Economic Foundations, deconstructed

Economic Foundations

Economists tell us that they are concerned with the redistribution of limited resources to meet unlimited demands.

That mantra defines and limits their scope towards a trade off between competing demands, a zero sum narrative that means that they expect and accept that some will be losers, but that at roots is not what makes a good trade.

A good trade occurs when two parties value what they have in their hand less that what the other holds. And more importantly in the making of the trade, they value what someone else holds more than what they hold

This is the basis of a barter system, that eixsted before a common unit of exchange came into the picture. And this means that both actually gain when they make the trade.

The barter system still exists alongside our monetary system in the discipline of brokerage, whereby a third party acts to bring together two such parties to make a mutually beneficial exchange between them.

So what did money add into this equation?

It made more efficient the ease with which you could sell your wares because at the point of sale you deferred the decision of what you needed to a later future date, and also because there was no direct trade between two parties each requiring the services of another, it meant that you could store up your capital for when you needed it more - and commensurately that in a World of fluctuating prices of things- that you could make a loss. This would happen when you would sell your wares more cheaply, because of ease, than if you would have in response to a broker approaching you (since the broker represents an already interested party).

It is in brokerage that you are guaranteed your fair price, however because brokerage requires mutual interest between exchanigng parties, it means that it essentially excludes not well differentiated or mass produced product.

The Messenger of God famously said to not go to the farmer before he had reached the market. Because farmers are in the business of not well differentiated products.

This also gives us the standard that each person has the right to gain their fair value, for their wares at trade.

Now look again at the foundations of Economic theory- that there are limited resources and unlimited demands.

First that there are limited resources.
In the 80s whilst schooling in London, part of our GCE Physics project was to look at efficiency savings with cars. We were constantly told that the gas and oil would run out within a decade. Today we have found more oil than we could ever have imagined beneath the Earth's crust. I am not here disputing the validity of being prudent with the use of resources, for the Messenger (saw) also told us to save water. And water is probably mans' greatest resource. But what I am disputing is the generality of the idea of a limited resource as being the defining conditions of an economic theory.

The second is that man is governed by desires that can be summed up as being unlimited in nature. Within that assumption is the seed that man cannot be truly happy unless their each desire is met, or at least has the opportunity of being met.

Now that this is starkly put out in the open. Ask yourself are you happiest when your each desire is met? The assumption therefore of economic theory which is the foundation stone of our society is that poor people are unhappy.

Whilst this is highly questionable, it gives you an idea of the type of society that economic theory would have us build, and do not be deluded it is not that it seeks a society that maximises happiness, but one that defines happiness in what you own, control or have.

Most definitely within the specifics of any situation there are competing demands for limited resources, but an economic theory that bases itself upon generalising that to define the society that we should all aspire to live under is a stretch that should be checked by scrutiny and not be allowed to cudgel us with fine words of science and rationality and math.

In the Islamic paradigm every discipline of action or thought is given by it’s purpose, because within that paradigm the whole of the cosmos is imbued within purpose.

The purpose of economics can be gauged by examining what it does:

1) The control of money, since Economists are in general directly or indirectly employed by the State (indirectly where they try to interpret the actions that the State has on the economic welfare of their employers/stakeholders), and their main means of control is through the supply of money either directly through printing it, or indirectly by setting base interest rates that determine the supply of money through investors choices, or by issuing bonds and thereby raising short term funds for the immediate needs of the state.

2) Justification of Choice. Whilst most economists would argue that they inform choice, the reverse is often more true, that they are used to justify choices already made.

3) To provide a benchmark through which to judge choices, based in the main on "regret" of not making optimal choices, in terms of economic gain that could have been had. In this instance reducing all actors' purposes to one of monetary gain over another, whilst ignoring multiple motives that govern choice.

4) To interpret or gauge market behaviour ahead of it coming to fruition. Von Newman and Morgensten in the Theory of Games provided a framework for judging optimal (monetary) strategy. And this then provides a justification for acting in such a way.

