ISLAMIC ECONOMICS: OWNERSHIP AND TAWHID
by Abolhassan Banisadr
Translated by A. Dabiran and David H. Albert
With notes from Kat Ulrike
Ownership-the Relationship between the Individual and His/Her Work
With notes from Kat Ulrike
Background:
 |
| Abolhassan Banisadr |
This essay, featured in the book "Tell the American People: Perspectives on the Iranian Revolution" is excerpted from the Abolhassan Banisadr's "Tawhid Economics" and has been translated and edited by A. Dabiran and David H. Albert.
Abolhassan Banisadr (22 March 1933 – 9 October 2021) was an Iranian politician and writer. He was the first president of Iran after the 1979 Iranian Revolution abolished the monarchy, serving from February 1980 until he was impeached by parliament in June 1981. Prior to his presidency, he studied finance and economics at the Sorbonne. he was the minister of foreign affairs in the interim government. He had resided for many years in France where he co-founded the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
During his revolutionary days, he wrote a book on Islamic finance, "Eghtesad Tohidi", which roughly translates as "The Economics of Monotheism."
 |
| ISLAM IS THE ONLY SUPPORTER OF THE WORKER: A Labor-themed poster from the former "Islamic Republican Party" |
Any relation between an individual and his/her earnings which is incompatible with the principle of "Tawhid" is an un-Islamic relationship. Therefore the reality of absolute ownership is not acceptable in Islam because it would imply acceptance of the concept of absolute ownership which would be a denial of "Tawhid".
Absolute ownership is God's alone; to reflect the principle of "Tawhid", human ownership must be relative only. Everyone's work in reality belongs to God; only to the extent that the individual can be God's viceregent upon earth can he/she have ownership.
In order for relative ownership of the individual over his/her work and its fruits to be continuously realised, there must be a relation between the individual, society, and God which is at once the cause and embodiment of this principle, and which reveals the possibility of ownership at all. It is this relation which now be explored.
The Relationship between the Individual, Society, and God
In all vital affairs, the relations between the individual and God is established only through the relationship between the society as a whole and God. Thus, ownershup by the community as the primary viceregent of God always takes precedence to that of the individual and the viceregency by the community is retained for all affairs in which community ownership is the condition for the individual's ownership of his/her own labour and its fruits. The origin of all relations is thus:
God>Society>Individual
Based on this relation, individual ownership is rejected for some things and community ownership is rejected for others. The community can determine the extent of individual ownership that is not allowed to prohibit an individual from working or owning the fruits of that work.
It also follows that no one is permitted to own another's labour or its results. This limitation on ownership must be continued from generation to generation, ensuring that able-bodied person is able to exercise his/her abilities without any restriction.
 |
| A Labour day themed poster from the "Islamic Republican Party" in 1980 with the caption: "Such hands will never go to hell" |
Having declared this principle, are we confronted with three questions:
1.) Whether individual ownership of labour and its fruits is transferable?
2.) If so, what is the direction of this transfer?
3.) Is ownership continuous or not?
According to the principle of "Tawhid", the movement and activity of all things is from relativity to absoluteness- that is, toward god. Transfer of ownership in the case of this movement from relative to the absolute, and thus the common direction of transfer must be from the personal to the social. When conditions for the transfer from the personal to the social realm exist, it should be accomplished. But because the role of the individual as the viceregent of God is a continuous phenomenon, the individual's ownership of his/her work must also have a constant and stable character.
Until the time when the possibilities of centralisation and accumulation of wealth have been removed, until firm borders are established so that the centralisation of productive surpluses of the society within one or two centers becomes impossible, until these centers of accumulation can no longer be transformed by representatives of the society into centers of power, the social relations of dominant/dominated will continue. Past history and the current human situation is evidence of this fact. Therefore, just because the society makes its facilities accessible to the individual for use, it does not follow that it has the right to take away the people's reserves and put them in the hands of the government. Until the society is released from domination relationships, and there are ways to prevent the centralisation of wealth and power, the taking away of the people's reserves will merely concentrate all the produced wealth into the hands of the bureaucrat. Rulers will thus be transformed into tyrants over the people's fate, for which there are already too many examples. But because Islam wants, by solving this "accumulation complex", to reach a "Tawhidi" society, it tries to establish alternative kinds of relations for the distribution of the fruits of labour and residual of the individual's activity within the community and within a "natural" territory. This distribution must follow the path of the relation between God, society, and individual and thus move from individual ownership to social ownership.
