Koma daukar tattalin arziki ya durkushe, rikicin kudi, gwamnati ta karɓi kamfanonin da mallakar mutane ne, da kuma ruftawar tattalin arzikin intanet, duk sun sa tsarin siyasa da tattalin arziki na 'yanci wajen kasuwanci da tsayuwar kai ga mutum ɗaya ya zama tsarin da ya lalace. Akwai kusan yarjejeniya baki ɗaya cewa ana buƙatar canji mai zurfi ga tsarin siyasa da tattalin arziki na yanzu cikin gaggawa. Wannan canji ya bayyana a kafafen yaɗa labarai ta hanyoyi da kalamai daban-daban. Ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan kalamai an aro shi ne daga kalaman Obama, "sake gina Amurka," wanda aka maimaita a shafin farko na jaridun New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, da sauran jaridu da yawa127.

The economic meltdown, the financial crisis, the government takeover of privately owned enterprise, and the implosion of the virtual economy render the entire politico-economic model of free enterprise and rugged individualism a broken one. There is almost unanimous agreement that a fundamental change to the current politico-economic model is urgently needed. This change appeared in the media in various forms and slogans. One of these slogans was borrowed from Obama’s words, “remaking America,” which was repeated in the front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, and many more127.

Wannan yanayin ya soke imani cewa jari-hujja a sigarta mafi tsafta ta kasuwa marar iyaka ita ce mafi girma kuma matsayi na ƙarshe a juyin tattalin arzikin tarihi, imanin da ya kai kololuwarsa lokacin da nau'in gurguzu na Soviet ya rushe a 1991. Francis Fukayama, wanda ya goyi bayan ra'ayin cewa kasuwa marar iyaka ita ce mafi fifiko a littafinsa End of History and the Last Man,33 ya soke wannan imani a 2008 lokacin da ya rubuta, "The Fall of America, Inc." Wannan kasida da ta bayyana a cikin bugun Newsweek a ranar 4 ga Oktoba, 2008, ta bayyana cewa sigar jari-hujja ta yanzu ta gaza; a cikin kalmomin Fukayama, "wani hangen nesa na jari-hujja ya rushe." Ana bukatar sabon hangen nesa.

This tone has revoked the belief that capitalism in its purest free market form was the ultimate and highest point of historic economic evolution, a belief which climaxed as the Soviet brand of socialism collapsed in 1991. Francis Fukayama, who advocated the notion of free market superiority in his book End of History and the Last Man,33 revoked that belief in 2008 when he wrote, “The Fall of America, Inc.” The article which appeared in the Newsweek edition on October 4, 2008, declared that the current version of capitalism has failed; in Fukayama’s words, “a certain vision of capitalism has collapsed.” A new vision is required.

"A New Form of capitalism Can Remake Broken Country" shine taken na wata makala wacce ta bayyana a jaridar Independent Daily a ranar 22 ga Janairu, 2009,127. Makalar ta bayyana wani sabon ci gaba na tsarin jari-hujja wanda zai iya zama abin koyi ga hadin gwiwa mai fadi tsakanin gwamnati da kamfanoni masu zaman kansu.

“A New Form of capitalism Can Remake Broken Country” is the title of another article which appeared in the Independent Daily newspaper on January 22, 2009,127. The article suggests a new evolution of capitalism that could serve as model for broader collaboration between government and private enterprise.