The idea then that economics is in the business of maximising man’s happiness is really at odds with what it does.

Within the Islamic paradigm the purpose of society is to reduce oppression to better free man so that he is better able to appreciate the majesty in which God, the Most Merciful, should be held.

When we allow economics to define our society then we allow it to enter into that sphere of our lives that defines who we as a people want to be, and we are the worse for it.

The Quran and Politics

A review of ELTIGANI- the Meccan Quran and Politics Eltigani defines politics in terms of governance; that it relates to government; accepted authority that is established through either coercion, mutual consent or a mixture of both to varying extents, but through whichever way it is formed is defined by enforced sanction for contravention, or potential reward for service to it's ideal. If we accept that definition then it compasses both the executive and the legislature, when we see the legislative role as being the putting into action the decisions of the executive, or even when they hold them to account. 
In this paradigm both are places that exercise power, and therefore both are Political Entities, even that is when the legislative acts to kerb the power of the executive. However, I had argued previously in my writings and in my blogs that Politics is the exertion of influence further than your immediate reach. This definition is broader in scope, and so some may argue that it is covered by other disciplines: Ethics- but ethics concerns itself not with influencing others but by doing "right" to or by others. Religion- but religion in the main concerns itself with man's inner life. And therefore I contend that it is not covered by other disciplines. Politics as defined in the Western mould and accepted by Eltigani is concerned with Power, how it is gathered and collected, as in ibn Khaldun's Assabiyyah, how it is exercised, and to what ends it is or should be used. Politics as defined by my construct, is concerned with influence beyond one's immediate circle- this suggests that one can influence others beyond your immediate reach to enable political aims to come to fruition. In this schematic Politics is defined by its goals(aims) and not by its methods. Whereas in the Western Mould it is in the main about the means- vis a vis the exertion of power. If it's goals are the creation of a free society of men, a society of equals where oppression of one by another is held in check and minimised, then the means emplyed cannot be coercive, dictatic or totalitarian in nature. If its goals are the creation of order, the nullification of rebellious sections of society, then its methods must be coercive, dictatic and potenitally totalitarian. The definition of Politics as being concerned with Power, it's accumulation, it's exertion and all the strappings that come with it, is for the second goal, even when the first goal may be it's stated aim. The Quranic narrative from first defined itself against a social order that promulgated social injustice, and always sougth a freedom based upon equality- all men are equal as teeth on a comb, and the only thing that distingushes one above another in the sight of God, is nothing other than God-conscienceness. The other main difference in the two definitions is that in the traditional schematic Politics is an act of volition, that the actors consciously and willingly use power as a means to their ends. Whereas in my second broader definition one may exert influence beyond your circle unconsciously and without deliberate aim. But even when the aim is unconscious, the aim is still present within the nutshell of the influence that is exerted. It is like a teacher who teaches a method. But whether you choose to apply that method or promulgate it, it is for you to choose. That the teacher suggests the best that you might become, but the choice to become it is fully your own. Here the aim is present unconsciously, because it is already present within the teacher themselves. That the teacher loves freedom of choice, and the nobility of enabling others to choose wisely. So whilst in the first Politics may be a dirty word concerned with coercion and exploitation, in the second it can be noble: To influence others towards noble goals. “I have left you with two things- The Quran (which is the religion, and the path towards belief) and my Sunnah (the method)” “When a person revives a Sunnah …” This is the epitomisation of the exertion of influence beyond oneself - not coercive, but inviting. And the greatest of Sunnah’s of the Messenger of God, is that of itself. Understanding it as the exertion of influence through choice and beyond oneself. Knowledge is sought theough studying and contemplation. If the above has acted as a spur for you to think and reason it out then it will have succeeded. posted directly as blogtouch was not working.

