Introduction

According to the late Maxime Rodinson, there exists a basic affinity between the economic scheme of Islam and the capitalist system. Although most Muslims, including pro-capitalist ones, like to think of Islam as a unique way of life and one distinguished from both capitalism and socialism, there exist various Muslims who, like Rodinson, find important similarities between Islam and capitalism. One such similarity concerns private ownership of property and the means of production. According to Zubair Hassan of India, “Islam, like capitalism, permits private ownership of property including the means of production and grants freedom of enterprise[1].” 

 This view of Islamic ownership was a common belief of most Shiite Muslims in Iran up until a few decades ago and was not contradicted by Shiite jurisprudence. Resalat[2] of the greatest of the Shiite Mujtaheds (Ayatollahs) in the first half of the 20th century — such as Borougerdi and Seyed Abolhassan Esfahani — are testimonies to this fact. 

However, since the early 1970s, many Iranian (Shiite) writers, in their discussions of Islamic economic matters, have arrived at different interpretations of the economic scheme of Islam, particularly with regards to private ownership of property and the means of production. Proponents of Islamic economics in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and the Arab countries have either been concerned with creating a new economic paradigm on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence, or else they have tried to apply the tools of economic science to Islamic societies or institutions[3]. The literature of Islamic economics in Iran, on the other hand, seems to have emerged for more or less political reasons: some have been inspired by Marxism, the rest seem to be a reaction to the Marxist critique of the economic scheme of Islam. In this article, I divide this body of literature in Iran into two distinct categories. "Radical" is used to describe a new interpretation of the economic scheme of Islam if it is inspired by Marxism, and "reactive" is used if it is a reaction to Marxism. 

 "Radical" interpretations were expressed in the writings[4] of the founders of Iranian Mojahedeens in the early 1970s, when they openly and explicitly adhered to certain economic concepts traditionally identified with Marxism — concepts such as labor theory of value, economic exploitation, a Leninist theory of imperialism and class struggle. Similar views were also apparent in the writings of two other groups- the organization of Iranian Mostazafeen and Dr. Payman's organization of Mobarezan-e-Mosalman — which appeared during the Iranian revolution. Because the economic views expressed by the "radical" writers were in effect modern and secular, and not explicitly expressed within an Islamic framework, I will not focus on them in this article. Instead, it is the second group that we are concerned with here.

Since the 1570s, many Shiite writers, the "reactive" group, in their discussions of Islamic economics — and in their attempt to give a new and attractive identity to Islam — have proposed an alternative view of Islamic ownership which seems to be a reaction to Marxist economic theory (it is interesting that they all begin with Marxist economics and a response to it). Unlike the former group (radical), who were all young and university educated religious intellectuals, the latter group, with the exception of former President Bani Sadre, Hejazi and Reza Esfahani, consists of Shiite clergy interested in Islamic economics. It is interesting that even these writers, who are ideologically on the right, de-emphasize private ownership of property and emphasize public and state ownership in Islam, while claiming that their views are truly Islamic — perhaps to attract pro-socialist university students to their cause. For example, Bani Sadre wrote: "Thus, Islamic view of ownership is not in harmony with ownership under various class societies, and, as will be shown below, Islam ended all forms of exploitation, and oppression aimed at usurping the fruits of the labor of workers and... [5](p. 118).

I believe a discussion of the "reactive" view of Islamic property, and its comparison with original Islamic sources, is warranted. Thus, what I intend to do in the remainder of this article is present the "reactive" interpretation of the Islamic concept of property and then, by going back to the Quran and Islamic tradition, try to show that their views are eclectic and not purely Islamic After all, Muslims view the Quranic verses as universal and unchangeable. It will be shown that, on the basis of the criterion of private ownership of property and the means of production, there is indeed a basic affinity between Islam and the capitalist system.

"Reactive" Views of Islamic Ownership among Shiites in Iran: Ownership by God?

