Читать книгу Economic Concepts of Ibn Taimiyah - Abdul Azim Islahi - Страница 7

Introduction

I

It is quite natural, in the context of our present endeavour to Islamize our economies, to turn to some of the best brains of the past for inspiration and guidance. To me, the choice of Ibn Taimīyah seems to be very appropriate indeed. Standing midway between us and the age of revelation – he lived in the last third of the seventh and first quarter of the eighth century after Hijra – Ibn Taimīyah had a firm grasp of the achievements of Islamic scholarship that preceded him. Though largely treading in the footsteps of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, the last of the founders of the four main schools of Islamic law, he had enough independence of mind and catholicity of vision to draw upon the other schools and scholars to arrive at his own opinion on a matter. This gave him a stature way above almost all scholars and jurists who followed him. Though a parallel may be recognized in the unique contributions of Shāh Walīullāh of Delhi, who lived in the twelfth century after Hijra, Ibn Taimīyah remains unsurpassed in the comprehensiveness of his works and clarity of his vision on what constitutes Islamic living.

Basically a teacher, circumstances forced Ibn Taimīyah to put on a soldier’s uniform as they also pushed him into the vortex of controversy and polemics. As the historically-rich first chapter of Dr. Islahi’s book brings out so well, Ibn Taimīyah was born in an age of turmoil. The decay in Islamic society had already set in with all that it implied by way of stultification of creative thinking on law and society. As his voluminous Fatāwā reflect, the intermingling of races and cultures and the fast changing political conditions were creating a new scenario in trade and commerce, agriculture and industry. Men were entering into new types of contracts and social relations were becoming increasingly more complex. With his intellectual roots secure in Sharī‘ah, Ibn Taimīyah answered the many queries emanating from these complex situations with rare understanding and sympathy. Here are some examples:

If a person hires what (gives its) benefits through being hired out to other people, e.g. (public) bath, hotel, barracks and the like and then this conventional benefit decreases, for example, because of migration of the people living in the vicinity and the (number of) customers declines due to fear or decay, or because the political authority shifts them (elsewhere), or (due to) some similar reasons, then the rent due from the person hiring (the premises) will be decreased in proportion to the decrease in the conventionally (expected) benefits (Fatāwā,* Vol. 30, p. 311).

The borrower is obliged to repay the lender in the country in which he contracted the loan, He should not place the burden of travelling (to realize the loan) and transporting (what was lent) on the lender. If he says, ‘I will not repay you except in a different country’, he would be liable to defray, according to conventional standards, any cost incurred by the lender (in travelling and transporting) (Fatāwā, Vol. 29, p. 530).

He was asked about a man lending some dirhams to another man to be repaid to him in another country; is it permissible for him to do so or not? He replied ‘… the correct (answer) is that it is permissible, because the lender seeks the benefit of security in transporting his dirhams to that country and the borrower too, would have been benefited from repaying it in that country, being saved from the risks involved in the passage. Hence there are benefits to both of them in this (mode of) borrowing. The Law-giver does not prohibit what benefits them all. He prohibits only what hurts them’ (Fatāwā, Vol. 29, pp. 530–1).

He was asked about fulūs (i.e. copper coins) bought for cash paid on the spot and sold for credit at a higher price; is it permissible to do so or not? He replied: ‘All praise be to Allah, on this matter – of exchange of current copper coins with dirhams (of silver) – there is a well-known controversy among the scholars …

The more authentic (opinion) is to prohibit it as the copper coins, when they have gained currency, take on the same position as the money proper and become a standard of value for people’s wealth’ (Fatāwā, Vol. 29, pp. 468–9).

As a matter of fact, what contemporary Islam needs most with respect to the economy is a clear vision of what is desired and how it can be brought about. A perusal of the book will demonstrate how clear Ibn Taimīyah was on both these points. We need a well provisioned society from which poverty is banished and welfare is ensured for all. The way to realize this objective is freedom of enterprise and property, constrained by moral laws and supervised by a just state enforcing the divine laws – the Sharī‘ah. Those who seek a just regime must enforce the Sharī‘ah – the whole of it. In doing so they will be frequently called upon to apply the Sharī‘ah principles to new issues arising from changing circumstances, especially in economic affairs. This is where the jurist faces the real challenge: not to lose sight of the real purpose of law – justice and human felicity – while applying his legal principles to new situations. As this book exemplifies, Ibn Taimīyah met this challenge with rare competence, and therein lies his message to the present generation of Muslim jurists and economists.