Ours is not to question why

In his youth they said he would amount to nought
For his head was forever in his books

Most times, in fact, those who would sing of heroic tales
When they asked those heros, what drove them so

No reply would they gain, except to say this was not
They were never driven by heroic tales

They but did what any norm̀al person would do
When being witness to the worst of humanity

Or by just being in a place no one would wish to be
That in those times, it is the events that demand from you

And the hero is they who simply respond 
That what comes from within them is not what most would do

But of the few, who would see things through
Once he sat in the saddle, that was the end of the boy he used to be

And they say that he never performed the Hajj
So Allah accept from him a portion each of our pilgrimmages

For he made safe our lands 
From the crusading throngs

Until they came again to desecrate the Holy Lands

Our Allah raise from us one thousand Salahuddin.

The Deen of the Haneefs

Deen ul Fitra

Each of us feels a belonging to something far greater than ourselves, than our families, than our qawms (people), a connection to the whole Cosmos which worships, singularly and all together along with us, and surrenders itself to the Most Merciful, and that we too surrender ourselves to- Nahnu Muslimoon- in full submission to the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

But the system that defines the peculiar expression of who we are as a Nation, as different peoples with a common history, philosophy on life, with our institutions and norms, was only named as Deen ul Islam after it's culmination in the rites of Hajj shown to us by our Messenger (as) at his farewell Pilgrimmage. It was after that instant that God revealed- "This day I have perfected my favour upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your Deen (lit Deen ul- Islam)". 

Three months later our Messenger was called back to His Creator, his mission having been fulfilled. *1

Before that time we were aware that ours was not the Deen of the Disbelievers (Surah Kafiroon, early Meccan), that the Day when we are called back to life is tantalisingly called "Day of the Deen", that we follow a long history of Prophets, Messengers and People who have likewise surrendered their will to God, and yet never once was it termed Deen ul Islam until the point of it's completion.

This contrasts within the narrative of the Quran, in the order in which we are to approach it, where God first tell us and names for us an attribute to be sought- Taqwa- and only elaborates what He means by it much later within Baqara in the verse of "It is not righteousness that you turn your faces to the East and the West,,,,,,"

Here God names it, by way of encouragement towards it, and then much later defines it for us. Whereas with the religion of Islam, God first completed it for us and then named it.

We must then deliberate on the why of the difference in approaches.

Even more startling, when we search for that defining phrase, in which our religion is named Deen ul-Islam, we find that it is does not occur singly and by itself, and furthermore is not coupled with another verse, but actually is embedded within a narrative of halal and haraam in Surah Maedah (verse 3).

We know of the Hadith in which a man from amongst the Jewish Nation said if a similar verse had been revealed upon any of their Messengers then they would have made that day, a day of celebration, that even they and therefore all other Nations should recognise it's phenomenal import. 

And yet by God's own design, it lays tucked away within His Speech.

After the greatest verse of the Qur'an we have "There is no compulsion in your choice of Deen (religion/ way of life)", and yet once again the Deen advocated for us there lays unnamed and undefined except through negation "Right action is clear from error (going astray)". This is also late Meccan.

In Surah Nisaa' it occurs as a question:
"Who is better in Deen, other than one who surrenders his purpose to Allah, and does good, and follows the way of Ibrahim, the pure?" verse 125

The word at the end is Hanif- pure- keeping their religion for Allah to the exclusion of all else.

[Deliberating on the detail in the above verse is fully instructive, and I leave that for you to come back to later.]

Ibrahim (as) is unusual in many ways, we know that literally God calls him our father at the end of Surah Hajj, that he is the father of our Messengers Nation.

So many times God talks about the way of Ibrahim, millata Ibrahim.

And he is unusual amongst the Prophets and Messengers because he supplicated to God for him not to be made a trial for the people, and so God gave him a scripture without a people. 

We likewise know that his firstborn son, Ismail (as), is likewise called a Messenger in the Speech of the Quran, and that he received revelation and a scripture, but like unto Ibrahim the narrative stops there, that we know of no people who are his. 