The stability of ownership in the hands of workers from generation to generation marks the continuity of the community's relation as viceregent. The reserve built up only from the fruits of labour will not trigger a complex of capital accumulation. but the method of distribution from the Islamic point of view must also be a method of reaching toward community ownership. Thus, the distribution of inherited wealth according to Islamic principles is a system for eliminating the "accumulation complex", not for promoting it or for placing a boundary between individual and community ownership.
Indeed, if the picture which we draw from the society of the "Twelfth Imam" (ed note: In Shia Islam, it is believed that the Twelfth Imam will appear someday to usher in the ideal soceity) is realisable, it must be that a truly Islamic society could lead toward it. It should not be reasonable to assume that a system would be presented to the people and its objectives be defined but that legal foundations be set up which would make it impossible for the society to move forward those objectives.
Even if the picture of the ideal society (that of the "Twelth Imam") had not been presented, the "Tawhid" principle titself would be enough for a healthy mind not to countenance the accumulation and centralisation of power as the basis for an Islamic society. It is simply not reasonable to be striving toward the objective of the "Tawhidi" society, but like capitalist societies or those which have different productive systems but possessing centralised centers of political and economic power, to make it possible for the labour of all the people to be placed in the pockets of the few.
Therefore, until the time that an economically prosperous society is set up within which scarcity and the possibility of accumulation and centralisation is removed, Islam prefers the transfer of the fruits of labour after the deduction of "God's share" to be distributed according to Quranic principles. the result of each person's work, tools, and land should thus be placed in the hands of descendants. Principal is returned to the society which is the place of "Tawhid".
To sum up, both the society and individual can own, according to the vicegregency principle, and to the extent that this ownership of labour and its fruits help remove accumulation of capital and centralisation of power forever. And with regard to the fruits of labour, ownership must ultimately belong to society, and the direction of transfer of ownership should make the fulfillment of this principle possible.
Islamic Theory and the Fraudulent Attitudes Engendered by the Powerful
Under the system of private ownership, absolute ownership is assumed. Someone puts a barbed wire fence around a piece of property and then claims ownership. What happens then? What happens if the owners let no one inside to work on it? The masses of the people will be obliged to put themselves in the hands of the owners and thus, in a position of submissiveness say, "whatever you say, boss." or they will be obliged to go to the factories and be ground up in the gears of the machinery or to the construction sites where they will work until they fall. This occurs because it is in the interest of these owners for it to occur. Are not these masses "obliged" to obey the orders of the absolute owners, who have forgotten God, because the owners have "saved" them from death by starvation?
These relations, which are the dominant relations of the "Shirk" (atheistic and discordant) world, are not Islamic relations and must be rejected by Islam. the common supposition that the above situation is normal or even Islamic has no relation to the truly Islamic view. the basis of this system is force, is based on the "Shirk" economy, and is incompatible with the Islamic point of view based on "Tawhid", in which common ownership is the kind of ownership which allows all people to own their own labour. It is obvious that this is not realisable under a system which legalises the grabbing of land, resources, and tools from the people.
A society which is true to its own nature as a society has its members do common work together in protecting them from dangers, providing for the needs of each, and ensuring that nobody robs someone else's fruits of labour through cheating or force. A society will reach its objectives of ensuring the needs of all and equalising opportunities for everyone to the extent that everyone owns his/her own labour; no one uses his/her own labour for destructive activities; individuals do not engage in activity without relation to the total activity of the community or against the interest of the community; and people work as members of the society as a whole. This is "Tawhid", and possesses the components for unity.
"Tawhid" and Stability of Ownership Overtime
Overtime, generations after generations have relative ownership of land and resources and the fruits of labour. When it is said that "You are the owner of the land you are working," it means that you and the human community and future generations and past generations are partners in this ownership. The maintenance of "Tawhid" through time is one of the most important elements in the legislating of Islamic law. All rules must be established in accordance to "Tawhid." This is true even with respect to the individual's own person. The "Tawhid" principle requires a prohibition on suicide because an individual does not have absolute ownership even over him/herself, but belongs to God through the viceregent principle belongs to the society, to future and past generations which have laboured and are still working and will work for him/her and for which the individual has a responsibility to work.
Governments are not forever and cannot make decisions which lead to the deprivation of future generations. For example, it cannot choose to exhaust the oil and leave the well dry during the lifetime of a single generation, or dry the land and empty the mines for future generations. To make the present time absolute is a kind of domination relation and represents an exploitative point of view. It leads to the forgetting of the principle that every individual and every society is part of the totality of being. Neither individuals nor governments have the right to exploit for the sake of their own wants. Islam does not have a class perspective- it doesn't look from the top to bottom, or from the point of view of the oppressed upward. The Islamic view is based on "Tawhid". God exists and all be equal in God's sight. Preference is given according to virtue. There is not a single sub-role or class which is not included in the Islamic view. And it cannot be otherwise, and couldn't be.
