? The controversy of deception and illusion... Is there a difference between political Islam and economic Islam
Delving into the problem of Islamic banks is something that arouses my desire to ask questions more than my desire to rush in issuing judgments and providing answers, and since the questions are the fruits of critical thinking in the first place, this initial criticism of what is commonly agreed upon to be called the “Islamic bank” calls for a necessary introduction. It is the terms and concepts themselves, as it was assumed from the beginning that the root of the problem and the evidence for it lies primarily in the problematic confusion surrounding the concepts, the combination of which, as well as the form of their arrangement, leads to directing our minds and influencing them in a soft and hidden way, making us accept illusions as absolute truths, and submit to them. With suspicions as firm constants, we surrender to deception without criticism, review, or scrutiny.
The first of these concepts is what the term “Islamic” itself refers to, that is, the ascription to or description of Islam, and I am almost certain that there is a lot of deception in the use of this term today, and it requires revealing its sometimes different, and sometimes contradictory, implications - to isolate Islam ( Such as a heavenly religion, belief, and divine law) regarding the terms that are added to it (that is, when we attribute it to Islam or describe it as Islamic), for example: When we talk about “Islamic history,” we do not mean here the history of Islam itself, but rather the history of generations of people who differed in everything, and who Various countries, governments, and policies succeeded them, and their societies witnessed varying conditions of ups and downs, progress and backwardness, defeat and victory. Which means that there is no necessary connection between Islamic history and Islam itself in terms of its holiness and idealism. Rather, the difference between them is vast and great, and it is the same as the difference between the divine and the human. In the same way, any of the common concepts in this context, such as Islamic civilization, Islamic art, Islamic society, Islamic sciences, as well as the Islamic state and Islamic politics, should not be linked to holiness, and the latter is the key to our conversation.
I will begin first by giving an example of the clear and common distinction between two interchangeable terms; They are: Islamic politics and political Islam. The first term is a neutral description of the accumulation of experiences, experiences, ideas and philosophies concerned with politics, its forms and sciences throughout the history of Islamic countries in the previous sense above, which began more than fourteen centuries ago and continues today. This accumulation does not represent a sacred value or position. Or a trend in itself. As for political Islam, it has another matter, and I am not here to define its precise concept and determine its comprehensive and prohibitive definition. Rather, it is sufficient to say that it is a clear position and a specific orientation used to describe political movements that are based on the fact that Islam is not only a religion, but also (and here I am conveying the opinions of the supporters of political Islam and not I adopt it) is a political, social, administrative and economic system of government to which the state, with all its institutions, agencies and components, is subject. This term was applied to fundamentalist Islamic movements and became commonly used at the beginning of the current century after the events of September 11, 2001. In this sense, the term political Islam is a conceptual opposite and clear opposite of the term secularism, which in its simplest connotations means the separation of religion from the state.
Therefore, there is a big and clear difference between the neutrality of the term Islamic politics, as a broad space of expertise, knowledge, and political experiences, and the term political Islam as a specific ideological position. This difference is what makes the first term a subject of knowledge and history, while it makes the second (political Islam) a subject of faith, belief, and representation. Behavior and application. Therefore, you will not find anyone fighting for Islamic politics, but there are those who fight, and they kill and are killed, for the sake of political Islam.
Political Islam and economic Islam/ How do they meet?!
Political Islam therefore assumes that Islam is a comprehensive system for all aspects of society, including the economy. How then can we explain the term “Islamic economy”? Does it really indicate what the previous analysis and comparison between “Islamic politics” and “political Islam” concludes, meaning knowledge, phenomena, and economic ideas that pertain to individuals and societies in specific historical periods and on a specific land? Or is it intended to view Islam as a fully-fledged economic system in contrast to the known economic systems, such as the capitalist system, the socialist system, etc.?
Theoretically speaking, there is almost no economy throughout human history that can be attributed to a religion in itself, as there is no Christian or Jewish economy, nor even a Hindu, Buddhist, or other heavenly or earthly religion. If the word “Islamic” is intended to describe a group of different nations, races, and societies that have nothing in common except that they believe in Islam, then the Islamic economy is the economy of these nations and societies, ancient and modern, and thus it is similar to what we call the Roman economy, or the Chinese economy, or the British economy. Or the American... without meaning the ratio of the economy to religion itself.
But the matter is radically different in terms of the use of the term today among a wide segment of its representatives, as they try to fool people through it into believing that there is an economic system in Islam that is fully integrated and, at the same time, capable of competing with global economic systems! This is not only the matter, but the proponents of this term defend that the Islamic economy is capable of overcoming the shortcomings and shortcomings of other systems, and that it is the only way to implement economic justice and eliminate all forms of poverty and misdistribution of wealth. It is also capable of overcoming economic crises and eliminating their causes. And solving its problems...and other claims that portray the imagined “Islamic economy” as an ideal utopia or a lost paradise. Humanity will remain in economic misery as long as it does not work in it!
