Socialism, in very broad and completely non-technical terms, is commonly understood to be a scheme for the distribution of the material wealth of a country or community, or the fruits thereof, amongst its citizens or members on a just and equitable basis. On the one hand it touches capitalism of the more progressive variety as in the Scandinavian countries, and on the other, Communism or Marxism as it is practised in Russia and China.
However, orthodox socialism in the technical sense must have one distinct characteristic. It is the control or regulation of the means of production of wealth by the State. Once this is done the distribution of wealth, which has thus been produced, automatically comes under some form of state control.
From this centralised control of the means of production of wealth in a country, and its subsequent distribution among its citizens, stem all the problems attendant on the practical implementation of socialistic theories in any group or community.
The pre-historic cave-man fighting with other animals, and like other animals, for his daily subsistence is not really dead. He can still be seen in a refined form in every market place and stock exchange any where in the world. The cave-man, once he had killed his prey, was extremely loth to share his acquisitions with any other man, even if he happened to be his real brother. This feeling continues to exist today among the majority of the so-called civilised members of the human race. In the world of today, there are few people who have so conquered their animal instincts and have so sublimated their animal desires that they would love to share what they have produced, through their own individual efforts, with their less fortunate brethren.
Keeping in mind this background of animal lust and selfishness in human beings, the leaders of manmade socialism have had no option, while devising ways and means of equalising the distribution of wealth and other material rewards of individual or national effort among the members of the community, but to attempt to control the means of production of wealth, rather than try to persuade the individuals, who had acquired the wealth through their own personal efforts, to give a portion of it to other members of their community, who have not been so successful in their efforts or have for some reason or the other been unable to make any effort at all. From this desire or necessity of enforcing public control, as opposed to private control of the means of production come on the one hand the nationalisation of all industries, banks and even commerce in certain countries and the complete communisation of all means of production, including factories and farms, as in Communist countries.
The basic difference between Islamic socialism and other forms of socialism arises from the fact that in Islamic socialism regulation or socialisation of the means of production of wealth is not a vital necessity. Islamic socialism consists almost entirely of ways and means to ensure the distribution of wealth - once it has been acquired either by State controlled means of production or unfettered individual effort - among all the members of a community in as equitable a manner as possible. No leader of man made socialism in history has ever advocated complete freedom in the production of wealth, and then expected to bring about a sort of socialism by merely regulating the distribution of acquired wealth and property. The reason, is obvious enough. No man made laws, however elaborate, can control the animal instincts of man mentioned above effectively. It is only through moral and spiritual influences that such desires can be properly controlled and sublimated. The moral and spiritual influences which can make a success of this type of socialism or to, give it another name, social justice are already there and have been there for the last 1400 years. All, that is necessary, is to understand the basic principles of Islamic socialism and to apply them whole-heartedly and sincerely, without fear or favour.
In the Islamic scheme of socialism the two aspects of economic life, the production of wealth and the distribution of wealth, are dealt with separately. As regards the production of wealth, the Islamic concept seems to be totally pragmatic. While it goes without saying that Islam does not abhor private enterprise as orthodox socialism does, it is equally obvious that Islamic ideology does not rule out the possibility of State control of the means of production, if at a given time and in given circumstance, it is in the interest of the community as a whole.
As regards distribution of the wealth the mandate is clear enough in case the wealth has been acquired by an individual’s personal efforts - that whatever is left over after meeting his basic requirements, should as far as possible be given away to his less fortunate brethren. The two basic instruments for the redistribution of wealth acquired by individuals are "Zakat’, which is compulsory for all persons who claim to be Muslims and possess the minimum amount of accumulated wealth, and secondly charity towards the poor, the way-farer, and the needy. As regards wealth produced through State controlled efforts, it has not been dealt with as specifically in the Holy Quran as individual wealth but it is obvious that it would become part of the Baitul Mal and would be used only for meeting the needs of the community as a whole on an equitable basis.