Sunayen da aka gabatar don sabon salon jari-hujja sun nuna yadda hoton jari-hujja ya lalace a idanun jama'a. Ɗaya daga cikin littattafan da aka buga128 ya gabatar da waɗannan sunaye madadin sabbin nau'ikan jari-hujja: "Bubble Capitalism," "Ponzi Capitalism," "Crony Capitalism," da "Geonomic James Arthur Ray, marubuci mafi sayarwa na New York Times, ya rubuta "A New Form of Capitalism: Dealing with the Cause Versus the Effect," wanda ya bayyana a HuffPost Social News129. A cikin wannan makala, James Arthur ya yi gardama cewa gurguzu da/ko kwaminisanci ba za su zama madadin jari-hujja mai yiwuwa ba, domin gurguzu da kanta ta gaza. Ya kammala da cewa: "Ina ganin jari-hujja ita ce kaɗai zaɓi mai yiwuwa. Duk da haka, dole ne a karɓi sabon nau'in jari-hujja, wanda nake kira Conscious Capitalism." Conscious Capitalism ta magance al'amarin ɗabi'a a bayan gazawar tsarin kasuwa na jari-hujja na yanzu.

The names that have been suggested for a new form of capitalism show how the image of capitalism has been tarnished in the eyes of the public. One of the publications128 presents the following alternative names for new forms of capitalism: “Bubble Capitalism,” “Ponzi Capitalism,” “Crony Capitalism,” and “Geonomic James Arthur Ray, New York Times best-selling author, wrote “A New Form of Capitalism: Dealing with the Cause Versus the Effect,” which appeared in the HuffPost Social News129. In this article, James Arthur argues that socialism and/or communism cannot be a viable alternative to capitalism because socialism itself has failed. He concludes, saying, “I submit capitalism is the only viable option. Yet a new type of capitalism must be adopted, a type that I call Conscious Capitalism.” Conscious capitalism addressed the moral factor behind the failure of current free market capitalism.

A cikin Taron Shekara-shekara na Davos na 2008, Bill Gates ya yi magana kan buƙatar wani sabon salon jari-hujja, wanda ya kira "Jari-hujja Mai Kirkira" (Creative Capitalism)130. Bill Gates ya bayyana cewa duniya a yau tana buƙatar "ƙirƙirar tsari fiye da ƙirƙirar fasaha" (system innovation than technology innovation). Jari-hujja mai kirkira, a cewar Bill Gates, ya kamata ya yi amfani da yawan aiki da ake samu sakamakon neman moriyar kai, a lokaci guda kuma ya amfani waɗanda ba su da damar samun riba. A taƙaice, Bill Gates yana kira ga wata hanya ta rarraba dukiya ban da tsarin farashi da ƙarfin kasuwa.

In the Davos Annual Meeting 2008, Bill Gates addressed the need for a new form of capitalism, which he called “Creative Capitalism”130. Bill Gates stated that the world today needs more “system innovation than technology innovation.” Creative capitalism, according to Bill Gates, should harness the productivity generated by the pursue of self-interest, while at the same time it benefits the ones who do not have access to the profit. In essence, Bill Gates calls for a mechanism for wealth distribution other than the price mechanism and the forces of the market.

Richard M. Ebeling, shugaban Gidauniyar Ilimin Tattalin Arziki (Foundation for Economic Education), yana jayayya cewa babu wani abu da ake kira "jari-hujja" (capitalism). Maimakon haka, akwai nau'o'in jari-hujja daban-daban da gwamnatoci da al'ummomi za su iya zaɓa daga cikinsu131. A cewar Ebeling, nau'o'in jari-hujja irin na gurguzu ko na fashisanci ana watsar da su ne kawai saboda ma'anonin harshe da ra'ayin akida da ke da alaƙa da waɗannan kalmomi.

Richard M. Ebeling, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, argues that there is no such thing as “capitalism.” Rather there are different types of capitalism from which governments and societies may choose131. According to Ebeling, the socialist or fascist brands of capitalism are dismissed only because of the linguistic and ideological connotation associated with these words.

