Note
Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Sayyid Mohammad Kazim Rajaei Ramsheh was born in 1960 in Semirom, Isfahan. After completing his middle school education, he entered the religious seminary (Hawza) of Shahreza and moved to Qom in 1976. Upon entering the Dar Rah-e Haqq Institute in 1984, he became interested in economic discussions and, in 1988, began studying in this field at the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute. He obtained a Master’s degree in Theoretical Economics in 1996 and a Ph.D. in the same field in 2005. Several books and articles by him in the field of Islamic economics have been published to date, including the books “The Economic School of Islam,” “The Index of Honesty in the Islamic Market,” and “The Nature of Interest and Its Economic Efficiency.” A faculty member of the Economics Department at the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute, in this exclusive oral note, he delves into the jurisprudence of progress and its dimensions and distinctions from current jurisprudence.
The science of economics and Islamic economics have various disciplines and specializations, such as: philosophy of economics, monetary economics and banking, foreign trade, international economics, public sector, development, and progress. Well, if we were to enter all these arenas, perhaps the discussion would indeed become lengthy, and perhaps there would also be some differences among them.
I will present a specialization within the field of Islamic economics that is important and practical, and that is development and progress. I ask for permission not to discuss Islamic economics in its entirety, but only to delve into its development and progress, which is one of the disciplines of Islamic economics.
What is Progress?
The first question that arises is: what is progress? What is the jurisprudence of progress? What are the issues of the jurisprudence of progress? The word “progress,” in reality, means change, transformation, and movement forward; that we want to move from the current situation towards the desired situation. Perhaps a more precise definition is that progress is continuous, uninterrupted movement towards excellence. The Quranic expression in this regard is as follows:
“Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating [in prayer], seeking bounty from Allah and [His] pleasure. Their mark is on their faces from the trace of prostration. That is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is as a plant which produces its offshoots and strengthens them so they grow firm and stand upon their stalks…” (Quran 48:29)
We call the movement of a wheat seed that sprouts and continuously nurtures this sprout, growing until “it stands firm on its own stem, delighting the sowers,” progress. This movement has no downward trajectory, no regression whatsoever; indeed, it has no pause. This meaning of progress is very close to governmental jurisprudence. Policymaking issues are within the jurisprudence of progress.
Jurisprudence of Progress
Now the question is: what is the jurisprudence of progress, and what kind of issues does it entail? What are the differences between individual jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of progress or governmental jurisprudence? Is what is recommended (mustaḥabb) in individual jurisprudence also recommended in the jurisprudence of progress or governmental jurisprudence? For instance, building a mosque is recommended in individual jurisprudence; is the institution of the mosque also a recommended matter in social jurisprudence, governmental jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence of progress?
The Necessity of Profound Subject-Matter Identification in the Jurisprudence of Progress
Regarding the differences between individual jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of progress, it must be said:
In individual jurisprudence, the jurist (faqīh) himself is the most discerning عرف (custom/common understanding); therefore, subject-matter identification is not a significant issue. However, in the jurisprudence of progress, if the jurist is not skilled in subject-matter identification, he cannot arrive at a ruling at all. In this jurisprudence, sometimes understanding a single subject may require seven to eight years of work; it is not something that can be summarized in two sentences or explained by someone in half an hour or fifteen minutes. In this jurisprudence, subject-matter identification holds a special and prominent position; and that too, profound subject-matter identification, not superficial.
By subject-matter identification, we do not merely mean referring to the lexical and terminological meaning of progress and then stating its jurisprudential ruling. Rather, what is meant is its profound subject-matter identification so that discussions of development based on secularism, humanism, and liberalism are not passed off as the jurisprudence of progress issues!
For profound understanding, it is necessary to examine Western development, the historical evolution of the formation of development discussions, and the concept of development and progress. Even this is not sufficient; rather, I must also uncover the underlying layers of progress to be able to understand the foundations and present them to the Book (Quran) and Sunnah to see if these foundations are compatible with them or not.
Some of the country’s current progress programs are development programs based on the foundations of secularism. Then, a jurist who is unfamiliar with these matters comes and says that these do not conflict with Shari’ah! This is while these programs are fundamentally contrary to Shari’ah. The jurist, because he has not conducted a profound subject-matter identification and has not uncovered the underlying layers of the development discussion, may fall into error and declare this as not conflicting with Shari’ah and endorse it. Then, with his endorsement, a budget, which is also a type of annual financial planning for the country, may be written based on the foundations of Western development.
The Necessity of Paying Attention to Objectives (Maqāṣid) in the Jurisprudence of Progress
In our individual jurisprudence, whether rightly or wrongly, it is anyway commonly held and said that we are regulation-based and not objectives-based; we operate based on regulations and are not concerned with the outcome.
