The Foundations of Economics from the Quran and Sunnah ( 2-2)

  A Recent History

In the course of the past two hundred years, an immeasurable library has accumulated for economic studies, and intellectual schools, scientific methodologies, and vigilant organizations have emerged over this matter, which is summarized in two words: "Wealth and Service." These two are the poles of a single axis. Efforts revolve around them, and hopes are attached to them—the hopes of individuals and groups, from the small circle of people to the tribes, nations, and peoples: to the blocs that are sometimes colored by a visible desire to seek a livelihood, such as our saying "Common Market," and other times colored by global military and diplomatic affairs, such as our saying "Alliances, Organizations, and Bodies." Across all these levels, the issue is one: wealth and service, or if you wish, well-being (welfare). This is because the well-being of the individual and his surrounding family, and the well-being of the people, from its ruler to the last of its subjects, depends on the share of every individual in the immediate enjoyment and in security, and these two are elements that fall within the concept of well-being. The economic studies are therefore closely connected to the daily life of all people in every age and land. So, why, then, is there an insistence by trusted authorities on mentioning two hundred years ago from this day of ours as the temporal container for what is known in our time as Political Economy?

They said that the French Revolution coincided with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and these two together gave rise to many social, political, and economic revolutions. Change encompassed both thought and events. Some, "including Charles Rist," tried to establish the correct sequence for both thought and events—which is the origin and which is the dependent factor!!

After an enlightened analysis, he abandoned the attempt and concluded that they are two phenomena on a revolving orbit. This does not negate, naturally, that a team of left-wing writers says that events are the origin and that material change is what leads to everything else, with comprehensive detail in socialist thought. However, we mention here a writer who attempted to establish a neutral opinion, and by him, we mean the French scholar we mentioned earlier, "Charles Rist," and historical events in all fields—not just economics alone—have demonstrated that the attempt to separate facts from the development of opinions is a wasted effort.

 The Prey of Underdevelopment

They also said that within the framework of this time period, from the French Revolution until now, lies the nineteenth century "which has passed" and the twentieth century which has crossed the spring of its age (its early years). Regarding the nineteenth century in particular, there are details of utmost importance for everyone involved in economics, both theoretically and practically. As for us, the Arabs, these details are vital, because the nineteenth century is what witnessed the final chapters of the story of the Ottoman State, just as it witnessed the groundwork for the dismemberment of its land after the Great War. And when the Caliphate was abolished in 1924, the land, resources, and interests of the Arabs became prey to every greedy person. With the resources leaving the hands of their owners, the ability to join the march of technological progress weakened. From here arose a great fallacy called "Underdevelopment" (takhalluf), and this fallacy still clings to us; we repeat it and endorse it. This means that the nineteenth century, then, is the most important segment of the last two hundred years. So, when did it begin, and when did it end?

  The Entry of Workers into Parliament

The consensus is that the nineteenth century began in July of the year 1789 A.D. with the fall of the Bastille...

And with the fall of other strongholds behind which certain conditions of wealth distribution and the hardships of earning a livelihood had existed, just as systems that elevated and lowered (people) based on race, affection (love), and class disparity had existed. With the subsequent collapse of the strongholds, one after the other, after the Bastille, events unfolded over dozens of subsequent years and remained so until the masses that marched upon the structures of oppression in 1789 A.D. reached the end of the journey. So, when was that?

And is it inevitable that the tumultuous masses in the French capital reach the end of the journey in the lifetime of the generation that began the march, or do they spend their lives on the road, handing over the leadership to the children and after them to the grandchildren, until the goal of the first march is achieved, even if it is after two generations??

A statement that does not lack logic resolved the connection of the nineteenth century, with its events and ideas, to a clear end in the last year of 1905, because in the month of the following year, "1906," the first contingent of Workers' representatives reached the British House of Commons, in a country that is rightly considered one of the consultative countries of the West. This was out of a concern for the right of the owner of wealth "or the taxpayer, as they say" to supervise and hold the state accountable in every matter, especially wealth and service—how much of them remains for the individual and his family, and how much the public authorities undertake to collect and distribute, and what are the features of justice in the distribution of benefits and sacrifices??

The English people were one of the oldest peoples of the West in this matter, having preceded the French Revolution by two full centuries, and they were extremely attached to the old ways. Therefore, when the worker "who at that time did not pay taxes, but rather received services" reached the House of Commons, this historical fact alone was a major signpost on the road. It guides researchers in the totality of human affairs to the fact that the march that began in the streets of Paris in 1789 continued to move forward until the vanguards reached the House of Commons in London in 1906. At that point, the events of the nineteenth century would have been integrated into the twentieth century!!

A statement that does not lack logic, affirmed by historians of economic thought and the political maturity that molded the European peoples in modern history. Yet, a group of writers insists on saying that the march was still at the final stage, if we consider all individuals, peoples, and governments. The events of the nineteenth century were approaching their climax when the workers reached Parliament, this is true, but the integrated structure of the events of this period was still coherent and rushing in the orbit of time until the Great War broke out in 1914. At that point, the nineteenth century reached the peak of aggregation and accumulation for both events and social changes among individuals and states at all levels. With the launch of the war demon at that time, time folded a full register and opened another one. Its first pages were the container for the first bloody conflict on a global scale, combining comprehensiveness with the extension of battles across various fronts for five years. At that point, the twentieth century began!!

 The Failure of Contemporary Economics

We say that this, too, is a logic worthy of consideration. Between these two opinions, this time period stands with its dimensions and its horrors in our history as Arabs, to show us the origins of the tragedy we live today.

The most dangerous aspect of the nineteenth century is its economic events and its economic ideas too... All of this preceding statement is a matter of agreement. An extremely important question is built upon this, which we raise before these articles. So we say: Is this the time to research the foundations of economics from the Quran and the Sunnah, when we know that the sources of the discourse then take us back fourteen full centuries!! And how do we reconcile believing in the unique status of the events of the nineteenth century with preoccupying ourselves with talking about the seventh century A.D.?

This is a question that circulates in academic circles and in graduate studies in particular. Then, the overwhelming majority of the nation receives it with eagerness and fervor. To answer it, books have been published and voices have been raised, and we are still at the beginning of the road. Therefore, we hasten to say that there is no academic luxury in this matter, nor is it a preoccupation with the glorious past, distracting from the bitter present. We say that this matter, which seemed decades ago like a daydream or wishes woven from imagination, has captured the paths of thought for some researchers. Some of them believe in it, and others were driven to it by the failure of economics—all of Western and Eastern economics—to achieve its great goals. Therefore, (the researcher) returned to search in what was before the nineteenth century and before the Renaissance era, which came from the old Middle Ages. Then, he stopped at the era of the Prophet and retraced his steps with the progress of time anew, but in the procession of the light of the Islamic heritage. And behold, this heritage is still fresh (authentic/new)—if it spoke, it spoke.

A great demand is what we aim for, and it requires, before it, an appraisal and evaluation of what is known as conventional economics and why the efforts of its supporters and opponents have gone with the wind.

And this is the subject of consideration in the following article, God willing, Lord of the Worlds.