As for the Socialist economic system, with Communism being a part of it, it contradicts Capitalism. Most of the Socialist ideas appeared in the Nineteenth century. The Socialists fought fiercely against the opinions of the liberal school of thought i.e. they fought the Capitalist economic system. The powerful emergence of Socialism was due to the iniquity which the society suffered under Capitalism and owing to its many fallacies and inadequacies. By reviewing the Socialist schools of thought, it appears that they agree on three issues, which distinguish them from other economic schools of thought.

1. Achievement of a type of actual equality.

2. Abolition of private property either completely or partially.

3. The organisation of production and distribution of the commodities and services by means of all of the people.

However, despite their agreement over these three issues, they have fundamental differences over many points, the most important of which are:

Firstly: The Socialist schools of thought differ in the form of the eventual equality they aim to achieve. One group advocates arithmetic equality which means equality in every thing of benefit, thus each person is given an identical amount. Another group suggests common equality, which means observing the ability of everyone when distributing work and looking at the needs of every individual when distributing products. Equality in their view is established when the following principle is applied: “From each according to his strength i.e. his ability (meaning by this the work which He performs), and to each according to his need (meaning the distribution of production).” A third group adopts equality in the means of production, since the resources are not sufficient to meet the needs of all individuals, the basis of distribution becomes: “From each according to his strength i.e. his ability, and to each according to his work.” So equality is achieved when each person is facilitated of the means of production the same as others.

Secondly: The Socialist schools of thought differ in the quantity of private property which is to be abolished. One group adopts the abolition of private property completely, which is Communism. Another suggests the abolition of private property related to the means of production which is called capital i.e. factories, railways, mines and the like. Thus they prohibit the possession of any commodity which is used for production. Hence, one cannot own a house for the purpose of leasing it, nor a factory, nor a piece of land, but they may keep certain types of property for the purpose of consuming them. It is allowed for them to own everything they consume, so for example they can own a house to live in, and what the land and factories produce but not the land/factory itself. This is called Socialism of Capital. Another group does not advocate the abolition of private property except that which is relevant to agricultural land, these are the Agrarian Socialists (Agrarian Reformers). Yet another group says that every case in which public interest invites the transforming of a private property to public property, has to be studied. They call for restricted ownership of private property in many areas by putting laws for the maximum limit of interest and rent, a minimum limit for wages, and strive to give workers a share in the capital. This is called State Socialism.

Thirdly: The Socialist schools of thought differ in respect of the means they adopt to implement their objectives. Thus, revolutionary Socialism (Revolutionary Syndicalism) depends upon liberating the labour force by what it calls direct action i.e. the efforts of the labour force themselves, such as disruptive strikes, sabotage of machinery, and propagating the ideas of a General Strike amongst workers. They work to mobilise them around this idea, until the time comes when they are able to implement a General Strike, thus paralysing economic activity, which would eventually result in the demolition of the present economic system. As for the Marxist Socialists, they believe in the natural law of evolution in society and believe that this alone is sufficient to destroy the current system, which will then be replaced by another system built on Socialism.

As for the advocates of State (Government) Socialism, their means to implement their thoughts is through legislation. So, by issuing canons they warrant the preservation of public interests and improvement in the conditions of the labour force. Additionally, by levying taxes, particularly phased-in taxes on capital and inheritance, they suggest that they will close the gap between private properties.

Fourthly: The Socialist schools of thought differ with respect to the structure which is needed to administer the projects in the Socialist system. For example the Capital Socialists want to assign the organisation of production and distribution to the government (State), while the Syndicalists want to confer management to organised groups of labour, headed by their chiefs (Guild Socialism).

The most famous and influential among Socialist theories are those of the German, Karl Marx. His theories have dominated the Socialist world, and upon them the Communist Party and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in Russia were established. His theories continue to have a great impact until today.

One of the best known theories of Karl Marx is the theory of value, which He took from the thinkers of Capitalism, and upon which He attacked Capitalism. Adam Smith, who is considered the leader of the Liberal School of Thought in England and is viewed as the person who put the basis of the political economy i.e. the Capitalist economic system, defined value by saying: ‘The value of any commodity depends on the magnitude (quantity) of effort spent in its production.’ So the value of the commodity whose production needs two hours is worth twice the value of the commodity whose production needs only one hour. Ricardo who came after Adam Smith, explained his theory of work, when He defined value, saying: ‘What determines the value of the commodity is not only the quantity of work spent directly in its production, but also the work spent in the past, in producing the tools and machines used in the production process as well.’ This means that Ricardo believed that the value of the commodity depends on the expenses incurred during production. He referred these expenses to one element, which is the work.

