An early warning against central planning, and where Thanksgiving comes from
Please watch this video and learn how Thanksgiving was the result of settlers discovering property rights and the free market. For the first several years, they starved to death in droves because their leaders implemented a collectivist policy: each according to his ability, each according to his need. Inevitably, the needy greatly outnumbered the able and man-made famine was the inexorable result. Socialism, communism, collectivism, whatever you wish to call it, causes death and destruction on a massive scale. What was unique about the settlers in Virginia in the early 1600s CE was that there was no previously accumulated wealth that they could fall back on, and thus starvation and famine were the immediate consequence. When collectivist/leftist/Marxist ideas are implemented in a more developed economy, it takes a bit longer for those same results to come to fruition because the economy can keep going a bit longer based on whatever wealth it has accumulated. The European Union and United States are clear examples of this, but the result will be the same if there is no drastic change of course.
The point about need immediately reminded me of Imam al-Ghazali's words in his The Book of the Lawful and the Unlawful. What we have below is a brilliant and scathing critique of Marxism avant la lettre, or before its time, by about 800 years. The important part is in the last two paragraphs and the emphases added in italics are mine:
'I say: If the unlawful in this world were so
widespread such that it was known with certainty that nothing lawful remained
in the world, I would say that we start again, laying down stipulations from
our time and pardoning what has preceded us. We also say that what goes beyond
its limit is turned back into its opposite,[1]
such that when everything is unlawful everything is lawful. The proof is that
if this were to happen, the possibilities would be five:
The first: It is said that
people abandon eating until the last of them has died.
The second: That they
restrict themselves according to the minimum amount they need to keep body and
soul together, struggling for as long as they can until death.
The third: It is said that
they consume according to their need however they want; theft, wrongful
seizure, or mutual consent without distinguishing between different kinds of
wealth and different sources of wealth.
The fourth: That they follow
the stipulations of the Revealed Law and they resume applying its principles
without any restriction according to need.
The fifth: That they
restrict themselves, along with the stipulations of the Revealed Law, according
to need.
As for the first, its falsehood is obvious.
As for the second, it is decisively false,
because if people were to be restricted to keeping themselves alive, struggling
all the time in weakness, plague would spread amongst them. All work and
industry would come to an end and the world would be completely ruined, and the
ruin of the world would mean the ruin of the Religion, because it is the
plantation of the Hereafter. The rulings of the caliphate,[2]
the judiciary, the administration and indeed most of the rulings of
jurisprudence, have the objective of preserving the interests of this world, so
that through them the interests of the Religion can be fulfilled.
As for the third, which is restriction
according to need and not going beyond it while all forms of wealth regarded as
equal, regardless of whether they are acquired by way of wrongful seizure,
theft, mutual consent, or however an agreement is made, this is removing the
barrier of the Revealed Law between those who sow corruption and the various
kinds of corruption, for hands will reach out to wrongfully seize, steal and
commit other kinds of oppression, and it will not be possible to prevent them
from doing so. Hence, the owner of something is not distinguished from the rest
of us by being deserving of it, for indeed it is unlawful for him and unlawful
for us. The owner can only have the amount that he needs. If he is in need then
we are also in need. If what I take as my right is surplus to what I need, then
I have stolen what was surplus to his need for that day. If the needs of each
day and each year are not taken into consideration, then what do we take into
consideration and how do we regulate? This would lead to the administration of
the Revealed Law being nullified[3]
and the temptation of the people of corruption to commit corruption.
Thus, nothing remains but the fourth
possibility, which is to say that every owner owns what he has, and he has
priority over it. It is not permissible for it to be taken from him by way of
theft or wrongful seizure. Rather, it is taken with his consent, and mutual
consent is the way of the Revealed Law. If it is only permissible with mutual
consent then mutual consent also has a method in the Revealed Law, and
interests are attached to it. If it is not taken into consideration, then the
foundation of mutual consent is not specified and its details are suspended.
As for
the fifth possibility, which is restriction according to need along with
earning in the way of the Revealed Law for those who have ownership, it is the
one that we view as befitting of carefulness for the one who wants to travel
the path of the Hereafter. However, there is no way[4]
to make it obligatory for everyone, or to include it within a fatwā for
the masses. This is because the hands of oppressive rulers extend beyond the
amount they need and into the hands[5]
of people. The same goes for the hands of thieves, everyone who robs and
plunders and everyone who steals when they have the opportunity. He says that
he has no right except the amount that he needs, and I too am needy. Nothing
remains except it being obligatory for the ruler to extract everything that is
surplus to need from the hands of owners and use it to accommodate the people
of need and cause the wealth to flow amongst everyone day after day, year after
year. This contains excessive burden and a squandering of wealth. As for the
excessive burden, it is that the ruler cannot carry this out with such a large
creation. Indeed, this cannot be imagined at all.
As for the squandering, it is that what is
surplus to need, in terms of fruits, meats and grains, should be thrown into
the sea, or left until it decomposes. Indeed, the fruits and grains that Allah
creates are surplus to what would allow the creation to live in comfort and
luxury, so how can it be according to their need? Then it would lead to the
breakdown of the Pilgrimage, zakāt and financial expiations for sins,
and every other act of worship that is conditional on being independent of
people, if people come to own nothing except according to their need, and this
is extremely repulsive. Indeed, I say that if a prophet were found in this age
it would be obligatory upon him to resume the affair[6]
and set down in detail the means of acquiring property through mutual consent,
and all other ways, and he would do what he would do even if all wealth were
lawful without any difference. What I mean by saying that it would be
obligatory upon him is that if he were a prophet who had been sent for the
benefit of creation in terms of their Religion and their worldly affairs.
Hence, propriety[7]
is not achieved by pushing everyone back to what they need and what is
absolutely necessary. If he were not sent for the sake of propriety this
wouldn’t be obligatory. We say that it is possible for Allah to decree a cause
through which the creation destroys each other, and thus their worldly affairs
are relinquished and they become misguided in their religion, for indeed He
misguides whom He wills and He guides whom He wills. He causes to die whom He
wills and He causes to live whom He wills. However, we evaluate the matter
according to the standard practice of Allah the Exalted in sending Prophets for
the propriety of the Religion and worldly affairs.'[8]
[p.67-71]
May Allah reward Imam al-Ghazali for his insight and may He cause us all to benefit from his knowledge and widsom, ameen. For Muslims in the Anglosphere, and especially the United States, it helps to know where holidays and special occasions come from. Secondly, it helps to recognise and acknowledge that the lessons to be learnt were taught by our own scholars, several centuries prior, and with Allah alone is every success.
[1] (tn): and this is similar to the
maxim that whenever a matter is constricted, it is expanded, i.e. the unlawful
becomes lawful in dire circumstances. (Zabīdī p.53)
[2] Ar. al-khilāfah
[3] (tn): i.e. completely (Zabīdī)
[4] (tn): Ar. wajh, which also
means cause, or reason.
[5] (tn): or pockets
[6] (tn): i.e. of Islam
[7] (tn): Ar. ṣalāḥ
[8] (tn): These last two paragraphs
are a refutation of communism. Not to go beyond one’s needs is praiseworthy,
but it cannot be forced upon an entire society without causing destruction on a
massive scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment