Commons Land Case: Western vs Islamic Perspective

Dr Asad Zaman in his lectures discussed privatization by comparing an Islamic and Western judgement on an historical issue of commons land. I'm going to describe it in my words:

In England there was commons' land, and as the word common modifies the land it means land for the common people. Common people depended on this land for their livelihood and shelter. They were mostly people with no luxuries or even modest income levels, who're only surviving on what they could find in the forests, lakes, etc., for themselves and/or for their cattle. Similarly, it provided them housing and stuff. They were poor people but the land made life liveable and gave a sense of security against economic upheavals and complete bankruptcy of basic necessities.

The rich people had their eyes on it for long. In 1066, after the Normans Conquest, things changed drastically. Rich and powerful lords approached for 'privatization' of the land, in a sense. All the poor people were banished from the commons land, which became not so common by then. Their houses were destroyed and what not. Survival became difficult, if not impossible. Previously, they could graze their sheep and drink its milk or eat fresh fish from flowing lakes or rivers and survive, but now the conditions became worse.

The same situation took place back in the times of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Their was a commons land under his rule on which poor people used to graze their cattle. Rich and powerful people approached him (PBUH) to allow their cattle to enter it for grazing. Prophet (PBUH) forbade their entrance and instructed them to find some other pasture or land for their big flocks, lest they might overgraze the rightful share of poor people's pasture.

The judgement given by Prophet (PBUH) is totally opposite to the one given by the kuffar and shows the basis of Islamic economics to be welfare of the people and especially the poor.

Of Glad Tidings: Islamic Economics

For all those interested in Islamic Economics there’s an interesting academic development that is very significant - including for those many (Muslims) who’re absolutely cynical and doubtful not only about Islamic Economics, but all things Islamic and are ‘more at home with all things Western’, from its toiletries to ideologies.

Whenever I try to talk to people especially those Muslims who work(ed) in banks about the prohibition of interests and evils of interest based banking systems and also those are more inclined towards interest-free economy and had been caught up in this web due to unfortunate series of events, inquire: Why do not ulema (traditional, religious scholars) come up with an alternative plan? Firstly, it is appreciable, they are not sarcastic & cynical, and want a genuine interest free system; I sincerely pray to Allah to forgive their previous sins and open their heart’s eye and ‘inspire them with the Vision of Islam’. Secondly, their rhetorical objection shrouded in the question starting from the phrase, why don’t they/you… has seen light of the day putting a stop mark to their repetitive objections, as if they were free of all blames – none of us is free from blame except those strive in the way of Allah for no worldly gains.

I was listening to this lecture on broad, immutable principles of Islamic Economics by Dr Israr Ahmed (May Allah forgive his sins and increase his rank). In the end, an economist spoke very briefly before asking his question (which i‘ll mention in the end). Sort of a glad tiding for me actually: He said that recently [few years back] some Muslim economists who had gone to western universities to do their PhDs in Islamic economics had their theses approved. Their theses had been about the comparison between interest based economic systems versus Islamic interest-free system. Purely based on ‘economic reasoning’ their theses have proved the ‘superiority of interest free system of islam over Western interest based system’. Their supervisors were Christian economists and they’ve accepted the superiority of Islamic system at theoretical level. Many other Western economists have also started to accept same proposition, he added. However, the supervisors and economists say that they do not want to implement Islamic system because for them interest system is quite simple as compared to (apparently) ‘complicated profit sharing’ system of Islam. The scholar, who to my mind is perhaps Dr Asad Zaman [check out his personal website which features his articles and papers], lamented that we as Pakistanis have wasted decades of freedom in which we could’ve implemented the theoretical model of Islamic economics and could've easily shown the world that it’s not complicated and can be implemented in West too.

I’m in search of at least the abstract of the PhD theses. I will try contacting Dr Asad about it, if he ever replies =)

Trade Ethics

I with my college friends have started a small business in university to learn ground truths. I saw the application of Islamic ethics of trade, and why evil is the opposite. Whatever code of ethics has been made by Islam, it is to benefit humans, both as entrepreneurs and consumers. For instance, telling the people right information was not being encouraged by some of us who are running the firm. They're reluctant and fear short-term losses. But, that's only hiding our own shortcomings. What if consumers come to know about the fact that strawberries are not being added to the drink, but some powder form of it! They'll spread bad word about it. But above all, the best way to implement these codes may not be policing firms but inner consciousness in humans.

