Definition of Capitalism

"Capitalism" is conventionally defined along economic terms such as the following:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.1

Capitalism and Islam: what's the difference?

Is there any real difference between the Capitalist and the Islamic economic system? Both systems allow you to make money, but they are completely different in how money is accumulated and spent. The reasons for such great differences is the source and hence, the ultimate goal of each system. Capitalism is based on the concept that economics is that which examines man's needs, which are unlimited and how to satisfy these unlimited needs. The system depends upon the separation of church and state or in other words, the separation of the Creator from life's affairs. The concept of freedom plays a major role in the Capitalist ideology. Freedom is guaranteed by the state, therefore, man is totally free to satisfy his needs in any manner possible as long as he does not legally infringe on the freedom of others. One needs only to look onto the streets around us to see the devastating results of this form of system. It is because of the freedom of satisfying needs that the pornography and alcohol/drug industry are two of the biggest profit making businesses in the Capitalist system. Is this the type of society in which we want to live and raise our children? The Islamic economic system is derived from the only source that is capable of satisfying the needs and desires of everyone, without resulting in chaos. The source of these rules is our Creator. Islam, coming from the Creator, does not deny the needs of humans, but instead, it sets guidelines on how these needs and desires are to be fulfilled. As human beings, we have the freedom to use our minds to prove that a Creator does exist, and that Islam is the Creator's mercy to us to guide our lives and live it with purpose. Once we accept Islam freely, we then follow the rules of Islam. This shows how Islam defines the freedom in our lives. Freedom is living by the best system possible, not creating a system that destroys the lives of human beings. Capitalism is also based on the theory of relative scarcity. This means that there always has to be a real or as in the majority of cases, a forces insufficiency of commodities to meet the needs of the people. This is not in keeping with the reality life. Today, there are more than enough goods and commodities to satisfy the needs of everyone, but because this in fact, contradicts the principle of relative scarcity, some people are left without the fulfillment of their basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing while others seem to have too much of one or more. This theory

divides the society such that a small percentage of people hoard almost all the wealth while the rest of society struggles to have a home and food. Islam does not share this idea of relative scarcity. Islam does not allow this to happen. The basic needs are guaranteed to every Muslim and non-Muslim living under the rule of Islam. These needs include the tangible, such as adequate food, clothing, and shelter, as well as the intangible, such as medicine, education and security. The primary goal is to have everyone producing and everyone consuming. The Islamic economic system is not based on price as the method of distribution of goods, but rather, how to distribute funds and benefits to all citizens. With the basic needs satisfied, everyone can live a happier life because people are allowed to search for the livelihood that suits them best and makes them the happiest. The whole society prospers from this system because when people are doing what makes them happy instead of only what makes them money, they are more successful and productive. There may be great economic differences among the people and the means to have the basics for life will be provided for all. This takes into account the fact that people have different skills, motivational levels and entrepreneurial desires and there is no sin in high earnings. The Islamic economic system is just a part of Islam. It cannot be separated from it and discussed as an individual component. Islam ordered the Muslims: "Seek the abode of the Hereafter in that which Allah has given you, and neglect not your portion of the world, and be kind as Allah has been kind to you and seek not corruption in the earth. [TMQ in English].2

Islam vs. Secularism

Secularism is defined in the Webster dictionary as: "A system of doctrines and practices that rejects any form of religious faith and worship" or "The belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state especially into public education." 3 There is no doubt that secularism contradicts Islam in every aspect. They are two different paths that never meet; choosing one means rejecting the other. Hence, whoever chooses Islam has to reject secularism. In the following, we go in the details of explaining why. 1- First, secularism makes lawful what Allah has made unlawful. The Rule of Allah (Shari`ah) is compulsory and has basic laws and regulations that cannot be changed. Some of these laws are concerned with the acts of worship, the relations between men and women, etc. What is the position with regard to these laws? Secularism makes adultery lawful if the male and the female are consenting adults. As for Riba (interest on money), it is the basis of all financial transactions in secular economies. On the contrary, Allah says (s.2 A. 278): "O you who believe, fear Allah and leave what comes from Riba if you are believers. If you do not do so, then wait for a war from Allah and His Messenger."