II

Ibn Taimīyah’s vision of economic affairs is very clear. All economic activities are permissible except those prohibited by the Sharī‘ah. Within the limits set by the Sharī‘ah-prohibitions, men know better what is good for them and they are free to make transactions, enter into contracts and conduct their worldly affairs in a just and fair manner, observing the standards of fairness set by ‘urf and ‘ādah, i.e. conventions and custom. The Sharī‘ah intervenes only to ensure justice in human relations and to direct individual action to what is good for all. It seeks to eliminate ẓulm, i.e. injustice and oppression from social relations. With this purpose in view it has prohibited ribā and qimār. The essence of the former is unilateral gain, i.e. ‘taking an increment without a quid pro quo’ (Fatāwā, Vol. 20, p. 341). The essence of the latter is ‘acquisition of another person’s property while it is uncertain whether that person would get the recompense (to his property) or not’ (Fatāwā, Vol. 19, p. 283). Justice in transactions requires mutual reciprocity of benefits. This is ensured only when all contracts are based on the willing agreement of the contracting parties. To be meaningful, this willingness should be based on adequate knowledge of what is involved in the contract. There should be no coercion, no deception, no taking advantage of dire circumstances or ignorance of a contracting party, etc. When the contracting parties adhere to these rules, the resulting market prices are just and fair, provided there is no withholding of supplies with a view to raising prices. Normally there would be no intervention in the market – prices, profits, wages, etc. being left to be determined by the forces of supply and demand. But an intervention is called for when some of the above conditions are violated. When the public authority does intervene, it should be guided by expert advice and should seek to approximate to the price of similar goods or services determined in fair circumstances (see Chapter III, sections B and C of this book).

As to the mode of men coming together in the conduct of their Economic affairs, Ibn Taimīyah, while recognizing freedom of contract, regards co-operation to be the right spirit which should infuse social relations. He would, therefore, not tolerate the type of competition that violates the spirit of co-operation. Note, for example, the following:

(Ibn Taimīyah) was asked about a man who offers, for a house, a rent higher than the (one paid by its present) occupant; does he incur a sin by doing so? Must he be punished for doing so?

He replied, it is reported in the two correct compilations (of ḥadīth, i.e. Bukhārī and Muslim) that the Prophet (peace be upon him), said: ‘A Muslim is not permitted to bid against the bid of his brother; also he should not propose (to a woman) against the proposal of his brother.’ (It follows from this ḥadīth that) if the owner is inclined to renting to a particular person, it is not permissible for another person to offer a higher rent. Then, how (can it be permissible to do so) when that particular person is already living in that house. Hence, whosoever does so deserves punishment, and Allah knows better (Fatāwā, Vol. 30, pp. 160–1).

Following the same logic, Ibn Taimīyah regards sharing in its various forms (muḍārabah, share cropping, etc.) to be more just than the hire contract. ‘Because there is some risk in hiring too, the one who hires may or may not get the benefit (he expected). Whereas in musāqāt and muzāra‘ah (i.e. share cropping) both of them share the profits or the losses (as the case may be), so it does not involve a risk for one of the two parties only, as is the case in hire (contract)’ (Fatāwā, Vol. 20, p. 356).

Looking at social life as a co-operative venture to seek the pleasure of Allah through living in accordance with His Sharī‘ah, Ibn Taimīyah emphasizes the essential status of worldly possessions as means, not ends in themselves. This is also true of all worldly activities, they are means to a higher moral purpose. This being so, one needs always to be conscious of his obligations towards others. These obligations are flexible, one’s own capacity and the others’ needs being the two determinants of the obligation. Like all Islamic thinkers Ibn Taimīyah recognized inequality in worldly possessions but thought it did not imply social inequality which was to be banished from the Islamic society which was based on universal brotherhood in submission to Allah. To him this followed directly from the central Islamic doctrine of tawḥīd and its necessary corollary, justice. He writes:

Justice is related to tawḥīd as tawḥīd is the foundation of justice. The will to superiority relates to corruption as it is the foundation of injustice …

The person who seeks superiority over another person of his kind is an oppressor with respect to him, a transgressor. As the two of you belong to the same (human) kind, you are no more entitled to being superior to him than he is entitled to being superior to you. Justice and equilibrium require that men be brothers (to one another) as Allah has described the believers to be (brothers to one another) (Fatāwā, Vol. 18, p. 165).

