Abluted Capitalism: Ali Shariati’s Critique of Capitalism in His Reading of Islamic Economy

Prophetic Mission Redefined

Shariati challenges the contemporary understanding of Islam and its history, which in a way is a critique of the position of the contemporary Muslim subject. ³ In the 1960s and 1970s Shariati witnessed the rise of capitalism with its ruinous impact on the spiritual, moral and socio-political conditions of Muslim individuals and societies that manifestly symbolised unjust and unfree societies with no sense of egalitarianism.

To Shariati, every prophet in history was sent to deal with the contemporary challenges of his society and to lay the foundations for a free and just society. All those people that the prophets gathered around themselves were idealists and self-sacrificing individuals who believed in the possibility of a better and a just life, founded on a higher moral ground. Hence the prophets’ goal was to liberate their contemporaries and to abolish all the enslaving systems, which become possible through surrendering oneself to a single God who was the God of all humanity; not the God of a single tribe, class, nation or race. ⁴

In his socio-historical investigations of religions, Shariati tried to outline the common and basic characteristics of all religions. According to Shariati, it is possible to divide all religions into two categories: tawheed (unicity of God) and sheerk (multiple gods). ⁵ Tawheed, based on Shariati’s definition, is a philosophy of history, a social order and a philosophy of action all at once. ⁶ Tawheed is not an abstract or theological matter only concerning the belief in one God. It is as much a foundation of morality and a prescription for the believers’ social life. To Shariati, all the discriminatory categories such as tribes, classes or races have always been justified religiously to consolidate the existing unequal and exploitative socio-economic relations. ⁷ Such social orders, according to Shariati, fall in the sheerk category, namely they are justified or sanctified by sheerk-based religious perspective. ⁸ Shariati contends that the mission of Abraham, Moses or Jesus was not to fight heathenism. ⁹ Instead they were obliged to wage their struggles against unjust and exploitative orders that had been sacralised by the existing religions and religious classes.

According to Shariati the messages of all the prophets are aimed at the change of the existing unjust and enslaving socio-political and economic orders. The theological aspect of their messages was inseparable from their battle against the socio-economics of the societies to which they were sent. That is the case since historical figures, such as the Pharaohs or Nimrod whom those prophets fought against, turned themselves into some kind of deities and enslaved their people. ¹⁰ That is why, according to the Qur’an, both Nimrod and Pharaoh acted like gods, namely they had become the masters and proprietors of their people. ¹¹ In the Qur’an, to own people or to consider them as one’s own property is equated with one’s claiming deity or playing God. ¹² As the Qur’anic verses read, one practically assumes to be a God if he ‘monopolises all the land and rivers’ (Qur’an 43/5) ‘and removes from their gardens, treasures and honorable stations’ (Qur’an 26/57-58). Hence, tawheed is not merely a refusal of abstract and erroneous claims to deity. It is also rising up against and refusing any exploitative and discriminatory orders that seeks its legitimacy in the existing religious beliefs. As such, tawheed is also a system of morality that ordains a just order. It is a struggle against the monopoly of power, resources and religious interpretation by a few persons or groups. Hence to refuse the deity of the Pharaohs and Nimrods was not a matter of theological wrangling. It was rather about elimination of the socio-economic power that had granted those figures their prestige and power, namely a sheerk-based system.

In Shariati’s thought Abraham is the key figure in the struggle for tawheed. ¹³ Idolatry, against which Abraham wages his struggle, is not simply a system in which stones were erected and venerated by a group of ignorant Bedouins. Idolatry is more a socio-political system that possesses its own theo-philosophical foundation. ¹⁴ It is a religious doctrine that is defended and perpetuated by the clergymen and religious class who sanctify class, power, race and all forms of social inequality. ¹⁵ Thus, Shariati views the prophetic struggle against idolatry not simply as a struggle against traditions rooted in their contemporaries’ superstitious beliefs, but as a battle against a religious worldview that is the root cause of social conflicts, discriminations, oppression and servitude. ¹⁶ Shariati considers Abraham as an exemplary figure, to be emulated by his following prophets, in their struggles against sheerk.

