(This debate took place at Leicester University in November 1998 between Dr.Imran Waheed and Pr.Fredrick Lee who is a lecturer of economics at DeMontfort University. The following is the transcript of the talk given by Imran at the debate)



Allah (SWT) said in the glorious Qur’an "But seek the abode of the Hereafter in that which Allah has given you, and neglect not your portion of this World: and be kind, as Allah was kind to you and seek not corruption in the earth: For Allah loves not those who seek corruption." (Al Qasas :77)


Before I embark on a discussion of the main subject at hand today, I would like to set a fundamental premise, upon which any individual must view today’s discussion if it is to be fruitful.


The debate today is not about rhetoric, delightful oration or one-upmanship but rather about a fundamental subject which affects each one of us.


The premise I would like to set is that we should not evaluate the arguments presented today from the personality of the speakers, the letters after their name, their command of the technical terms, or the language that we use. We should not also try to evaluate the arguments on the religion of the speakers.


Indeed this should not be a forum for fanciful or hypothetical arguments; we need to make a firm basis which is the reality.


The reality is the only solid foundation upon which we can build any idea.


We can prove this premise by looking at many different examples.


If I was to say that we were in Harvard University, this would be incorrect since the reality of the matter is not this.


Similarly, to describe Britain as a model communist state, even from the mouth of a learned economist, would be contradicted by the reality which is there for all to see.


If I told you that money is not a medium of exchange and that a £20 note is just a piece of paper devoid of a value, then you would know that the reality if different.


Similarly if I told you that a silicon chip is able to create itself one would see that this idea does not match the reality; it is nothing more than a fanciful philosophy.


So my entire discussion today will be built upon the reality since any other basis will not allow us to come to a solid conclusion and will engage us in fruitless philosophical discussion.


So if we proceed with this basis in mind we will be able to look at the topic at hand today.


I want to look at the question of economics and the economic system; I want to see the role of reality in the question of economics and then to consider the judgements that people come to when looking at economics and the validity of such judgements.


Any one of us can understand economics in a general manner by using the reality, our senses, and the distinguishing brain with which we were raised above the animals.


For example, we can see that societies have certain resources and that individuals within the society have various needs; so any of us can see the fact that Somalia has uranium reserves or that Britain has North Sea Oil; Nobody would really differ on these matters since they are clear for anyone to see; the reality is clear to the assiduous observer.


We could all agree on the way in which production is made more efficient; how processes are made more technological; how mechanisation and the use of robots has improved productivity in most industries; we could see how various scientific inventions have revolutionised manufacturing processes.


These are all issues of understanding the reality; no one would really differ from what can be seen to be obvious; everyone agrees that alcohol quenches thirst and that the meat of the mule satisfies hunger; but not everyone drinks alcohol or eats mule.


If we now take this understanding one step further we will begin to see the crux of the argument.


We can all see that man has needs and that nations have numerous resources. However the fact we see these needs and these resources does that tell us how to distribute the resources and satisfy the needs? So all of us in this room can see that we have needs (e.g. shelter, food) and that there exist resources (pastures, oil, minerals, etc.). However can we see to whom we should distribute these resources?


Should we distribute them to the poor, the needy, the orphans, the rulers, the monarchs, the astronauts, or the aristocracy? What manner should we distribute them in, what protocols should we use and what are the eligibility criteria for this distribution


We can see that there is oil. But does that tell us to whom it belongs? Does the reality tell us how to trade with one another? Does the reality tell us what should be legal or illegal in economic affairs? Does the reality tell us what conditions should govern contracts?


In fact does the reality tell us how to proceed in any field of life; whether social, economic, political, or otherwise?


So for example all of us can agree that a somatic cell has 46 chromosomes in man; we can agree that the process of genetic cloning exists by studying tissues under a microscope and by the empirical method; however just by understanding the molecular genetics of a human is it possible to decide the uses of these techniques.


If presented with a certain scenario; e.g. a patient asks a doctor "Do I have cancer" and the doctor replies "No" even though it is clear from his investigations that the patient does; any of us can see that the doctor lied.
However from looking at this can we say that lying is good or bad? Some would say the patient should have their autonomy preserved and be told the diagnosis; others would say that telling the patient constitutes a bigger harm; so is lying good or bad? To lie under oath in a court of law is that good or bad? To lie to the enemy soldiers when he asks you where your comrades are hiding is this good or bad? A gun shoots; but to shoot a woman is that good or bad, or to shoot Adolf Hitler is that good or bad?


The same way in which Leicester University is a reality, or gravity or molecular genetics; is banning private ownership a reality upon which we can all agree; or is the notion of price in capitalist economics a reality upon which we can agree?


