|
The Islamic Economic
System and Europe
By: Dr. Jan Sammuelsson (Sweden)
A few reflections regarding Iqtisaduna by Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad
Baqir al-Sadr
Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr's work Iqtisaduna ("Our Economics") is
constituted by a comparison between different economic systems, namely
capitalism, Marxism and Islamic economy in the light of the author's
conception of these systems.
Sadr's point of departure in his work can be regarded as ideological,
however it is beyond question a scholarly method with footnotes, with a
usual account of sources and the text enables the reader to follow the
author from his reasoning to the conclusions he draws.
The point of departure that Sadr presents above all is the fact that
there is no other framework within which to find solutions to the
problems of backwardness in Muslim countries with the exception of the
framework of the Islamic economic system. Further reasoning regarding
this standpoint constitutes a dominant feature of Iqtisaduna.
Another important element is the reasoning about what the Islamic
economic system implies and its position in proportion to economic
systems like capitalism and Marxism. Sadr establishes the fact that it
is not possible to choose the same methods used by Europeans in the
building-up of their modern economy. The Islamic world has tried two
economic systems developed by Europeans: market economy based on the
capitalistic ideology, and planned economy based on the socialistic
ideology. The results weren't encouraging. (The author uses the notion
Marxism and socialism alternatively. The distinction between these two
notions isn't always clear and, in several cases, they can be understood
as synonymous notions). The author points out that it is not possible to
just withdraw an economic system from its historical and social context
and apply it in a society with totally different conditions. He
emphasizes the fact that there are close links between, on the one hand
Marxism and capitalism, and on the other hand European traditions and
social conditions. These economic systems cannot be applied in societies
based on religion. Not even if religion was suddenly abolished in an
Islamic society would that be possible since ethics, traditions and
institutions were formed by a centuries old Islamic influence.
It is easy to agree with Sadr's opinion about Marxism in that it is an
ideology applicable in European conditions in the first place. This
becomes obvious when one studies Marxian analyses that were for example
carried out by Soviet researchers. It concerns awkward attempts to find
"the Asian way of production" in Muslim societies. In view of that,
Islam is often presented in deprecating wordings in these studies. (Brattlud,
Asa - Samuelsson, Jan: Islam English folkrorelse. Muslimer i Svenskt
Samhallsliv. Skelleftea 1991. Page 19).
Sadr presents political and psychological aspects that go against the
application of Marxism and capitalism in Muslim societies. The Ummah
must base its modern revival on a social organization and culture whose
origin is not related to the countries of the colonialists. Why? Well
because there is a psychological dislike to methods, ideas and
institutions that are directly associated with Europe. This in itself
worsens the possibility of applying these methods successfully.
Sadr describes Europe as a unit. Likewise, non-Muslim writers perceive
the Muslim world as a unit. Generalizations like "Islam" and "Europe"
are of course uncertain in certain contexts. However they can be
regarded as being conventional within the frames of scientific
literature that concerns these fields. See for instance Bernard Lewis:
Islam and the West, New York 1993, as well as other works by Lewis.
When Sadr tries to capture what denotes a typical European human being,
he becomes more ideological than scientific. "Europeans always look at
the earth, not at heaven". Pious Catholics in Spain for example or Italy
would certainly lift their eyebrows before such a description. The
author also means that Europeans are freedom-lovers, both in a positive
and a negative sense, in that they strive after freedom from moral
responsibility. The European has also a tendency of perceiving existence
as a struggle situation. This has been expressed in European science and
philosophy through Darwinism, the class struggle of Marxism and the
struggle between contrasts in the Hegelian viewpoint. But for someone
who perceives the presence of God in the creation, that is to say
Muslims, the perspective is different. The interest for material
advantages is not so dominant. According to Sadr, the interest for
individual and moral freedom also gets impaired. Sadr wants to show here
that Muslims and Europeans are generally constituted by two different
types of human beings without further explaining why so is the case. The
reasoning constitutes a link in the author's argumentation that the
European way of thinking cannot successfully be applied in Islamic
conditions.