Apart from the clear indications of the principles regarding disposal of individually acquired wealth in the Quran itself, the lives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him), and the Khulefa-i-Rashideen bear ample testimony to the fact that ‘Zakat’ as well as mandated charity constitute the bedrock of the economic life of a typical Muslim community. While he encouraged, and in fact himself took part in the production of wealth through free trade and commerce, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) always frowned upon the accumulation of wealth in any form. His successors notably Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Usman gave away all the accumulated wealth they possessed, in the way of God, as and when they were called upon to do so. In short, while Islam fully recognises the right to private property and the private ownership of the means of production, it also accepts the possibilities of basic inequalities of wealth between man and man arising out of the unavoidable disparity in their talents, opportunities and efforts. It, therefore, bridges the gulf between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ by making it incumbent on those who have more than they need, to give as much as they can, to those who have less.
One of the highest virtues in Islam is the payment of Zakat and the giving of alms to the needy and the poor. The idea of universal brotherhood of man, which was first propounded by Islam, also clearly points to the need for the sharing of material comforts and the good things of life with all members of the human race, because in Islam every man is truly his brother’s keeper. No one who claims to be a Muslim can evade his responsibility for lightening the burden of the less talented and the less fortunate. Talent and opportunity are themselves gifts of God. Those who have thus been favoured by God, had no inherent right or claim to them. In Pakistan we have for the last many years enforced one aspect of Islamic socialism by giving full scope to private free enterprise in our scheme of economic development. The results thereof are clear for every one to see. We have so far fought shy of adopting the other constituent elements of Islamic socialism i.e. averagisation of accumulated wealth through the compulsory collection of ‘Zakat’ and the taking of all possible steps to encourage those who possess material wealth, in excess of their personal requirements, to give in the way of God to their less fortunate brethren.
A half-hearted attempt towards the collection of ‘Zakat’ was made shortly after Independence, but it turned out to be such a farce that the less said about it the better. The problem whether the State should make arrangements for the collection of ‘Zakat’ or not, may be engaging the attention of the government of Pakistan, but the progress, in finalising the arrangements is so slow, that it is difficult to say when these arrangements will actually come into being.
It will be worthwhile examining the arguments advanced against the collection of ‘Zakat’ by the state. The first and foremost against compulsory collection of Zakat is that it would discourage capital formation, which is so essential for our future economic development. Those who advance this argument tend to forget, or deliberately ignore the fact that Zakat is leviable only on idle accumulated wealth, and capital invested in a business enterprise is as much exempt from the payment of Zakat as amounts earned and spent by a person within a year of earning them. Far from discouraging capital formation, the compulsory collection of Zakat may very well compel the persons with whom money is lying idle, to invest it in productive enterprises instead of keeping it locked up in their bank lockers.
The second objection against the state collection of Zakat is that after paying heavy amounts of income tax and other taxes the people of Pakistan would be reluctant to pay Zakat and it would place the Muslims at a disadvantage economically vis a vis the non-Muslims, from whom the Zakat will not be recoverable. It is surprising how such an argument can be advanced in a country which claims to be an Islamic Republic.
As regards any practical difficulties in the assessment and compulsory collection of Zakat there appears to be no reason why the Income Tax Department which assesses and collects income tax, corporation tax, etc., cannot set up a branch for the assessment and collection of Zakat. In fact if and when the compulsory collection of Zakat starts, on all holdings it would be desirable to exempt not only donations for certain specified charities, but all sums given away as charity from the payment of income tax and income tax should be levied only on the sums actually spent by an individual on his personal needs.
However, if compulsory collection of Zakat on all holdings is not considered feasible, a beginning can be made by encouraging wealthy persons to come forward and publicly pay the Zakat which they are required to pay into the Zakat Fund managed by the government. The government should also arrange to publish a list of persons with incomes of Rs. 25,000 a year or more as may be decided so that the people of Pakistan may know as to who among them are observing this important tenet of Islam, and others who only give lip service to Islam, and do not follow its injunction when it touches their purse.
The arguments against this alternatives course of action are usually that the persons liable to pay Zakat say that they would rather pay their Zakat privately and directly to the deserving persons than through the government. To this the reply is that if a large majority of the people of Pakistan do believe in the enforcement of Zakat, there is no reason why, in an Islamic State, it should not be possible to compel all persons who claim to be Muslims to pay it through the government. The Govt. could easily establish a separate Zakat Fund which could be the counterpart of the Baitul Mal of earlier days. Secondly, it is said that a voluntary appeal to pay Zakat may not produce any result. This is only a presumption. It ignores completely the strength of public opinion in this country on such a vital matter as Zakat.