It is as if he knew of his father's supplication to send the Umiyoon (unlettered people) a Messenger from amongst themselves, that therefore that person needed to be unlettered- without the ability to read, nor write- and so he respected that wish.

And over a thousand years later, God gave Ibrahim to us as the father of our Messengers Nation, the Nation of the Umiyoon Peoples, for whilst the Quran is written in a book format, and was clearly intended to have been so, it still remains to this day, a very much verbal recitation.

And one of the proofs of the authenticity of the authorship of the Qur'an belonging to the Most Merciful, is that our Messenger (saw) was unable to both read and write as is clearly evidenced by the contradictions present within the event occassioned by the treaty of Hudabiyyah.

DEEN of THE HANEEFS

Before the coming of Islam, Ibrahim (as) was much reverred amongst the Arabs, and more than a few of them eschewed the paganism of their fathers, and instead chose to follow the way of Ibrahim. 

They were known amongst the Arabs as the Hanifs. 

They were not organised, with no set rituals past probably what we know today of the religion of Ibrahim, but each of them sought to return back to the purity of that religion, and that of his son, Ismail (as).

So here we have the foundation stone of the religion of Islam, that it is the culmination of the religion of Ibrahim (as), who is called a Hanif:

Surah Rum (verse 30)

<< So set your face to the Deen of Haneefun. Allah t'ala had cleaved it, cleaved it from mankind. No altering will you find in that which Allah created. That is the upright Deen, although most men will not understand>>

At the finish of this verse we find the intriguing "although most men will not understand", as a direct invitation to deliberate on it, that potentially either it's true meaning is not clear, or maybe like much of the verses of the Quran that it's meaning is soo clear that it hides within plain sight.

When we look at most translations of this verse they look it at it differently from how I have protrayed it. 

They say that the Deen referred to here is not the Deen of the Hanifs, but refers to a natural relgion- "Deen ul Fitra" and they construct a hypothesis that equates Deen ul Islam with Deen ul-Fitra, a Deen which is naturally in tune with how man was created.

The basis of this hypothesis are two:

1- Hadith Anas, in which on the Messenger being carried to Jerusalem, on the Night Journey (Israa'), Angel Gibrael (as) offered the Messenger two vessels to drink from, one contained wine, and the other milk. The Messenger chose the latter and Angel Gibrael said, "you have been guided to the fitra" (at that time alcohol had yet to have been banned for our Nation).

2- Hadith Abu Hurayrah, in which the Messenger (saw) said that every child is born upon the fitra, and it is his parents that make him into a Christian or a Jew.

But when we examine Run 30, in the light of Nisaa' 125, and we recognise the historical significance of the term Hanif, that it had been applied before the coming of the Messenger to those people who sought to return back to the religion of Ibrahim (as), and was a recognised religious affilation amongst the Arabs akin with Judaism and Christianity, then those Hadith take on an entirely different perspective.

This is of course here a speculative argument, after all I am not an Arab well versed in Arabic. 

But it may be that the concept of Fitra, a natural inclination, has clouded the true meaning of Rum verse 30. 

For it if we look at the root word of Fitra it means cleaved or broken, and not created. The verse reads cleaved from Allah, cleaved from Mankind. No change will you find in what Allah has created. That is the upright religion.

When we approach it literally, then it says that te religion of the Haneefs was not natural to mankind, but created by Allah by cleaving it from Mankind.

DEEN UL ISLAM
If Islam is the culmination of the Deen of the Haneefs, and this our Deen is somehow different from more "natural religions" then we should expect to see some unusual difference within it. *5

Indeed Islam as a religion is incredibly different from other religions including Christianity and Judaism, in that we have no singular authority past Allah and His Messenger (saw), both of whom it could be argued are distant. *2

That God gave us in His speech a stimulation for our brains so that we could use reason to discern right from wrong action *3.

