This is interesting and I love how you've framed the Islamic way of thinking and even set out the heirarchy of wilayah. I would just like to posit that the socialist/leftist way of thinking is perhaps not what you think it. If we were to take Kropotkin (referencing Mutual Aid), for example, his view was that humans had an innate desire to help each other and work together - and that this was natural to them. Much of 'socialist' thinking is critical towards the ruling class and not the layman/ordinary man. Just my two cents.
Thanks for articulating the spirit of the Islamic framework. I definitely agree that a government should deploy resources to inculcate the moral sense you have discussed. However, I don’t think we should criticize both socialism and capitalism for how they describe human nature. It is not just socialism and capitalism that portray humans as “selfish” creatures; the same description is found in numerous verses of Qur'an and Hadith:
"Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver..." (Qur'an 3:14)
"If the son of Adam had a valley full of gold, he would want to have two valleys. Nothing fills his mouth but the dust of the grave, yet Allah will relent to whoever repents to Him." (Bukhari: 6439)
It is also incorrect to attribute this selfishness solely to modernity, as it existed in every era. For example Surah Sad in Quran:
"David ˹eventually˺ ruled, ‘He has definitely wronged you in demanding ˹to add˺ your sheep to his. And certainly, many partners wrong each other, except those who believe and do good—but how few are they!’"
Homo economicus, as it is called in economics, reflects a reality of human behavior. If you are proposing an economic framework predicated purely on moral behavior—or even dominantly on very high moral behavior—then it remains a theoretical proposition.
Statements such as:
“As for economic policy, it can take on many different forms in different contexts. Taxation rates, government incentives, trade policies, etc., are minor details that should never be set in stone. However, as long as an economic framework is predicated on the notion of an individual’s responsibility in accordance with a Divine schema of existence as a whole, we can begin to fill in the details and create an alternative to the cynical, material, and individualistic frameworks of modern economic theory.”
...are practically arguing that the entire field of economics is solving a fictitious problem caused by people failing to act with a selfless, high moral standard. I believe that a detailed analysis of human nature as it manifests and crafting rules to manage it is of utmost importance. Moral teachings will play a significant role in keeping the system sane, but they are a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
I will not call what you are describing as economic framework but moral prescriptions. Other issues with this framework include:
1) The proposed framework might work in a small city with a mixed population, where the rich and poor live side by side. In reality, in a globalized world, the rich often live many miles away from the poor. The sufferings of the poor are not intricately visible to the rich. Worse still, some states within a country remain poor, and the rich only see their plight on TV or social media. The bond of caring for one’s neighbor does not get a strong traction, even when the person is moral and soft-hearted, if the person is an unknown living a 1,000 kilometers away, and someone they have never met.
2) While basic needs like food, water, and shelter might invite sympathy and care, other aspects—such as providing higher education for poor children or opportunities for their advancement—might not. Similarly, paying for things that make life easier (e.g., providing a car or other transportation for better commuting) often does not elicit the same level of support.
3) The role of cunning elites who seek control, like rich landlords, is often ignored in such proposals. Even if the majority of people in some hypothetical scenario become selfless and care for each other, there always is a class of people who will grab power and control the society. This is where taxation, sound economic policies, and treating human being as self-interested individuals make a significant difference.
I am currently reading a book titled How Asia Works by Joe Studwell. It describes the growth of various Asian countries after World War II. I encourage you to explore the pragmatic side of economics as well.
Lastly, my intention here is not to criticize but to express my concern with Muslim scholarship which has completely abandoned pragmatism and is building dreams of utopia which has never existed.
Excellent! Bridging the gap between an Islamic utopia and pragmatism is long and difficult work. InshAllah our scholars (theologians and STEM) follow this path of research.
There’s much I agree with here, but genuinely wondering what Left you are referencing that conceives of human nature as antisocial. I don’t mean to reduce “Left” to just a Marxist left, but much of his philosophical writing laments the degree to which a man is reduced to the stage of an animal under capitalist reproduction. Perhaps there are some liberals who argue that we need a large state to protect people from themselves and bad-faith actors incentivized by the markets we have, but I’d put them squarely in the neoliberal camp.