Islamic Banking for Me

Today read a paper Interest and Modern Economy, by Dr Asad Zaman and Arshad Zaman. Dr Asad Zaman is a PhD in economics from Stanford University. He's currently a professor of Economics at International Islamic University, Islamabad.

It has dispelled many doubts about what Islamic banking is. What more could i get from the paper, after studying finance, was a penetrating anti-thesis of debt or interest based economy, and how efficient it would be if we completely ban interest in modern economy. Please download the paper from here.

In a nut-shell, there are two ways you can go about financing your business:

1. Loan from a bank: you pay fixed interest to the lender

2. Equity based financing: simply, you put your money or someone else - you don't give interest, but share profit or loss

Surprisingly, i was taught great deal about interest rates, debt, and also about equity, but never told that most of the companies in US and Japan go for equity than loan. Why not 100% go for equity? Because, as i am taught, there's an artificial tax advantage given to loan. For instance, in US 40% tax is deducted on 1 dollar of loan. Dr Zaman argues that if this advantage is shed off, share of equity will be maximum.

For me, reading up how efficient and less risky Islamic mode of financing is, which's # 2, that's a sigh of relief. All that is worrisome, as pointed out in the paper, is some deception, that is, some Islamic financing is islamic by name only, while undercover it is not different from conventional interest-based, prohibited banking. This is especially true for how government of Pakistan's mode of financing, which is not implementing shariah on itself.

One proof of viability of islamic banking and its market is that Dow-Jones has introduced islamic banking stuff to capture huge market of religious Muslims. Once Muslim governments take islamic financing serious, there's no doubt islamic banking can dominate globe and finish off interest based banking, which was banned in Pakistan for centuries only introduced 50 years back!

A Muslim View of the Rushdie Affair

A Muslim View of the Rushdie Affair

Dr. Asad Zaman

March 1989

1 Preliminaries

All praise is due to Allah alone, the Creator, Sustainer and Nourisher of the Worlds. I seek the protection of God from the mischief that is in my soul and the evil consequences of my deeds. Those whom God leads to guidance, none can lead astray; those whom God leads astray, none can guide. I bear witness that there is no God except Allah; He is One and has no partners. I bear witness that Muhammad is his slave and his messenger.

As a Muslim, my sole concern is to please my Creator. If my actions and beliefs please God, it matters not at all if the entire world condemns me. If I am disobedient to God, the praise and approval of the entire world gains me nothing. Why then should I seek to explain the behavior of myself and my fellow Muslims to a non-Muslim audience? My efforts are directed to removing obsta-cles to understanding Islam created by slanders and lies. After the last prophet Muhammed, this duty of conveying the message of our Creator to mankind has been assigned to all his followers .

Unfortunately, the task is enormous. Starting with the Crusades, and contin-uing through the era of Colonialism, a tremendous amount of grossly distorted or completely false information about Islam and Muslims has been taken as axiomatic in the West. The misunderstandings regarding Rushdie are but a trivial manifestation of the widespread ignorance (combined with fear and hate, in many cases) about Islam. For a good introduction to Islam written from a Western perspective, see Islam and the Destiny of Man by Charles Le Gai Eaton.

2 Freedom of Speech?

I and my fellow Muslims are perplexed at Western defence of Rushdie in terms of freedom speech. Muslim see the Westerners as acting in bad faith in this issue; freedom of speech is invoked where it suits them, and ignored when it does not. For example,

• The American press was, in general, mildly amused at the discomfiture of the British Government when they banned the book ‘Spycatcher’ by Peter Wright recently. There was no impassioned outrage at the restriction of free speech by Mrs. Thatcher (as opposed to the Ayatollah)

• When Jimmy (the Greek) Snyder uttered remarks offensive to blacks, he was dropped from all major TV networks, and has not been seen since. Presumably, he has suffered serious loss of income. No one has defended his right of free speech.

• A research center in Southern California responsible for propagating the idea that the Holocaust never happened, or else that the numbers involved have been exaggerated, was bombed and burned down. Death threat were made to the personnel. No national outrage at this denial of free speech was visible.