After this, Karl Marx used Ricardo’s theory of value in Capitalism as a weapon to attack the concept of private property and Capitalism as a whole. He said that the only source of value is the work spent in a commodity’s production, and that the Capitalist financier buys the energy of a worker with a wage that does not exceed the limit necessary to keep Him alive and able to continue working. The financier then exploits the energy of the worker by making Him produce commodities, whose value greatly exceed that which is paid to the worker. Karl Marx called the difference between what the worker produces and what He is actually paid, the ‘surplus value’. He determined that this value represents what the landlords and the business people usurp from the worker’s rights, in the name of revenue, profit or rate of return on capital, a matter which He did not acknowledge as valid.

Karl Marx was of the opinion that the Socialist schools which came before Him had envisioned the success of their ideas to be dependent upon the inherent nature of the human being in his love for justice and support for the oppressed. These schools used to adopt new methods which they believed in, for their application upon society, and they presented these ideas to the governors, business people, and the enlightened people, urging them to implement their ideas. Karl Marx however, did not build his school of thought on this idea nor did He follow this approach. He built his school of thought on the basis of a philosophical doctrine known as the Theory of Historical Evolution, which is referred to as the Dialectic Theory. He conceived the establishment of the new system in society through the functional operation of the economic laws, and as a result of the law of evolution in society, without the intervention of a manager, a lawmaker, or a reformer. Karl Marx called this type of Socialism ‘Scientific Socialism’, to differentiate it from the Socialist methods that came before it and which were called ‘Utopian Socialism’. The Socialist theory of Karl Marx is summarised as follows:

The system of the society in any age is a result of the economic situation. The transformations which affect this system all come as a result of a class struggle to improve their material situation. History tells us that this struggle ends with the victory of the class which is greater in number and worse in condition, over the wealthier class which is fewer in number. He called this the law of social evolution. It applies to the future as well as the past. So, in previous ages this struggle existed between the freemen and the slaves, then between the nobles and the subjects, then later on between the nobles and the serfs (peasants), and between the leaders and chiefs in the order of sects. This struggle always ended with the victory of the oppressed class, which was greater in number, over the oppressor class, which was smaller in number. But after its victory the oppressed class turned to become a conservative oppressor class. Since the French revolution this struggle existed between the middle class (Bourgeoisie) and the working class. The first class became the masters of the economic projects, the owners of the capital, and became conservative. Facing it was the working class which owned nothing of the capital, but was much greater in number. Consequently, this situation led to a conflict of interest between the two classes, the origin of which was based on economic reasons. The production fashion today, does not conform to the system of ownership. Production no longer remains individualistic i.e. being performed by the person alone, as it was in past ages, but rather has become associative i.e. conducted by individuals together. At the same time however, the system of ownership has not changed. So individual ownership continues and is still the basis of the system in current society. As a result of this the working class, which participates in production, does not have a share in the ownership of the capital, and remains under the mercy of the Capitalists (the owners of the capital), who do not by themselves participate in production. The Capitalists exploit the labour force, paying it only subsistence wages, and the workers are compelled to accept it since they have nothing but their efforts to sustain themselves. The difference between the value of the product and the labour wage, which Marx calls the surplus value, constitutes the profit which the Capitalist monopolises, while justice assumes it should be the share of the workers.

So the conflict would continue between these two classes until the system of ownership conforms with the system of production i.e. when ownership becomes Socialist or collective. This struggle will end with the victory of the working class according to the law of evolution in society, since it is the oppressed class and is greater in number.