A few conclusions can be drawn from Sadr's apprehensions. First of all,
it follows from the author's reasoning that the Islamic economic system
can barely work in Europe for the same reasons that economic systems
like Marxism and capitalism cannot completely work in Islamic
conditions. Another question is, in my opinion, whether individual
Islamic economic institutions, like the Islamic bank, can work in a
non-Islamic context like Europe. One can object to this question by
claiming it is not correctly formulated. Europe can simply not be
considered as a non-Islamic context. Nowadays, Europe embraces several
considerable Islamic minorities even though their influence on the
political process is humble. As a matter of fact millions of Muslims
live in Europe. More than 300,000 Muslims live in Sweden alone which
counts a relatively small population (Samuelsson, Jan: Islam i Sverige,
Stockholm, 1999). These Islamic population groups in Europe should be
considered as a sufficient basis to establish more Islamic banks in
Europe. The question can be asked in a different way. An economic
institution like an Islamic bank attract non-Muslims and in addition to
that work in a satisfactory way even for non-Islamic customer? If this
is the case, one cannot by reason exclude the opposite, at least in
principle, namely that individual institutions within the capitalistic
or Marxian economic system could work in an Islamic context.
Some debaters within the field of Islamic economy have vindicated that
an Islamic bank cannot work well in a non-Islamic economy. In issues in
Islamic banking, Leicester 1983, M. N. Siddiqi vindicated that the
Islamic bank could only be successful in countries where the interest
institution was forbidden and where interest proceedings were a penal
action. However, this doesn't seem to be the most common opinion. Most
Islamic economists and persons conversant with the legal system in Islam
think that it is both possible and recommendable to act even in
countries where Islam has little influence. It is also considered that
Islamic banks can successfully compete against institutions based on
interest and even attract customers who are not Muslims. For instance,
the management of A Baraka Turkish Finance House in Istanbul stands for
such an opinion. Al Baraka's management think it is possible thanks to
the high profitability produced by the bank and because of the fact that
even non-Muslims can be attracted by the link between ethics and economy
that the bank stands for. (Samuelsson, Jan: Islamisk Ekonomi, Lund 1999,
p. 67).
Another observation from Sadr's reasoning is whether other reasons than
those mentioned can be at the bottom of his dissociation from Marxism
and capitalism as European systems. Such a theological, and perhaps also
psychological reason with elements from a magical thinking, is what I
would like to call "the conception of the European contagion".
Bernard Lewis points out that the Islamic habit, historically provable
in several cases, to define innovation (bidah) as deviation from
tradition. Tradition is regarded as being good and as containing God's
message to mankind. Therefore, deviating from tradition is a priori
something negative.
A particularly repudiable variation of bidah is when one imitates the
unfaithful person's habits. A tradition attributed to Prophet
Muhammad(S.A.W.) says that "whoever imitates people becomes one of
them". It has sometimes been interpreted as follows: whoever enters the
unfaithful person's habits and behaviors commits a heretical action and
an action of treason towards Islam, in other words one becomes
unfaithful himself. (Lewis, Bernard: The Muslim Discovery of Europe,
London 1982, p. 224).
This interpretation was done frequently by persons conversant with the
Qur'an in the Ottoman Empire in order to stop certain phenomena like
scientific innovations, as for instance the apparition of printing
technique and new medicines that originated from Europe. The perception
that everything that was European was a priori evil, with a few
exceptions like weapon technique, contributed undoubtedly to the
destruction of the Ottoman Empire. Are we confronted to another case of
the European contagion syndrome in Sadr's work Iqtisaduna?
I have to answer no. Sadr's arguments sustaining the difficulty of
applying Marxism and capitalism are based on logical reasoning that is
well presented. For the Muslim reader, it is however important, in my
opinion, not to generalize in the light of Sadr's opinion concerning
economic systems and come to the conclusion that anything of European
origin is in principle useless in an Islamic context. However, such a
conclusion is very probable with regard to the founded distrust that
exists towards the western world within considerable Muslim population
groups. Crusades and colonialism, together with not the least aggressive
American interventions in the Muslim world in modern times, has prepared
Muslims to behold what the western world stands for with skepticism.