However, in governmental jurisprudence or the jurisprudence of progress, in the theory of Islamic economics, can we say that we are not concerned with objectives, especially in this domain of progress discussions where we essentially want to move society from the current situation to the desired situation? This is while the desired situation, meaning the objectives, is intrinsically part of this discussion. If you want to plan for progress, such as planning for education, planning for the community’s lifestyle, cultural industries, cyberspace, the business environment, and the like, if you do not delineate a desired situation, if you do not consider short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals, planning is not possible at all. Therefore, we cannot discuss the jurisprudence of progress and say that the Objectives of Shari’ah (Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah) are not relevant to us and we are not concerned with objectives; rather, let’s see what the narration (ḥadīth) says, and we will act upon whatever it says! No, this is not possible. We have a current situation, and we certainly desire a desired situation. Then we must define a timeline: how many centimeters will this goal of ours elevate the culture of society in these five years? By how many centimeters do we want to increase the degree of being human as the ultimate goal of Islamic progress? How much do we want to advance in ethics, in moral virtues? Here, we cannot say we are not concerned with objectives.
Principles of the Jurisprudence of Progress
If we define the jurisprudence of progress as: “The knowledge of the rulings related to the establishment of religion in various spheres of social life, or in various spheres of life towards perfection, social for example, under the banner of the Guardian Jurist (Wali al-Amr) from the detailed evidences,” then the question that arises is: what becomes of the science of Principles of Jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh)? According to Shahid al-Sadr’s definition of the science of Principles as “The science of the common rules in the entirety of the chapters of jurisprudence,” what are the common elements of the jurisprudence of progress?
The common elements of the jurisprudential chapters of worship (ʿibādāt) and transactions (muʿāmalāt) have hitherto been devoid of a governmental approach. Now, with a governmental approach to issues such as the rulings on education, rulings on cyberspace, rulings on the market – and not just the individual market but the rulings on market governance, rulings on governance in banks, the domain of banks and the central bank – can the previous principles, which were the common elements among the individual and non-governmental chapters of jurisprudence, still be used to derive these rulings?
As an example, if I go to a village and set up a factory there and employ all the unemployed people of the village, is this correct from the perspective of individual jurisprudence or not? Individual jurisprudence says there is no problem; if you pay their wages, that is excellent; if you pay them a bit more generously and treat them fairly, then it is very excellent, you have done a good deed, and you have also performed a recommended act. Now, if I went and set up a factory in a village and employed all their unemployed individuals, suppose their wage was ten Tomans, I paid eleven Tomans, gave an additional bonus, and also observed ethical conduct, and paid my khums and zakat; then I come and, with the money from this factory, purchase all the lands of this village and also establish an agro-industrial company alongside this factory; for example, my factory produces meat products, and I buy all these village lands and convert them all into fodder for livestock, and then take the livestock to that factory and turn it into meat products – does this have a Shari’ah objection or not?
From the perspective of individual jurisprudence, it is clear that there is no objection, and it is also a good deed.
Now, if I gradually buy the neighboring villages and then the villages of the province, no problem arises from the perspective of individual jurisprudence. However, from the perspective of the jurisprudence of progress, there is an objection, because it exemplifies “so that it [wealth] will not be a perpetual distribution among the rich from among you” (Quran 59:7); the Lawgiver’s objective is that wealth should not circulate [only] among the rich.
The fact that my income meter is advancing rapidly, while the farmers have all become my laborers, merely earning ten to twenty Tomans a month, is, from the perspective of the jurisprudence of progress, a blatant class divide and is certainly contrary to Shari’ah (unlawful); whereas, according to the method of individual jurisprudence, it was not unlawful.
In individual jurisprudence, this man’s action is recommended (mustaḥabb), but the jurisprudence of progress says no, you should have made them partners! The jurisprudence of progress says the policy of wage labor and wage-earning is a wrong policy! Wage labor (being an employee) itself is reprehensible (makrūh) in individual jurisprudence; otherwise, in social jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of progress, wage labor is forbidden (ḥarām). From the perspective of the jurisprudence of progress, the mechanism of wage-earning in society must be transformed into a mechanism of profit-sharing (or equity-sharing). Movement towards wage labor creates two fundamental and foundational problems in society:
One: Society does not move towards economic progress and does not grow; therefore, economic growth is not achieved, and it suffers loss. Here, the state and the social planner are at fault and do not have the right to lead society towards wage labor; rather, they must lead it towards profit-sharing.
Two: Based on wage labor, if the worker does not share in the factory and its output, his work motivation decreases; and when his work motivation decreases, his productivity decreases; and when his productivity decreases, the factory’s production and profit decrease. The Supreme Leader [of Iran] has stated in multiple programs that the share of productivity must be enhanced.
Even now in the Seventh [Development] Plan, the Supreme Leader said: The share of productivity should become approximately 33 percent. It was the same in the Fourth and Fifth Plans. I am not sure if it was the same in the Sixth Plan or not.
When incomes are based on working hours and wage labor, the country’s economy is harmed; therefore, from the perspective of the jurisprudence of progress, such an act is forbidden (ḥarām).
Therefore, to solve the issues of the jurisprudence of progress, the Principles of Jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh) must also change and be adapted to the jurisprudence of progress.