As stated earlier, idolatry is not just worshipping statues or the veneration of certain stones but a religion and valuation system that legitimises its own socio-political environment. In combating idols and idolatry, Abraham did not just save the people of the south Mesopotamian cities of Ur and Babylon from worshipping stones but rebelled against the existing socio-economic system, against the status quo perpetuated in the name of gods and through religious beliefs. His battle was against a system that portrayed injustice and inequality as natural. ¹⁷ Abraham’s mission (tawheed) was not merely to convince that the creator of the universe is one but to create a society in which all lived in fraternity and equality with no masters and slaves. ¹⁸

In Shariati’s works, the philosophy of history is explained by the continuous war between sheerk and tawheed. As such sheerk and tawheed constitute the ideological basis of every racial, tribal and class struggle in human history. ¹⁹ Hence when the Prophet of Islam negated all deities but God’s (tawheed) he announced also the liberation of Bilal-al Habashi, the Abyssinian slave, from the oppression of Umayyah ibn Khalaf, a Meccan aristocrat, the Prophet throwing into question the very religious sanctity (sheerk) of Mecca’s socio-political and economic system. ²⁰ According to Shariati, the historical struggle does not put religion against heathenism but rather ‘a religion against another’. It is a struggle between two types of religions: One advocates equality and justice for everyone and the other is guardian of the status quo that founded on inequality and exploitation. ²¹ Setting off from this point, Shariati views the Prophet of Islam as someone who followed the footsteps of Abraham in the long line of fighters for tawheed. ²² The Prophet of Islam first and foremost stood up against the rich and spoiled notables of Mecca, including his close relatives. ²³ Focusing on his social relations and class-based stance, Shariati portrays the Prophet as follows:

The Prophet refused to make use of aristocratic symbols. He refused to ride a horse, which was one of the symbols of the aristocracy in Mecca and chose instead a mule, the way people from the lower classes did. He would also take someone else on the saddle with him. ²⁴ He did not grow his beard very long, nor did he wear clothes with long sleeves and skirts. He marched with short and rapid steps and slightly opened his arms to the sides. In doing so, he was refusing a certain conduct associated with the aristocracy. Meccan aristocrats poked fun at his clothes and conduct. ²⁵ His palace consisted of a room of mud brick and the soft sand of the dessert. The only panorama and terrace of this palace was a small mosque. ²⁶

The Prophet of Islam fought to build an ideal society in Medina and introduce reforms concerning the use of land and property. ²⁷ In face of the existence of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires, he not only introduced another religion but another civilisation, which refused palace life and aristocratic values. He achieved that by abolishing the class system and made the ‘aristocratic’ members of the Meccan community follow the lead of Salman, a poor foreigner in exile, and Abu Dharr a wandering Bedouin, Bilal, an Abyssinian slave, Salim, an ex-servant of Khuzaifah Meccan aristocrat who used to lead the prayer in Kuba for the entire Quraishi tribe.

In Medina, when the Prophet would set off for war, his poor and blind companions would lead the salat (prayer) in his place at the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi. ²⁸ The Prophet’s conduct resembled that of a slave. Shariati was proud of this and of the Prophet’s conduct that created a radical shift in people’s values. ²⁹ However, things changed after the Prophet of Islam passed away. Some became immensely rich and were impoverished, which in turn led to significant social and political unrest. According to Shariati, in this period, there existed two classes in the Muslim community: the rich and the poor. Even some of the Prophet’s former companions who had been appointed as governor to conquered territories enriched themselves. Yet, some in the community were obviously unhappy with this new development and regarded it as a deviation from the Prophet’s practices and the Qur’an’s instructions. ³⁰ The exemplary opponent to the class division that came to being after the prophets in the Muslim community was none other than Abu Dharr el Ghifari.

