Does Islam = Communism to many Muslims?
I found this article via Izzy Mo’s blog that basically states that many Muslims believe in economic egalitarianism.
In research based on survey data from seven predominantly Muslim nations, the authors found that Islamic orthodoxy — identified as the desire to implement Islamic law (shari’a) as the sole legal foundation of their nation — is associated in every country with support for such progressive economic reforms as increasing the responsibility of government for the poor, reducing income inequality, and increasing government ownership of businesses and industries
Let’s take them one by one:
- Responsibility for the poor? No problem as that is what zakat is for, but does that mean a permanent welfare state? No
- Reducing income inequality? What does this mean? Do they mean that they think that, like in a Communist system, a doctor should earn the same amount as an unskilled laborer? This is a communist idea. Not Islamic.
I have met Muslims who think that the Islamic system is like that, inspite of the fact that Islamic History is replete with entrepreneurs who were very wealthy and gave much of that wealth willingly (not forced by the government) in charity. These Brothers would resent wealthy, highly educated Brothers who were not giving them what they thought was their “fair share” of what the wealthy Brothers had earned. This is why you will find some cases brothers that think the masjid owes them a car, for example. And not just any car, but a car that the wealthy brothers drive because afterall “None of you truly believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself”.
OK, those were extreme cases, but I have met people with this thinking to a lesser extent, and I think it is because, to some degree or another, they think that Islam is communism. Is a misunderstanding of the above hadith where they get the idea that everyone should make the exact same thing and/or that it is wrong for there to be people who make lots of money?
- Government ownership of businesses and industries?! Can someone show me where this completely communist idea is in Islam? No one should own a business except the government?! Where do we find this example in Madinah or throughout Islamic history?
Were the farmers of Madinah forced into collectives with everything going to a central location and distributed equally throughout the city? Were the businessmen and women forced to put all of their toils into one collective to be distrbuted evenly amongst the population?
This makes me wonder how many would have thought the slogan “From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs” is a hadith?
How many would think that it is Islamic if someone suggested that all the Muslims in a given city in the US, pool all of their earnings in a central bayt ul maal, and distribute it equally amongst all the Muslims in the city?
This shows that the communist influence on the Muslim world has been so strong that they think that Communist ideals are Islamic. There is no Islamic text that supports the idea that no one can own a business except the government.
By definition if that were the case, then how would farmers pay zakat on their produce if the government owns all the farms? If there are no farmers actually owning farms, then there would be no zakat from farmers. The government owns it all by default.
Davis and Robinson see further evidence of the economic progressivism of the Islamic orthodox in the welfare networks that they have established throughout the Muslim world. Building on the mosque-centered model established by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during the 1930s, other Islamist groups, such as the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria, Laksar Jihad (Holy War Brigade) in Indonesia, Jamaat-i-Islami (Party of Islam) in Pakistan, and Hamas in Palestine, have created in their countries safety nets of welfare agencies, clinics and hospitals, factories paying good wages, day care centers, youth clubs and unemployment agencies. This “welfare Islam,” according to the authors, has often shown Muslims that Islamist organizations can outperform corrupt or callous secular governments of their countries in providing much-needed social services.
Obviously, these are very social programs. I am only referring to their thoughts that in Islam, the government should own the businesses and industries and enforce income equality. Who in their right mind would oppose these programs? But running an entire economy is much more than this, and you can’t run an economy solely on good intentions.
Secondly, unlike welfare in this country, in Islam, these programs are to be a safety net and not the permanent way of life that many have made it here in America.
Thirdly, it is through the generousity of wealthy Muslims that these programs are even functioning.
Finally, I think that it is this type of ”egalitarian” thinking that causes us to attempt ignore the fact that human beings are different, have different personalities, different tastes and so forth. Therefore as a result you find individuals who think that we must all like the same foods (hamburger is haraam!!) all dress alike and so forth.
Human beings are different. You have the serious and the not so serious, the strong and the weak, the intelligent and the not-so intelligent, the tall and the short amongst us and, we are all different given different talents, abilities and personalities by our Lord. This should not be suppressed and/or ignored. I repeat this so often because there are so many who see things in these egalitarian terms and want to ignore this.
And in the end, I suppose this is the reason I have a problem with the word “egalitarian”. It is not natural. Again, this is not to say that the wealthy should not help the less fortunate, or that those with more talent should not use those talents to help those who have less talent, but to try to make everyone equal by government regulation or otherwise is not natural.
