Basically a teacher, circumstances forced Ibn Taimīyah to put on a soldier’s uniform as they also pushed him into the vortex of controversy and polemics. As the historically-rich first chapter of Dr. Islahi’s book brings out so well, Ibn Taimīyah was born in an age of turmoil. The decay in Islamic society had already set in with all that it implied by way of stultification of creative thinking on law and society. As his voluminous Fatāwā reflect, the intermingling of races and cultures and the fast changing political conditions were creating a new scenario in trade and commerce, agriculture and industry. Men were entering into new types of contracts and social relations were becoming increasingly more complex. With his intellectual roots secure in Sharī‘ah, Ibn Taimīyah answered the many queries emanating from these complex situations with rare understanding and sympathy. Here are some examples:
If a person hires what (gives its) benefits through being hired out to other people, e.g. (public) bath, hotel, barracks and the like and then this conventional benefit decreases, for example, because of migration of the people living in the vicinity and the (number of) customers declines due to fear or decay, or because the political authority shifts them (elsewhere), or (due to) some similar reasons, then the rent due from the person hiring (the premises) will be decreased in proportion to the decrease in the conventionally (expected) benefits (Fatāwā,* Vol. 30, p. 311).
The borrower is obliged to repay the lender in the country in which he contracted the loan, He should not place the burden of travelling (to realize the loan) and transporting (what was lent) on the lender. If he says, ‘I will not repay you except in a different country’, he would be liable to defray, according to conventional standards, any cost incurred by the lender (in travelling and transporting) (Fatāwā, Vol. 29, p. 530).
He was asked about a man lending some dirhams to another man to be repaid to him in another country; is it permissible for him to do so or not? He replied ‘… the correct (answer) is that it is permissible, because the lender seeks the benefit of security in transporting his dirhams to that country and the borrower too, would have been benefited from repaying it in that country, being saved from the risks involved in the passage. Hence there are benefits to both of them in this (mode of) borrowing. The Law-giver does not prohibit what benefits them all. He prohibits only what hurts them’ (Fatāwā, Vol. 29, pp. 530–1).
He was asked about fulūs (i.e. copper coins) bought for cash paid on the spot and sold for credit at a higher price; is it permissible to do so or not? He replied: ‘All praise be to Allah, on this matter – of exchange of current copper coins with dirhams (of silver) – there is a well-known controversy among the scholars …
The more authentic (opinion) is to prohibit it as the copper coins, when they have gained currency, take on the same position as the money proper and become a standard of value for people’s wealth’ (Fatāwā, Vol. 29, pp. 468–9).
As a matter of fact, what contemporary Islam needs most with respect to the economy is a clear vision of what is desired and how it can be brought about. A perusal of the book will demonstrate how clear Ibn Taimīyah was on both these points. We need a well provisioned society from which poverty is banished and welfare is ensured for all. The way to realize this objective is freedom of enterprise and property, constrained by moral laws and supervised by a just state enforcing the divine laws – the Sharī‘ah. Those who seek a just regime must enforce the Sharī‘ah – the whole of it. In doing so they will be frequently called upon to apply the Sharī‘ah principles to new issues arising from changing circumstances, especially in economic affairs. This is where the jurist faces the real challenge: not to lose sight of the real purpose of law – justice and human felicity – while applying his legal principles to new situations. As this book exemplifies, Ibn Taimīyah met this challenge with rare competence, and therein lies his message to the present generation of Muslim jurists and economists.
II
Ibn Taimīyah’s vision of economic affairs is very clear. All economic activities are permissible except those prohibited by the Sharī‘ah. Within the limits set by the Sharī‘ah-prohibitions, men know better what is good for them and they are free to make transactions, enter into contracts and conduct their worldly affairs in a just and fair manner, observing the standards of fairness set by ‘urf and ‘ādah, i.e. conventions and custom. The Sharī‘ah intervenes only to ensure justice in human relations and to direct individual action to what is good for all. It seeks to eliminate ẓulm, i.e. injustice and oppression from social relations. With this purpose in view it has prohibited ribā and qimār. The essence of the former is unilateral gain, i.e. ‘taking an increment without a quid pro quo’ (Fatāwā, Vol. 20, p. 341). The essence of the latter is ‘acquisition of another person’s property while it is uncertain whether that person would get the recompense (to his property) or not’ (Fatāwā, Vol. 19, p. 283). Justice in transactions requires mutual reciprocity of benefits. This is ensured only when all contracts are based on the willing agreement of the contracting parties. To be meaningful, this willingness should be based on adequate knowledge of what is involved in the contract. There should be no coercion, no deception, no taking advantage of dire circumstances or ignorance of a contracting party, etc. When the contracting parties adhere to these rules, the resulting market prices are just and fair, provided there is no withholding of supplies with a view to raising prices. Normally there would be no intervention in the market – prices, profits, wages, etc. being left to be determined by the forces of supply and demand. But an intervention is called for when some of the above conditions are violated. When the public authority does intervene, it should be guided by expert advice and should seek to approximate to the price of similar goods or services determined in fair circumstances (see Chapter III, sections B and C of this book).
As to the mode of men coming together in the conduct of their Economic affairs, Ibn Taimīyah, while recognizing freedom of contract, regards co-operation to be the right spirit which should infuse social relations. He would, therefore, not tolerate the type of competition that violates the spirit of co-operation. Note, for example, the following:
(Ibn Taimīyah) was asked about a man who offers, for a house, a rent higher than the (one paid by its present) occupant; does he incur a sin by doing so? Must he be punished for doing so?
He replied, it is reported in the two correct compilations (of ḥadīth, i.e. Bukhārī and Muslim) that the Prophet (peace be upon him), said: ‘A Muslim is not permitted to bid against the bid of his brother; also he should not propose (to a woman) against the proposal of his brother.’ (It follows from this ḥadīth that) if the owner is inclined to renting to a particular person, it is not permissible for another person to offer a higher rent. Then, how (can it be permissible to do so) when that particular person is already living in that house. Hence, whosoever does so deserves punishment, and Allah knows better (Fatāwā, Vol. 30, pp. 160–1).
Following the same logic, Ibn Taimīyah regards sharing in its various forms (muḍārabah, share cropping, etc.) to be more just than the hire contract. ‘Because there is some risk in hiring too, the one who hires may or may not get the benefit (he expected). Whereas in musāqāt and muzāra‘ah (i.e. share cropping) both of them share the profits or the losses (as the case may be), so it does not involve a risk for one of the two parties only, as is the case in hire (contract)’ (Fatāwā, Vol. 20, p. 356).
Looking at social life as a co-operative venture to seek the pleasure of Allah through living in accordance