• Very recently, a Chicago art exhibit required people to step on the flag, apparently to properly view the exhibit. The Daughters of the American Revolution promptly came in with the requisite bomb threats. A rec-onciliation was reached by restricting the viewing of the exhibit. Again, the incident (and its relation to free speech and the Rushdie case) went unnoticed in national press.

• During the Nixon adminisitration, General Brown uttered remarks about the excessive influence exercised by Jews in America. This influence can easily be substantiated by reading the memoirs of Kissinger, Nixon, and the more controversial ‘They Dare to Speak Out’, by Senator Paul Find-lay. Ironic proof of his own statement was provided by the subsequent demotion of General Brown.

The list goes on and on, but the above should be sufficient as a sampler. The point is that Muslims regard invocations of freedom of speech as merely a pretext by Westerners to freely heap insults on Muslims and Islam.

We take the view that just as my freedom to move my arm is restricted by your nose, freedom of speech is restricted by the need to avoid damage to society. Libel laws protect individuals from verbal attacks which hold them up to ‘ridicule, hatred, or contempt’. The concept of banning the book (or removing its offensive portions) to prevent this libel is not as ‘alien’ to Western principles as Westerners claim. Indeed, a previous book by Rushdie, which made false allegations about Mrs. Gandhi, was successfully sued and subsequently edited to remove the offensive portions. Again no complaints were registered regarding Rushdie’s right to freely insult Mrs. Gandhi. How then does Rushdie have the right to freely insult deeply the approximately one billion Muslims of the world? In my view, an appropriate resolution to this problem would be for Rushdie to revise and eliminate the sections offensive to the Muslims, showing us the same courtesy shown to Mrs. Gandhi.

3 Who is the Terrorist?

From the strong horrified reactions to Khomeini’s death sentence, one would think that such behavior is unknown in the West. Nobody was horrified about Ronald Reagan’s attempted assassination of Muammar Khaddafi, which suc-ceeded only in killing his adopted child. The murder of a PLO official in his bedroom in Tunis by Isreali commandos did not inspire horrified comments. In both cases, Westerners feel that the murdered men were terrorists and de-served to die, and legal niceties are not relevant. They take upon themselves the ‘White man’s burden’ of trying, judging, and executing these men, but don’t feel anybody of a different race can take similar liberties.

Westerners see Khomeini as a terrorist, while they regard Rushdie as an innocent. In fact, the terrorist in this affair is really Rushdie, and not Khomeini. Whereas nobody has been killed (yet) as a consequence of Khomeini’s edict, well over fifty people have been killed in riots in India and Pakistan directly caused by publication of ‘Satanic Verses’.

Should Rushdie be held responsible for the rioting and deaths that have occured in response to the publication of his book? There is ample evidence (supported by Rushdie’s own comments from his interview on Nightline) to suggest that the book is deliberately provocative. Exactly like the producers of ‘The Last Temptation’, he and Penguin Press counted on such adverse reaction to boost sales.

Let us however, give Rushdie the benefit of the doubt. Suppose that he was indeed surprised by the rioting and deaths that occurred in India and Pakistan, in the violent reaction over his book. How then can we explain his appeal to Rajiv Gandhi to lift the ban on his book, and move towards making India a ‘less repressive society?’ Even a casual observer should realize that if the publication of the book in America caused over 50 deaths in riots, there would be considerably greater violence if it was actually published in India. My own estimate is the number of deaths would range in thousands if we are lucky, and could easily reach the hundred thousand level.

What kind of man is willing to let so many die, for personal motives? Rushdie has a tremendous hatred for Muslims2. Those who are unyielding in their sup-port of Rushdie are also unmoved by the numerous deaths of Muslims. We should remember that the Holocaust was caused by the great hatred of one man for Jews combined with the indifference of many to deaths of Jews.

Many Americans incorrectly categorize Rushdie along with Scopes as being persecuted for expressing his beliefs, which are contrary to religious dogma. Thus they feel the Muslims ‘should read the book before condemning it’, or else, simply ‘not read it if they find it offensive’ etc. It must be emphasized that Rushdie is not expressing a point of view, or a belief. Fantasizing about our Prophet and his companions in demeaning situations (completely out of the boundaries of historical probability), and using derogatory and pornographic language, is insulting to us, regardless of the context (i.e. within a dream) in which this occurs. We do not feel it is appropriate for Westerners to dictate to us what we should or should not find offensive. The correct analogy regarding Rushdie is not Scopes, but for example, trashy pornography regarding the Virgin Mary and Jesus.