Regarding the manner in which the working class will succeed, and the reasons for its success, this is based on the law of evolution in society. The current system of economic life bears within itself the seeds of the forthcoming community, and this current system will vanish due to the effects of the economic laws to which it is subjected. There was a time when the middle class conquered the nobles and played an important role in economic life, since it became the owner of the capital. However, as the argument goes, its role has ended, and the time has come for it to relinquish its position to the working class.What obliges it to do so is the law of concentration and process of free competition. By the effect of the law of concentration the number of Capitalists (owners of the capital) diminishes, and the number of the working class increases. Through the effects of free competition, production surpasses every limit, and the quantity of production exceeds that which the consumers of the working class can buy with their low level of wage. This leads to a crisis causing some of the owners to lose their capital and enter the labour market. As the system progresses the intensity of crises increases, the gap between their occurrences closes, and the number of Capitalists decreases gradually. Then it is not long before a crisis greater than all the preceding crises occurs, of such major proportions that it demolishes the pillars of the Capitalist economic system, with the system of Socialism to be then established upon the Capitalist ruins. Marx conceived the emergence of Communism to be the last stage in the historical evolution, because it demolishes private property, and hence no more reason exists for the conflict of the classes in society, due to the absence of differences between them.

Karl Marx illustrated that the law of concentration was a part of the Capitalist economy. In summary, there is a migration of work and capital from some projects to others, so that some increase while others decrease. All these are scenarios which show the occurrence of concentration in production. If one investigated the number of projects in one branch of industrial production, such as chocolate factories for example, one would find that the number of projects had diminished gradually, over time, while the average number of the production work force increased in every project. This is an evidence that concentration occurred in this branch of production, since the greater sized production replaces the smaller production. So if the number of factories were for example, ten, they will in time become four or five large factories, and the rest will disappear.

Marx’s determination of free competition meant the principle of the freedom to work, which means that every person has the right to produce whatever He likes in the way He likes.

The economic crises, according to Marx, apply to every sudden disturbance that affects the economic equilibrium. The specific crisis includes all the kinds of crises which befall a particular branch of production, due to the imbalance between production and consumption. This incident occurs either due to overproduction or underproduction, or due to over-consumption or under-consumption.

As for the recurrent (periodic) major crisis, it appears in the form of violent convulsions which shake the pillars of the whole economic system, and becomes the point of separation between the period of economic boom and the period of economic depression. The periods of boom vary between three to five years in length, as do the periods of depression. Recurrent, major crises have special characteristics which distinguish them. These characteristics fall under three main qualities, which are: Firstly, the quality of generalisation. This means that in one country, the crisis hits all aspects of economic prosperity, or at least most of them. This general crisis appears at first in one country where it dominates, and then spreads to other leading industrial countries which were linked together by some permanent relations. The second quality is that it is recurrent. This means that the crisis occurs in repetitive and cyclical periods. The period which separates between one crisis and another fluctuates between seven and eleven years. Its occurrence is not over a fixed time although it is recurrent. The third quality is that of excessive production, such that the owners of the large projects face great difficulty in disposing of their products, so the supply exceeds demand for many products leading to the crisis.

Karl Marx considered that these major crises force some people to lose their capital, so the number of owners diminishes and the number of workers increases. These occurrences are what will lead finally to the major crisis in the society which demolishes the old system.

This is a summary of Socialism including Communism as one of its forms. From this summary it appears that the Socialist schools of thought including the Communists, strive to achieve real equality amongst the individuals; either equality in benefits, equality in the means of production, or absolute equality. Any kind of such equality is impossible to achieve, and it is nothing but a hypothetical assumption. It is impractical and therefore impossible. This is because equality in itself is unreal, and thus impractical. People by the very nature with which they were created vary in their physical and mental capabilities, and they vary in the satisfaction of their needs. So equality amongst them cannot be achieved. Even if one distributed equal shares of commodities and services among the people by force, it would be impossible for them to be equal in using this wealth in production or utilisation. And it would be impossible for them to be equal in terms of the quantity they need to satisfy their respective needs. Therefore, equality between them is a speculative and hypothetical concern.

Moreover, equality by itself amongst people, while they are different in strength/power, is considered far from the justice which the Socialists claim they try to achieve. The disparity between people in terms of ownership, and in the means of production, is inevitable and quite normal. Every attempt at achieving equality is destined for failure as it contradicts with the natural disparity existent amongst human beings.

Regarding the complete abolition of private property, this contradicts with man’s nature, because ownership is a manifestation of the survival instinct, which is definitely existent in man. Being natural in him, a part of him, and a manifestation of his natural energy, it is impossible to be eliminated since it is instinctive. Anything that is instinctive in man cannot be eliminated from Him as long as He is alive. Any attempt to abolish private property is nothing but a suppression of the human beings natural instincts, and can only lead to anxiety. Therefore, it is natural to organise this instinct rather than trying to eliminate it.