Therefore, before delving into the issue of Islamic banks, we must then call things by their names and amend the term Islamic economics according to the meaning intended above to become “economic Islam,” that is, similar to “political Islam,” given that the theoretical starting point for both is the same. I previously wrote an article in which I showed that both terms are based on the same ideology adopted by the “Islamists” when they withdraw religion outside its basic system based on belief, worship, and moral values guiding behavior. That is, just as they claim that Islam is a political system, it is also an economic system that must be subject to It has all the phenomena of the economy, its activities, institutions, transactions, etc.
What is worth noting in this context is that this Islamist ideology is now not limited to politics and economics only, but it has also become commonplace to talk about Islamic media, Islamic law, Islamic sociology... and other concepts that have become organized within academic specializations that are given the status of “sciences.” Sharia/or Islamic law, taught in universities with a clear religious identity, and this is the subject of an independent article that I intend to publish soon.
"Islamic banking" and "economic Islam"... heresy based on delusion
Under any existing economic system, the bank acts as an executive institution that represents the theoretical philosophy of this system and its application in operational reality. Therefore, no country today is devoid of a central bank that controls the issue of cash in it and, through its powers, exercises a supervisory role over all forms and levels of economic dealing. While other banks, public and private, act as an intermediary between customers on the one hand, and between the central bank, and thus the approved economic system, on the other hand.
As for the banks that are called Islamic, they almost have a dual identity, as they are linked to the general economic system through their necessary relationship with the Central Bank and other banks, but on the other hand, they attribute themselves to the religious economic system that they claim to exist. However, an insight into the structure of these banks reveals to us directly that the main essence upon which they are based in describing them as Islamic is the replacement of known banking transactions or products (which are considered usurious and religiously forbidden) with others permitted by Islamic law. Otherwise, the Islamic bank is a clone. Unlike any other bank, its laws are mostly based on the capitalist banking system, which is closest (compared to its socialist counterpart) to the nature of Islamic values that enshrine economic freedoms, competition, and ownership.
The Islamic bank, like other banks, deals with two parties: the first is the individual and corporate clients and customers, while the second is the other banks and local and foreign financial markets, in addition to the central bank in the country. If the Islamic bank is able to control its relationship with the first party ( Individual customers and companies) and provide their products to them through special laws that declare that they do not conflict with debt, and adopt the Murabaha system as an alternative to interest. In its dealings with other banks, the Central Bank is obligated to submit to the general laws that govern the relationship with these banks, in which interest represents an essential pillar that does not It can be rejected or circumvented, also in brief: the Islamic bank is committed to Sharia (as it itself presents) with clients, and is contrary to it with banks and financial markets.
Even if we differentiate between the two levels of dealing, a large number of jurists and specialists confirm that the products and transactions that these banks consider to be legitimate and in accordance with religious rulings are not always so. For example, many jurists believe that the loans provided by the bank through the Murabaha system include several legal violations. Among them is that when the bank agrees with the customer in principle to sell him a commodity, it is not among what he owns, and Islam has forbidden selling what the seller does not own. The buyer is also obligated to purchase in advance without having the right to withdraw, and this is what the Sharia also forbids, as (two sales are by option unless they separate). In addition, if the buyer is late in payment periods, he is obligated to pay a late fine, and this is considered a type of Usury, according to most Islamic jurisprudence councils.
? Regarding bank interest and usurers’ interest...are they equal
Within this context, we should stop at the issue of bank “interest” and its association with usury, since the mere existence of the Islamic bank and its announcement that it does not deal in “usury” has perpetuated the general public’s perception of other traditional banks as if they were “usurious and greedy people,” regardless of their Halal and haram. Unfortunately, this perception involves great simplification and naivety, because the interest that banks add to their transactions and products is a purely economic matter imposed by the laws of regulations, commercial activity considerations, and the laws of financial interest. The bank does not aim to obtain money and accumulate it unjustly and monopolize it in the hands of a small group, as it does. Usury is forbidden in Sharia law. Rather, interest under the prevailing global banking systems is a major part of its continued operation, as the bank offers its own product, which is money in the form of loans, in exchange for a specific return that is added to it at the time of its return, and the size of this added return is not subject to determination. To the whims of the bank’s owners or shareholders, but rather to a set of laws that take into account purely economic considerations, the most important of which is preserving the continuation of banks and financial institutions in providing their services and responding to the necessary needs that they fill. In addition to this, the added increase also ensures the preservation of the true value of money. The borrower in light of the inflation process and its potential natural rate.