4 Should Rushdie be Killed?

Because of deep insults to our religion contained in Rushdie’s book, many Mus-lims are so outraged that they wish to kill him. The teaching of Islam is that in this and all matters, we must surrender our wills to the will of Allah. Thus the question of whether or not Rushdie should be killed becomes, for the Mus-lim, strictly a question of Islamic Law. When we look for precedents, we find examples of all kinds. When during the reign of Omar (the second Caliph in Islamic History), a Christian was slapped by a Muslim for uttering insults about Mohammed, the Christian took the case to court! The ruling went against him, in that the Qazi (Judge) found that civil liberties did not include the right to insult Mohammed, but no penalties were imposed. In Muslim Spain, there was a period during which Christians would come in, publicly abuse the Prophet, be executed, and thereby achieve martyrdom. Eventually Muslims negotiated with the Church to prevent this nuisance. The Church then revoked the status of ‘martyrdom’ for those executed for the abuse of Muhammed, and this stopped.

Why should abuse of the Prophet be punishable by death? Exactly as the Rosenbergs (who may have been innocent) were executed for the crime of treason to the state, so treason to Islam is punishable by death. Rushdie’s case vis-a-vis Islamic law is complicated by the fact that he is a citizen of Britain, a non-Muslim country which has diplomatic relations with Muslim countries. In complex situations, scholars of Islamic law issue rulings (called fatwa’s) which give their opinion regarding the matter. The completely misunderstood ‘death sentence’ of Khomeini, is no more or less than a scholarly finding that ‘Islamic Law sanctions death penalty for Rushdie’; scholars at Al Azhar University in Cairo have issued an opposite ruling. Khomeini did not, contrary to popular impression, put a price on Rushdie’s head (this was done by private citizens in Iran). He did not, unlike Reagan or the Israelis, send out a commando team to execute Rushdie. Surely Khomeini’s freedom of speech, which may result in the death of one man, is as valuable as Rushdie’s, which has already resulted in deaths of over 50. Finally, it must be clarified that his sentence is not binding on Muslims. If by strange happenstance, Rushdie were to enter Iran, he would not be killed on the spot. Rather, he would be tried in an Islamic court. The judge would (probably) take into consideration Khomeini’s fatwa, but may well call for other fatwas from other experts. Incidentally, Khomeini is not, as some have suggested, the worlds greatest authority on Islam. There are many scholars of greater eminence. Khomeini is merely the one best known to the West for obvious reasons.

5 Love of the Prophet

The key to understanding Muslim reactions to Rushdie is the love that all Muslims have for the prophet Mohammed. This and similar statements are routinely misinterpreted by Westerners to be expressions of piety or theological dogma. While the commandments to ‘love God’ and to ‘love our neighbors’ are more remote, love of our Prophet is a concrete reality in the lives of Muslims. One aspect of this love is demonstrated in the following of Sunnah, or the way of the Prophet. The Sunnah includes all aspects, even seemingly trivial ones, of the Prophet’s behavior.

I despair of conveying the nature of our love for the Prophet to a non-Muslim audience. Both in terms of its intensity and its universality among Muslims, it is a phenomenon outside the range of Western experience. It is this love which binds Muslims of different races, cultures, and social status. Odes to the Prophet constitute a special genre of poetry in Muslim languages, and good ones are capable of moving large audiences to tears.

