We wonder how those who deny the existence of Islamic economy and assert that Islam has only a set of moral laws have been generous enough to acknowledge capitalism and socialism as schools of economics.
We have a right to ask how it is that these two are schools of economics and Islam is not, for we see that Islam also has expressed its opinion about all those questions with which, for example, captialism had dealt. It may be a different thing that the viewpoint of the two is different from each other but that does not mean that captialism is a school and Islam is only a set of sermons and moral counsels.
Here are two specimens to show that against every solution of an economic problem offered by any other schoo, Islam has its own opinions and beliefs.
The first specimen concerns property which is the basic point of contention between various schools of economics. Capitalism is of the view that all kinds of wealth including gifts of nature are, as a principle, included in private property, public property being only an exception. Accordingly nothing should be acquired by the state unless the national intrests demand to do so. In contrast, Marxism believes that all natural wealth is public property and private property can be allowed only in case of a definite need to the extent of need. But Islam proclaims the principle of dual property. It believes both in private property and public property and puts them on an equal footing.
Does this view not show that like captialism and socialism Islam, too, has its own economy theory? If private property is regarded as a basic principle of captialism and public property is considered to be a principle of socialism, why should dual property be not believed to be a principle of Islamic economy?
The second specimen concerns the income accruing from the ownership of the factors of production. Captialism allows such income in every case. It allows the owners of the factors of production to let them out and share profit without doing any work. The Marxism socialism, in contrast, considers all kinds of income not involving effort and exertion to be unlawful. As such the charges made by the owner of a water-mill for the use of his mill and the intrest charged by a capitalist on the money advanced by him as loan are regarded unlawful by the Marxists, whereas the captialists have no objection to them.
Islam has its own point of view, it disallows intrest, but allows the charge of water-mill, keeping in view the principle of economic freedom. The logic of socialism is that income can be derived from work only, and the captialist while lending money and the owner of the water-mill while letting it out have performed no work, and hence they are not entitled to any remuneration.
Anyhow Islam does not allow the captialist to charge intrest, but allows the mill-owner to let his mill, because this policy is consistent with its theory of distribution. As such is there any valid reason why captialism and communism are called schools of economics and Islam is quite different from the theories of capitalism and Marxism, and as such should be regarded as a third school of economies along with them.