Therefore, I believe that it is a grave mistake to look at bank interest and judge it as usurious in isolation from the general economic system to which it belongs, especially after the change in the global concept of money and its value and the removal of its connection to precious metals, especially gold. The bank that offers its products under these circumstances and considerations does not resemble usurers in anything. Especially since the usurer bases his services on exploiting the borrower’s need in the first place, and therefore the rate of increase he requires exceeds the bank interest many times over, and when the usurer demands a mortgage to guarantee the recovery of his money and the conditional increase on him, he only accepts that the mortgage be a transfer of property whose value is greater. With a lot of borrowed money, because when the borrower is unable to pay the debt and the increase that is owed, and this is what the usurer wants, the latter will obtain the entire mortgaged property, whose value is sometimes ten times what the borrower should pay... or more.
These unjust and unjust conditions that the usurer applies make him an opponent of the borrower from the beginning when he takes advantage of his needs in the first place, then when he requires a large increase, which often leads to the borrower defaulting and being late in repaying, so he loses his entire ownership in return. As for the bank, it does not discount its customers on anything, not in the low interest rate it receives, nor when the borrower defaults on repayment. Rather, traditional banks always adopt a policy of rescheduling the repayment of defaulters, and granting one opportunity after another. Even when the borrower becomes insolvent and opportunities end, the bank takes from the mortgage an amount equal to the money it requests, and returns what remains of it to its owner. In short: The bank’s goal is for the borrower to repay what he borrowed within the repayment period, while the moneylender’s goal is for the borrower to default and take away the property he mortgaged.
On the other hand, banks are active in providing their products in light of financial abundance and good and stable economic conditions. Therefore, they always seek to accelerate the wheel of development and market activity and increase trade exchange and demand for economic projects in all their forms. This is the appropriate healthy climate for their growth and the continuation of their services. As for the usurer, he is active under completely opposite circumstances, and his opportunities increase when money becomes scarce in the hands of people, the wheel of the economy stops, unemployment spreads, and poverty increases. This means that the development of banks and the continuation of their work is the best guarantee for protecting those who are forced from resorting to the usurer, and this is what the latter never wants.
? Is economic ethics sufficient to establish an economic system
It goes back and forth, and when we talk about the economic system as people know it (capitalist, socialist, or mixed...) we mean the existence of an integrated economic theory, meaning that it includes a cognitive and philosophical system that begins with defining the concept of the economy itself, and is based on a set of abstract principles, perceptions, and definitions. And on the tools and mechanisms that put these principles and perceptions into practice in human economic activity. In fact, this is not what Islam includes in any way! This ruling may seem shocking to some. So let us examine it from within Islam itself.
Islam is a religion and a divine law, and it is not right to deviate it from its scope so as not to lose its purpose. Supporters of economic Islam usually say that Islam explicitly expresses the prohibition of usury and develops an integrated jurisprudential system regarding types of sales. The corrupt, the forbidden, and the permissible; Regarding covenants, contracts, covenants, and recording debts in financial transactions, some expand the circle of economic transactions in Islam to include inheritance and its provisions as mechanisms for transferring property and distributing private wealth. All of this is actually included in Islamic Sharia, but in any case it does not create an economic theory nor does it establish an economic system either. The evidence for that is very simple and very intuitive, and many may ignore it because of its simplicity and obviousness. This evidence is that the purpose of Islamic Sharia is to establish the rules for economic transactions ( Such as sales, contracts, and debts) is to remove injustice from a person and preserve his rights from being violated.
I see, from a similar perspective, that despite the warmth given by supporters of political Islam to the views of its theorists, which approached the subject of economics in general and secondary, and especially what I saw from the works of Hasan al-Banna, for example, or Sayyid Qutb and others who always called for changing the economic system from a usurious, forbidden one to an “Islamic” one, as is the case. Changing the political and social system. Their opinions do not go beyond the limits of highlighting this goal above. Rather, they represent the repetition of the same echo in affirming that the permissibility of some economic transactions and the prohibition of others do not deviate from the Sharia’s endeavor to preserve the rights of the individual and remove injustice against him. These opinions cannot be considered They are valid as foundations and ideas upon which an independent and integrated economic system can be built, and not even just a clearly defined economic doctrine. Rather, examining the ideas and opinions of the supporters of economic Islam, through which they attempt to build an independent economic system with an Islamic identity, is nothing but a mixture in which the values of the capitalist system are mixed, from the legal and legal aspects (economic freedom, competition, and private property), with the values of the socialist system from the moral and social aspects ( Equality, solidarity, social security, and prevention of monopoly), and history is full of evidence that confirms that reconciling two contradictory systems does not create an independent system in itself!