Political vigilance towards the West is one thing. From an Islamic
perspective, it is well founded and essential. If this skepticism
influenced the will to acquire special knowledge from West within the
scientific fields, the price would be high from an economic point of
view.
For economic and political reasons various writers have often taken
pains to find similarities or differences (from separate motives, often
of a political nature) between the Islamic economic system and certain
other economic systems.
Comparisons have been made with systems based on market economy and
planned economy. Political leaders, like the former president Nasser in
Egypt, have tried to point out certain similarities between
socialism/communism and Islam while the leadership in Saudi Arabia has
tried to point out the differences between these systems. The
destruction of the Soviet Empire has made certain leaders in the Islamic
world less prone to emphasize similarities between socialism and Islam.
If there is any tendency today, in the Islamic world, regarding
comparisons between Islamic economy and other economic systems, it is in
my opinion that the Islamic economy tends to be described, either as a
unique system independent from capitalism and socialism, or as the
golden mean between the two extremes/poles capitalism and socialism.
How does Sadr describe the Islamic economic system in Iqtisaduna
Although Sadr obviously perceives the Islamic economic system as a
unique system, the argumentation itself often tends to follow the fact
that this system constitutes what one can call the golden mean.
Communism and capitalism are perceived as two antipodes with Islam
between them. Islam gets characterized as the rational mean between two
irrational extremes. Here are a few examples: When it comes to
ownership, the pole socialism stands for collective owning only while
the pole capitalism stands for private ownership. As the rational mean,
Islam stands for both collective and private ownership. When it comes to
economic freedom, the pole socialism stands for no economic freedom
while capitalism stands for total economic freedom. According to Sadr,
Islam here stands for economic freedom but with limitations. "Islam took
a middle stand, banning some kinds of profit like the usurious and
permitting some others like the commercial profit." (Sadr: Our
Economics, volume one, part two, page 129).
Moderation, balance, adequate are notions that have been applied and
experienced as ideals in several Islamic contexts. This is quite obvious
in the Islamic medical history. The good life leading to physical and
spiritual health is characterized by adequate sleep, adequate food,
adequate sexuality, adequate work and adequate prayers. Take for example
Prophet Muhammad's attitude against exaggerated praying at the expense
of social life. In his description of the Islamic economic system, Sadr
can be seen as referring to this traditional adequate/moderation/balance
- notion.
The author thinks that the Islamic economy is distinguished by social
balance. With its way of thinking turned towards partnership, the
Islamic bank confirms the conception that groups within the Islamic
society aren't in opposition to one another as are for instance loan
takers and loan givers or employees and employers in European societies.
Sadr's perception of Islamic economy can be compared to what Muhammad
Umar Chapra has expressed. He thinks that what capitalism and socialism
lacks, and Islam offers, is the synopsis between spiritual and material
values - the capitalistic and socialistic systems have neglected
people's spiritual needs. Every attempt to point out similarities
between these systems and Islam shows the lack of understanding for what
capitalism and socialism are, namely materialistic systems, Chapra says
and, with that, describes Islam more as a unique system rather than a
mean (Chapra, M.U.: Objectives of the Islamic Economic Order. Leicester,
1996, pp. 21-27).
In the article Zakat and Social Justice, M.A.Z. Badawi claims that Islam
constitutes the right point of balance between the two extremes,
capitalism and socialism. He seems thereby to perceive Islam more as the
mean (Badawi: Zakat and Social Justice, in The Muslim World and the
Future Economic Order. London: 1979).
Muslim writers usually claim that Islamic economy can be seen both as a
unique system and the golden mean between capitalism and socialism
although one of these two standpoints is emphasized more than the other.
It is, from a logical philosophical point of view important to emphasize
the fact that there is a big difference between these two ways of
describing Islamic economy. The standpoint that the Islamic economy is a
totally unique system implies that the difference between Islamic
economy and the capitalistic and socialistic system is basically of a
qualitative nature. The standpoint that the Islamic economy constitutes
the golden mean implies that the differences in comparison to socialism
and capitalism are in the first place quantitative (more collective
ownership - less collective ownership, more individual freedom less
individual freedom, etc.).