And that is why it is scary if those who want an Islamic government in Muslim countries think that that means communism.
Sometimes, it seems to me that many Muslims think the ideal Muslim community is like the Borg. Totally devoid of individuality.
Filed under: Sloganism over Reality
Salam Alaikum
One of the causes of this egalitarian idealism among the surveyed countries has to do with the fact that the govt's of these places were for the large part subsidiries during the the cold war to the USSR. (with the exception of the KSA).
Therefore, for the gov'ts to implement the socialist programs that were desired by them/ demanded of them during this period, we find that a certain amount of "Islamization" or better yet cloaking the communist wolf in islamic clothing took place. The KSA is a mixed bag. Financially it is a hybrid of french/neo-egyptian/islamic law. Judicially it is purely islamic. Interior affairs are more in line with the neighboring arab countries (police, prison, welfare systems.)
One of the biggest impediments to establishment of an Islamic framework has been the confusion of normative and positive values when looking to modernise any islamic country. Thus you have "Islamization" hiding the haram as halal, or "Solidification" and claims of following a more pristine era, which is in fact a claim made to merely usurp the rights of the ignorant and not progress.
"You will follow the paths of those before…."
Salaam alaikum,
I had to laugh at the comment about the brother who wants a car from the mosque *just because*. I get that as an artist, that I should not charge for my work or just give it all in sadaqa. Well, gee, I need to eat. I don’t see what’s so wrong with being sucessful entrepreneurs as long as we keep our transactions halal. But some people won’t do that. They won’t even try to consider all the alternatives to a successful financial halal livelihood.
Hood:
wa alaykum as-salaam
Yes, I figured that that was the case. Plus it just sounds so nice that everyone be perfectly equal. Seems that some think that because in the eyes of Allah we are equal that this means equal abilities and talents and if not, then this should be enforced.
The reason that it is scary to me that some Islamic movements have this thinking is because egalitarian govts almost always become Police States. And in the case of Stalin, he killed millions trying to enforce egalitarianism.
And the most ironic thing is that under this system, those who rule and promote this system, live much better than the citizens.
A big problem that we are having in the Muslim community is that Muslims are naively crawling in to bed with the far-left thinking that they have a friend when often times they have a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Salaam ‘Alaikum
I obviously haven’t read the study, but just based on the article, I have questions about the mindset of those conducting it, which could influence how the results are framed. Statements from two of the researchers show, to me anyway, a biased view of Muslims (one that is so completely common that it seems normal until you really look beneath the words and examine them). When it comes to views on women and sexuality, it’s the mean old orthodox trying to enforce upon everyone things that they think are eternal and divine. When it comes to something these guys label “progressive,” it’s a surprise. Even though we both know that these people probably also view these economic ideas as part of that eternal and divine message. (And also, as if the liberals or the so-called democrats or the monarchists and all the rest of them don’t want to enforce a single worldview about women, sexuality, economics, or anything else on the people… it’s merely a question of who is currently standing on the top podium).
There is also nothing evident in the article itself that the aforementioned “Islamist” groups actually support communistic ideas such as government owned businesses. I would tend to think that they probably don’t. The sentence implies that support for “orthodoxy” (which I think should be distinguished from support for those groups anyway) is *associated with support for such ideas*, but doesn’t tell us anymore. “Support” could mean that more of those who support orthodoxy want these things vs. those who support liberalism (or something else) do, but that number could still be small or not very significant. It’s hard to say without reading the actual survey.
“Reducing economic inequality” could just as easily mean increasing the minimum wage or having a “standard of living wage” as it would be paying the doctor the same as the laborer. It’s not specified in this article (perhaps it is in the actual study). And I’m not surprised that the “rich and well educated” are not as supportive of economic reform as the poor and less educated. It is the current oppressive system of baksheesh, wasta, etc. that puts them in the position where they are wealthy enough to pay for an education (and many other things, I’m sure).
Salaam:
Thank you for bringing the article up. I had never considered Muslims embracing communism, since it is an athiestic social philosophy, ie a tyranny.
The only real economic reform is to educate the poor and provide skill training. This will raise their standard of living so that their children and grandchildren enter the middle class. It takes one or two generations. China did it. Inshallah, Muslim countries can also do it.