All "reactive" proponents of Islamic economics in Iran have addressed the issue of ownership in their writings. Reacting rather defensively to the Marxist critique of private ownership in Islam, they seem to be seeking a way to diminish the significance of private ownership of the means of production in Islam. Ownership by God, which was first emphasized by Mohammad Bogher Sadre[6], provided one safe refuge. These writers maintain that ownership by humans is relative, since only God can be the absolute owner of things. The duality of God's absolute ownership of property and man's relative ownership most definitely weakens the traditional view of private ownership in Islam. Although many diverse writers accept such form of ownership, each one emphasizes a different aspect of it. For Ayatollah Khomaini, the omnipotence of God is emphasized. As he states: "According to Quranic verses, God is the principal owner of the earth, the heavens and everything in them"[7] (p. 38).  

Ayatollah Beheshti's view resembles that of Khomaini's: to him, God is the owner of the entire universe and because his creation is absolute, his ownership of the universe is also absolute and has no limit or boundary [8](p. 7). Ayatollah Taleghani accepts this notion, while, at the same time, adhering to a more egalitarian view of property ownership. According to Ayatolah Taleghani: "Quranic verses, very clearly, reserve the right of absolute ownership... for God, and the right of exploitation (and limited use) for every person"[9].                                                         

Ayatollah Montazeri, who is politically closer to Khomaini than Taleghani, presents a view of private property which is closer to that of Ayatollah Taleghani's. To him: “The base of ownership in Islam is the principle of God's ownership. Absolute ownership is only that of God's and other forms of ownership constitute what God has given Imam and his followers for the attainment of justice and satisfaction of collective needs”[10]. (p. 2).

Bani Sadre, in his Eqtesad-eTouhidi, argues that the Quranic notion of Omat-e-Vahedeh is a blend of liberal concepts of' “man in the state of nature” and the Marxian category of "primitive communism" (pp. 112-4). To Bani Sadre, people in that stage of human history were aware of the existence of God and believed in God's absolute ownership, under which all men are supposed to have been equal and no discrimination is supposed to have prevailed among them. The end of that stage of human history, he argues, brought an end to God's ownership. God's absolute ownership was supposedly brought back by Islam 1,400 years ago. "The radical transformation that Islam caused was that it ended the absolute ownership of man and made that an absolute province of God" (p. 113).

 Private and Non-private Property in Recent Developments in Islamic Economics in Iran 

In secular debates on property ownership, there is talk of only two forms of ownership - private and public. However, the "reactive" proponents of Islamic economics in Iran, while adhering to God's absolute ownership, recognize three types of ownership for Islamic societies: private, public and governmental. This distinction (although not its explanation) is explicit in the writings of Bani Sadre, Hejazi and Ayatollah's Khomaini, Taleghani, Beheshti, Meshkini, and so forth[11].

Although private ownership of property and the means of production are mentioned in the writings of these "reactive" writers, it is either not elaborated sufficiently or else it is obscured. This group is really apologetic about Islamic acceptance of this form of ownership. This is particularly obvious in two different ways, in overemphasizing God's absolute ownership and other non-personal forms of ownership, and in de-emphasizing and obscuring some of the most important means of acquiring property under Islamic jurisprudence. Of course, not being a terribly homogeneous group, more than one view exists among them. Nonetheless, most of these writers ignore or obscure inheritance as an important source for the perpetuation of private ownership of property and the means of production. They also play down the importance of profit and rent in accumulating property ownership and emphasize that private ownership is limited in Islam- because Muslims are expected to pay Zakat and Khoms [12](two types of taxes). 

The defensiveness of the "reactive" group is obvious in Ayatollah Meshkini when he writes:

What is essential is that Islam has prevented certain things. Generally, .Islam has limited

(private) ownership in certain ways and one perhaps can state that it has only allowed it in one dimension… Islam limits and does not recognize private ownership if the private ownership by one jeopardizes the private ownership by others, or if it leads to corruption in society, and if it endangers society through exploitation[13]. 

On this basis, this more extreme-sounding clergy conclude that, in the Islamic Republic, therefore, heavy industry, banking and foreign trade should not be in private hands.Ayatollah Montazeri, another reactive proponent of Islamic economics, de-emphasizes private ownership but emphasizes non-private concepts of ownership in Islam. In his own words: 

Private ownership in Islam in the absolute form is not allowed, since the public would always share a portion of the returns on private ownership. The state demands a portion of these returns through taxes such as Zakat and Khoms. Thus, private property-in Islam is, in fact, private-public ownership. Besides, private property is also limited qualitatively, since Enfal[14] and other such forms discussed above cannot be owned privately. Islam has also the responsibility of preventing large gaps in incomes. The Islamic leader should establish proper maximums. Of course this should only be done rarely; it should only be done if it, directly or indirectly, does not harm society and if its does not cause human exploitation... Private ownership is also limited quantitatively, since Islam forbids concentration, centralization, monopolization and the hoarding of wealth by individuals. The state would determine limits for individual’s wealth [10] (pp. 3-4). 