My understanding is that animals are not just selfish beings. That is a Western perspective that is used to justify capitalism and its selfish basis. Cooperation offers reproductive advantages and is quite common in nature. But Western culture, rooted in hierarchical feudalism, is based on human supremacy and rejection of our cooperative animality and cooperation in general. This is not a critique of islamic economic systems, simply a critique of this analysis.
This was a good read and agreed that a lot of the complications around politics and economics really just boils down to having a trust in Allah (SWT)’s provision and being content with whatever is decreed.
Capitalism is simply Islamic economics without the moral core. Politics and economics, in my view, are downstream from Islam and culture.
People enjoy long dinners in the evening than they do grinding out an extra buck - just ask the Spanish and Italians!
Salams, It’s great to see your posts on substack. I’ve been following your posts on X for a while now and appreciate your viewpoints and feel I can learn from. I like the concept of Wilaya as proposed. It’s a struggle that we all face i.e.. integrating Islamic principles into every aspect of life—economic systems are no different.
In today’s secular, meritocratic economic framework, success is largely defined by material progress, and men and women are often viewed primarily as vehicles for economic output. Policies are designed to ensure both are able to participate in the labor force, are only as worth as they productive capacity they showcase. I guess my question is: My question is, how can one incentivize this behavior in a modern, secular, meritocratic economic system where the only unit of measurement is material progress and the man and women are seen merely as means to producing economic output and continuous growth is the only metric we care about? Unlike a faith based system where there is a spiritual element that would support such material decisions, why would someone in a modern society care about Wilaya?
“The ruler (whether at the level of an emperor or a town mayor) has wilāya over everyone under his administration. His task is to create economic and political systems that encourage social cohesion and man’s affinity towards goodness, exemplified by the sharī’a. Just as a parent would be lacking if they only used punishment to enforce good behavior among children without properly teaching it, a ruler would be lacking if his only recourse to encourage goodness in society is the threat of consequences inflicted by the long arm of the state.”
This paragraph brought up a question in my mind and i just couldn't read further:
Why do people—especially those in positions of authority—tend to enforce good behavior through fear, punishment, or the threat of consequences?
Whether it's a ruler, a parent, or a teacher, there seems to be this instinct to control through power rather than patiently teach or nurture.
It made me reflect on how this instinct might come from a mix of things or more:
1. Power feels easier than patience - Teaching takes time and emotional energy. Punishment gives a fast illusion of control.
2. Many people were raised in systems where they were punished, shamed, or controlled through fear. So they unconsciously repeat it, believing it’s “normal” or “necessary” to raise good people.
3. Ego gets triggered - “How dare they talk back to me?” That wounded ego wants to re-establish superiority—often by asserting power, not by guiding with wisdom.
4. Lack of emotional tools - Many people simply don’t know how to have calm, value-based conversations about right and wrong, so they resort to external control: punishment, fear, threats.
5. Misunderstanding of divine authority - we replicate only the "fear of God" side, using divine power as a threat instead of an inspiration.
The truth is: real wilāya—real guardianship—is about moral nurturing, not control. Just like the author said: a parent or ruler who relies only on fear to maintain goodness has misunderstood their responsibility. They’ve chosen the shortcut over the soul-work.
Western society has fractured the concept what it means to be human, i.e. spiritual, intellectual and physical, and then disregarded the spiritual while elevating the intellectual and indulging the physical. It comes to no surprise how unbalanced and broken their economic system and policies are.
The worst part is we as Muslims mistook the martial defeat during colonisation and WW1 as an intellectual victory... we should of have known better...
However, its never to late the revive the sunnah, especially in economics as we are currently in an age of merchant supremecy.
Perhaps the Western world will never be able understand our policies, or even take them as serious models to follow, however if we are able to make it work within our communities, they will have no choice to respect it.
I just started my Substack journey in which I explore effective ways of freeing Palestine and sharing deep thoughts (among other things) follow for more 🫶🏻
Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah, as Brother Salman commented, homo economicus is a basic reality, that Allah describes us as, the act of Disciplining oneself through the concept of Wilayah is a moral choice. However, your critique does point towards this lack of development of a basic moral ethical self in the market place. This also means, if one is trying to exist ethically within capitalism, what does that mean in all senses? From minor acts to major political decisions.
