Human Vicegerency and the Golden Rule: The Islamic Case Against Exclusion

• Author: Ayman Reda
• Published date: 01 September 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12290
• Date: 01 September 2019

Human Vicegerency and the Golden Rule:

The Islamic Case Against Exclusion

By AymAn RedA*

AbstRAct. The Islamic conception of social exclusion complements the

Catholic perspective found in other contributions to this issue. The

Islamic prohibitions of social exclusion are derived from theological

principles that combine to provide a metaphysical basis for the golden

rule that one should treat others as one wishes to be treated. This

article examines the roots of a practical morality that enjoins us to

treat other people as equals and prohibits exploitation of them in

economic exchange. This philosophy is based on four principles

found in the Qur’an and the hadith (teachings of the Prophet):

vicegerency, commensurability, responsibility, and prophecy. These

four principles combine to show how humans, as God’s agents on

earth, have the means to carry out the divine will. The practice of

justice in Islamic thought does not rely on social conventions that are

variable and contingent but on absolute principles revealed to us by

the Prophet. That gives Islam an advantage over secular thought in

establishing a strong foundation for social and ethical principles that

give egalitarianism a transcendent basis. Thus, social inclusivity in

Islamic thought is an integral part of a life governed by piety and

prophecy.

Introduct ion

Islam places great importance on the life of communities. It provides

guidance to prevent communities from being torn by social divisions.

In this respect, it is similar to the views of Pope Francis and the

Catholic tradition, as discussed by the other authors in this issue. But

the Islamic concern with inclusivity arises from a different theological

history. It derives originally from the Prophet, who taught as follows:

American Jour nal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Septem ber, 2019).

DOI: 10 .1111/ajes.122 90

© 2019 American Journa l of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

*Lecturer of Economics at the University of Michigan in Dearborn. Email: areda@

umich.edu

896 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

That which God has given in spoi ls to His Messenger from the people

of the towns is for God and His Messenger, and for kinfolk, or phans,

the indigent, and the traveler, that it not come to circulate among your

wealthy. Whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatsoever he

forbids to you, forgo, and reverence God. Truly God is severe in retribu-

tion. (Qur’an 59:7)

Many verses in the Qur’an were revealed to the Prophet as decla-

rations or injunctions directed at a specific hi storical event or devel-

opment, on the one hand, and as a perpetual guide to Muslims, on

the other. The above verse is no exception. While specifically aimed

at the booty collected by the Prophet and his companions from a

nearby tribe who “surrendered [it] without a fight,” the clear major-

ity of Muslim exegetes and theologians have argued that the verse

applies to almost any property that falls under the legal purview of

the Muslim co mmunity:

Although this verse provides speci fic rulings pertaining to the dist ribution

of booty after the defeat of the Ba nu ’l-Naḍīr, Muslims have often taken

the injunction W hatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatsoeve r

he forbids to you, forgo, and revere nce God as a more general command

applying to all that was enjoined by the Prophet, in accord with ma ny

verses that command Muslim s to obey God and obey the Messenge r (3:32;

4:59; 5:92; 24:54; 47:33; 64:12; see also 3:132; 4:80; 7:156–157; 8:1, 20, 46;

33:33; 49:14; 58:13). Hence this verse is often lin ked to a famous saying of

the Prophet: “When I order you to do something, then do as much of it

as you can. If I forbid something for you, then shun it.” (Nasr 2015: 1352)

Of central significance to this essay is the general pr inciple, clearly

stated in the verse, that the distribution of propert y that the Prophet

was to administer aimed at ensuri ng that property would “not come

to circulate among [the] wealthy.” According to the commentary by

Seyyed Hossein Nasr (2015: 1352), this statement indicates that the

Prophet “sought to distribute the spoils of the siege in a manner that

would establish greater economic parity among the Muslims.” Instead

of such property “being used to fur ther enrich the wealthy, [they] are

to be distributed among the poor.” This interpretation of the verse is

supported by the exegeses of two prominent Muslim jurists of the 20th

century, Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr and Muhammad H. Fadlallah. Bot h