Ayatollah Montazeri also de-emphasizes the traditional Islamic view of private ownership when he discusses public and governmental forms of ownership in Islam. As he argues: 

The natural resources contained in Enfal are regarded as public ownership. These contain: uncultivated (agricultural) lands, abandoned (agricultural) lands, damaged (eroded) lands, and all unclaimed lands. According to Islamic economics, land should be in the hands of those who cultivate it. Thus, it should be confiscated if it is not cultivated. Underground and strip (surface) mines, forests, marshes, groves, mountains, rivers, the seas, as well as what used to belong to kings, unclaimed properties, unclaimed estates, war tributes and the lands given to Islamic governments, all are components of Enfal. Such properties should, under the guidance of legitimate Islamic governments, be used for public pursuits. No one has the right of using them for personal matters. Lands confiscated (in religious wars) and Moghoufat are public properties (p. 13). 

Ayatollah Beheshti, who, unlike Ayatollah Meshkini and Montazeri, was (prior to his death) regarded as the most pro-capitalist element in the Khomaini camp, in his book on ownership in Islam, obscured his analysis with pseudo-Marxist reasoning. Thus, it is only in the last few pages that he admits the acceptance of private property in Islam. He wrote: "Private property, whether in the form of individual ownership, or in the collective form of corporate ownership, or still in the form of cooperate ownership, has no legitimate economic obstacles (for acceptance) "[8] (p. 96). 

Bani Sadre, like his former political rival Beheshti, believes that Islam accepts private ownership. Yet, for these two writers, private property is defined differently, and its acceptance is under different circumstances. If, for Beheshti, Islam accepts private ownership in all ages and under any politico-economic system, for Bani Sadre, accepts private ownership finds meaning only under certain circumstances.                                 

For him, private ownership is not simply ownership by individuals, as normally   understood. Rather, it is the fruits of human labor when no coercion or force is involved. Thus, to him, private property would not exist if coercion is used in society. Believing that all class societies use coercion, he concludes that non-Islamic societies cannot be endowed with private ownership. In his own words:                                           

If coercion (force) is the source of property, it would not have the honor of being called private ownership. It is a big lie that in class societies of today and in class societies of the past — and in all societies where coercion (force) is the foundation of social and economic relations — private ownership can exist. Individual ownership of property depends directly on force. As soon as an individual's power is lost, his/her ownership will also be lost [5] (p. 3). 

To him, Islam recognizes the existence of private property if, in society, no coercion exists. This, he argues, can only exist under a true Islamic society, when individuals are totally free. He further argues that no other socio-economic system is capable of eliminating coercion and providing total freedom for the individual. Thus, "true" Islamic society remains his only candidate. 

Labor and Ownership in Islam 

It is rather interesting that the "reactive" proponents of Islamic economics in Iran try, in one way or another, to show that, in Islam, human labor is the source of wealth and property. This is not only true for those "reactive" writers whose economic postures are identified with some sort of extremism — such as Reza Esfahani, Montazeri or Meshkini. It is even true in the case of those members of the "reactive" group whose economic views are rather moderate — Khomaini, Beheshti, Rafsanjani and Bani Sadre. For example, Khomaini writes: "In Islam there, exists three types of ownership: (1) personal and private ownership whose foundation is labor... [7] (p. 38). He also writes: "The source of personal and individual ownership in Islam is work" (p. 40). 

In May 1979, Ayatollah Khomaini, obviously in an attempt to attract workers to his cause, stated: "Labor is the manifestation of God...and God almighty is the source of labor...workers and peasants should be in charge of national affairs. Islam values you tremendously and will grant you what is rightfully yours [15](p. 22). 

