance
mentioned in the Qur’ān would appear to be in conflict with it, since what
one inherits is clearly not a reward for one’s efforts. On the contrary, the
Qur’ān has categorically stated that one of the important proofs of its
divine origins is the fact that ‘Had it [the Qur’ān] originated from someone
other than Allah, they would have found within it frequent contradictions’
(the Qur’ān, 4:82). Any one who believes the Qur’ān to be a Word of God
cannot, therefore, accept the above-mentioned meanings associated with the
verse 53:39 of the Holy Book and the law of inheritance mentioned in it
simultaneously. Second, the meaning attempted to be derived from the
relevant verse has nothing to do with the real message it seeks to convey.
If the context of the verse is properly considered before attempting to
understand its meaning, then there appears to be no doubt that its message
refers to the life hereafter alone.
The message it is conveying is that every soul will get the due returns for
its own endeavours from God; in no way will virtues of one individual
benefit another or that the retributions for the sins of A, for instance,
will have to be borne by B.
As for the argument against unlimited right of private
ownership because of its threat to the ideals of social justice, a few
clarifications need to be made. First, the expression ‘unlimited right of
private ownership’ is exaggerated in the general context of Islamic
teachings. The strong moral appeal in the Qur’ān to spend for charitable
purposes to earn Allah’s pleasure, compulsory annual spending on the wealth
saved every year (zakāh), the right given to the community to take
possession of the assets being wasted by the owners, strong condemnation of
extravagance and luxurious living (the Qur’ān, 17:26-7), compulsory
distribution of property on the death of a person, and, above all, a strong
appeal to believers to live in this life with the predominant objective of
achieving a better one in the hereafter are some of the teachings which
would always stand in the way of unlimited private ownership despite the
apparent legal right to it.
Second, the Qur’ān makes a clear distinction between
natural economic differences and the artificially created ones. Whereas the
former are considered a part of the trial of life, the latter differences
are discouraged from being created and promoted. The natural differences are
those which exist in a society because of the differences in the abilities
and fortunes of people. The Qur’ān declares them to be a part of Allah’s
scheme which was necessary, among other reasons, ‘to enable to live by
co-operating with each other and to enable some to employ others [for the
common good of all]’ (Islāhī, Amīn A.). As for artificially created
differences, the Qur’ān categorically condemns all arrangements leading to
them.
|