Ibn Taimīyah was not a believer in an invisible hand taking care of the society. There were needs to be fulfilled and goals to be achieved. The relevant vocations and industries were regarded as socially obligatory duties (furūḍ kifāyah), which in normal circumstances got done by being prompted by motives ingrained in the nature of man. But the social authority could oblige performance, should circumstances so require. As the author argues in Chapter VII, section D of this book, Ibn Taimīyah envisaged a big economic role for the Islamic state, aiming at eradication of poverty, ensuring fair practices in the market, securing monetary stability, and planning for economic development.

According to Ibn Taimīyah, it is crucial, for the state to be able to play this role, that those appointed to public office observe the Sharī‘ah. Only the God-fearing and the competent should be entrusted with public office, as required in the Qur’ānic verse: ‘Allah bids you to deliver all that you have been entrusted with unto those who are entitled thereto, and whenever you judge between people, to judge with justice’ (4: 58). Opening with this ‘verse relating to the rulers’ his advice to the ruler of his day, which is his treatise entitled ‘Sharī‘ah Policies Relating to the Ruler and the Ruled’ (al-Siyāsah al-Shar‘īyah fī aḥwāl al-Rā‘ī wa’l Ra‘īyah), he goes to great lengths to emphasize that the ‘trust’ (amānah) mentioned in the above verse related to the dispensation of power and wealth. A just society would be one in which political power and material wealth are properly distributed.

The state plays a very active role in Ibn Taimīyah’s economy, being the custodian of public interest and the chief instrument for ensuring justice through enforcement of Sharī‘ah. It manages money but is itself barred from making a profit out of it (Fatāwā, Vol. 29, p. 469). It administers public property in the public interest, supervises the management of all waqf properties, and sees to it that private ownership rights are not exercised to the detriment of public interest. Through the institution of the muḥtasib, it makes all Economic agents fulfil their obligations towards one another, adhere to commonly-recognized norms of behaviour and scrupulously observe the relevant rules of Sharī‘ah. In this context, he comes down very heavily on those employing various kinds of tricks or legal ruses to circumvent the rules relating to barter or to currency exchange. These tricks are worse than outright ribā in his opinion. As a general rule, he regards not the form but the real purpose of and intent behind an act to be decisive regarding its validity. The strictures of Ibn Taimīyah against tricks leading to ribā and other unfair practices reflect the currency of many corrupt practices in the market during his days.

A similar situation prevailed in the realm of public finances. A number of extra-Sharī‘ah levies were being collected from the people and public expenditure, in many cases, was unjustifiable on grounds of public interest. Some of his contemporaries and predecessors had reacted to this situation by declaring all extra-Sharī‘ah taxes as illegitimate. While in some cases these levies were decidedly illegitimate, the public authority, faced with external aggression, did sometimes need additional funds to finance a war. It could also happen that the normal resources of the public treasury fell short of ensuring universal need fulfilment, which Ibn Taimīyah regarded as an inalienable duty of the Islamic state. He wrote: ‘It is a common consensus that those who are unable to earn sufficiently will be aided with money that suffices them … (Fatāwā, Vol. 29, p. 570). As elaborated in this book, toward the end of the eighth chapter, Ibn Taimīyah argued that an individual’s financial obligations towards society extended beyond the zakāt payments and the Islamic state could levy additional taxation if and when the Sharī‘ah levies did not suffice for fulfilling its duties relating to defence and need fulfilment. But he strongly criticized the unjust and irresponsible manner in which public money was being squandered. The first thing to do, therefore, was to confine public expenditure within legitimate limits. He came out very heavily against the numerous levies imposed by the rulers during his times, in Egypt and Syria. But he did not condone tax evasion in any case. He also exhorted the rulers to ensure vertical as well as horizontal equity, even in illegitimate taxation, as inequality and discrimination would destroy the social fabric. All this has been ably brought out by Dr. Islahi who has also reported that Ibn Taimīyah’s protestations had some impact on the ruler, Sultan Nāṣir Muḥammad bin Qalāwūn and resulted in some needed tax reforms.