In the words of Rafsanjani: "The most important and fundamental, and perhaps the only principal, cause of ownership is labor. The root of ownership should be sought in work. Of course, there also exist other minor causes of property as well"[16]. 

The apologetic nature of the analysis of the "reactive" group is obvious when Montazeri writes: "If, in Islam, we accept private ownership, it is because private ownership is the product and fruit of my labor; it is mine[17]. 

The most sophisticated discussion of labor and ownership is presented by Bani Sadre. If the above mentioned "reactive" writers relate labor and ownership in a rhetorical way, for Bani Sadre, this is a logical component of his system. For him, as far as ownership is concerned, labor is the antithesis of coercion. “Islam in no way accepts the criterion of coercion (in ownership); it only accepts the criterion of labor” [5] (p.5). 

He describes his ideal Islamic society as: "A place where power finds no opportunity for concentration, where everyone is the owner (of the fruits) of his labor, where no one usurps (the product) of someone else's labor and where no one coerces anyone else'' (p. 113). According to him, Islam desires “individuals to be the owners of their labor and to be free of exploitation, and wants to make possible the realization of those circumstances under which everyone is in charge (of the product) of his/her labor" (p. 117). 

To him, it is only Islam that recognizes labor as the only source of ownership and it was Islam that centuries back replaced the criterion of coercion with that of work. Thus, he finds Islam in a very unique position. Of course, being aware of the Marxist labor theory of value, he tries to quote some Quranic verses as a proof that Islam, in its use of labor as a source of wealth, precedes Marx (and Ricardo). 

Private Property, the Quran, and Hadith  

Obviously, Prophet Mohammed's mission 1,400 years ago was not to create a capitalist enclave in the Arabian Peninsula; no one claims that Mohammed's city-state in Madina was a capitalist one. Capitalism, as a system and as an ideology, is relatively new and resulted from certain socio-economic and political forces interacting only a few centuries ago. Islam, forbidding interest (the Quran, Baqara, verse 275) and advocating moderation in consumption (the Quran, Araf, verse 31), could not have advocated then what is referred to as capitalism today. Yet, in spite of these important differences, a basic affinity exists between these two systems. Islam is a great deal closer to capitalism than pre-Reformation Christianity ever was. Had Max Weber been more aware of the economic scheme of Islam, he could have modified his thesis concerning capitalism's relationship to the Protestant religion. And had Joseph Schumpeter read some Persian and Arab authors of the Islamic Golden Age, he could not have written: "As regards the theory of the 18th century"[18]. 

'In the pages to come, it will be shown that Islam, like capitalism, at least has no problem accepting private ownership of property. This, as was promised at the outset, will be done by referring to the Quran and the Shiite Hadith[19]. Further, it will be argued that the "reactive" interpretation of ownership in Islam has but a few minor and irrelevant bases in these most important Islamic sources. 

Since the prophet, in contrast to the reactive proponents of Islamic economics in Iran, did not face opponents of private ownership of the means of production, he had no reason, obviously, explicitly to discuss the need for such ownership. There are still some direct references made in the Quran or Hadith. In the Book of Nisaa, verse 5, we read: "To those weak of understanding, make not over your property, which God hath made a means of support for you, but..." One must, generally then, seek implicit and indirect evidence in the Quran and Hadith, by looking at references made to the Islamic laws of inheritance, to Islamic concepts of extortion and usurpation (ghasb), to the Islamic laws concerning buying and selling, to the conditions of lending, to the need to defend one's property, and some other Islamic concepts. 

First, Islamic laws of inheritance — Islamic laws of inheritance definitely point to its acceptance of private ownership of property and the means of production. They recognize private ownership in two ways: (1) the dead must have been regarded as owners to leave behind inheritance; (2) the heirs must be regarded as new owners because they inherit. In the Quran, there are many verses which spell out the laws of inheritance. They include: The Book of (Sura) Nisaa, verses 7, 8, 10, 11, 175, 38; Ahzab verse 6; Maryam verses 5 and 6[20]. For example, in verse 7 of the book of Nisaa we read:

7.        From what is left by parents

       And those nearest related

       There is a share for men

       And a share for women,

       Whether the property be small

       Or large, — a determinate share.

