|
I) Saving
The Qur’an 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 infaq
(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’an 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 zakah
(involuntary infaq) 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’an . Qur’anic
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,1
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 infaq
is offered in the Qur’an
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’an , 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 zakah on it.
According to him the verse was revealed before payment of zakah
was made compulsory. After the introduction of zakah,
wealth in possession of an individual is purified even if he accumulates
it (Bukhari,
Vol. 1, 651). Ibn ‘Umar (raa) is also reported to have said that after
an individual pays zakah, he
cannot be blamed even if he keeps his wealth deep down in the soil. The
same is the view of Jabir and Qurtubi,
the interpretors of the Qur’an
(Qurtubi 1952, Vol. 8, 125).
The above view, however, does not
seem to be consistent with the teachings of the Qur’an.
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’an and H~adith
or any other areas of expenditure falling within the ambit of those avenues
directly or indirectly. The words of the Qur’an
are not condemning those who do not pay zakah.
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 zakah.
Allah demands two things from a wealthy believer. First, that he should
pay zakah 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 zakah. The same chapter
(surah) 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.2
the Qur’an 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 zakah. They
used to pay zakah, 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 infaq
from the believer. Such an attitude, in some cases, is a clear indication
of hypocrisy (nifaq) (Islahi,
Amin 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’an
‘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’an, 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’an, 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-nas (or sing. al-insan), generally
translated as men (or man) -- draws some of those readers not properly
aware of Qur’anic 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-nas and al-insan are general, their connotation in the context of many of the Qur’anic
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’an (Islahi,
Amin 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’an 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’anic
verses using the words al-nas and
al-insan 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-insan)
does transgress all bounds’ (the Qur’an,
96:6). ‘Truly man (al-insan) is, to his Lord, ungrateful’ (the Qur’an,
100:6). ‘Verily man (al-insan)
is in loss’ (the Qur’an, 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’an.
The basic theme of these appeals is security against unforeseen financial
hazards of the future. The Qur’an
declares that the advice of refraining from spending in the way of Allah
is from Satan ‘who scares you from poverty...’ (the Qur’an,
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
infaq is being ignored because
of saving. The objection is valid only in a context where the necessity
of infaq is non-existent. It
is hard to imagine any such context.3
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 infaq 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’anic
teachings to appear more meaningful to the modern-day economists, then
all other Qur’anic 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).4
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 infaq,
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 infaq
who, as mentioned above, spends to earn the pleasure of the Almighty, purify
his soul, and ensure a place of success in the
hereafter.5
Whereas infaq 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’an
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’an, 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’anic
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.6
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’an
mentions the Islamic law of inheritance in considerable detail7
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,8
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’anic
verse: ‘That man can have nothing but what he strives for’9
(the Qur’an 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’an
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’an has
categorically stated that one of the important proofs of its divine origins
is the fact that ‘Had it [the Qur’an]
originated from someone other than Allah, they would have found within
it frequent contradictions’ (the Qur’an,
4:82). Any one who believes the Qur’an
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.10
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’an to spend for charitable purposes to earn Allah’s pleasure, compulsory
annual spending on the wealth saved every year (zakah),
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’an, 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’an 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’an 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]’ (Islahi,
Amin A.). As for artificially created differences, the Qur’an
categorically condemns all arrangements leading to them.
|