With regard to the partial abolition of ownership, it has to be studied. If what is meant by this is to put a ceiling on the magnitude of commodities that can be owned, then this would be a limitation in quantity, which is wrong, since it limits the activity of man, obstructs his efforts, and reduces his production. By preventing people from owning that which exceeds a certain level, this effectively stops them at that limit, interrupting the individuals from their activities, and thereby depriving the community from benefitting from the activities of these individuals.

However, if ownership of commodities and services is restricted to a certain manner without restriction in the quantity owned, this would be acceptable, as it does not obstruct the activity of man. This approach organises the ownership of property among individuals, and encourages them to expend more effort and increase activity.

If the partial abolition of ownership means that the individual is prevented from owning certain properties, whilst other properties can be owned without any limit over the quantity, this has to be examined. If the beneficial nature of these properties cannot be enjoyed by the individual alone, except by depriving the public of that property, then it is natural to prevent the individual from owning that property individually; such as public roads, town squares, rivers, seas, and the like. The restriction is decided by the nature of the property. There is, therefore, nothing wrong in banning the individual ownership of those properties which are of associative benefit, because this ownership was determined by the nature of the property itself.

If the nature of the property does not require prohibition of individual ownership, further analysis should still be conducted; if the property can be included under the first type i.e. properties whose individual ownership would deprive the community, such as water and mineral resources, then there is nothing wrong in banning their individual ownership. The issue which makes this type of property included under the first type is that by its nature if it was owned individually it would deprive the community of it. However, if owning the property does not deprive the community of it, then there should be no restriction on its ownership. To do so would unfairly limit ownership for no reason. This would be like limiting the ownership by quantity which will only result in restricting man’s activities, interrupting his efforts, reducing his production, and stopping Him from work when He reaches the set limit of ownership.

The partial abolition of ownership in Socialism is a limitation of ownership by quantity, rather than by the ways and means of ownership. It prevents ownership of some properties, which by their nature and by the nature of their origin should be individually owned. Socialism either limits ownership in magnitude, such as limiting ownership of land up to a certain area, or it limits ownership of certain properties such as the means of production. Many of these properties, by their nature, could be owned by individuals. Ownership restrictions of this type of property restricts activity whether the restriction was pre-specified by the law, such as preventing inheritance, ownership of mines, railways, or factories; or if it were left to the State to decide, on a case by case basis, to prevent possession wherever public interest requires it to do so. All this is restriction of the activity of individuals, for these properties by their very nature can be owned by individuals.

The organisation of production and distribution through people cannot (and should not) be achieved by inciting disturbances and anxiety amongst people, or by inciting hatred between them. This can only lead to anarchy, rather than organisation. Furthermore, the organisation of production in the community cannot be achieved naturally by making the working class feel the oppression of business people, since the business people could be smart and ingenious enough to satisfy the needs of the labour force, as is the case with the factory workers in the United States. So the working class do not feel the oppression in terms of having the fruits of their efforts exploited. In this way the evolution which would better organise production and distribution would not occur. This organisation should come through proper laws and solutions which are built on a definite basis that deals with the real nature of the problems. Socialism relies on organising the production and distribution, whether by inciting tension and disturbances amongst the working class, or by the natural law of evolution in society, or through manmade (Wadh’iya) legislation and canons that do not emanate from a definite basis or creed. Therefore this organisation is false from its basis.

This outlines the fallacies of Socialism. With regard specifically to the Socialism of Karl Marx, its fallacy appears in three aspects:

Firstly: His opinion on the theory of value is erroneous and disagrees with reality. The opinion, stating that the only source for the value of the commodity is the work spent in its production, disagrees with reality since the spent work is only one but not the only source of its value. There are other elements, besides the work, that enter in the value of the commodity. There is the raw material upon which the work was carried out, or the demand for the benefit of the commodity as well. The raw material could contain a benefit that exceeds the work spent in its procurement such as in hunting for example. The benefit of the commodity could have no demand in the market, and be forbidden for export, such as wine for Muslims. So putting work as the only source of value is incorrect, and does not conform to the reality of the commodity as it is.