Muslim writers usually claim that Islamic economy can be seen both as a
unique system and the golden mean between capitalism and socialism
although one of these two standpoints is emphasized more than the other.
It is, from a logical philosophical point of view to emphasize the fact
that there is a big difference between these two ways of describing
Islamic economy. The standpoint that the Islamic economy is a totally
unique system implies that the differences between Islamic economy and
the capitalistic and socialistic system are basically of a qualitative
nature. The standpoint that the Islamic economy constitutes the golden
mean implies that the differences in comparison to socialism and
capitalism are in the first place quantitative (more collective
ownership - less collective ownership, more individual freedom - less
individual freedom, etc.).
According to Sadr, Islam denies the fact that the form of production in
a society forms this society's social organization in a decisive way. It
is still possible to retain a certain social system even though the form
of production changes with time. Sadr asserts here the principle that
there is no demanding connection between a social system and a form
production. The fundamental postulate of the materialistic historical
perception, concerning the significance of the forms of production is
brilliantly rejected by Sadr by means of the best conceivable example:
The origin of the Islamic civilization. It wasn't the result of a new
form of production or of important changes in the prevailing form of
production. The most recent revolutionary experiment constituted by
Islam can hardly be explained in the light of the socialistic perception
of history, the author claims and it is hard not to agree with that.
According to Marxism, the idea that men are equal and have fundamental
rights is developed with the growing bourgeoisie in Europe and is
encouraged by the industrial revolution. However, similar ideas existed
in the Arabian Peninsula in Makkah more than 1,000 years before the
bourgeoisie revolution in Europe. What was there in this society living
on agriculture and commerce (commerce being limited compared to other
Arabic societies during the same period), leading to the perception of
human equality? To Sadr, the answer is the one of the believer. In my
opinion, non-Muslims haven't yet received any satisfactory answer
regarding this question.
The politics of equalizing economic conditions among members of the
Islamic society (first of all with the help of zakat) that arose in
Islam during the 7th century cannot be described as a result of the
fairly unsophisticated economic activity that took place in this region
during that period. The fact that the trade - development in Makkah
required a more organized society cannot explain the origin of the
Islamic civilization, a phenomenon that changed the history of the
world. Makkah's situation between Yemen and Syria was not unique. The
city of Petra had a much more flourishing economy. Another flourishing
city with as good of chances as Makkah was Palmyra. Even other cities
can be named in this context. "No," Sadr sums up in his reasoning; the
Islamic revolution wasn't the result of certain material conditions and
commercial circumstances in the region of Makkah.
It is obvious that Sadr approaches the question at issue, with his
arguments, in a scientific way. Yet, the reasoning is also ideologically
attractive from an Islamic perspective since it leads to the opinion
that Islam could be maintained as a social form/system irrespective of
the social form of production.
The conclusion is extensive:
Islam can survive or be introduced irrespective of the material
conditions existing in a society.
Bibliography:
Al-Sadr, Muhammad Baqir, Iqtisaduna (Our Economics), English translation
from the Arabic, Volume One and Two, Tehran: 1994.
Brattlund, Asa - Samuelsson, Jan, Islam - English folkrorelse, Muslimer
i Svenskt Samhallsiv, Skelleftea: 1991. (In Swedish).
Badawi, M.A.Z., Zakat and Social Justice, "The Muslim World and the
Future Economic Order", London: 1979.
Chapra, Muhammad Umar, Objectives of the Islamic Economic Order,
Leicester: 1996.
Lewis, Bernard, Islam and the West, New York: 1993. Lewis, Bernard, The
Muslim Discovery of Europe, London: 1982.
Samuelsson, Jan, Islam i Sverige, Stockholm: 1999. (In Swedish).
Samuelsson, Jan, Islamisk Ekonomi, Lund: 2000. (In Swedish).
Siddiqi, M. Nejatullah, Issues in Islamic Banking, Leicester:
1983. |