This is interesting and I love how you've framed the Islamic way of thinking and even set out the heirarchy of wilayah. I would just like to posit that the socialist/leftist way of thinking is perhaps not what you think it. If we were to take Kropotkin (referencing Mutual Aid), for example, his view was that humans had an innate desire to help each other and work together - and that this was natural to them. Much of 'socialist' thinking is critical towards the ruling class and not the layman/ordinary man. Just my two cents.
But thank you for the thought-provoking read.
Assalamualaikum,
Thanks for articulating the spirit of the Islamic framework. I definitely agree that a government should deploy resources to inculcate the moral sense you have discussed. However, I don’t think we should criticize both socialism and capitalism for how they describe human nature. It is not just socialism and capitalism that portray humans as “selfish” creatures; the same description is found in numerous verses of Qur'an and Hadith:
"Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver..." (Qur'an 3:14)
"If the son of Adam had a valley full of gold, he would want to have two valleys. Nothing fills his mouth but the dust of the grave, yet Allah will relent to whoever repents to Him." (Bukhari: 6439)
It is also incorrect to attribute this selfishness solely to modernity, as it existed in every era. For example Surah Sad in Quran:
"David ˹eventually˺ ruled, ‘He has definitely wronged you in demanding ˹to add˺ your sheep to his. And certainly, many partners wrong each other, except those who believe and do good—but how few are they!’"
Homo economicus, as it is called in economics, reflects a reality of human behavior. If you are proposing an economic framework predicated purely on moral behavior—or even dominantly on very high moral behavior—then it remains a theoretical proposition.
Statements such as:
“As for economic policy, it can take on many different forms in different contexts. Taxation rates, government incentives, trade policies, etc., are minor details that should never be set in stone. However, as long as an economic framework is predicated on the notion of an individual’s responsibility in accordance with a Divine schema of existence as a whole, we can begin to fill in the details and create an alternative to the cynical, material, and individualistic frameworks of modern economic theory.”
...are practically arguing that the entire field of economics is solving a fictitious problem caused by people failing to act with a selfless, high moral standard. I believe that a detailed analysis of human nature as it manifests and crafting rules to manage it is of utmost importance. Moral teachings will play a significant role in keeping the system sane, but they are a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
I will not call what you are describing as economic framework but moral prescriptions. Other issues with this framework include:
1) The proposed framework might work in a small city with a mixed population, where the rich and poor live side by side. In reality, in a globalized world, the rich often live many miles away from the poor. The sufferings of the poor are not intricately visible to the rich. Worse still, some states within a country remain poor, and the rich only see their plight on TV or social media. The bond of caring for one’s neighbor does not get a strong traction, even when the person is moral and soft-hearted, if the person is an unknown living a 1,000 kilometers away, and someone they have never met.
2) While basic needs like food, water, and shelter might invite sympathy and care, other aspects—such as providing higher education for poor children or opportunities for their advancement—might not. Similarly, paying for things that make life easier (e.g., providing a car or other transportation for better commuting) often does not elicit the same level of support.
3) The role of cunning elites who seek control, like rich landlords, is often ignored in such proposals. Even if the majority of people in some hypothetical scenario become selfless and care for each other, there always is a class of people who will grab power and control the society. This is where taxation, sound economic policies, and treating human being as self-interested individuals make a significant difference.
I am currently reading a book titled How Asia Works by Joe Studwell. It describes the growth of various Asian countries after World War II. I encourage you to explore the pragmatic side of economics as well.
Lastly, my intention here is not to criticize but to express my concern with Muslim scholarship which has completely abandoned pragmatism and is building dreams of utopia which has never existed.
Excellent! Bridging the gap between an Islamic utopia and pragmatism is long and difficult work. InshAllah our scholars (theologians and STEM) follow this path of research.
There’s much I agree with here, but genuinely wondering what Left you are referencing that conceives of human nature as antisocial. I don’t mean to reduce “Left” to just a Marxist left, but much of his philosophical writing laments the degree to which a man is reduced to the stage of an animal under capitalist reproduction. Perhaps there are some liberals who argue that we need a large state to protect people from themselves and bad-faith actors incentivized by the markets we have, but I’d put them squarely in the neoliberal camp.
My understanding is that animals are not just selfish beings. That is a Western perspective that is used to justify capitalism and its selfish basis. Cooperation offers reproductive advantages and is quite common in nature. But Western culture, rooted in hierarchical feudalism, is based on human supremacy and rejection of our cooperative animality and cooperation in general. This is not a critique of islamic economic systems, simply a critique of this analysis.