The fundamental point is that by just studying the reality it is impossible to deduce whether actions are good or bad (e.g. lying/killing/charity, etc.). It is impossible to organise a system correctly even if you have the mind of a genius; since the reality tells you nothing about what is legal or what is illegal; what is good and what is bad; what is praised and what is shunned.


And here is the fundamental error committed by the thinkers, economists and philosophers who have gained notoriety during the last few centuries; the likes of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Smith, Bentham, Mill, Rousseau, Ricardo, Locke, and other thinkers. You would think that the thinkers of today would learn from the pits into which they fell, and the deviation that they followed and called people to.


They were confused minds who were muddled over these issues; they were not content with describing economic phenomena but crossed the limit and began to define the legal and the illegal, the praised and the shunned; the formation of these man-made ideologies was therefore just an error in judgement on their part.


So the founders and proponents of these man-made ideologies such as capitalism and socialism tried to view the reality in a particular manner; essentially they put forward certain fundamental points upon which they built the ideology


Inevitably, the judgements they made affected all subsequent ideas and judgements that they made; so the fact that Bentham had taken upon himself to define a criteria for action of utilitarianism affected all further judgements of the capitalist ideology; so they did not mind if a person acquiesced to his own exploitation, or if someone was unable to satisfy his basic needs.


So the fact that Marx had placed the idea of dialectic materialism as his viewpoint on life corrupted and polluted every subsequent idea.


The main issue here is that man is unable to study the reality and deduce how he should live, how he should distribute wealth, who should pay taxes, the economic policies of government.


So the mistake of Marx was not essentially his views on private property but his adoption of a viewpoint on life in contradiction with reality itself. And the mistake of Adam Smith was not necessarily his love of the free market, but his love of his own whims and desires and his faith in their ability to define for man a system of life, even though the reality precluded such a possibility.


Studying any man-made ideology, in this case socialism and capitalism, would show the fallacies that are present within them and their contradiction to the Islamic ideology.


In capitalism the reality is studied, albeit in a shallow manner, and then the solution is derived from the reality which is the problem itself; indeed the basis of capitalism came about out of a compromise between two contradictory ideas and was not built on rational thought; and in socialism the reality is studied again incorrectly and then a series of hypothetical assumptions are applied to it.


We can see that any ideology that arose solely from man will be riddled with errors and contradictions; indeed the example of the man-made ideologies we know has illustrated the manner in which man’s ability to formulate a system is subject to disparity, difference, contradiction and the influence of his environment; the principle is that only falsehood emanates from a false basis.


A few examples will suffice to show what happens when man formulates his own ideology.


Look to the Budget speech that is delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; there is always great debate among economists and others as to the validity of his ideas and the economic theories behind the success and failure of the Budget; so man is unable to analyse a set of economic measures and agree about their correctness; since these economic measures contain nothing inherently that would indicate either their correctness or their incorrectness.


Look to the PhD’s that are undertaken all over the world, and especially in the capitalist countries; look to the dichotomies of thought that exist; people argue whether the problem is production or distribution; these are elements which cannot be agreed upon by man due to his limitations and the fact that he is weak and needy, and need in guidance for adopting a system of life.


So a characteristic of man defining his own system is that it will be full of disparity and differences; people can’t agree on what is a problem, and even if they do they cannot come to an agreement over the solution.


Look at the contradictions in these ideologies in terms of even when the people had agreed on a problem and a solution; look to the issue of the role of the state in capitalism; the founding fathers of capitalism mentioned that the role of the state was to be marginalised and to protect from an external threat or supervise the people’s liberties; the capitalist ideology made the concept of price the regulator of distribution; so one without the ability to work had no right to the basic needs of life; this was seen as unjust so they created bodies to deal with monopolies and a welfare state; Adam Smith would turn in his grave at the interventionist policies of the capitalist world today.


Look to socialism and the manner in which it denied the ownership of private property; a rule which disagrees which man’s nature; or the manner in which it denied the fact that a Creator existed; again disagreeing with man’s nature.


Look to the contradictions in the concept of freedom; Peter Mandelson’s freedom to a private life vs. the freedom of the press (BBC); how is it that Bill Clinton can commit adultery and it be said that this does not affect his job whereas if he was a rapist he would be removed.


Islam, the only correct ideology that exists, is from the Creator who created man, life and the universe and sent his Messenger Muhammad (SAW) with his system in order that it be implemented and solve the problems of life.


In spite of its depth, the Islamic basis is easily understood by man, and agrees with his nature. Man, by nature, feels incomplete, and that there is a greater power which deserves to be sanctified.


Nobody can remove this internal desire to worship the Creator; not even the communists who simply shifted man’s sanctification to the personalities of Marx, or Engels or Lenin. They venerate Das Kapital like the Muslims love the Qur’an and they made pilgrimage to see Lenin in the same way Muslims visit Makkah for Hajj as commanded by their Creator.


