THE ECONOMIC DILEMMA OF THE MUSLIM WORLD

Islamic Studies 35 : 3 I 1 996) 295
Companions around him, may God be pleased with them, to equip this beggar
as a wood-cutter, and told the person concerned to gather tire-wood so as to eat
from the sweat of his own hands.
If we analyse the story in its moral context, we see how the Prophet,
peace be upon him, resolved a social crisis which presented itself in the form
of a beggar from among the poor. He preferred its solution in the framework
of "duty" over "right". Or, if we look at its economic dimension, we see him
preferring a solution in the framework of "production".
The stand of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in all other cases
supports this direction. Indeed this guidance for his ummah stands good in the
moral as well as the economic field. We see him giving it to a companion in
another instance. The latter asked from those present what he required and got
it. He repeated his demand and was again granted. When the demand and grant
were repeated a third time, the guidance came in a distinct form. The Prophet,
peace be upon him, told the applicant: ". . . The upper hand is better than the
lower . . ."
The hand that gives is better than the hand that takes. This is the
direction, whether we interpret it morally or economically.
Returning now to the algebraic equation between production and
consumption, and considering it in the light of the economic-moral relationship
presented above, we can now look into its various possibilities. These indicate
three states. A society would rcalise any one of them in accordance with its
cultural orientation. Corresponding to its emphasis on the concept of "duty" or
of "right", its economic equation would be positive if production exceeds
consumption; balanced or zero if the two sides are equal, or negative if
consumption weighs more in the balance.
In the first case, the society can invest the surplus production in future
operations and budget: It is a developing society. In the second case, the two
scales of its budget are balanced so that the one does not outweigh the other,
neither going up, nor going down.: It is a stagnant society. In the third case, the
scale of consumption is preponderant; it neither goes up nor stabilises. It is a
society heading towards collapse.
The shift of emphasis from "right" to "duty" is not something which
comes about spontaneously or by accident. It is a transformation of habits and
dispositions in harmony with the natural human inclination towards the logic of
convenience, reinforced by 20th century demagogy. The latter has made "ME"
a new idol which the individual worships in the name of liberty in the political
field and in the name of rights in the economic field. Even in the field of sports,
one worships the "ME" embodied in the stadiums. Hence the transformation of
inherited focuses or preferences is no easy task but can be brought about only
through a hard struggle against the tendencies which nurture egocentrism in its
two forms: ME and WE.
To counter the cultural revolution - for modifying the emphasis in
favour of duties - there might take place a counter-revolution to prop up the
perverted structure. This is what precisely happened in China when an effort