A Companion of Prophet Muhammed: Abu Dharr el Ghifari

Ali Shariati attaches great importance to Abu Dharr in his analyses of the economic characteristics of the changes that occurred after the death of the Prophet of Islam. As one of the closest companions of the Prophet, Abu Dharr’s life and struggle ³¹ are viewed by Shariati as highly significant in the birth of abluted capitalism. ³² Abu Dharr rose to prominence as the major opponent to the status quo during the reign of the third caliph, Uthman. Thanks to their seizure of land and spoils, under the two previous caliphs, some members of the Muslim community had already become very rich, contributing to the emergence of economic inequality. Yet, due to the previous two caliphs’ piety and their avoidance of luxury and misuse of the common property for personal gains, a class division was not much apparent. ³³ Nevertheless, signs and tendencies of corruption had already appeared under their rule.

Abu Dharr’s struggle corresponds to a period when the previous companions of the Prophet were becoming a new class. ³⁴ Those who used to eat barley bread during the Prophet’s lifetime now participated Sassanid-type banquets or adopted a lifestyle that was exclusively known to the Roman councils and high officials. ³⁵ The companions became rich through embezzlement, seizing money given to the officials for jihad and religious alms, or the spoils of wars. ³⁶ Shariati portrays this period as the beginning of a conservative turn among Muslims that was characterised by the accumulation of wealth. ³⁷

To analyse this shift in the Muslim community’s life, Shariati presents a list of the assets held by the previous companions of the Prophet who became wealthy under the rule of Uthman. ³⁸ Shariati cites fifteen names whose personal wealth varied between hundreds of thousands of dirham and thousands of dinar—compared to the wealth of the Prophet of Islam which was only six or seven dinars prior to his death. ³⁹ In most cases, it was Uthman who endowed his relatives with such fortunes. ⁴⁰ In addition to cash, his relatives were given huge amounts of land. Also, on top of their cash and other assets, they possessed numerous slaves and concubines. ⁴¹

In this period, the state official started building palaces for the first time for their personal use. ⁴² Observing that the caliphate turned into a sultanate, that Islamic rulers participated in sultan-like pomp and protocol, and that Islamic zuhd (asceticism) and taqwa (piety) lost ground to lust and the accumulation of wealth, Abu Dharr organised an opposition against Caliph Uthman and Damascus Governor Muawiya. ⁴³ The basis of Abu Dharr’s opposition was the belief that accumulation of wealth was a violation of the Qur’anic teaching. He saw Uthman’s decision to enrich his close relative as a clear breach of the basic commands of the Qur’an.

One day Abu Dharr read the following verse from the Qur’an at the mosque: ‘Those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God—give them tidings of a painful punishment’ (Qur’an 9/34). ⁴⁴ Uthman, cognisant that this citation targeted him and his entourage, invited Abu Dharr to his palace and asked him to stop reciting such verses or provoking the people against his rule. ⁴⁵ In response, Abu Dharr stated that he would not stop reciting the verses of God just to avoid inducing rage against his rule. ⁴⁶

Abu Dharr became a staunch opponent of the new emerging clergy class that clustered around Uthman, a new class that justified religiously the ruler’s accumulation of wealth and his treatment of public property for personal use. Uthman sent Abu Dharr to Damascus in exile. Upon his arrival in Damascus, Abu Dharr saw that Muawiyya, the governor of the province, employed thousands of workers in the construction of his Green Palace. Turning towards Muawiyya, who in the height of his arrogance was observing his palace’s rise with immense arrogance and pleasure, Abu Dharr warned him: ‘O! Muawiyya! If you are having this palace built with the people’s money it is fraud. If it is built with your own money, then it is called prodigality!’ ⁴⁷ The poor people of Damascus came to visit Abu Dharr and complained about the rule of Muawiyya. To those who gathered around him, Abu Dharr explained that the practices of the Islamic rulers of the day were in compliance with neither the book of God nor the teachings of His Prophet. He recited verses among which were the following (9/34-35):