And this contrasts directly with other Deens that focus on authority, vis a vis Hadith Abu Huraryah... Every child is born upon the fitra, and it is their parents that make them into a Christian or a Jew. Here we have the concept of fitra, that it is mans natural inclination, but interestingly its nature is contrasted with Deens thats are fully based upon authoirty, that the Jews and Christains venerate their priests. 

And as Allah informs us in Baqara that they take them as gods other than God, because they make some things unlawful for them which God made lawful, and this in the main, and likewise but much lesser they make some things lawful for them which God made unlawful. 

And crucially "it is the parents" that impose that authority over their children. *4

Two verses after Rum 30, we have a verse that indirectly talks about the Jews and the Christians as splitting themselves off from one another, each forming sects. 

What causes the formation of sects, other than one man seeking to impress his authority on another man, to the exclusion of everyone?

SIGNS OF AUTHORITY
Indee when Allah t'ala sent his Messengers, He sent them in general with clear authority by way of incredible miracles- the miracles of Musa (as) and even those of Jesus (as).

But when we contrast this with the Deen of the Haneefs that became with Ibrahim (as), then we know of no miracles of authority.

The fire became cool, not by way of Ibrahim's asking. Nor in all likehood was it cool for anyone other than Ibrahim (as). There were no other outstanding miracles for him, nor do we know of any for Ismail (as) even though he too was a Messenger who received scripture.

For our Messenger, Muhammed (saw), the outstanding miracles were:

1- the splitting of the moon, but when you read the historical account in the Seerah, he did not point at the moon, nor did he in anyway indicate that it would be split. It occured solely in response to the disbelievers asking for a sign at that point in time.

2- Israa and Miraj were not witnessed by anyone, and were therefore not miracles sent to prove his authority.

In fact he (saw) has many miracles, but none of them were there as authority miracles, they cannot be said to be in the same calibre of Jesus (as) and his waking the dead, or curing the blind and lepers, or blowing into clay moulded doves only for them to come alive.

This because the Jewish people wanted signs of authority. Indeed in Baqara they disputed with their prophet and would not fight unless he gave them a King. They already had evident authority by way of their prophet, but wanted still more. 

GOD IS SUFFICIENT
But for the Deen of the Haneefs, Allah is sufficient for us.

And He gave us a book full of light, dispelling darkness.

That stimulates us intellectually and is a guide book on our journey returning back to Him.

And the Believers, whilst God adorns them with miracles, they are not in need of them. For they follow the path of Ibrahim (as), the pure. 

Whose religion lays culminated in the Deen of Islam.

KNOWLEDGE IS THROUGH STUDY AND CONTEMPLATION
NOT LECTURES, NOR THIS ABOVE

NOTES:

1- Compare with Aal-e-Imran verse 83.
Hadith Jibreel, narrated by Umar (ra) can therefore be placed as having occured within that 3 month period prior to our Messenger (saw) being recalled to His Maker.

2- Of course God for the believer is ever present and close, to our supplications and our endeavours, and He declares as much in Baqara.

3- After the Verse of the Kursi. God does not say here as He could have "truth is clear from falsehood", because the Muslim is aware of his frailties and that everything is about the journey of return, and that then God makes good the end.

4- I have a problem with most of the Hadith quoted by Abu Hurayrah predominately becuase of his version of Hadith Jibreel which can be found in Baqara, deliberate well.

5- Indeed we know that we will be raised uncircumsized. And therefore the idea that the Deen of Ibrahim the pure is natural, is at odds. Rather it is not natural, but is a special creation of the Most Merciful that He cleaved from Mankind, and yet sustains.

ADDENDUM
What this means is that whilst the other Nations Prophets and Messengers were Muslims, surrendering themselves to God, they were not followers of the Deen ul Islam. God sent them with miracles of authority.

And we know that Jesus (as) when he returns, he will return as a follower of Muhammed (saw), and he will come on the path of the Deen of Islam, and using this logic gone will be his signs of authority. Then we must futher speculate, how will the Christians know and recognise him? Maybe the one miracle of his that yet remains will be his miraculous descent.