Question:

A strong opinion is that the fundamentalists do not have a reliable economic programme. In this respect, a big hurdle is the issue of "interest". A half-hearted attempt was made in Pakistan (to eliminate ‘riba’), but that also terminated into following the interest-based system. It is claimed that industrialization in the private sector is not possible without commercial interest and (that) commercial interest is not usury. This has impressed many even in the Muslim society. It is felt that the Islamic forces do not have an alternative programme to Islamize the economy. Is it not a big failure?

Answer:

I do not agree with your hypothesis. Commercial interest and usury are one and the same thing. Usury is just a term, which people in the West deceptively use to create confusion, so that interest is distinguished from usury. Whereas, technically there is no difference between them.

Similarly, I also reject your contention that the Islamic Renaissance Movements have no economic programmes. It is certainly possible that we have yet not succeeded to present our economic reforms programme to the general public, with sufficient details and arguments that could satisfy every body. However, it is a fact that we have submitted our economic approach in wholly professional manner. We have explained what the development strategy should be? We have clarified how the problem of employment can be solved? We have provided guidelines how taxation system be re-structured? We have told how affairs of (private) property will be settled? We have pointed out ways how to eliminate interest? For private and commercial loans we developed and submitted 12 alternative modes and also experimented a few in the private sector.

All this has been done by the Islamic movements. Our real difficulty, however, is that those who have been ruling us, never believed or agreed to implement this policy. The result is that no serious effort has been made to move towards and implement this policy. If I may explain the situation through some historic analogy, then it can be said that we are at a stage where the socialist doctrine was before 1917. It did have a programme, but not the power of the state to implement it. So, to say that Islamic movements do not have a programme, is totally denying the reality. I submit with full conviction, that if Allah provides us the chance, we shall not loose a moment to start moving towards our goal. It depends on a number of factors how much time the system will require to change. A certain period for transition is unavoidable to which the shariah itself agrees. If the intention is good, there is nothing wrong with the step by step approach. There is room for this involuntary compulsion in our programme. The work done regarding interest is so much (and convincing) that even the non-Muslim economists express that interest-free system was practical. But, as the system is not present on ground, and if therefore, you would not proceed to implement it, then how the other people can accept it? Similarly, the Islamic banks that have been established (so far) provide only a partial experiment. The first thing is that these banks are in the private sector. Secondly, they have only tried to provide to the common citizen some instruments of interest-free transactions. Unless the interest-free banking system enjoys full support of the State authority, it cannot be fully demonstrated.

When the Sixth Five-Year Plan was being formulated in Pakistan, we presented a model to show what should be the development strategy within the Islamic framework. Later on, another document, professionally prepared in the form of a "Report of the Self-Reliance committee", was presented to the then (1992) Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif. The report mathematically proved how it was possible to eliminate interest and what steps were required to do that. But unfortunately Mian Sahib did not submit the report in the Parliament.

In any case, it is not so that we are making empty statements in certain vacuum or avoiding proper thinking and practical initiatives. Let me repeat that real cause of failure is that the state authority in the Muslim countries is held by people, who feel ashamed of any connection with Islamic ideology. As for constraints, these are always there. Even those who believe in capitalism and state welfarism, also face similar difficulties, whereas they have enough power, resources and time at their command. So, we can also face difficulties, and we are fully conscious of that. But we believe, that given the chance and God willing, we shall find the solution within our own framework.

Privatization could be a component of the Islamic development strategy, as well as an instrument of introducing the exploitative capitalist system. We differentiate between these two things. Privatization should not provide justification for bringing back the cruel capitalism. We wish the process should be correct and transparent so that it leads to establish the equitable system of Islamic adl (justice). This is the basic difference of our concept and the capitalist thinking.

Index Q&A