The meaning of this is that Islam is a system in which every rule and law and condition reflects the guiding principles. If it were not so, Islam would not be a system. And the reason that Islam has gotten into the present situation is that rules and conditions have become bankrupt of these guiding principles.
Furthermore, in Islamic theory the origin of ownership and its results and the validity of its extensions must be established in such a way so that the objective face of human society reflects the guiding principles. That means ownership is limited to constructive purposes; destructive ends are prohibited. Constructive purposes are those which add to the store of human opportunities in such a way that does not lead to the future destruction of opportunities. If labour is not constructive and creative, how could the Quranic verse, "the ascension of things is toward God", acquire this meaning? If the individual does not add to the store of human opportunities and does not consciously seek evolution, how can he/she ascend to God? By working with nature and with the community, the individual can forget him/herself and ascend through evolution. If people do not use their labour for the extension and growth of the human dimension, they cannot reach toward a "Tawhidi" society and ascend towards God.
Conclusions
In the Islamic theory of ownership, absolute ownership is reserved for God alone. As human relativity and activity is not realised except in relation to God's absoluteness, individual ownership over labour cannot be realised except in relation to God's absolute ownership. Otherwise, force would be the basis of all relations: both dominating and dominated would lose their own freedom and their authority and become estranged from themselves. To the extent that the human race upholds the principle of vicegregency, and maintains the right of labour and the right of innovation for all people without exception and without discrimination in all times and places, and as long as ownership is maintained relatively, humans are the heirs of God. This relation between the community and the individual is to be organised by the Imam.
Accordingly, ownership is one aspect of the God-human relationship. The relation has two directions:
That of origin= God>Society>Individual,
and;
That of ultimate end= Individual>Society>God.
Absolute ownership is that of God and the nearest ownership to absoluteness over the earth and resources is that of the community. Next is that of the individual who, however, maintains relative ownership over his/her own labour. Therefore in transfer with respect to destination, ownership should move from individual to the community, from the community to the society-at-large, and then to the Imam, God's active representative. Until then, all tools of labour should be placed in the hands of those who make constructive use of them, according to capacity. Work opportunities are to be increased. And the differences between individual abilities should be reduced through the just distribution of opportunities.
Alas that the problem has not been faced this way among the religious community of Islam. The Islamic religious community has always adjusted itself to the economic conditions of the time. The truly Islamic view which holds the possibilities for the final freedom of humankind, the view which has been made known in the Quran and described in the religious traditions and sayings, has been forgotten when the political power of tyrants has been established.
The reason for these details and even repetition is that the commonly held ideology is based on "Shirk"-atheistic contraditictions-must be rejected. Once we have done so, we can ask, according to this paradigm of ownership based on the principle of "Tawhid", how such ownership can be realised and how Islam can organise itself in this vital realm. And in answering these questions, we must study the adjustments of ownership for consistency with the way Islam must fight accumulation of capital and the centralisation of power.
***
According to A. Dabiran and Albert, "Tawhid", as inscribed in the introduction, is the Islamic worldview in which the universe is regarded as a unity, with a single form, possessing will, intelligence and purpose that is God. Its counterpart is called "Shirk", the worldview which regards the universe as discordant, possessing conflicting tendencies, and contradictions. It is obviously impossible to discuss the Islamic concept of ownership without considering the legal, political, economic, sociological, and philosophical ramifications. The "legal" conceptions of ownership take on meaning only within the framework of social, political, and economic relations. In this context, this writeup evaluates the Islamic concept of ownership and its relation to the principle of "Tawhid".
This article, made during the Iranian revolution, was an attempt to introduce a different kind of “Islamic economy” as an alternative to capitalism and socialism. Similar to the directed/mixed economies, this kind of economic system Banisadr envisions shows a shift from confrontation to that of cooperation. To some may sound “idealistic” especially in a time most Islamic countries end adopting neoliberal policies in their economies. Taking basic prescriptions from sharia (Islamic law), and systematizing and conceptualizing them "to construct a coherent and functional ensemble offering a middle ground between the two systems of the twentieth century, Marxism and capitalism."
Iran however, trying to be the bulwark of “Islamic Revolution” with emphasis on the “Governance of the Islamic Jurist”, has to maintain emphasis on “justice” and “community” even despite its recent intentions to privatise most of its industries and to liberalise, decentralise the economy.