O you who have believed, indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them] from the way of God. And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God—give them tidings of a painful punishment. ⁴⁸

Another passage he cited was verse 92 of the Surah Al-Imran:

Never will you attain the good [birr] until you give away from that which you love. And whatever you spend—indeed, God is knowing of it. ⁴⁹

Muawiyya had the Green Palace built in Damascus to emulate the palaces of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires. He invited musicians, artists and architects from Iran. ⁵⁰ Every day he visited the building site and checked the progress of the construction of the palace. To Muawiyya, his palace symbolised a new civilisation. Likewise, Abu Dharr visited the site every day and repeated his warning ‘O! Muawiyya! If you are having this palace built with the people’s money it is fraud. If it is built with your own money, then it is called prodigality!’ Abu Dharr defended his cause and warned people about the emerging inequalities in the Muslim community by using the pulpits in various mosques.

Abu Dharr’s sermons attracted a vast audience in Damascus. The rich complained about him to Muawiyya, claiming that Abu Dharr incited Muslims into a rebellion against his regime. When Muawiyya questioned Abu Dharr as to why he was so enraged, the latter responded, in effect, that the existing wealth belongs to all the Muslims. ‘You cannot take any part of it for yourself. However, you are seizing the spoils for your own benefit, it flays as a clear contrast to the tradition of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Omar.’ ⁵¹ When Muawiyya objected to his accusations, Abu Dharr retorted ‘You made the rich richer, and the poor poorer.’ ⁵² Muawiyya said ‘Oh, Abu Dharr, let go of it; you are provoking the populace into a revolution’, to which Abu Dharr responded ‘I promise to Him who has the say over my life, that I shall not let go of it until the wealthy decide to share their fortune with the people’ and left the palace in a rage. ⁵³

Abu Dharr continued to preach against the regime at the mosque; once he declared:

Rich people! God has banned ownership of capital. God’s Prophet said: ‘Down with the gold! Down with the silver!’ You may be offended by these words; so were the Prophet’s companions, who asked each other: ‘Well, what we should have then?’ The Prophet said ‘A discourse rich in prayers, a heart which is always grateful, and a spouse who supports your faith.’ Muawiyya, however, seizes wealth to support the luxurious life, powerful rule, the guards of his palace and his servants… Muawiyya seems to have forgotten that one is forbidden to possess more than two garments (one for the summer and the other for the winter) and money enough to allow him to frequent the house of God and to care for his family … He, too, is under the obligation of living like an ordinary Quraishi … Instead, he takes everything for himself and his family and he is never content with it. ⁵⁴

He pointed to the Prophet’s life as exemplary and stated that: ‘Far from holding sumptuous banquets in palaces, the Prophet contented himself with a single plate of food during his entire life … Sometimes for months on end, no fire would be ablaze in the Prophet’s fireplace to cook food.’ ⁵⁵ Abu Dharr also gave examples from the lives of the first two caliphs and indicated that they distributed all the wealth created to the people instead of getting rich. For example, even after becoming caliph, Omar dressed up like a poor Quraishi.’ ⁵⁶

Immediately following Abu Dharr’s speech the people went to Muawiyya’s palace and cried out in complaint. Muawiyya became furious and immediately summoned Abu Dharr. Muawiyya warned him to stop provoking the people against his rule but to no avail. Therefore, he sent Abu Dharr back to Medina and to the caliph Uthman. Nonetheless, Abu Dharr continued to preach against the inequality and the accumulation of wealth. One day a man approached him in the mosque and asked whether he was allowed to conceal his wealth to pay less tax since Uthman’s tax collectors had imposed high taxes on people. Abu Dharr responded by saying, ‘Do not hide your assets. Tell them, take what is your right and leave what is not. If they act unfairly, they shall be held accountable on the day of judgment day.’ Then a young Quraishi asked: ‘Oh Abu Dharr! Did not the ruler of the believers order you to stop issuing fatwas?’ ⁵⁷