In the First half of verse 11 of Nisaa we read:

11.   God (thus) directs you

        As regards your children's (Inheritance): to the male

        A portion equal to that

        Of two females: if only

        Daughters, two or more,

        Their share is two-thirds

        of the inheritance;

        If only one, her share is a half.

There are hundreds of Hadiths reported from the prophet or Shiite Imams explaining Islamic Laws of inheritance[21]. These reported words and acts of the prophet and Shiite (which were gathered by Islamic jurists in various books many centuries ago), respect and accept private ownership of property and the means of production in Islam. One can find these in Wassael-ol-Shieh by Hor Ameli, Mostadrak-ol-Wassael by Nishabouri or Bahar-ol-Anwar by Majlesi (three very important sources of Shiite Hadith). The first book alone contains 705 Hadiths concerning inheritance. 

Second, extortion and usurpation (Ghasb) in Islam — an important component of Islamic (including Shiite) jurisprudence is the concept of Ghasb. By this, Islamic jurists mean usurping someone's property without his/her agreement and consent. Ghasb is forbidden in Islam. Thus, it is a proof that Islam accepts private ownership. This is obvious from various Quranic verses: Baqara, verse 188; Anaam, verse 152,; Osaraa, verse 34; Nesaa, verses 2, 9,10, 29 and 161; Kahf, verse 80; Tobeh, verse 34. For example, in verse 29 of Nisaa, we read: 

29. 0 ye who believe

      Eat not of your property

     Among yourselves in vanities

     But let there be among you

     Traffic and trade

     By mutual good-will:

     Not kill (or destroy)

     Yourselves: for verily

     God hath been to you

     Most merciful.

 The same Shiite sources also contain various Hadiths indicating that, because Ghasb is forbidden, property is respected. The prophet is reported having said that: “No part of a man's property is legitimate (halal) for his brother unless he receives his brother's consent” or “the respect for a Muslim's property is like the respect of his blood'” or “it is not legitimate for a Muslim to take, unlawfully, the property belonging to another Muslim. Since God has forbidden the (taking of) a Muslim's property by another Muslim” or “the greatest sin is unlawfully taking what rightfully belongs to another Muslim”.

Third, buying and selling are regarded as important activities in Islam — Buying and selling, done by individuals in the market, presupposes private ownership of property and the means of production, particularly if the profit motive is not denied. Islam, very directly, accepts and respects trade by individuals in the market and condones profit. Thus, this is another reason to argue that Islam accepts private ownership.

Several Quranic verses directly advocate trade and profit. An example is verse 29 of the book of Nisaa. For example, verse 275 of Baqara, while condemning usury, very explicitly advocates trade and profit. Another example is verse 198 of Baqara which advocates trade and profit taking, even while on pilgrimage. There exist thousands of Hadiths in Shiite Fiqh, describing rules of trade and limits of legitimate (halal) and illegitimate trade. Vasael-ol-Shiah is said to contain 1,910 Hadiths concerning trade. According to one, the Prophet said that "the merchant who is sincere and trustworthy will on the Day of Judgment be among the Prophets, the just, and the martyrs". Definitely, there cannot be respect for merchants without having first, respect for private ownership.

Fourth, another important component of Islamic fiqh — both among Shiites and Sunni's — which presupposes and is built on the concept of private ownership is the area of Dain (debt) and, thus, lending and borrowing. Obviously, accepting debt presupposes private ownership in three different ways: (1) the lender (especially when a banking system is absent) must be the owner to be able to lend, (2) the borrower assumes ownership of what he/she borrows, and (3) the borrower — through some sort of activity — must become an owner to pay his/her debt.

There are numerous Quranic verses proving the acceptance of lending-borrowing (debt) activity by Islam. For example, in Quranic verses specifying the laws of inheritance (indicated above), it is explicitly stated that when a person in debt dies, the debt must be paid first, and what is left will be divided among the heirs. This, for example, is very specific in the second half of verse 11 of Nisaa. Many other verses establish the terms and conditions of debt. Verses 282 and 283 of Baqara very clearly indicate Islamic respect for private ownership. In part of verse 282 we read:

Ye who believe. When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time. Reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write them down. Faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as God has taught him. So let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate. But let him fear his Lord God, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If the party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable himself to dictate, let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women. Such as ye choose for witnesses. So that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on for evidence.                                       

Again, there are numerous Hadiths along the same lines.

