Ubepari haukuanzia katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu kwani ulikuja kuwepo baada tu ya kuvumbuliwa kwa mashine, jambo ambalo lilitokea kwa bahati nasibu barani Ulaya.

Capitalism did not originate in the Islamic world as it came into being only after the invention of the machine which took place by chance in Europe.

Ubepari uliingizwa katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu wakati ulimwengu huo ukiwa chini ya utawala wa Ulaya. Pamoja na wimbi la maendeleo, ulienea katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu ambao ulikuwa ukisumbuliwa na umaskini, ujinga, magonjwa na kurudi nyuma. Hali hii iliwafanya baadhi ya watu kudhani kwamba Uislamu unaidhinisha ubepari, pamoja na maovu yake na mema yake. Pia wanadai kwamba hakuna kanuni katika sheria au kanuni za Kiislamu zinazoweza kupingana na ubepari. Wanahoji kwamba kwa kuwa Uislamu uliruhusu umiliki wa mtu binafsi, basi vilevile lazima uruhusu ubepari.

Capitalism was imported into the Islamic world at a time when it was under European domination. Together with the wave of development, it spread into the Islamic world which suffered from poverty, ignorance, illness and backwardness. This made some people think that Islam approves of capitalism, with both its evils and merits. They also claim that there are no provisions in the Islamic law or regulations such as might be in conflict with capitalism. They argue that as Islam permitted individual ownership it must likewise permit capitalism.

Kwa kujibu tuhuma hii inatosha kueleza kwamba ubepari hauwezi kustawi wala kukua bila riba na ukiritimba, ambavyo vyote viwili vilikatazwa na Uislamu takriban miaka elfu moja kabla ya kuwepo kwa ubepari.

In answer to this accusation it might suffice to point out that capitalism cannot prosper or grow without usury and monopoly both of which were prohibited by Islam about one thousand years before the existence of capitalism.

Lakini hebu tuchambue swali hili kwa urefu zaidi. Kama uvumbuzi wa mashine ungefanyika katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu, Uislamu ungekabiliana vipi na maendeleo ya kiuchumi yanayotokana na uvumbuzi huo? Na sheria na kanuni za Kiislamu zingepanga vipi kazi na uzalishaji?

But let us tackle the question at some greater length. If the invention of the machine had taken place in the Islamic world, how would Islam have faced the economic development resulting from such invention? How would Islamic legislations and laws have organized work and production?

Kuna makubaliano ya maoni miongoni mwa wanauchumi, wakiwemo wale wanaopinga ubepari, kama vile Karl Marx, kwamba ubepari mwanzoni ulileta maendeleo makubwa na kutoa huduma kubwa kwa binadamu. Uzalishaji uliongezeka, njia za mawasiliano ziliboreshwa, na rasilimali za taifa zilitumiwa kwa kiwango kikubwa zaidi.

There is consensus of opinion among economists-including those who are opposed to capitalism (e.g., Karl Marx-that capitalism at the start brought about great progress and rendered considerable services to humanity. production was increased, means of communication were improved and national resources were exploited on a larger scale.

Kiwango cha maisha miongoni mwa tabaka la wafanyakazi kilipanda zaidi kuliko kilivyokuwa wakati walipokuwa wakitegemea kilimo kwa sehemu kubwa au kabisa.

The standard of living among the working classes became higher than when they were mostly or completely dependent on agriculture.

Lakini picha hiyo tukufu haikudumu kwa muda mrefu kwa sababu maendeleo ya asili ya ubepari, kama wanavyosema, yalisababisha mkusanyiko wa mali mikononi mwa wamiliki wachache wa mitaji, na kupungua kwa kiasi fulani kwa mali zilizomilikiwa na tabaka za wafanyakazi. Hali hii iliwawezesha wamiliki wa mitaji kuwatumia wafanyakazi – wazalishaji halisi kwa mtazamo wa kikomunisti – katika kuongeza kwa kiasi kikubwa uzalishaji wa bidhaa mbalimbali, lakini mishahara iliyolipwa kwa wafanyakazi ilikuwa midogo mno kiasi cha kutoweza kuhakikisha maisha yenye heshima, kwa sababu waajiri walichukua faida yote na kuitumia wakiishi maisha ya anasa na ufisadi.

But such a glorious picture did not last long because the natural development of capitalism, as they say, led to the amassing of wealth in the hand. If capitalist owners and to a relative diminution of the properties owned by the working classes. This enabled the capitalist owners to use workmen-the real producers in communist eyes-in considerably stepping up the production of various commodities but the wages paid to workmen were too low to ensure decent lire because the employers took all the profits and spent them leading a life of luxury and corruption.

Mbali na hayo, ujira mdogo uliolipwa kwa wafanyakazi haukuwawezesha kutumia bidhaa zote zilizozalishwa katika nchi za kibepari. Hali hii ilisababisha mrundikano wa bidhaa, yaani uzalishaji wa ziada.

Besides this the scanty wages paid to workmen did not enable them to consume all the production or capitalist countries. This led to the accumulation or surplus production.