As for alcohol, all secular systems allow the consumption of alcohol and make selling it a lawful business. 2- Second, secularism is clear unbelief (Kufr). Secularism is based on separating religion from all the affairs of this life and hence, it rules by law and regulations other than Allah's laws. Hence, secularism rejects Allah's rules with no exception and prefers regulations other than Allah's and His Messenger's. In fact, many secularists claim that Allah's laws might have been suitable for the time they were revealed but are now outdated. As a result, most of the laws governing the daily affairs of life in the countries ruled by secular systems contradict Islam. Allah says (S.5 A.50): "Do they seek a judgment of Ignorance? But, who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?" Ibn Katheer said in the Tafseer of this verse that Allah is denouncing those who reject His ruling and accept other rulings that are not based on the Shari`ah of Allah. Whoever does so is indeed a nonbeliever. Indeed, belief in Allah can never go with the acceptance of other than His rulings in one's heart. Allah says (S.5 A.44): "If any do fail to judge by what Allah has revealed, they are non-believers." From the above, the status of secularism and its relation to Islam are clear. But the ignorance about the Islamic truth is still dominating the Muslim's mind. Most secular systems repeat slogans like "no religion in politics and no politics in religion" or "religion is for Allah, and the state is for the people." Such sayings portray their view of Islam as a religion to be practiced in the mosque only, and that it should not be allowed to rule life outside the mosque. Furthermore, they try to deceive people with democratic slogans like "personal freedom" and "people governing people." That means that people come first and no place is made for the ruling of Allah. This is why secularism is clear Kufr, this is why secular systems have no legality and authority and should be rejected by Muslims.

Faith vs. Empiricism

Interested in your comments about Islamic empiricism this comes across in Nassim Talebs writngs too. Could you give us a few examples of the sayings in Scripture that you are referring to? Also if you dont mind me asking, how do you personally reconcile reason and religion when they seem to contradict? You said you are more comfortable about them clashing now. What gives you this comfort? Thanks.

There are numerous verses in the Quran that invite people to reflect on creation around them and which encourage observation, as well as encourages honesty in transactions with other people (which entail things like measurement and quantification),4 Give full measure when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination. And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning). (17:35-36)

^ i.e, You get (real) knowledge from the senses, and will be held accountable for the use thereof. So Muslims didnt need to bother with a lot of the philosophy that the Greeks or later Europeans got into and got straight down to business with science. Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise. (2:164) ^ Most popularly cited verse to this end. Heres a fascinating bit on the most famed contributer to the scientific method from the Muslim world, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham#Theology Regarding Reason vs. Religion, I used to think, along Western lines, that Reason was itself inherently subjective and thus one could reason damn near anything, and to subject Religion, which was supposed to be about objective truth straight from the Creator, to the whims of man would result in disaster (i.e, as Islam says about the Jews/Christians who went astray by altering their Scripture and through constant reinterpreting/translating to meet this or that end). It was similar to the Ashari view that implies as such in its dictate that man who was not reached by the divine message isnt responsible for knowing God, since the only way to know, is through Divine Revelation. I didnt trust Reason, basically. I trusted it about as far as youd trust a whore with fidelity. You could justify just about anything. There are well reasoned arguments for incest, murder hell, apparently Hitler had an argument for genocide that was well reasoned enough for many of his people. With morality and sins for instance, I didnt think it was possible to figure these out on your own without input from God (and that all modern notions of morality are just the descendants of ancient notions which came from religious scripture). But the Maturidi view implies that one can indeed figure out the major sins on their own (and should, and would be held accountable for doing so). Now, most of this is moot being that Im already Muslim and already have the Quran and everything, but it reflected in my attitude towards argument within and about religion. I started believing that faith and reason were two distinct things, because it was in the nature of faith to not be rational and that faith was to believe without any evidence or reason to, and that this was the test. The people who will believe in God in this world, get rewarded with Heaven and being near to Him in the next life, because they were tested in this life (left to their own devices to follow their mammalian instincts, and either the instincts of their soul or completely abuse the