Ainihin matsalar ba ita ce yadda za a sake sunan jari-hujja ba. Idan wannan ce matsalar, za a iya shirya gasar duniya da kyauta mai kyau domin zaɓi daga cikin sunaye iri-iri ko a ƙirƙiro sabon suna gaba ɗaya. Don lissafa wasu daga cikin sunayen da aka yi ta tattaunawa a kansu a wasu littattafai da jaridu, ga gajeren jeri: Jari-hujjar Sassaucin Ra'ayi, Jari-hujjar Zamantakewa, Jari-hujjar Fashisanci, Jari-hujjar Ƙasa, Jari-hujjar Ƙirƙira, Jari-hujjar Gama-gari, Jari-hujjar Gasa, Jari-hujjar Sanin Ya Kamata, Jari-hujjar Kumfa, Jari-hujjar Ponzi, Jari-hujjar Cronyism, Jari-hujjar Geonomic, da kuma duk wani suna makamancin haka.

The real issue here is not how to rename capitalism. If this was the issue, a world contest could be organized with a nice prize to choose from a wide range of names or to come up with a totally new name. To list a few of the names that have been tossed around in one or another publications, here is a short list: Liberal Capitalism, Social Capitalism, Fascist Capitalism, National Capitalism, Creative Capitalism, Collective Capitalism, Competing Capitalism, Conscious Capitalism, Bubble Capitalism, Ponzi Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Geonomic Capitalism, and What-Have-You capitalism.

Muhadarorin da ake yi kan salon jari-hujja, makomar jari-hujja, sake sunan jari-hujja, ci gaban jari-hujja, da gazawar jari-hujja, sun bayyana manyan abubuwa uku na asali da ya zama dole a yi la'akari da su idan ana tunanin sake tsara tsarin tattalin arziki. Na farko kuma mafi muhimmanci yana da alaƙa da bangaren ɗabi'a na tsarin. Kusan dukkan masana sun amince baki ɗaya cewa rugujewar tsarin tattalin arziki da siyasa na kasuwa mai 'yanci ta riga ta kasance tare da rugujewar tsarin ɗabi'a da ke tallafa masa. Da yake gane wannan abu, James Arthur ya gabatar da abin da ya kira "Jari-hujja Mai Sani." Sabon tsarin, ko wane irin suna aka ba shi, ... Jari-hujja.”

The discussions on the brand of capitalism, the future of capitalism, the renaming of capitalism, the evolution of capitalism, and the failure of capitalism reveal three major fundamental factors which must be taken into consideration when considering a restructuring of the economic system. The first and foremost has to do with the moral aspect of the system. It is almost unanimously agreed across the board that the collapse of the free market politico-economic model was preceded by a collapse of the moral structure that supports it. Recognizing this factor, James Arthur proposed what he called the “Conscious Capitalism.” The new system, no matter Capitalism.”.

Sunan da za a ba shi, dole ne ya ƙunshi tsarin ɗabi'a. Tsarin ɗabi'a dole ne ya kasance a haɗe da tsarin sosai, ba za a iya raba shi da shi ba. Tsarin ɗabi'a ba zaɓi ba ne, ko ƙarin abu da aka ƙara ba; dole ne ya zama wani ɓangare na asali na tsarin.

what name it bears, must incorporate a moral model. The moral model must be tightly coupled with and inseparable from the system. The moral model cannot be an option, or an extra added value; it has to be an integral part of the system.

Factor na biyu yana da alaƙa da rarraba dukiya ta yadda mafi rauni da matalauta a cikin al'umma su samu damar amfana da manyan ribar da ake samu ta hanyar neman moriyar kai. Ba abu ne karɓaɓɓe ba a rayu a duniya inda jimillar dukiya ta wuce dala tiriliyan 100, sannan kashi 20 cikin ɗari na al'ummarta (sama da biliyan ɗaya) suna rayuwa da ƙasa da dala ɗaya a rana. Sabon tsarin, ko da wane suna ya ɗauka, dole ne ya ƙunshi tsarin rarrabawa wanda ke gane cewa dukiyar da aka samar ba koyaushe take isa ga wani ɓangare na al'umma ba saboda dalilai iri-iri. Tsarin rarrabawar dole ne ya zama wani ɓangare na tsarin baki ɗaya, ba zaɓi da za a iya ƙarawa ko cire shi ba bisa ga ra'ayin 'yan siyasa game da yanayin cikin gida ko na duniya. Tsarin rarrabawar dole ne ya zama a bayyane har ta kai ga tsarin shari'a da na siyasa su iya aiwatar da shi da ƙarfin doka.