As might have been expected, people started asking themselves countless questions: Why does the caliph Uthman wear silk garments? Why does the caliph hold sumptuous banquets in his house? Why does Muawiyya, the caliph’s kinsman and governor of Damascus, build the Green Palace? Why does a companion such as Zubair have one thousand slaves who bring to him their daily income? Why does Uthman, who claims to abide by the book of God and the Prophet tradition, rule like Caesar and Khosrow? ⁵⁸

Hearing that Abu Dharr would be making a speech, caliph Uthman went to the place together with his consultant Ka’ab al-Ahbar. He asked Abu Dharr when he would change his ways to which the latter responded, ‘When the poor take what is their right from the wealthy’. ⁵⁹ Uthman turned to the crowd and asked them: ‘Do you think that someone who pays the zakat ⁶⁰ can be accused of having ill-gained income?’ Ka’ab al-Ahbar responded: ‘No, the ruler of believers! If one pays his zakat, he can even build a house covered in gold and another in silver.’ ⁶¹ Furious, Abu Dharr pushed Ka’ab al-Ahbar aside with his stick and recited the following verse from the Qur’an:

Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in God, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the stranded during journey, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakat; [those who] fulfil their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous (Qur’an 2/177). ⁶²

Afterwards, Abu Dharr told Ka’ab al-Ahbar that God has distinguished between zakat and donations to one’s relatives with the orphans, the poor, and slaves, which should have priority. By referring to the verse, he suggested that God has ordered the believers to make donations to charity and forbidden them from accumulating wealth. ⁶³ When Ka’ab al-Ahbar insisted on his own viewpoint, Abu Dharr hit him hard in the chest with his cane and questioned whether he was suggesting that a man would have fulfilled his duty simply by paying the zakat, even if such a person has seized the wealth and the rights of the people, and then left. ⁶⁴

When Abdur Rahman bin Awf, one of the companions of the Prophet who had become enormously wealthy under Uthman’s rule, passed away, his wealth was brought before the caliph. His fortune was so vast that Uthman and his men could hardly see each other. ⁶⁵ Uthman said a prayer accompanied by Ka’ab, who said, ‘You are right, oh the ruler of the believers! Abdur Rahman bin Awf’s income, expenditure and inheritance are all halal. God has granted him bliss in both this world and the next.’ ⁶⁶ Hearing of this event, Abu Dharr set off to find Ka’ab, who was with Uthman. Enraged, Abu Dharr said, ‘How can you say that a man with such great fortune was granted bliss by God in both worlds? Do you attribute responsibility to God for his wealth?’ ⁶⁷ Later he cited the Prophet’s arguments about the wealthy. Abu Dharr said that one day the Prophet spoke the following words to him: ‘Oh Abu Dharr! The wealthy shall be impoverished in the next world.’ Another day the Prophet had said ‘If I set off to distribute as much wealth as the Mount of Uhud for the sake of God, I would not want even two coins left of it.’ ⁶⁸ Later, Abu Dharr turned to Ka’ab telling him that,

The Prophet of God speaks such, but you claim that Abdur Rahman bin Awf’s inheritance is halal, is that so? Tell me then, how did Abdur Rahman accumulate this wealth? Did God send it to him from the sky? Or did he seize what is the right of the people and the labor of the community? I promise to you that, come judgement day, the owner of this wealth will be saying, ‘I wish my property would turn into a scorpion and poison me right now’. ⁶⁹

He continued, saying ‘The Prophet said: “Gold or silver, all wealth turns into a fire that burns their stingy owner. Right until the owner decides to spend them to serve God…” You claim that this wealth is not a burden for Abdur Rahman? Ka’ab! Then you are a liar and everyone who agrees with you is a liar, too.’ ⁷⁰ Upon hearing these words, Uthman became furious and sent Abu Dharr into exile to a remote desert named Al-Rabadha. ⁷¹ Abu Dharr was banned from seeing anyone, and his only companion in this arid dessert, where not even weed grew, was his loyal wife. He passed away in the desert. Three years after his death, the people of Medina rebelled against the rule of Uthman. ⁷²