Fifth, Islam and the need to defend one's property — The degree of respect a system has for private ownership is positively related to the intensity of its desire for defending it. In Shiite (as well as Sunni) tradition, the intensity is not negligible, indicating the respect Islam has for private property. Muslims are encouraged to defend what is rightfully theirs, as they are encouraged to defend their life and honor. From Islamic Hadiths it is obvious that (1) Muslims (Shiite-Sunni) are allowed to kill someone for stealing what rightfully belongs to them, (2) if they get killed while defending their property, they will die as martyrs, and (3) it is also all right if they decide not to fight those who steal their property. According to one Hadith, the prophet has said: "Fight to protect your property, or get killed to be among the martyrs." The sixth Shiite Imam (Jaafar), who was a master of compromise, is supposed to have said: "Whoever dies while fighting to defend his property is considered a martyr. It does not matter if he decides not to fight. Let it be known that I would let go and would choose not to fight." Of course, his father, Bagher, the fifth Imam, is supposed to have said: "Kill a thief who enters your house and threatens you and your property."

Sixth, the Islamic concept of Dieh, which also presupposes private ownership — In Islam, if a person kills another Muslim by mistake, the killer must still pay a fine. This is explicitly stated in the Quran: Nisaa, verse, 93. According to this Quranic verse, the killer must free a faithful (Muslim) slave. In Islamic jurisprudence, he can also, pay: 100 camels, 200 cows, 1,000 coins, etc. The verse and Hadith clearly indicate that (1) one can own things privately, (2) one can be so rich as even to pay a fine equivalent to 100 camels and 1,000 gold coins, and (3) one can even own another human being.

 Seventh, there are other Islamic concepts in the Quran and Hadith that also presuppose private ownership. Examples are: a wealth tax named Zakat, which involves taxing incomes as well as means of production; the concept of Laqteh (lost and found), based on which lost properties when found must be returned to their rightful owners; 'Arieh (borrowing something temporarily); charity, and so forth.  

Conclusion: The Quran, Labour and Ownership by God

 The ownership by God can never weaken the institution of private property in Islam (after all, private ownership is always relative and not absolute). If it had no bearing on Mohammad's city-state in Madina and Islamic society under Ali (the first Shiite Imam), it can have no bearing on Islamic societies in any other age. Thus, one must only seek to determine whether or not Islam emphasizes private ownership. Keeping in mind that Humanism, during the European Renaissance, elevated man some 1,000 years after the birth of the Islamic religion, it should not be difficult to argue that the Quran used ownership by God as a proof of God's omnipotence. God's ownership is only mentioned in a few Quranic verses. One such verse used is 123, Maida:

 'To God doth belong the domain of the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, and it is God who hath power over all things.''

Another verse used (by "reactive" writers) is Yunus, 68:

 "They say, God hath begotten a Son! — Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in the heavens and on earth! No warrant have ye for this! Say ye about God what ye know not!"

Is labor the source of property in Islam? To claim this is to state that Islam, 13 centuries prior to the century of Ricardo and Marx, anticipated the labor theory of value. Given that labor as a concept became important only 200 years ago, it is very unlikely that Islam could have anticipated Ricardian and Marxian theories of value. To me, instead, what the Quranic verses used by these writers (to show the importance of labor) indicates are: (1) Muslims, can avoid the fires of hell through good deeds, and (2) Islam anticipated Protestantism in valuing hard work. These are clear from some of the Quranic verses used by reactive writers. In Anam, verse 16; "He that doeth good shall have ten times as much to his credit. He that doeth evil shall only be recompensed according to his evil; no wrong shall be done to any of them." 

In Najm, 13: "Yea, to God belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: so that He rewards those who do evil, according to their deeds, and He rewards those who do good with what is best." In Najm 39: "That man can have nothing but what he strives for." 