In any case there can be no harm in trying out this experiment on a fuller scale in a really business-like manner. Zakat is after all one of the pillars of Islam. Why should we, the citizens of an Islamic Republic, have any hesitation in making a public announcement of the Zakat we are paying. The payment of Zakat is after all not entirely a personal matter as is the case with the payment of taxes and the giving away of gifts and donations in non-Muslim countries. In an Islamic country like Pakistan, the total amount of Zakat payable and paid by the well-to-do people is a matter of vital public interest. The initiative in this matter should not, however, be left entirely to the Government and it is for some of the well-to-do persons of this country themselves, who really believe in their professed religion, to come forward and give a lead to their brethren.
It may be worthwhile pointing out that one of the highest virtues in Islam, which forms a recurrent theme of the Holy Quran is the giving away of wealth in the name of Allah to the needy and the poor. Verse 195 of Surah II states "spend your wealth for the cause of Allah, and be not cast by your own hands to ruin : and do good Lo! Allah loveth the beneficient" And in the latter half of verse 219 of the same Surah it is stated "And they ask thee what they ought to spend. Say: That which is superfluous. Thus Allah maketh plain to you (His) revelations, that happily ye may reflect". The great importance attaching to voluntary charity and its intimate connection with man’s whole moral existence is made plain in clear words in Verse 92 of III Surah where it is said " YE will not attain unto piety until ye spend of that which ye love. And whatsoever ye spend, Allah is aware thereof." Again the direct relationship between voluntary charity and man’s ultimate salvation is brought out in Verse 16 of Surah LXIV where it is stated "So keep your duty to Allah as best as ye can, and listen and obey and spend that is better for your souls. And who is saved from his own greed, such are the successful." Finally the point that all wealth ultimately belongs to Allah and those who manage to acquire it in this world are merely its trustees is made in Verse 7 of Surah LVII where it is stated "Believe in Allah and his messenger, and spend of that where of he hath made you trustees: and such of you as believe and spend (right), theirs will be a great reward". This repeated emphasis on spending in the way of God as much as one can, also makes it obvious that making efforts to produce wealth by lawful and legitimate means is also one of the highest virtues in the Islamic code of life, for how can one spend in the way of God if he has not first acquired the wealth to spend. The possibility of using inherited wealth for charitable purposes, it is obvious, becomes pretty remote if the Islamic laws of inheritance and Zakat are fully enforced.
What can, therefore, be a nobler, fuller more productive life for a Muslim than to set up an industrial concern, work hard to get the maximum production out of it, provide employment on reasonable wages to thousand of his fellow citizens, sell his goods to the general public at a reasonable profit, pay ‘Zakat’ in full on all his personal wealth and whatever is left over of the profits earned by him, after meeting his personal needs and those of his family, and finally give away as much as he can in the way of God to the poor and the needy. It is for such a ‘’Marde-Swaleh’ among others, that God has held out the promise in the Quran that on the Day of Judgement, "on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve". In Islam heroism does not consist only in fighting bravely on the battlefield, nor does piety consist in retiring to the mountains and leading an ascetic life as a monk, cut-off from all worldly affairs. In Islam the ideal is to live fully in this world and yet not get submerged or lost in it.
In the Quran there are numerous references to those who accept a portion of the Divine message (which suits them) and reject another part (which does not apparently suit them). It has been said that such persons may for sometime have an ephemeral success, but ultimately their end will be ignominy and disaster. This warning fits our attitude towards Islamic Socialism like a glove. Unless we are prepared to sincerely implement the second part of Islamic Socialism that is, equalisation of amassed wealth through the levy of Zakat and maximum distribution of charity on the part of the rich persons, our end will be the same as that of the so-called western capitalist countries, which are in a state of turmoil and unrest due to the growth of cartels and monopolies, and the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, with all its adverse moral, social, and economic consequences.
|