The second factor has to do with wealth distribution such that the least privileged and the poorest in a society may have the chance to benefit from the large sums of profits generated by the power of self-interest pursuit. It is simply unacceptable to live in a world with accumulative wealth exceeding $100 trillion and 20% of its population (more than one billion) lives under $1 a day. The new system, no matter what name it bears, must incorporate a distribution mechanism which recognizes the fact that the produced wealth may not reach a segment of the population for all types of reasons. The distribution mechanism must be an integral part of the system and not an option that can be added or removed by politicians based on local or world conditions. The distribution mechanism must be explicit to the extent that the judicial system and political system can enforce it with the power of law.

Factor na uku yana da alaƙa da buƙatar mallakar gwamnati da ta jama'a su rayu tare da mallakar masu zaman kansu. Wannan buƙata masana tattalin arziki da 'yan siyasa da yawa sun amince da ita, kuma an santa da tsarin jari-hujja na Keynes (dangane da John Maynard Keynes na Birtaniya). Keynes ya yi hujjar cewa dole ne gwamnati ta shiga tsakani don daidaita kasuwa. Wannan buƙata an ƙara tabbatar da ita ta hanyar ayyukan baya-bayan nan a Amurka da wasu ƙasashen Turai da dama, inda gwamnatoci suka mallaki bankuna, kamfanonin inshora, masana'antun kera motoci, da sauransu.

The third factor has to do with the need for state and public ownership to coexist with private ownership. This necessity has been recognized by scores of economists and politicians and had been known as Keynesian brand of capitalism (in reference to John Maynard Keynes of Great Britain). Keynes argued that the government must intervene to stabilize the market. This necessity has been further asserted through the most recent practices in the United States and score of other European countries, where governments moved to acquire the ownerships of banks, insurance companies, auto industries, and others.

Amma mallakar gwamnati ba za a iya amfani da ita ba bisa tushen buƙata kawai ko a ƙarƙashin taken "too big to fail" (wato "babba har ba zai faɗi ba"). Ya kamata a ayyana mallakar gwamnati da zurfi sosai; ya zama wani muhimmin ɓangare na tsarin da yake ƙayyade iyakar mallakar mutum, mallakar gwamnati, da mallakar al'umma baki ɗaya. Ba za a bar batun wanda ya mallaki me ga yanayin siyasa da tattalin arziki ya yanke ba. Kada a bar shi har sai rikici ya afka cikin gida, sannan ya tilasta 'yan siyasa su yanke shawarar wace dukiya za su mallaka da wacce za su wargaza. "Too big to fail" ƙa'ida ce mai faɗi da ba ta da iyaka, don haka ba za a iya amfani da ita yadda ya kamata ba.

But state ownership cannot be applied on a need only basis and under the slogan of “too big to fail.” State ownership should be more fundamentally defined; it should be an integral part of the system which defines the scope of private ownership, the state ownership, and the public common ownership. Who owns what should not be left to the political and economic conditions to dictate. It should not be left until crisis hit home and then force politicians to decide on which property to own and which property to dissolve. “Too big to fail” is too vague of a principle to apply.