The "reactive" writers have not really tried to utilize scientific methods to discover the laws of economic science as applied to the economic scheme of Islam. This would have required more realism and honesty on the part of Bani Sadra and more knowledge of the tools of economic science — as well as realism and honesty — on the part of other members. Judging from the fact that the work (mostly pamphlets) of these writers were written during the 1970s, or at the beginning of the Iranian revolution (when Marxism had a great deal of appeal to Iranian youth and intellectuals), it is obvious that what they had in mind was not developing the tools of Islamic economic science, but attracting the youth to the cause. As a result, they created a body of thought which, instead of explaining the economic scheme of Shiite Islam, has tried to show that whatever Marxist has said and done, Islam has said and done before — and in a much better way. This body of thought, thus, is not purely Islamic. Definitely it is not Marxist either. It is eclectic. 

Notes and References                                                                                                            

1.   Hassan, Z., "The Theory of Profit: The Islamic Viewpoint", Journal of Research in Islamic Economics, Vol. I No. 1, 1983, p. 1.                                                                                                 

2.   Resaleh is a book containing various Islamic laws as understood by Mojtahids and as explained for their followers.

3.   See the review by Hosseini, H..JEL, September 1987, and the article "Islamic Economics: A New Economics or an Old Dogma'', Forum of Social Economics, Spring 1987.

4.   For example, in their "Economics in a Simple Language", Shenakht, etc. It should be noted that the Mojahedeen under their new leadership seem to have modified their views; see Tabeen Jahan by Rajavi.

5.   Sadre, B., Eqtesad-e-Touhidi, 2nd ed., Tehran, Iran, 1979, (my translation from Persian).

6.   An Iraqui Shiite clergy, and one of the first Shiite proponents of Islamic economics, who was executed by the Iraqi regime in 1980. Sadre was of Iranian descent.

7.    Khomaini, R., Tahrir-ol-Vasileh, Moasseh Anjan-e-Ketab, Tehran, Iran, 1980, trans, from Arabic to Persian by Shirazi, A.B. This is my translation from Persian.

8.   Beheshti, M.H., Massalleh-e-Malekiat, Tehran, Iran, Seyed Jamal, (no date given). My translation from Persian.

9.   Taleghani, M., Eslam Va Malekiat, Tehran, Iran, p. 122 (no date or publisher given). My translation from Persian.

10.    See a pamphlet, Eqtesad-e-Eslami, by Montazeri, published by Moula Tehran. (My translation from Persian.)

11.    In the above mentioned sources and other unmentioned sources, one might add that these writers are not terribly explicit about distinctions among them.

12.   While Zakat is a universally accepted Islamic tax, Khoms is only expected to be paid by Shiite Muslims.

13.    Meshkini, Malekiat, published by Moula.

14.    Enfal constitutes forms of property which should be in the hands of Imams. This includes such, things as land and other assets that Muslims acquire without fighting — ancient monuments, the seas, rivers, etc.

15.    Kohmaini's speech in May 1979 (a few months after the revolution). It appears as a note in his, Tahrir-ol-vasileh, op. cit., and p. 22.

16.    Hashemi-Rafsanjani, A.A., Malekiat Eslami, Tehran, a pamphlet published in 1981, p. 3.

17.    From Montazeri's pamphlet Kar va Kargari (Labor and Working), published by Moula, 1979 (a message on May day).

18.    Schumpeter, J., A History of Economic Analysis, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1972, p. 305.

19.    The reported words and acts of Mohammad for all Muslims. For Shiites, it also includes the reported acts and words of the 12 Imams.

20.   The English translation of the Quran — verses from The Holy Quran, trans, by Ali, Y., Hefner, New York, 1946.

21.    All the Hadiths quoted in this article are my translations. I have found them in the various Persian sources mentioned above.

 Based on the Quran and Hadith, it has been shown that Islam is not opposed to the private ownership of property and the means of production. Muslims cannot dismiss the verses of Quran and the Hadith, since these verses are regarded as the direct word of God, and the Prophet (and for the Shiites also the 12 Imams), as the sources of Hadith, can do no wrong. The question then is to what extent is Islam advocating private ownership. Is it as strong as the traditionalist view, which leans more on the capitalist side or, alternatively, is it as weak as the "reactive" proponents of Islamic economics in Iran want us to believe? The key lies in the strength of the arguments of these writers in claiming that Islam emphasizes ownership by God, and views labor as the source of property (call it value). The claims of these writers cannot be substantiated by referring to the Quran (the Journal of Social highest source of Islamic jurisprudence).