Like every social thinker, Ibn Taimīyah had to take the existing socio-economic and political realities fully into consideration before he pronounced on any issue. This is exemplified by his stand on additional taxation as noted above. It is also exemplified by his opinion on land grants or iqṭā‘. As the author notes in Chapter VI, section D: ‘Ibn Taimīyah accepts iqṭā‘ system as a social necessity, as iqṭā‘ was granted to men of the army in lieu of salary. If iqṭā‘ was abolished, paying them would have become difficult in a period when monetary payment was not convenient or feasible.’

III

Ibn Taimīyah’s economics is mostly normative. He is concerned with how economic agents should behave and what economic policies should be adopted by the state. But positive analysis – how it works – does come up on a number of occasions, sometimes in a context quite unfamiliar to students of modern economics. Thus, price fluctuations are discussed in a chapter on qaḍā wa qadar (divine predestination) (Fatāwā, Vol. 8, pp. 520, 523).

Ibn Taimīyah distinguishes between man-made scarcities and natural scarcities and says that only the former justify state intervention. His discussion shows an awareness of the role supply and demand play in determining prices, as demonstrated by the author of the present work, who has also reported Ibn Taimīyah’s comprehensive discussion on price regulation in his treatise on al-Ḥisbah (supervision of the market).

While discussing the un-Islamic levies imposed on traders during his times, Ibn Taimīyah also looked into the incidence of these indirect taxes. The discussion shows his awareness of the shifting of the tax burden from the sellers, who pay the taxes, to the buyers who had to pay a higher price for the merchandise taxed (Fatāwā, Vol. 29, p. 253).

A similar excursion into the realm of positive analysis occurs during Ibn Taimīyah’s discussion on money, its origins, its functions and the changes in its value, reported by Dr. Islahi in Chapter V, section D of this book. Here is an example:

The conditions of immediate payment and reciprocal possession in it (i.e. in the exchange of currency for currency) ensures the purpose of exchange; that it is a means to securing what is desired. This can obtain only through possession (of the currency in exchange) not through (mere) obligation to pay, when it is money from both sides. Therefore, the Law-giver prohibited sale of money for money with deferred payment (Fatāwā, Vol. 29, p. 479).

IV

It has been a pleasure to be associated with the progress of this work, which started as a Ph.D dissertation at the Aligarh Muslim University, from where the author has graduated after having gone through courses in Sharī‘ah sciences at the Madrasatul Iṣlāḥ, a noted seat of Islamic learning in India. His stay in Jeddah during the final stages of this work enabled him to cover all the available works of Ibn Taimīyah as also the numerous works on Ibn Taimīyah. Readers will be impressed, I am sure, by the author’s diligence as well as his enthusiasm in comparing Ibn Taimīyah with some of the famous names in medieval (Western) scholarship. The proper evaluation of an Islamic thinker’s economic contributions can be made, however, only on the basis of his analytical insights and policy recommendations in the context of the objectives of Sharī‘ah with respect to social relations. It is Ibn Taimīyah’s concern with protection of individuals from tyranny and with ensuring need fulfilment, equity, social equality and justice in transactions while guaranteeing freedom of enterprise and property that projects him as an Islamic economist of stature. The reader will find in Dr. Islahi’s book ample demonstration of these features of Ibn Taimīyah’s works.

With the exception of an unpublished thesis on Ibn Khaldūn, I am not aware of any book-length treatment of the economic concepts of any Islamic scholar, in the English language. This makes the publication of Dr. Islahi’s work on the economics of Ibn Taimīyah a singular event for Islamic economics – an actuality which is also a pointer to the many potentialities awaiting scholars like Islahi. I urge them to come forward, now that the path has been broken. May Allah guide us to His ways.

Centre for Research inIslamic Economics, Jeddah18 Jumādā 1, 140718 January, 1987

Muhammad Nejatullah Siddiqi

_____________________

^* For bibliographical details, see the Bibliography at the end of the book. Words within parentheses, in this quotation and those following, have been added to make the meaning of Ibn Taimīyah’s Arabic text clear.