Gwamnatin Amurka ta yi ƙoƙarin mallakar wani muhimmin ɓangare na General Motors, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae da Bear Stearns bisa ƙa'idar “too big to fail” (ya yi girma da ba za a bar shi ya faɗi ba). Yanzu gwamnati tana da iko mai girma na yanke shawara kan irin motocin da za a kera da kuma irin jinginar gidaje da za a samu ga masu sayen gidaje. Shin gwamnati za ta mallaki wani ɓangare na Wal-Mart idan ya taɓa fuskantar wahala kuma a ɗauke shi a matsayin “too big to fail”? Kuma gwamnati za ta yanke shawara kan irin tufafin da mutane za su sa? Haka Tarayyar Soviet ta gudanar da mulkinta a zamanin gurguzu. Gaskiya ne cewa dukiyar jiha ya kamata ta kasance cikin tsarin tattalin arziki, amma ya kamata a bayyana ta sosai bisa ginshiƙan asali na tsarin. Ba zai iya zama zaɓi ko ƙarin ƙima ga tsarin ba. Dukiyar jiha da ta jama'a ya kamata doka ta kare ta kamar yadda ake kare dukiyar mutum. Ba za a taɓa canza dukiyar mutum zuwa dukiyar jiha ko ta jama'a ba; haka kuma, dukiyar jiha da ta jama'a bai kamata a mayar da ita batun mayar da ita ta mutane ba. Iyakokin kowannensu dole ne tsarin ya bayyana su a fili, ba a bar wa yanayi da 'yan siyasa su saita su ba.

The US government moved to own a significant portion of General Motors, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Bear Stearns using the principle of “too big to fail.” Now the government has an overwhelming power of deciding what cars will be produced and what mortgages will be available for home buyers. Would the government move to own part of Wal-Mart if it ever experiences hardship and be deemed as too big to fail? And the government would decide on what type of clothes the people would wear? This is how the Soviet Union operated during the socialist era. It is true that state property should be part of the economic system, but it should be well defined based on integral principals of the system. It cannot be an option or an added value to the system. State and public property should be protected by law in the same manner private property is protected. Private property should never be transferred into state or public property; by the same token, state and public property should never be subject for privatization. The limits and boundaries of each must be clearly defined by the system and not left for the conditions and politicians to set these limits.

Waɗannan abubuwa uku: tsarin ɗabi'a, hanyar rarraba dukiya, da iyakokin mallakar dukiya, su ne ainihin matsalar da ke cikin tsarin jari-hujja. Mafita ga wannan matsala ba ta kasancewa a kawai sauya sunan jari-hujja. Haka kuma ba za a iya samun mafita ta hanyar ƙara wasu gyare-gyare ga tsarin ba. Idan aka haɗa abubuwan uku cikin tsarin, asalin jari-hujja zai canja har al'ummomin nan gaba ba za su sake gane cewa jari-hujja ce ba. Canje-canje na asali ga ginshiƙan tsarin ba al'amari ba ne na sauyi a hankali.

These three factors: the moral model, the wealth distribution mechanism, and the property ownership boundary limits, are the essence of the crisis within capitalism. The solution to this crisis is not simply a renaming of capitalism. Neither can a solution be obtained by augmenting the system with some modifications. When the three factors are integrated into the system, the fundamentals of capitalism would have changed in a manner that the future generations would not recognize capitalism at all. Fundamental changes to the principals of a system are not a matter of evolution.

Lokacin da 'yan gurguzu a ƙarshe suka gane cewa akwai manyan lahani a cikin gurguzu, sai suka yanke shawarar barin ta; suka maye gurbin tsarin gaba ɗaya. Babu ma'ana a gyara shi, ko ƙara sababbin abubuwa a cikinsa, ko sauya shi zuwa gurguzun jari-hujja, gurguzun 'yanci, gurguzun zamani, gurguzun ƙasa, gurguzun sani, gurguzun kirkira, ko duk wani nau'in gurguzu da za a iya kira. Perestroika na Gorbachev ya soke gurguzu gaba ɗaya. Madadin da Rashawa suka samu a lokacin shi ne jari-hujja. Sun koma jari-hujja da ƙarfi sosai.

When the socialists finally realized that there were major defects within socialism, they decided to move on; they replaced the system altogether. There was no sense in mending it, adding new features, or evolving it into a capitalist socialism, liberal socialism, modern socialism, national socialism, conscious socialism, creative socialism, or what-have-you socialism. The perestroika of Gorbachev abolished socialism altogether. The alternative for the Russians at the time was capitalism. They moved to capitalism with full force.