This was a good read and agreed that a lot of the complications around politics and economics really just boils down to having a trust in Allah (SWT)’s provision and being content with whatever is decreed.
Capitalism is simply Islamic economics without the moral core. Politics and economics, in my view, are downstream from Islam and culture.
People enjoy long dinners in the evening than they do grinding out an extra buck - just ask the Spanish and Italians!
I’ve been constantly thinking about this nowadays subhanallah you put it into words better than I ever could
Salams, It’s great to see your posts on substack. I’ve been following your posts on X for a while now and appreciate your viewpoints and feel I can learn from. I like the concept of Wilaya as proposed. It’s a struggle that we all face i.e.. integrating Islamic principles into every aspect of life—economic systems are no different.
In today’s secular, meritocratic economic framework, success is largely defined by material progress, and men and women are often viewed primarily as vehicles for economic output. Policies are designed to ensure both are able to participate in the labor force, are only as worth as they productive capacity they showcase. I guess my question is: My question is, how can one incentivize this behavior in a modern, secular, meritocratic economic system where the only unit of measurement is material progress and the man and women are seen merely as means to producing economic output and continuous growth is the only metric we care about? Unlike a faith based system where there is a spiritual element that would support such material decisions, why would someone in a modern society care about Wilaya?
#
“The ruler (whether at the level of an emperor or a town mayor) has wilāya over everyone under his administration. His task is to create economic and political systems that encourage social cohesion and man’s affinity towards goodness, exemplified by the sharī’a. Just as a parent would be lacking if they only used punishment to enforce good behavior among children without properly teaching it, a ruler would be lacking if his only recourse to encourage goodness in society is the threat of consequences inflicted by the long arm of the state.”
This paragraph brought up a question in my mind and i just couldn't read further:
Why do people—especially those in positions of authority—tend to enforce good behavior through fear, punishment, or the threat of consequences?
Whether it's a ruler, a parent, or a teacher, there seems to be this instinct to control through power rather than patiently teach or nurture.
It made me reflect on how this instinct might come from a mix of things or more:
1. Power feels easier than patience - Teaching takes time and emotional energy. Punishment gives a fast illusion of control.
2. Many people were raised in systems where they were punished, shamed, or controlled through fear. So they unconsciously repeat it, believing it’s “normal” or “necessary” to raise good people.
3. Ego gets triggered - “How dare they talk back to me?” That wounded ego wants to re-establish superiority—often by asserting power, not by guiding with wisdom.
4. Lack of emotional tools - Many people simply don’t know how to have calm, value-based conversations about right and wrong, so they resort to external control: punishment, fear, threats.
5. Misunderstanding of divine authority - we replicate only the "fear of God" side, using divine power as a threat instead of an inspiration.
The truth is: real wilāya—real guardianship—is about moral nurturing, not control. Just like the author said: a parent or ruler who relies only on fear to maintain goodness has misunderstood their responsibility. They’ve chosen the shortcut over the soul-work.
Finally something actually worth reading. And the discussion is also worthwhile.
I would like to know when such a system actually existed outside the time of the Prophet, Khulna al rashidun and the khilafa of Umar and al Aziz?
Agree with your article whole-heartedly.
Western society has fractured the concept what it means to be human, i.e. spiritual, intellectual and physical, and then disregarded the spiritual while elevating the intellectual and indulging the physical. It comes to no surprise how unbalanced and broken their economic system and policies are.
The worst part is we as Muslims mistook the martial defeat during colonisation and WW1 as an intellectual victory... we should of have known better...
However, its never to late the revive the sunnah, especially in economics as we are currently in an age of merchant supremecy.
Perhaps the Western world will never be able understand our policies, or even take them as serious models to follow, however if we are able to make it work within our communities, they will have no choice to respect it.
I just started my Substack journey in which I explore effective ways of freeing Palestine and sharing deep thoughts (among other things) follow for more 🫶🏻
Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah, as Brother Salman commented, homo economicus is a basic reality, that Allah describes us as, the act of Disciplining oneself through the concept of Wilayah is a moral choice. However, your critique does point towards this lack of development of a basic moral ethical self in the market place. This also means, if one is trying to exist ethically within capitalism, what does that mean in all senses? From minor acts to major political decisions.
Subhanallah thank you so much for writing this.