faculties of sentience, consciousness, will, intelligence, and Self that God has bestowed on man in order to elevate their own egos to the level of deity). People ask why God has bothered putting us in a world with good and evil, where evil often bests good. The Islamic answer is that this is a proving grounds for humanity. It only ends once, anything before that is progress L O S T. Heh, I really liked that line from the show. God did put humans in Heaven first, but they were apparently not ready. Which I think nullifies all the, admittedly insincere, arguments from critics that God abandons people or put us here to torture us or whatever. I say insincere because even if one were to point out the obvious answer as I just have, it would still fall on deaf ears since such people are just looking to hurl insults and will move on to other insults in their repertoire. Haters gonna hate. Anyway, then I realized I just wasnt thinking it all through. All that is perfectly true and is a part of the Abrahamic faiths, but I was misunderstanding my own self or how humans work. Our brains function on reason and reasoning. Faith is an act of reason. Its a logical progression of thoughts, so why not hold that progression of thoughts behind my faith accountable and scrutinize it in order to perfect my faith? Being around Christian society in the US while growing up, and also owing to the secular nature of American society in general, I had developed an instinct to baby my faith and keep it locked up inside, away from where other ideas could do it harm. For what? Fear? I wasnt afraid that other ideas would somehow damage my faith, and spent a lot of my early life trying to challenge my faith but with limited success since the accepted view of the day was to separate faith from reason. I wanted to bring my faith out and let it behave like all other rational thoughts in the human mind. My previous views which I inherited from American society prevented me from doing so, and actually stagnated the ideas which form my faith. So, almost on faith, I put my faith (in everything, including my ideas about Reason, human nature, God, etc) out there whenever I encounter other ideas. I run into ideas which challenge my faith not so often anymore, since Ive been at it a while, and its a fluid and dynamic process. Almost like the ideas are actually clashing in your mind where faith would recede or take a hit or they would flutter around in ones head while the brain did its reasoning/thinking thing and new dynamics were established and new relationships between all the ideas fluttering around in there. All its wound up doing is solidifying the foundation for my faith in the end. The difference between the Ashari and Maturidi attitudes isnt great. The brain can almost function on certain ideas as if they were its OS, or operating system. And if faith (or one particular viewpoint) is made that of a brain, it will actually start generating ideas based on that. Sometimes the most craziest and brilliant ideas based in that line of thinking will pop out of nowhere. This creativity is fundamental for reconciling the more complicated aspects of faithbased reason and empiricism-based reason (I put empiricism in quotes, because the debate between Hume and Kant did quite a number on Western thought and Western ideas of Reason, Knowledge, Empiricism and imho, Humes view made more logical sense). Now, for Islamic civilizations ideas about these subjects, here is an English translation of one of the most fundamental texts of the Maturidi creed, The Creed of Imam Nasafi,

http://ia331324.us.archive.org/1/items/commentaryonthec030491mbp/commentaryonthec030491 mbp.pdf Its a great translation, though there are errors in the introduction (Al Fiqh Al Akbar was indeed written by Imam Abu Hanifa and is considered the first major text of creed in Islam, and lends itself directly to the Maturidi viewpoint) but for the most part it at least introduces the reader to the ideas necessary for comprehending the rest of the document. Fantastic summary of atomism is there too, though its so short as to do disservice to it. The Islamic theological theory of atomism is, in my opinion, the highest form of the theory among the old civilizations. Like all other non-Scriptural text, its still a work in progress, I hope the Muslim world eventually dusts it off and continues. It reminds me a great deal of String Theory and quantum mechanics (for more on the latter, look up quantum theory and Ibn Arabi on Google, youll find some extremely interesting things). It seems as if a point where theology or metaphysics actually meets physics wouldnt be too far off in the future had Muslim society not stagnated.
Islam & Communism:

Some academics from Indiana University have recently published the results of a survey of seven Muslim-majority societies. The researchers found a strong correlation, in every country surveyed, between a stated belief in shariah as the system of state governance and a set of egalitarian principles.5 They write: In research based on survey data from seven predominantly Muslim nations, the authors found that Islamic orthodoxy identified as the desire to implement Islamic law (sharia) as the sole legal foundation of their nation is associated in every country with support for such progressive economic reforms as increasing the responsibility of government for the poor, reducing income inequality, and increasing government ownership of businesses and industries. The importance of this study should not be understated because it highlights what is one of the more fundamental problems with the contemporary Islamic revival: that it is has drunk so deeply from the well of socialism that it can no longer distinguish Islamic principles from the faddish proscriptions of progressive politics. That some Muslims would oppose income inequality is one such example. As Muslim blogger Tariq Nelson observes, this is not an idea that is unique to the Muslims of the Middle East but is an intellectual feature of even our own Western Muslim communities. I have met Muslims who think that the Islamic system is like that, inspite of the fact that Islamic History is replete with entrepreneurs who were very wealthy and gave much of that wealth willingly (not forced by the government) in charity. These Brothers would resent wealthy, highly educated Brothers who were not giving them what they thought was their fair share of what the wealthy Brothers had earned. This is why you will find some cases brothers that think the masjid