Menene madadin jari-hujja (capitalism) a yau? Ba shakka gurguzu (socialism) ba zabi ba ce. Gurguzu ta gaza bayan an gwada ta sama da shekara saba'in. A cikin kashi na gaba na wannan littafi, zan yi bayani cewa Musulunci yana ba da madadi mai inganci. Yana ba da tsarin da ya hada da tsayayyen mallakar dukiya, tare da bayyanannen bambanci tsakanin mallakar mutum, mallakar gwamnati, da mallakar jama'a. Yana kuma kunshe da hanyar rarraba arziki wadda ke kawar da talauci, tana kuma kara yawan aiki da samar da arziki, kuma yana ba da tsarin dabi'a mai karko kuma mai amfani.

What is the alternative to capitalism today? Of course socialism is not an option. Socialism failed after it has been tested for more than seventy years. In the next part of this book, I argue that Islam provides a viable alternative. It provides a system that integrates a well-defined property ownership with clear distinction between private, state, and public; it incorporates a wealth distribution mechanism which eliminates poverty while it boosts productivity and wealth generation, and it provides a sound and practical moral model.

Hujjata ta a cikin wannan littafi ita ce cewa Musulunci yana ba da cikakken tsari na siyasa da tattalin arziki. Yana magana kan ginshiƙan asali da duk wani tsarin tattalin arziki dole ne ya tsaya a kansu. Yana bayyana ra'ayin mallakar dukiya a tsari; kuma yana magana kan rarraba dukiya a tsari, ta yadda dukiya ba za ta kwarara zuwa ga masu arziki kawai ba.

My argument in this book is that Islam provides a comprehensive view of the politico-economic model. It addresses the basic principles upon which any economic system must stand. It systematically details the concept of property ownership; it systematic ally addresses the wealth distribution such that wealth does not flow in the direction of the rich only; .

Yana samar da tushen ɗabi'a wanda ke kira a tsari, a cire son kai da son abin duniya daga tsarin samarwa da amfani.

it provides a moral foundation which systematically calls for the removal of greed and selfishness from the process of production and consumption.

Manufar gabatar da tsarin Musulunci a cikin wannan littafi ita ce faɗaɗa tattaunawa da nazarin tsarin tattalin arziki daga yanayinsa na biyu na yanzu (jari-hujja da gurguzu) zuwa yanayi na uku (jari-hujja, gurguzu, da Musulunci). Manufata ba ita ce in shawo kan mai karatu da cikakkun bayanan tsarin Musulunci ba. Babban manufa, duk da haka, ita ce in kammala cewa akwai wani tsarin a duniya wanda zai iya tafiyar da al'amuran mutane, da sarrafa ma'amaloli na kuɗi da tattalin arziki, da kuma gudanar da alaƙar da ke tsakanin mutane. Wannan tsarin shi ne tsarin Musulunci. Bayan na gabatar da wannan tsarin a sashe na gaba (sashe na 2), zan koma sashe na 3 don magance tambayar da ke ci wa mai karatu wanda ba Musulmi ba zafi koyaushe: shin Musulunci barazana ne ga al'ummar duniya ko kuwa amfani ne?

The presentation of the Islamic model in this book is meant to broaden the discussion and analysis of economic systems from the current dual character (capitalism and socialism) to a tri-character (capitalism, socialism, and Islam). My objective is not to persuade the reader with the details of the Islamic system. The main objective, however, is to conclude that yet there is one more system in the world capable of organizing the affairs of people, managing the financial and economic transactions, and conducting the relations between people. This system is the Islamic system. After introducing this system in the next part (part 2), I will then move to part 3 to address the ever-burning question to the non-Muslim reader: is Islam a threat to the world community or a benefit?