Islam is simple to understand, one’s heart and mind are easily opened to it; one does not need to be an academic, or scientist, or have many letters after one’s name in order to comprehend it; like the mentally devious socialists who aspired to be known as intellectuals while espousing the false theory of dialectics.


The Islamic belief is built on the rational proof of the existence of Allah, the need for messengers, and the Qur’an being from Allah


So Islam is the ideology with the firm basis, proved by the reality of man’s view of the universe; it answers man’s fundamental questions as to where he came from, where he is going, and the relationship of life with what preceded it and what is to follow it.


Islam clearly explained and proved that matter is created and is not absolute. It will be destroyed. Man is created by One Creator. The universe and what is in it are all created by One Creator.


Not only did Allah address man with the solutions to his problem he defined the method by which such solutions should be brought into existence in society.


Islam came with detailed rules in the sphere of politics, social life, economics and foreign policy; rules concerning contracts, company structure, the standard for money, the origin of ownership, private and public property, the rule of land, the rules of commodities, the source of revenue, etc, etc.


My intention today is not to detail all of these issues since to do so would detract from the main subject and to understand the detailed rules would require you to understand all the Islamic systems and the Islamic creed.


For example, one cannot appreciate the land tax of kharaj unless one understands the nature of the Islamic foreign policy; one cannot understand the nature of the foreign policy if one does not comprehend the manner in which Islam deals with internal affairs; to understand internal affairs would require an understanding of the punishment system in Islam and the Islamic creed.


The Islamic method used to solve economic problems is the same as the method used to solve any of man’s problems; (1) Study the reality of the economic problem (2) and then deduce a solution for the problem from the shar’iyah texts after studying these texts and with the assurance that they apply to that particular problem.


Conclusion



The fundamental points which must be seen from my talk today are;


The reality is the judge of whether an idea is correct or not


The science of economics; how to improve production, mechanisation, can be perceived by all irrespective of viewpoint of life


The study of the reality does not allow man to define actions as good or bad; if he does so it is based on doubt and error and is sure to lead to contradiction and disparity


Only Islam has a creed proved from the reality, and a unique way of dealing with the problems of life, however diverse; from determining the standard for money to setting the educational policy for society.


It is important to bear in mind that none of the countries in the Islamic world implement Islam; the implementation of Islam is a comprehensive matter (punishment system and economic system; so the hungry does not have his hand chopped off); aspects under the guise of Islamic banking may be designed to fool the people; but the assiduous observer will study their nature and their contradiction to the Islamic ideology


The Muslim Ummah, is devoid of the Capitalist thought intellectually; it submitted to it by its application upon her and by seeing just its material successes, rather than by studying its thoughts and their origins;


So since the death of communism with the disintegration of the Eastern bloc and the desertion of the communist ideology by its adherents Islam remains the only ideology capable of liberating man from the shackles of capitalism which has dominated this century


Although the revival of the Ummah is not yet complete, due to the oppression and persecution against those who work for it by the agent rulers, and because of what those rulers create of an atmosphere of suppression and terrorism and due to the Kuffar plans that the agents implement against their own people to make them succumb to the yoke of Kufr.


Yet despite all this the Kafir West, led by America, is afraid of the Ummah completing its revival and the return of the Muslims as one Ummah distinct from all other peoples which lives as a single entity; the Khilafah State. A state which will resume the conveyance of her message to the world to save it from the suffering, disorder and immorality to which it has sunk due to the hegemony of Capitalism and its opportunistic and materialistic values. Values which have turned the world into a jungle without security or tranquillity, despite all the scientific and technological fruits which humanity has achieved.


The Islamic thoughts are the wealth of the Islamic Ummah; indeed the wealth of nations are her thoughts not her material resources; if she lost her thoughts she would undoubtedly lose her material wealth; if she had the productive way of thinking then she would be able to progress in the material aspect; so Islam’s history is rich with achievement in science, mathematics and medicine


We don’t call today for a compromise between the Islamic thoughts and the capitalist ones; we don’t accept from capitalism that which may even agree with Islam, since it is built on the wrong basis; we would only accept that which is built on the Islamic basis; so we would not accept for a Muslim to be the Chancellor in this country to change the system from within or to work in the Muslim countries in this manner.


So what is required is for mankind to return to the Islamic thoughts and systems and for the Muslims to work to establish these thoughts and systems in the world by the method ordained by Islam; this will allow us to liberate man from the worship and adoration of man-made ideologies and systems


The Islamic Khilafah state will certainly place all man-made ideologies in the dustbin of history, and carry the Islamic da’wa to the world.