In any case, what many may not know is that the prohibition of usury in order to preserve rights and prevent injustice is something that is not limited to Islam alone. Rather, it is imposed by Jewish and Christian law as well, and those who believe in them still adhere to this ruling. I was convinced of this once when I met a Jewish usurer in one of the European countries, ironically, as his father was a rabbi responsible for preserving religious duties and preaching them to people, asked him frankly: Isn’t usury forbidden to you when you practice it and your father is a rabbi? He said: Yes, but my father was the one who gave him a fatwa permitting usury with non-Jews! The evidence in the incident, regardless of the deviation in the application of religious rule, is that usury is forbidden in the three religions because they all aim to preserve human rights and regulate moral relations between them.
Therefore, if we examine the religious rulings that regulate financial transactions between people, we will find that they are general and absolute rulings that are not based on a specific economic thought or philosophy, and the believer is bound by them whether he lives under a capitalist, socialist, feudal, or any other economic system. Which human societies have known...which means, in short, that Islam, like other religions, does not impose a specific economic system, and that the economic aspects in it came to complement the divine guidance in dealing between humans.
I believe, based on the above, that the relationship between religion and the economy should be of a value-guiding nature, just as it should be linked to politics, and this is what I always defend and call for. By that, I mean separating religion from any economic goals in order to confirm its inherent role as a value-based, moral and legal guide to transactions. The economy is not one of its tools. It was mentioned in the authentic hadith narrated by Anas bin Malik, may God be pleased with him, that when prices rose during the reign of the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, it was said to him: (O Messenger of God, price for us. He said: Indeed, God is the Pricer, the Taker, the Extender, the Sustainer), and it was mentioned in Sahih Muslim on the authority of Anas Ibn Malik also, may God be pleased with him: (The Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, passed by a people who were pollinating palm trees, and he said: If you had not done so, it would have been fine. He said: Then a group of “bad dates” came out, so he passed by them and said: What about your palm trees? They said: I said such-and-such.. He said “You are most knowledgeable about the affairs of your world.” The economy is only the head of our worldly affairs!
!Trojans
Islamic banks are the tip of the iceberg, a problem that is larger than it seems. I mean here the problem of the ideology of “economic Islam,” which in depth represents the closest companion to political Islam, and even constitutes one of the most important arms of its soft power in countries and societies. What is political Islam’s insistence on devoting The economic face of Islam is only part of this broader ideology through which one seeks to gain power, the state, and society by claiming victory for Islam and returning to it in all fields: political, economic, social, scientific, and artistic, while the truth is that it was and is still seeking victory for itself by using Islam to dominate politics and the economy. And society.
If the tool of political Islam is to exploit religion to arouse the conscience and emotions of believers with the aim of winning their votes, sympathy, and enthusiasm, and ensuring its acceptance by them, then economic Islam seeks, with the same tools (exploiting religion and playing on the emotional side and sentiment of faith), to gain depositors’ money and savings, or to share with borrowers the profits of their effort and fatigue. They are charged more costs than those in traditional banks, and it is no secret to anyone that the procedures adopted by Islamic banks in selling their products, especially the Murabaha system, are not without additional financial burdens as well, starting with paying the transaction fees that are not included in the buying and selling amounts, and paying the profit. added twice instead of once; The first is for the merchant and the second is for the bank, then by paying the ownership transfer fees twice as well, the first when the bank owns the commodity, and the second when the commodity is transferred to the customer’s ownership at the end of payment, not to mention of course the fines for late payment and default in payment, which are often progressive, and this delay often occurs. And default due to the increase in these financial burdens. What ultimately means is that what Islamic banks are doing is not free from suspicions of illegality and does not serve the values and goals encouraged by Sharia.
Finally...and after all the questions that I was keen to raise in the reader’s mind, I would like to finally ask an obvious question about the “Murabaha system” itself (on which the Shari’a analysis of granting loans and recovering them with added interest is based), to the effect of this question: Doesn’t Murabaha represent a form of circumvention? On the provisions of Islamic Sharia by inventing a new system that is not a “good loan” because the borrower does not only return what he borrowed, but there must be an increase? It is not a commercial partnership from the perspective of Sharia provisions, because the bank always guarantees its fixed share of the profit, and does not give it up whether the borrower is unable to repay it or not. That is, loans are guaranteed to be repaid when the bank mortgages something whose value is equal to twice the amount of the loan... and is this a clear violation of Sharia law?
Source: websites