Perspectives on Morality and Human Well-Being. Syed Nawab Haider Naqvi
on Morality and Human Well-Being does represent Professor Naqvi’s mature thinking and deserves to be acknowledged as a high water mark in his intellectual journey to Islamic Economics. Three characteristics can be clearly discerned in the present study:
Firstly, he delves, diligently and objectively, into the philosophic premises of contemporary economics and has come up with an honest appraisal of their positive and negative dimensions. He takes economics, and contemporary economic thinking, seriously. As a seasoned researcher he tries to sift the grain from the chaff. He affirms the importance of the economic forces and of the factors that underlie growth. But he is very clear that growth, while necessary, is not enough. And this leads him to bring in the dimensions of justice, sharing and sacrifice as integral to the economic calculus. This becomes possible only in a framework in which ethics and economics are structurally integrated, and not merely juxtaposed or at best one acting as a mere appendage to the other.
Secondly, the book focuses on the sources of morality, both secular and religious, and powerfully demonstrates that the religious tradition, particularly the Islamic one, provides an appropriate framework for both private morality and public policy. His exposition of the Islamic moral strategy represents an acceptable and workable formulation in our times. The merit of discussion lies in raising the right questions, surveying the vast landscape of debate and discussion, past and present, and putting forward a formula that can be a basis for further discussion, research and policy formulation. The present work serves that function both ably and effectively.
Thirdly, this work represents a worthwhile shift from simple theoretical discussions and paves the way to evaluating the worth of specific policies on the basis of empirical information. An effort has been made to construct a profile of the contemporary Muslim world in the context of the global situation and to assess its worth in the light of the value-criteria based on the author’s formulation of Islamic policy objectives.
In my view Prof. Naqvi has covered fresh ground in all these three areas and as such the present work represents a landmark contribution towards the evolving discipline of Islamic Economics.
I have a couple of observations, however. I place them on record as items for future elaboration. The author’s discussion of Maqāṣid al-Sharī’ah is relevant and useful, but the question of their re-formulation in the context of contemporary challenges is a very sensitive issue. To deconstruct and reconstruct in fundamental areas of uṣūl is a gigantic task. There is no denying the need to build on what the luminaries have achieved in the past. But, as the author himself notes, the process has to be authentic as well as creative. In this context, the role of the Mu’tazilah remains controversial. Their contributions in fields of philosophy, morality and law, although important and path-breaking, remained overtly influenced by aspects of Greek philosopy. As such most of their innovative ideas never received complete acceptence by the Ummah. That is why the real influence on the mainstream Muslim thought remained marginal.
Similarly, the works of some writers like Zia Gokalp, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan etc., lack clarity and erudition, and their command over and understanding of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah and the science of Islamic jurisprudence is problematic. The door of ijtihād is open and must remain open to ensure the vitality and resilience of the Ummah. But competence and command over the original sources are equally important requirements for this challenging task, along with understanding the problems of the time. True, the forces representing conservatism have not managed to respond creatively to fresh challenges; yet also telling is the failure of the force of liberalism, which lacks vision, a commitment to original sources, and the competence to comprehend the ethos of tradition. Moreover even their understanding of the spirit and challenges of the modern age remains superficial, even somewhat slavish. The middle path then is the right option. Faith, fortitude and loyalty to Divine Principles should go hand in hand with creativity, flexibility and the ability to face the ever-changing intellectual, economic, technological and civilisational challenges. Perhaps what is needed is faith with fortitude, confidence with humility, loyalty with openness, and innovations rooted in tradition. This should be the defining character of the contemporary Islamic debate.
Prof. Naqvi has some strong opinions on some of the issues that emerge from his survey of the intellectual debate of the medieval period of Islamic history as well as the policy prescriptions that, in his opinion, are a logical demand of the empirical profiles based on UN data and definitions. Some of his recommendations (particularly on population policy) may not carry universal support, but that is not needed or even expected. His contribution lies in his painstaking examination of the issues and his bold suggestions to set the Ummah along the path to progress. Most of his observations will be endorsed by a large number of Islamic economists and thinkers. But as he disagrees with some of his colleagues, they too can express their reservations in respect of some of his suggestions and formulations. Therein lies the merit of debate and shūrā. Islamic Economics is not a body of agreed ideas; it is not a closed system. It represents a new approach to economics and society and is passing through a creative phase of discussion, dialogue, debate and reconstruction of thought and policy. Prof. Naqvi is a key participant in this resounding process. He has broken some new ground, and has shed light on old and new issues in Islamic economics. He has also stepped on some toes. That is part of the game. Yet his positive contributions are enough to assure him a place of distinction in this galaxy of creative writers and thinkers. He has definitely furthered the debate and improved the level of discussion. He has raised some pertinent questions that cannot be ignored. The answers lie in research, discussion and experimentation. Here, it is effort that is its own prize. It is the process that is important, and as long as it moves upwards and onwards, we have enough reason to thank Allah for making us participants in this effort to make the world a better place to live in for all human beings. Let us hope and pray that this intellectual odyssey brings us ever closer to our Lord, perhaps also towards our destiny, both now and in the hereafter.
| Islamabad | |
| September 7, 2002 | Prof. Khurshid Ahmad |
This book marks the culmination of a theme which I have been revisiting, like the ghost of Hamlet’s father, since 1978 – namely, the ethical foundations of Islamic economics. The theme is foundational because it explicitly recognises that individual economic well-being has a deep moral basis, which itself is rooted in religious beliefs. However, none of these statements is noncontroversial. The first part of the statement has for long been denied – or contemptuously ignored – by mainstream (i.e., neoclassical) economics, which insists on its secularity and amoral character. It is claimed that individual well-being and social and material prosperity are best looked after by rational behaviour, which simply means self-interestedness. The aim of economic activity, which is driven exclusively by selfishness and cupidity is, accordingly, to attain an “unimprovable” Pareto-optimal state in which everyone has a share but no responsibility, because there is nothing for an individual to be responsible for. This state, though distributionally neutral, is not regarded as morally reprehensible because it represents the highest feasible collective good. (How can anyone complain about a move from a Pareto-inferior to a Pareto-superior state?) It is, therefore, not rational for people to be committed to a cause or to make sacrifices if none are needed – to work for the good of others means taking a cut in one’s own welfare. Thus, a disregard of social welfare would be regarded as rational, and moral behaviour could be dismissed as irrational. The second part of the statement is even more controversial for its overt non-secularity. It remains unacknowledged even by those (now a rapidly multiplying tribe) who accept the essential morality of economic behaviour. The reason cited, though not always explicitly stated, is that what is morally correct (or incorrect) has been intuitively obvious to men/women of normal intelligence, even in times before the advent of Religion. Thus, the formation of moral intuition is independent of any particular religious beliefs. And even if religious beliefs are accepted as relevant, then these are dominated by secular morality. Therefore, they are redundant as determinants of human well-being.
But, despite the strength of the agnostic positions about its central theme, this work seeks to examine and challenge such positions about