Ya Haqq!
http://austrolabe.com/2006/05/28/islam-communism-converging-opposites/
Umm Zaid:
wa alaykum as-salaam,
Given that many of these Muslim countries were ruled by Socialist/Communist regimes, I tend to think that they are leaning more toward the communist ideals in their thinking because they have been educated that way in those systems
Why has no-one here mentioned that Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir have adopted a Bolshevik-style vanguard party methodology?
George:
I wasn’t aware of that. I’d be interested in any information you could share
“- Responsibility for the poor? No problem as that is what zakat is for, but does that mean a permanent welfare state? No”
In Islamic societies, zakat was just the minimum level of responsibility for the poor. In fact there were other mechanisms also. however for all these mechanisms to really function, the essence of the Muslim community or society must be Islamic. Otherwise all these mechanisms will remain as pure ideals by the overall population in the community or society with just a few subscribers. Today the essence of most Muslim communities/societies is secularism, modernism, puritanism, culturalism/tribalism etc. So even if a good Islamic governance is set up, and even if wildly assuming its gotto be communist in nature ( just assuming for hypothetical reasons), it may never function adequately because what is required first is to revive this traditional essence of Islam within Muslim communities and societies. Why? two reasons. even if you are selling the most valuable goods, if your customers dont have a taste for them, they wont sell. secondly you cant force people to buy your valuable goods.
“- Reducing income inequality? What does this mean? Do they mean that they think that, like in a Communist system, a doctor should earn the same amount as an unskilled laborer? This is a communist idea. Not Islamic.”
in the communist system, reducing income inequality is understood in an extreme way which is not consistent with the Islamic way. the conventional understanding of reducing income inequality is no different in traditional Islamic societies and certain contemporary Western societies where both understand it as reducing gross income inequalities.
“Davis and Robinson see further evidence of the economic progressivism of the Islamic orthodox in the welfare networks that they have established throughout the Muslim world. Building on the mosque-centered model established by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during the 1930s, other Islamist groups, such as the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria, Laksar Jihad (Holy War Brigade) in Indonesia, Jamaat-i-Islami (Party of Islam) in Pakistan, and Hamas in Palestine, have created in their countries safety nets of welfare agencies, clinics and hospitals, factories paying good wages, day care centers, youth clubs and unemployment agencies. This “welfare Islam,” according to the authors, has often shown Muslims that Islamist organizations can outperform corrupt or callous secular governments of their countries in providing much-needed social services. ”
davis and robinson are being orientalistic here. Islam encourages caring for others in society and that is what these groups are doing.its nothing quite gotto do with welfare economics or “welfare Islam”. you can find other moderate Islamist groups also doing the same thing. the secular governments having desacralized themselves dont hear the call by Islam to care for others and since today’s secular politicians being neo-classical in nature, they are only concerned about optimizing their utility.
“Obviously, these are very social programs. I am only referring to their thoughts that in Islam, the government should own the businesses and industries and enforce income equality. Who in their right mind would oppose these programs? But running an entire economy is much more than this, and you can’t run an economy solely on good intentions.”
through Islamic history there was no nationalization of industries/businesses by traditional Islamic governments. islamic governance only had set up rules and regulations and laws that kept these industries and businesses in check to prevent exploitation and abuses. in fact it was a pretty hands off approach except where they expected exploitation and abuses and other unfairness.
the fundamental factor contributing to the problems that you had highlighted in your piece is the inaccurate and inconsistent understanding of “Equality”. read my comments at my blog http://neyreed.blogspot.com/2006/05/economics-why-doesnt-islamic-economics.html where i had replied to your comments for my piece and also addressed the problem of misunderstanding “equality”
Very needed information found here, thank you for your work
I would be a little more careful and nuanced. I think you are right in saying that Islam=Communism is false, for the reasons you gave but I do think that milder progressive measures are very much Islamic. For example, in an Islamic state zakat actually would be more like a government wealth redistribution program and not so much like voluntary charity. In the time of the companions there actually was a Bayt-ul-Mal which established a kind of “welfare state”.
I think you are right in pointing out that Islam certainly allowed for private property and individual business ventures. It allowed for some people to become rich and successful. Wealth isn’t totally levelled. The state doesn’t eliminate the prophet motive as in an extreme communist state. But Islam also doesn’t advocate extreme free market capitalism either.
Check out
thake a step to the left for the rest of the argument on an early blog post of mine.