Perhaps it would be more effective to illustrate the kind of effect that the Rushdie book has had on lives of ordinary Muslims. On the eve of the demon-stration in Manhattan against ‘Satanic Verses’, we received a call from an elderly Muslim lady, urging us to go. When she heard of our distaste for demonstra-tions, she began weeping. Her sentiments were ‘that our Prophet should be so insulted in public, and that no one should speak on his behalf, or come to his defence, this is unbearable’. Out of deference to the lady’s tears, I went to the demonstration, which was attended by about ten thousand Muslims. In another incident, I attended a meeting of Muslims to discuss responses to the Rushdie affair. One hotheaded youth was infuriated by our ‘lukewarm’ discus-sion regarding pamphlets, talks, demonstrations, etc. He challenged us, “ Are you cowards or men? That our mothers be called prostitutes, and we should sit on our hands and look the other way?”. It took great effort by the rest of us to persuade him Islam teaches us restraint, and we must obey Allah and not act on our baser impulses. Yet another index of Muslim feelings about this matter is in the (private) responses of the large immigrant Muslim population. Many have had deep regrets, and second thoughts about their decision to settle here, given the obvious hostility to Islam, Islamic values, and Muslims displayed by the Western response on this issue. I have no doubt that among the many Muslims I know who have been toying with the idea of going back, some will be spurred into action as a consequence of this event.

Who was Mohammed, and why does he inspire such affection? We have a wealth of detailed information about his life. Over the short span of twenty three years, he changed the course of history. His achievement was the transformation of a semi-barbaric culture to sublime heights of civilization Our Prophet (and all prophets, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus) personified the most excel-lent character achievable, and taught us by word and deed how to achieve this ideal. He was compassionate, gentle, soft-spoken, and humble. Until his death he lived a life of great austerity, even though Muslims became quite affluent following political successes. He never turned down a request for assistance, to the extent of giving up the shirt on his back, or his only meal for the day.

6 Closing Prayer

When the prophet Abraham (may Allah shower his blessings upon him) refused to renounce his faith in one God and his opposition to idol worship, King Nimrod had him thrown in a huge fire. God ordered the fire to be cool, and it did not burn Abraham. This story, like all others reported in the Quran, are taken literally as historical events by all Muslims.

A Sufi parable (not to be taken literally) relates the story of a bird attempting to put the fire out using drops of water carried in its beak. The bird explains that its efforts are directed towards God; it does not wish to be accused of standing by idly, while a beloved prophet of God was burning.

I feel much like the bird. I pray that God will accept my efforts, and forgive my errors. I pray that he may heal the rifts between us. I pray that he may lead us all to the love of God, from which springs the love of all creation. All praise is for Allah, the Merciful and the Compassionate.

Download: RUSH6.pdf - on Jun 4, 2010 5:31 AM by Asad Zaman (version 1)

89k View Download.

"Tragedy of Morals and Birth of Science in the West"

Dr Asad Zaman, Islamic International University, Islamabad, is writing a research paper on the topic quoted in this post's title. Below, I'd produce the abstract and sources, and link to the page from where I got this open information. you may like to comment or write Dr. Zaman about it (at asadzaman@alum.mit.edu).

Tragedy of Morals and Birth of Science in the West

(under preparation) (by Asad Zaman)

Abstract: How Birth of Science in conflict with religion gave strong methodological bias to the way science was viewed in the West. In particular, the exaggeration of the potential of science of settling ethical, moral and human problems led to a very distorted foundation for social sciences. The social sciences have been ideologically constituted in the sense that they were based on false beliefs about what the physical sciences are. The upshot is that there is room for a thoroughgoing revolution in the received ideas of science natural and social (quote from Manicas).

It is only after such re-organization that room for a reasonable foundation for Islamic Economics would emerge. In this paper, we hope to provide such foundations.

Sources:

Peter Manicas: A History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences

Part I: details historical circumstances that led to an easy victory for empiricism/positivism even though realist alternatives were available

Part II: Details special circumstances leading to emergence of modern social sciences in USA.

Hans Kung: Does God Exist?

Himmelfarb: De-Moralization of the West.

Tawney: Religion and the Rise of Capitalism

Reuben, Julie: The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual transformation and the marginalization of morality. 1996 University of Chicago Press.

Read his paper On Improving Social Science Education in Pakistan and The Origins of Western Social Science to get insight into the thought of Dr. Zaman.

Implementation

Today I'd talk about what I just implemented: a thought. I may become too dogmatic in your falconian eyes. But I fear nothing than my own sins. You cannot enjoy and appreciate the quality of this manly act unless you know a little bit about 'neo-classical' (capitalistic) economics that is being completely implemented today from the pulpits of Western stupidity and enterprise, accepted blindly by those who read economics in Western or Westernized universities, usually.

