be able to play its role effectively without the other. Implementation of the Sharīʿah may not be possible without the state playing an important role, and the state may degenerate into an unjust and tyrannical organization without the restraining influence of the Sharīʿah.51 He, therefore, considered the state to be a trustee of public interest and the chief instrument for ensuring justice through the implementation of the Sharīʿah.52
What is it that the state is expected to do? A number of scholars writing on the ‘Mirrors for Princes’ tried to answer this question.53 One of them, Niẓām al-Mulk (d. 485/1092), argued in his Siyāsat Nāmah, which may liberally be translated as “Principles of Government”, and which was written at the request of King Malikshāh (d. 485/1092), the long-reigning ruler of the Saljuq dynasty (447–590/1055–1194),54 that the ruler’s responsibility is to ensure justice and to do all that is necessary for general prosperity.
None of these authors, however, visualized regimentation or the owning and operating of a substantial part of the economy by the state. Several classical Muslim scholars, including al-Dimashqī and Ibn Khaldūn, clearly expressed their disapproval of the state becoming directly involved in the economy.55 The state rarely played such a dominant economic role in Islamic history.
Among the more modern religious reformers, Shaykh Hasan al-Banna stressed that governments are the heart of socioeconomic reform; if they become corrupt, they may corrupt everything and if they are reformed, they may be able to reform everything.56 Sayyid Mawdudi argued that God did not send His Prophets merely with a scheme to establish justice. The scheme was also accompanied by an effective strategy. A strong justice-oriented role for the state within the framework of Islamic political teachings is an indispensable part of this strategy.57 Bāqir al-Saḍr for his part found the intervention of the state in the economic sphere of life to be important for ensuring compliance with Islamic norms.58
Say’s Law does not, therefore, constitute a meaningful proposition in an Islamic paradigm. Hence, there has, perhaps, been no classical author who has advocated a passive role for the state. The concept of laissez faire has been nearly non-existent. This was but natural because the Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, himself emphasized a welfare role for the state.
A detailed discussion of the functions of a modern Islamic state, given the resource constraints of most Muslim countries, has, however, not manifested itself. If one looks at illiteracy, technological backwardness and moral decline, one cannot but fail to see the need to give primary importance to all-round education. This would not only help internalize moral values among individuals and expedite social, institutional and political reform but also accelerate development. The provision of various other public goods would also be indispensable to promote development and general well-being. The state may also have to clearly determine priorities in its use of scarce resources. Allowing the private sector to play a leading role in the development of the economy would be consistent with the Islamic tradition. This would, however, necessitate the provision of incentives and facilities, and the creation of a proper legal framework along with an effective network of checks and balances and rewards and penalties. The state may also have to create a proper framework for the interaction of individuals, families and society, values and institutions, and markets for the realization of goals without excessive government intervention.
One thing that may specifically have to be ruled out is the obligation of the state to provide subsidized services to all persons, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor. Only those individuals and families need to be helped who are not a part of the social security network and who are not capable of helping themselves, and only to the extent to which it is necessary and feasible with the available resources. The paucity of resources may not permit anything more. The modern welfare state is facing financial problems in many countries because of the desire to abstain from making value judgements. This has prevented it from applying the means test and, thereby, led to an excessive extension of its scope.
The effort by the state to ensure well-being, justice and fair play in all walks of life is reflected in the institution of ḥisbah,59 which mirrors the Prophet’s saying that “the worst of people are those who do not establish justice, and do not enjoin good and prohibit evil.”60 A muḥtasil is one “who has been appointed by the ruler or his deputy to keep an eye on the affairs of the people to know their condition and to protect their interests.”61 In its wider sense, ḥisbah stands for “ensuring the prevalence of virtue, if its decline has become apparent, and the prevention of vice, if its perpetration has become apparent”.62 In its narrower sense, ḥisbah stands for the monitoring of the markets to ensure justice and fair play in human interaction and to prevent cruelty to animals. For example, ʿUmar, the second Caliph, punished those who loaded their camels beyond their ability to carry the load.63
Several classical authors wrote on the subject of ḥisbah, including al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058), Abū Yaʿlā, (d. 458/1065), al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), Ibn Ḥazm (d. 456/1064), ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Shayzarī (d. 589/1193), Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328), Ibn al-Ukhuwwah (d. 729/1329), al-Nuwayrī (d. 732/1332), Ibn Khaldūn (d. 808/1406), and al-Maqrīzī (d. 846/1442).64 All these writers emphasized the regulation of economic activity and of markets in the light of the Sharīʿah so as to ensure justice and fair play which were seen as indispensable. This function continued to be performed, though not always very effectively, during the greater part of Muslim history.
The objective behind ḥisbah is not only to allow the markets to operate freely and prices, wages and profits to be determined by the forces of demand and supply (which happens in a capitalist state as well), but also to ensure at the same time that all economic agents fulfil their obligations towards each other and adhere to the rules of the Sharīʿah.65 Every precaution needs to be taken to ensure that there is “no coercion, no deception, no taking advantage of the dire circumstances or ignorance of a contracting party,” and that there is no withholding or destruction of supplies to raise prices.66 The state need not have any qualms about intervening when the thresholds of justice and fairness are crossed and there is no justification for waiting until the market forces correct the inequities themselves. Such intervention should not, however, be arbitrary for this, in itself, could lead to inequities. It should rather be on the basis of a proper analysis by experts and, if the price is regulated for some valid reason, it should not be out of tune with the price of similar goods and services in normal circumstances.
In spite of being an antithesis of the laissez faire state, the Islamic state was perhaps never conceived as the equivalent of a totalitarian or socialist state by any of the classical writers or jurists.67 Recognition of private property and respect for individual freedom have always been prevalent. The slant towards nationalization and regimentation came in the thinking of some Muslim writers under the influence of socialism, and was exploited by ambitious politicians in several Muslim countries including Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and Indonesia.
The army has been the primary force behind socialism in the Muslim world. The rationale given for military coups was invariably the desire to eliminate corruption, accelerate development, and promote socio-economic justice. All these goals appealed greatly to the downtrodden masses. The Islamic strategy for this purpose did not, however, suit most of the military dictators because of their generally secularist leanings and/or their ambition to perpetuate their control over the political system. This is easier when the economy is also totally under their thumb. Islam with its emphasis on shūrā, socio-economic justice, and a decentralized economic system could not have been but a hindrance in the realization of their ambition. Hence, there could have been nothing better than socialism to serve their vested interest.
Nevertheless, they could not dispense with Islam. This would have been highly unpopular. Therefore, they