Secondly: His opinion states that the social order existing at any time, is a product of the economic situation, and that the various transformations which befall this system are all due to one reason, which is the struggle of the classes for the objective of improving their material situation. This opinion is erroneous, baseless, and built upon a doubtful and hypothetical assumption. The reason for its error and disagreement with reality is obvious from historical events and the current situation.We see that the transformation of Russia into Socialism did not occur due to a materialistic evolution, nor due to a class struggle that led to the change of the system. Rather, a group took over through a bloody revolution, and started to apply its thoughts upon the people, and changed the system. The same happened in Socialist China. The application of Socialism in East Germany rather than West Germany, and Eastern Europe rather than Western Europe did not occur as a result of any class struggle. Rather it occurred through the conquering of these countries by a Socialist State which imposed its system upon the conquered nations. The same occurred with the Capitalist states, with the Islamic State, and with any other system. Furthermore, the countries which this law predicted would change their system through class struggle, namely Germany, England, and the United states, are all Capitalist countries where the owners of capital and workers are many. They were not Czarist Russia or China, which were agricultural rather than industrial, and where the number of owners of capital and workers were much fewer in comparison to the West. Despite the overwhelming presence of the two classes in Western Europe and the United states, they were not converted to Socialism, and they all still apply Capitalism till this day. The presence of these two classes (i.e.capital owners and workers) did not have any effect on their system. This alone is enough to refute this theory from its basis.

The third appearance of error in Karl Marx’s theory appears in what He said about the law of social evolution, that the system of economic life is destined for extinction by the effect of the economic laws which control it, and that the middle class which won the battle against the class of the nobles i.e. the owners of the capital will ultimately evacuate their place for the labour class, due to the law of concentration. The theory of Karl Marx concerning concentration of production, on which He builds the increase in the number of the workers and the decrease in the number of the owners of capital, is false. This theory is false because there is a limit which concentration of production cannot overstep. So it arrives at a certain limit and stops and thus will no longer be a catalyst in the evolution imagined by Marx. Moreover, concentration of production does not exist at all in one of the main branches of production, namely agriculture. How then can the law of evolution occur in society? Besides, Karl Marx asserts that concentration of production is followed by concentration of wealth (resources), which results in a reduction in the number of financiers, and an increase in the number of workers, who own nothing. This view is erroneous, since the concentration of production could result in an increase in the number of capital owners, and could result in the working class becoming capital holders. The major projects, which are conducted by the large Corporations, usually have shareholders from the working class, which is an example that refutes this theory. Moreover, many of the working class in the factories have high salaries, such as engineers, chemists and managers, thus being able to save a great part of their salaries, and becoming investors themselves, without the need to establish independent projects. Therefore, what Karl Marx propounded about workers and evolution does not apply to them.

This is but a brief examination of the principles upon which the Capitalist and Socialist, from which came the Communist, economic systems are established. From this examination the fallacies present in these principles are apparent. This is on the one hand; on the other hand, both systems are contradictory to the Islamic method in addressing the problems and contradictory to Islam itself.

As to their contradiction to the Islamic method of solving the problems, one finds that the Islamic method in solving the economic problem is the very same method Islam uses in solving any of the other human problems. The common approach of Islam is to study the reality of the economic problem, understand it, and then deduce a solution for the problem from the Shari’ah texts after studying these texts, and to ensure that they apply to that particular problem. This is different from the Capitalist and Socialist method. In Capitalism, the situation which resulted from the problems, is used as a source for the solutions (pragmatism). In Socialism the solutions are taken from hypothetical assumptions which are imagined to be existent in the problem, and the solutions are put according to these assumptions. Each of these two methods is different to the method of Islam, so it is not allowed for a Muslim to adopt them.

The contradiction of the Capitalist and Socialist, and from it the Communist, economies to Islam is that Islam adopts its solutions as divine rules (Ahkam Shari’ah) derived from the legislative sources while the Capitalist and Socialist economic solutions are not divine rules, but are from a system of Kufr. Judging on things according to them means ruling with other than what Allah has revealed, which is not allowed for any Muslim to adopt in any way. Their adoption is an open sin (Fisq) if their adopter does not believe in them. But if He believed that they are the proper rules and that Islamic rules do not suit the modern age and do not offer solutions to the current economic problems, then this is kufr, may Allah (swt) protect us from it.