In a nutshell, it began my mental acceptance of what Prof Dr Asad Zaman has shown through his research that modern economics, like other western social sciences, is simply wrong from Islamic point of view and observable evidence. In this lecture he produces evidence that can demolish some of the basic tenets of western economics, and is being demolished in West as well*: The Crisis in Islamic Economics. Judging the arguments, following words of Dr Zaman struck me:

"4. Data on Firms, Consumers CONTRADICTS theories in Samuelson.

That is, economic theories as presented in leading conventional textbooks (Mankiw, Varian, etc.) are basically wrong – these theories do not describe the realities of economics in the real world. That means we can throw it all away without any loss in knowledge to us. What pretends to be concrete and factual is simply incorrect." [Emphasis mine.]

Then he goes on to give a set of examples of the incorrectness of the concepts presented in such books which render it entirely useless.

I took a bold step. And in afternoon today threw two books by Georgy N. Mankiw in the big dustbin near my home's gate, which I had read in economic courses and which I used to refer to in case I needed to know something about economic principles. Next thing I want to do is to inform Mr Zaman of this act of intelligence coupled with a leap of faith.

How do you feel?

Update: I just informed Prof Dr Asad Zaman in one of his discussion forums. you read the thread here.

* For instance, in an article in recent Harvard Business Review, two fundamental doctrines of capitalism/economics have been ruthlessly destroyed by their own scholars in light of evidence of recent global financial crisis: a) Humans behave rationally, b) invisible hand of market leads people to the good of society at large.

Road to Interest-free Economy: Power of a singular bold step

Today is major day in life. It is so because one firm has decided to give up earning interest on funds of its employees, and to adopt halal way of making profit. It is an HR firm that outcourses thousands of low-level employees to companies. Its clients gives it a large sum of money for its employees as 'gratuity'. Because of inflation or salary increases the reserve for gratuity gets low (I can explain if you want in comments section). This is what they call short-fall. To meet this short-fall they need money, which is earned by putting that alrge sum in bank, on which they get interest. This is haram. Although the firm never used the interest for itself, but nonetheless it earned interest to make up for its shortfall in money. But this is no excuse for the company to indulge in such haram a transaction as earning interest or riba.

The point of mirth and shukar (gratitude to Allah) is that I pointed out this 'moral ambuity; to CEO, who has a deep relation with me, as he explained me what I have explained to you about gratuity and all that stuff. And although I'm no employee or board of directors, he was moved saying he 'has been caught red-handed'... He is a man of action. He took a bold step and is ready to make things in conformity with Sharia'.

Long story short, CEO immediately called his CFO and asked him to suggest new, 'healthy' ways to get out of it. As a first step, he has ordered to shift millions of money from bank deposits to 'current account' on which the depositor gets no money/interest/profit. That is huge, actually. Till December they'll have to come up with ways to earn profit on millions of rupees. It can be risky, nay, clearly it is. And here CHANGE MANAGEMENT is involved. This is a major paradigm shift. Some key people in the organization are disturbed by this decision. And I fear a covert resistance that may undermine the project. Here we're not left alone. Alhamdulilah, there's a vast body of literature on change management. It tells all about this science, what change means, how do people in organizations can react to it, how to implement a successful change program, what pitfalls to avoid, etc., etc.

One important book has been written in the cultural context (2 Cs) of Pakistan by former Dean of my university's school of management. It's called, simply, Managing Change, by Dr. ZIQ. (Managing Change is both a text-book in which frameworks are given to solve case-studies, each theoretical chapter is followed by case-studies of purely Pakistani companies.

I am rambling too much! Because. I feel so indebted to Allah that a few words of mine have seemingly changed substantially business life of a firm. I've been asked to propose solutions and not just pin-point messy problems... So... Tomorrow after jumma prayer I intend to meet one of my professors who'd guide me to alternatives, inshaAllah! For you, if you're Muslim business-student or -man, it's your duty to help your brother in faith by suggesting brilliant ideas for profit-earning ventures. Judgment criteria: We always need every year more than 1.7m in our reserves to pay the gratuity of employees in order to meet expected short-falls. If you've problems understanding, please mention inshaAllah I'd clarify.