According to Shariati, Abu Dharr’s struggle, in essence, was against class privileges and for social justice. ⁷³ By grounding himself in the Qur’an, Shariati argued against those who accumulated instead of spending their wealth for the sake of God. Here, the Arabic word used for ‘spending’ is infaq, which comes from nufk, meaning a pit, a hole. ⁷⁴ According to Arabic grammar, the verb infaq means to fill up a pit. If we translate it into modern parlance, the pit corresponds to the class divide that has appeared in society due to capital accumulation and economic exploitation. It is tantamount to filling up the hole created by wealth inequality, by distributing wealth to those in need.

According to Shariati, the sake of God is equivalent to the sake of people. ⁷⁵ In all verses that touch upon social issues, the words God and people are used interchangeably in a social (not theological) sense. The God of Islam does not demand any burnt offering, sacrifice or incense. Whatever is for the sake of the people and society is also for the sake of God. The expression ‘If you lend kindly to God’ (Taghabun 17) means to lend kindly to the people. Expressions such as for the sake of God, the wealth of God, the house of God, the order of God, the hand of God, for God, towards God—all translate as the sake of the people, the wealth of the people, the house of the people, and such like. Indeed, the first and the most important house established for humankind was that of Makkah—blessed guidance for all people (3/96). It means the rule of the people, the hand of the people, or towards the people. That is because the people are the family of God. ⁷⁶

Shariati’s Criticism of the Islamic Economy

In Shariati’s view, the exile of Abu Dharr was a turning point. From then on, wealth accumulation and establishing justice ceased to be the main concerns of Islam. Abu Dharr’s position against wealth and the wealthy was not a mystical, pious zuhd, but rather a socially conscious, responsible and revolutionary zuhd which rejected the hoarding of wealth and sought to distribute wealth among the dispossessed. ⁷⁷

From that point onwards, according to Shariati, the Muslims’ relationship with capital split as follows: the pulpit revolutionary but the fiqh interpreted as right-wing and capitalist in the sense that the Islamic fiqh accepts capital ownership but gives advice as to how it should be spent. ⁷⁸ As such, Islam is beneficial for the capitalist in a legal sense, whereas the pulpit preachers deploy a revolutionary leftist discourse for the poor and against the rich. ⁷⁹ The fuqahae, jurists of fiqh who issue legal statements, tend to be right-wing, conservative and pro-capitalist. Since the law is on the side of the capitalist, it is no use giving him moral advice about how to spend his money, since he will do what best serves his interest. As such, Shariati argues that such legal leeway should not be granted to the capitalist in the first place. ⁸⁰

Today, our fuqahae issue legal opinions against interest but preachers from their pulpits declare even the small sum of seven or eight dinars to be kenz, namely wealth. ⁸¹ From the pulpits, the message is that hoarding more than one’s need for a single day is haram ⁸² ; however, the fuqahae mention no such thing. ⁸³ Abu Dharr taught that putting aside money for tomorrow’s food and expenses is wealth. Likewise the shia fuqahae define wealth as 15 or 27 dinars. According to verse 34 of the Surah al-Tawbah, a sum that exceeds this is kenz, or wealth. This also is fiqh, but it points to a different dimension. However, that part of fiqh was eliminated and lost. ⁸⁴

The economic system should function such that it does not provide any legal or practical opportunity to someone who tries to exceed his limits in the first place. It is not logical to first give such an opportunity, and then try to control that person on moral grounds. That is, it is not possible to build a structure of morality, justice and taqwa (piety) on a foundation of capitalism, abuse and exploitation. ⁸⁵

According to Shariati:

We must place taqwa, pardon, zuhd, asceticism, and the fight against prodigality that Islam so frequently talks about at the center of the production system, and develop the economic system according to that. That is the right way. We should not accept the capitalist system the way we had accepted the feudal, tribal and bourgeois economic systems. We should not reduce Islam to its moral advice, saying ‘Mister please eat; Mister please don’t eat.’ It is useless. What happens if two people eat and two others don’t? How could this be a solution to anyone’s problems? This could make things even worse in time. The result would be a system whose infrastructure is capitalist, but whose superstructure has the appearance of a philosophy of asceticism. So, if we talk about constructing ourselves without touching upon the key issues, we will not only drift away from the reality but also forget the real problems. We need to wage a radical struggle against capitalism. Let us not give capitalism any leeway, by allowing it to ornament itself with Islamic motifs. ⁸⁶

Shariati cites verses from the Qur’an about gaining property:

Indeed, there is nothing for man except that for which he strives. (53/39) ⁸⁷

And a sign for them is the dead earth. We have brought it to life and brought forth from it grain, and from it they eat. And we placed therein gardens of palm trees and grapevines and caused to burst forth there from some springs—that they may eat of what their hands have produced it. So will they not be grateful?’ (36/33-35). Here the gist of the matter is that God declares that natural resources as well as products of human labour all belong to Him in the final instance. ⁸⁸

And have you seen the water that you drink? Is it you who brought it down from the clouds, or is it We who bring it down? If We willed, We could make it bitter, so why are you not grateful? (56/68–70)

It is God who created the heavens and the earth and sent down rain from the sky and produced thereby some fruits as provision for you and subjected for you the ships to sail through the sea by His command and subjected for you the rivers (14/32)

And we have sent the fertilizing winds and sent down water from the sky and given you drink from it. And you are not its retainers (15/22). ⁸⁹

Everything that a person has not crafted himself, in other words the natural resources created by God, is public property. Property can only be the fruit of labour. As such only people who labour can be proprietors and it is not meaningful to have capital to create employment. Such property is the result of one’s handiwork and is one’s right. In this case, the proprietor is the labourer who collects the fruit of his labour, his effort. ⁹⁰

All prophets were sent forth to establish such an order. However, these principles, which stirred revolutionary tides in the struggle for justice, quickly fell under the control of the very entities that set out to undermine them, namely, the preachers who dressed themselves in fancy robes and used the same principles for deceitful ends to benefit the oppressor, the rich and the dishonest. The first victims thus were the Qur’an, Ali, Hussain, Abu Dharr and Ammar. ⁹¹

Soon enough, Islam the religion turned into Islam the culture; the Islam of consciousness, responsibility and movement became that of science, knowledge, sunnah and government; from the first half of the first century of the Islamic calendar, a revolutionary and dynamic approach turned into a mixture of caliphate, mosque, market, sword, golden rosary, verses and so forth. All based on religious, cultural, scholarly, individual, moral and Islam-like traditions, discourse, concepts and values. ⁹² The practices of the old notables reappeared in the name of Islam. It was exactly a case of counterfeit tawheed. God’s sword fell into the hands of the executioner, the book of the true path was tied to the spears of the lunatics… The calves of Samiri, not just a few but in their thousands, rushed to the pulpit of the Prophet, who is the successor of Moses. Acres of land were conquered not in the name of Caesar and Khosrow, but in the name of God (!); the locals were robbed under the pretext of zakat which was renamed as the share of God or the Imam. ⁹³ ‘… Yes, the change was about that. The Iranian now worshipped the caliph instead of Khosrow, the Hindu kissed the hand of not Buddha but the judge.’ ⁹⁴

Grounding himself in the Qur’an, Shariati claims that in Islam richness is not an end in itself, not a goal to be aspired to. Islam holds no arguments in favour of getting rich or in praise of wealth. Shariati cites verse 76 of the Surah al-Araf: ‘If the people of the different lands had believed and feared God, We would have opened upon them blessings from the heaven and the earth.’ ⁹⁵ Economic welfare cannot be the objective of the prophet’s mission or of human life. Welfare that arises from one’s exploitation of another cannot be acceptable. Real welfare can only be the result of faith and abstention. This is not an abstract kind of faith, however. It means abstaining from forbidden acts such as hoarding wealth, considering oneself as self-sufficient or superior to other humans, or claiming to be deity to other humans, and declaring that such acts are wrong. However, Shariati underlines a key issue at this point. He suggests that the widespread translation of taqwa as abstention is lacking. ⁹⁶ It cast taqwa in a passive light; which is inaccurate. That is because one is also obliged to be proactive. ⁹⁷ As God’s viceroy on Earth, the human must protect the worldly order that He has commanded, and rebuild that order if it collapses. As such Shariati interprets the verse as follows:

If all the societies on the Earth followed a doctrine based on tawheed and human liberation, and if they were mindful of that doctrine and felt responsibility and love towards it; if their personalities embraced human values with the revolutionary zuhd and with a spirit of responsible taqwa; then they would discover their heavenly capacities; and if everyone felt responsible as the God’s viceroy and the imam of the people, then we would reopen the now closed doors of welfare, bliss and abundance on the Earth and in the sky. We would put the caravan mired in weakness and poverty, back on the road to progress, strength, empowerment and wealth. ⁹⁸

According to Shariati, this is the point where the problem with capitalism starts, since capitalism tries to make the economy the basis of everything including religion, arts, thought and morality. ⁹⁹ Being against capitalism is not being against social production. One must oppose capitalism for it destroys the essence of humanity, turns all values into profit and human nature into money; it turns the human, who is God’s viceroy in the cosmos and who is supposed to evolve towards God through infinity, into a savage wolf and a cunning fox or a this-worldly mouse. ¹⁰⁰

For this reason Shariati states that the Earth must be saved from the dungeons of the economy. ¹⁰¹ Inside the dungeons, everything is determined and valued according to the rules of economics. The human and human values such as faith and culture are all subordinated to the superstructures of the economy. ¹⁰² As such, capitalism turns the human into the slave of blind economic rules and destroys the dynamic, responsibility-based relationship between God and the human. The economy becomes the new god. Capitalism penetrates into the depths of the human spirit, and pollutes nations and all the divine values that are the fruit of the history of civilisations and cultures. ¹⁰³

Conclusion

In analysing the history of religion, Shariati uses a methodological framework that relates religions to social, political and economic processes rather than constricting religion to the realm of merely belief and rituals. Shariati, with this methodology, deems social, political and economic dimensions to pertain to religion as much as to rituals and beliefs. Prophets emerged not only to give messages regarding rituals and belief but also to engender a new value system that would change humans’ perception of themselves, of others, and of nature. For that, they struggled not only against economic and political systems that put some people under the servitude of others but also religious doctrines that imposed these political economic orders on people as natural and God’s will hence forbidding any resistance to these orders as against religion and God’s will.

Putting at the centre of his study the life of one of the companions of the Prophet of Islam, Abu Dharr, Shariati analyses the process during the term of the third caliph Uthman of the distribution by the ruling elite of wealth in a way that led to its accumulations in the hands of certain groups, and the abolition in favour of the elite of accountability in matters of wealth accumulation. In addition, he also mentions how during this era the state-sanctioned religious elites justified this process and how this led to a more conservative and right-wing interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence. Through Abu Dharr, Shariati aims to show modern Muslims an exemplary model of Islamic religious standing vis-à-vis the problems created by capitalism. For this reason, he introduced and discussed the capitalism-friendly religious understanding against which Abu Dharr fought and which became the religious norm by defining the religious understanding of the majority of contemporary Muslims.

Shariati, like Abu Dharr, whom he took as his example, was prisoned and exiled during which he was assassinated. His books, although banned or censored by the political elite in many Muslim countries, are still read by idealist youth for whom building a more just world is at the basis of their religious belief. Shariati’s writings begin the critique of capitalism with a critique of religion’s over-easy peace with capitalism which justifies it as legitimate and God-given. His writings deserve close reading, wide scholarly interest and debate. I hope this paper helps to ignite interest in his oeuvre.