The fact is that Allah also owns you. Everything is the property of Allah. So, when He lays down the laws, we must follow those laws. And the laws of inheritance are also laid down by Allah Himself. If He wants it to be done like that, He is the owner, He is the proprietor. Why should you differ with Him? The question that arises is simply this, that no man-made laws of inheritance should be accepted against the laws of inheritance as propounded by the Holy Quran as word of Allah.
That is the natural conclusion and this is correct. What else is bothering you? Tell me. No, the only other thing that bothers me is that if all property belongs to Allah and does not belong to a particular person and we are only trustees of the property, then is it also then correct that we have in the common states that all property then belongs to the state? No, you are diverging from the whole issue in fact. The fact is that according to the communist philosophy, because there is no God, man is authorized to make laws to govern the property. And he is within his rights to do so because it is man’s property.
So, instead of considering it a private individual affair, the communists say it should be considered a collective affair and a collective property of the whole people and nation. So, as such, laws should be made to govern the property from this angle. This is what they have done. But if there is a God, He is the proprietor, then the right to make laws reverts to Him, not to us. So, because He has made laws regarding the property, how should you earn it? As long as you live, you will remain guardian over it, but you will spend it upon you and upon the mankind under the general principles laid down by Allah. And within the four walls of the laws governing the management of property by each individual and by nations as well. So, this is the position. And this is the position in every other case.
The Holy Quran says, because the heaven and earth belong to Him, the decision on everything lies with Allah. That is the only conclusion that we draw from this and this is the meaning of our being only trustees and not owners. Moreover, the Holy Quran does not deal with life as a temporary thing of only belonging to this earth. But the Holy Quran considers life to be a much longer entity, a continuous affair and death is just a change of form.
So, when the Holy Quran speaks of you, it speaks of your inner being, not just you imprisoned in this body. It addresses you as a comparatively eternal being who would not die with death. Now, that being so, if you are the owner of this property, you should have been able to carry it beyond the barrier of death. But when you leave it, you have completely no way to control it, no connection to establish with it. So, that is the time when it is established that it did not really belong to you or you should have been able to carry it like the pharaohs attempted to do. They could not but they attempted anyway because they thought they were the proprietors.
So, the Holy Quran treats man as a continuous entity, not something which finishes here on earth after death. And when he addresses you, he addresses your soul which will continue to live. So, the soul is not a proprietor. The soul is just a trustee. So, when Allah decides to take the trust away, he does it and demonstrates it at every death that I have taken the trust away, now I should be entrusted to others. How will it go to others and to whom? There the decision lies with Allah. And out of His graciousness, only He gives you a fraction of the decision to make for yourself. And the rest is controlled by the laws and laid down by the Holy Quran. This is the position. Is it alright? Now you understand? Does it satisfy the contradiction you thought there was? I should have to go back and rethink. Why I raise this question is simply this.
I have a lot of discussions with our non-Muslim friends about the rate of interest. Why in Islam interest is not charged? And basically the underlying philosophy which I could understand about Islam… This is now how you explain that away. You find you land yourself in difficulty because you begin from a wrong premise. The fact is that when the argument, the point of discussion is that which you have just pointed out, then this verse should not be quoted here in this context. If I could explain what I was thinking. Basically what I was thinking was this, that in Islam if all property belongs to God and individual is only a trustee of the property, then when the property that a person has can only be for the societies of all to benefit from the property or the resources that is available to mankind. This is why I said you have started from a wrong premise.
When you enter this argument, this sphere of argument, then you lose ground completely and use your bearing and direction. Then you begin to move in the direction of communist philosophy which is not meant by the Holy Quran. In fact you lose your bearing when you enter this and begin to surmise on this. The only conclusion that should be drawn from this premise that everything belongs to Allah is that He it is who should lay rules and regulations controlling everything. So the Holy Quran has laid down those rules and regulations and our economic system is also fully covered. So because we draw our authority from Allah, we follow that set of rules and regulations which have been laid down regarding our economy. And when you begin to discuss those rules and regulations, it’s a wide subject and this interest becomes only one part of that. So there it is a different thing altogether. Why interest is not charged? Because for compulsion either you have to give some impetus by way of some positive values or you scare somebody by imposing a punishment.
These are the two motive forces. It is some reward or punishment. These are the two motive forces for the entire human gamut of activity. You have not yet followed my point. Now the impetus for moving the economic wheel could also lie in either of the two directions. Either a reward should attract your attention and you get the economic wheel moving. Or a punishment should make you scared and force you, compel you to push the economic wheel again. Islam uses the second alternative. It says if you keep your capital idle, then you will be punished because we have imposed a tax on capital. If you employ that capital for the benefit of society, you will have to earn that tax so that you could pay without any loss to yourself, plus something for your own self. This is the way how the economic wheel is moved in Islam. Through a threat, not through a promise of reward.
If somebody keeps his capital idle, he will have to suffer. With the result that in a matter of few years, his entire capital would melt away. Because 2.5% this year and 2.5% the next year, plus the reduction in value of the currency, this will make the whole capital melt away within a matter of years. Where will it go? It will return to the society. This is how this is reverted to the whole state or society or some other people.
Can you explain what motive is there for a person to lend to another person in our society? You have asked me a very big question which I have answered so many times before at various places. But I should also like to answer this question at some length. But this time is too short. Here, if you begin at the beginning and don’t permit Mr. Bashir Hayat to take the floor before you, then perhaps we will be able to finish a part of this question.