owes them a car, for example. And not just any car, but a car that the wealthy brothers drive because afterall None of you truly believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself. Whilst it may hold some attraction, for the reasons that Tariq describes, the equalisation of income is not an Islamic principle. It is, instead, an idea whose pedigree is communism with its mantra of, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. As Ibn Khaldun noted in his al-Muqaddimah, differences in the value of labour are natural and are a function of differences in skill, location, occupation, and demand. As demand for a particular skill increases relative to supply, so does the price by which that skill might be offered. And, as the community becomes aware of the high earnings to be found in a particular occupation, so will others be drawn to it: thus increasing supply and eventually lowering the cost. Labour, Ibn Khaldun found, was the source of value. It could only be achieved through the expense of human effort and this was the principle reason for the wealth of a society: the more effort expended overall in labour the more prosperous that a society becomes; and, as humans expended less effort, so would a society become less prosperous. Anything that therefore discouraged humans from expending effort (as labour) would eventually lead to the decline in the overall prosperity of the society and a subsequent decline of that civilization. Income equalisation naturally reduces the incentive for people to be productive, innovative or improve their competitiveness as employees because it collapses the distinction between excellence and mediocrity. Why would someone invest the time and tolerate the subsequent stress to excel when they could, for marginally less money, invest less time and suffer less stress by engaging in menial or other such work? Nobody should be under any illusions that a system that enforces some notion of income equality would be genuinely egalitarian. It simply means that the state, as opposed to the market, has the authority to decide who are the superior people in the society. Income equalisation will not eliminate the distinctions between people in society but simply place the power to make such distinctions in the hands of the rulers. Even in Soviet Russia, there was always a distinction between the ruling classes and the majority of people; with the ruling classes having access to the best schools, best medical treatment and the like. There is no reason to believe that it would be any different in the Middle East. In fact, with many of these societies steeped in tribalism, there is every reason to suspect it may be far worse. In any case, it is also unclear how income equalisation can be achieved through Islamicallylawful means. Would the incoming Islamic government confiscate property from the rich and redistribute it to the poor? Would it legislate that a surgeon should be paid no more than a taxi driver? Or would it, as seems most likely, impose a progressive income tax on the citizens so as to aggressively confiscate the income of those who earn more? If so, then this could only done whilst ignoring the fact that the only legislated tax on Muslims is the zakat: 2.5% off savings that a person has held for one year and which exceed the minimum needed for subsistence and excluding the tools of ones occupation.

The idea that increasing government ownership of businesses is somehow a good thing and part of the Islamic agenda is equally misguided. There seems to be no evidence that the Prophet Muhammad advocated the nationalisation of private industry but contrary evidence that he was opposed to the state interfering in the market of which government engaging directly in trade is an extreme example. The reasons for why the state should refrain from engaging in commerce were powerfully articulated by some of the early Islamic scholars of economics who warned that when the state enters the private sphere there is a tendency for corruption and monopoly to occur, and for there to be little incentive for private enterprise. Indeed, many of the economic and social problems in the Muslim world are exactly because of the very proscription that these groups are advocating: the involvement of the state in commerce. It is not uncommon for presidents, kings and princes to be engaged in trade; using their positions and the position of their family members to unfair advantage. At its most benign, this manifests itself in the petty corruption where businesses acquire connected silent partners from the ruling classes so as to further their commercial aspirations; and, at its most extreme, this manifests itself in the blatant perversion of property rights where property is confiscated by the rulers with no recourse available to the victims. It has often been said by opponents of Islam that Islam is the new communism; but if this report is any indication, for some so-called Islamists, communism is the new Islam.

References : 1-http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Capitalism.html

2-

http://www.sa.niu.edu/msa/articles/capitalism.htm

3- http://www.islaam.com/article.aspx?id=116 4- http://difaa0.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/faith-vs-reasonscripturaltheological-support-for-empiricism-and-rationality-in-islam/ 5- http://austrolabe.com/2006/05/28/islam-communism-convergingopposites/