As an observer would say that this note depends on who interprets it, some would even adopt Marxism with emphasis on class struggle (like the Mojahedin E Khalq, or the earlier "God Fearing Socialists" group of Mohammad Nakhshab) which ironically, contradictory to this article that emphasises non-confrontationism. But history attests that confrontation in pursuit of truth has been part of it- especially when Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī, a companion of Muhammad, protested against the accumulation of wealth by the ruling class during Uthman's caliphate and urged the equitable redistribution of wealth. His actions made was credited by some scholars, like Muhammad Sharqawi and Sami Ayad Hanna, as a principal antecedent of Islamic socialism.
In fact, other than Banisadr, Clerics Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr and Mahmoud Taleghani developed their own variant of "Islamic economics" that emphasises a major role for the state in matters such as circulation and equitable distribution of wealth, and a reward to participants in the marketplace for being exposed to risk or liability. Like Banisadr, al-Sadr and Taleghani's version of Islamic economics, which influenced the Iranian Revolution, called for public ownership of land and of large "industrial enterprises," while private economic activity continued "within reasonable limits." These ideas informed the large public sector and public subsidy policies of the Iranian Revolution.
The Mojahedin E Khalq also stresses "Islamic economics" but with a synthesis of Marxism. "Islam with revolutionary Marxism" as what they've been described by some analysts despite the latter being synonymous with atheism. MEK even constituted a "combination of Muslim themes; Shiite notions of martyrdom; classical Marxist theories of class struggle and historical determinism; and neo-Marxist concepts of armed struggle, guerilla warfare and revolutionary heroism". They even acknowledge Marxism as a "progressive method of social analysis", yet "they could not accept materialism, which was contrary to their Islamic ideology". In the group's first major ideological work, "Nahzat-i Husseini" (Hussein's Movement), authored by Ahmad Reza'i, it was argued that "Nezam-i Towhid" (monotheistic order) sought by the prophet Muhammad, was a commonwealth fully united not only in its worship of one God but in a classless society that strives for the common good. "Shiism, particularly Hussein's historic act of martyrdom and resistance, has both a revolutionary message and a special place in our popular culture". Ironically, both Banisadr and Reza'i shared the thoughts of "Tawhid" but in a different interpretation: Banisadr saw "Tawhid" as that of harmonious society, while Reza'i saw "Tawhid" as that of a revolutionary akin to a "Church Militant".
The Mojahedin E Khalq also stresses "Islamic economics" but with a synthesis of Marxism. "Islam with revolutionary Marxism" as what they've been described by some analysts despite the latter being synonymous with atheism. MEK even constituted a "combination of Muslim themes; Shiite notions of martyrdom; classical Marxist theories of class struggle and historical determinism; and neo-Marxist concepts of armed struggle, guerilla warfare and revolutionary heroism". They even acknowledge Marxism as a "progressive method of social analysis", yet "they could not accept materialism, which was contrary to their Islamic ideology". In the group's first major ideological work, "Nahzat-i Husseini" (Hussein's Movement), authored by Ahmad Reza'i, it was argued that "Nezam-i Towhid" (monotheistic order) sought by the prophet Muhammad, was a commonwealth fully united not only in its worship of one God but in a classless society that strives for the common good. "Shiism, particularly Hussein's historic act of martyrdom and resistance, has both a revolutionary message and a special place in our popular culture". Ironically, both Banisadr and Reza'i shared the thoughts of "Tawhid" but in a different interpretation: Banisadr saw "Tawhid" as that of harmonious society, while Reza'i saw "Tawhid" as that of a revolutionary akin to a "Church Militant".
In the western view this would say that Banisadr's economic view may sound first almost closer to distributism, especially in an attempt to create a "third way" between capitalism and socialism. Being a graduate of Economics and Finance in Sorbonne may conclude that his economic thought, despite being "Islamic", was also influenced by western economic thought (and that includes distributism). For as Distributism stresses the right to property is a fundamental right, the means of production should be spread as widely as possible rather than being centralized by any entity (state, corporations). Therefore, distributism advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership. However, Banisadr focuses much on society controlling if not owning with the individual acting as a steward with the responsibility of sharing its fruits of labour to the society itself being the viceregent of God.
Another theory, Mutualism, also shares the idea of what Banisadr envisions, especially that of reciprocity, initiative, and cooperation. But then again, the Iranian economist's view stresses the emphasis on God-centeredness as opposed to that of "sovereignty of the individual over himself, his affairs and his products", as well as the role of man as that of the steward of the community, who, acting as on behalf of God's, in maintaining and ensuring.