Kutokana na hali hii, nchi za kibepari zilianza kutafuta masoko mapya ya bidhaa zao za ziada, jambo lililozaa ukoloni pamoja na migogoro yake isiyokoma kati ya mataifa mbalimbali kuhusu masoko na rasilimali za malighafi. Vita vya uharibifu vilikuwa matokeo yasiyoepukika ya haya yote.

As a result of this the capitalist countries began to look for new markets for their surplus production, which in turn gave rise to colonialism with all its incessant conflicts among different nations over markets and raw material resources. Destructive wars were the inevitable outcome or all this.

Zaidi ya hayo, mfumo wa kibepari huwa daima unakabiliwa na misukosuko ya mara kwa mara inayotokana na mdororo unaosababishwa na mishahara midogo na uchache wa matumizi duniani ikilinganishwa na ongezeko la uzalishaji.

Moreover, the capitalist system is always exposed to periodic crises resulting from depression caused by low wages and the scantiness of world consumption in relation to increasing production.

Baadhi ya wanaopropaganda ya ubepari wa kimaada huyahusisha matatizo yote ya mfumo wa kibepari na asili ya mtaji wenyewe, badala ya nia mbaya au hamu ya unyonyaji kwa upande wa wenye mitaji. Hoja kama hii ya kidhaifu na ya ajabu inamaanisha kwamba mwanadamu, pamoja na hisia zake zote na mawazo yake, ni kiumbe mnyonge tu mbele ya nguvu ya uchumi.

Some propagandists of materialism refer all the problems of the capitalist system to the nature of capital itself rather than to any ill-will or desire for exploitation on the part of the capitalists. Such naive and strange reasoning means that man with all his emotions and thoughts is but a helpless creature in the face or the power of economy.

Hakuna shaka kwamba Uislamu ungehimiza mafanikio mema na ya kimaendeleo yaliyoletwa na ubepari katika hatua zake za awali. Lakini Uislamu usingeuacha ubepari bila sheria za kuupanga na kuzuia unyonyaji wowote unaoweza kutokana na nia mbaya ya waajiri au kutokana na asili yenyewe ya mtaji. Kanuni ya Kiislamu iliyowekwa kuhusu jambo hili inawapa wafanyakazi haki ya kugawana faida na waajiri wao. Baadhi ya wanachuoni wa fiqhi wa madhehebu ya Maliki walienda mbali zaidi kwa kumpa mfanyakazi sehemu sawa ya faida. Mwajiri hutoa mtaji wote na mfanyakazi hufanya kazi; juhudi hizo mbili zina uzito sawa, hivyo basi wana haki ya kupata sehemu sawa ya faida.

There is no doubt that Islam would have encouraged the good and progressive achievements that were brought about by capitalism in its early stage. But Islam would not have left capitalism without legislation to organize it and to preclude any exploitation which might result from ill-will on the part of the employers or from the very nature of capital. The Islamic principle which was laid in this respect entitles the workmen to share the profit with their employers. Some Maliki jurisprudents went so far as to give to the employee an equal share in the profit. The employer provides all capital and the workman does the work; the two efforts are equal and accordingly they are entitled to an equal share in the profit.

Kanuni iliyotajwa hapo juu inaonyesha jinsi Uislamu unavyojali sana kuanzisha haki. Wasiwasi huo kuhusu kuanzisha haki ulianzishwa na Uislamu kwa hiari yake yenyewe. Haukulazimishwa juu yake na shinikizo lolote la kiuchumi, wala haukuwa matokeo ya mapambano kati ya tabaka, jambo ambalo wenye propaganda za mafundisho fulani ya kiuchumi wanalichukulia kuwa ndicho kipengele pekee chenye athari katika maendeleo ya mahusiano ya kiuchumi.

The above-mentioned principle illustrates Islam's great concern with the establishment of justice. Such concern for the establishment of justice was voluntarily introduced by Islam. It was not forced thereon by any economic exigency nor was it the result of the struggle among classes which is regarded by the propagandists of certain economic doctrines as the sole effective factor in the development of economic relations.

Mwanzoni, viwanda vilikuwa na kazi rahisi ya mikono iliyohusisha idadi ndogo ya wafanyakazi waliofanya kazi katika warsha rahisi. Kanuni iliyotajwa hapo juu ingeweza kupanga uhusiano kati ya kazi na mtaji kwa msingi wa haki, jambo ambalo Ulaya haikuwahi kuwa nalo.

In the beginning, industry consisted of simple manual work involving a small number of workmen who worked in simple workshop" The above-mentioned principle would have organized the relation between work and capital on an equitable basis such as Europe had never had.

Wataalamu wa uchumi wanasema kwamba maendeleo ya ubepari kutoka hatua yake ya awali yenye wema hadi hatua yake ya sasa yenye uovu wa kupindukia yaliambatana na kuongezeka kwa utegemezi wake kwa mikopo ya kitaifa. Hali hii ilipelekea kuundwa kwa benki zilizofanya shughuli za kifedha na kutoa mikopo kwa malipo ya riba fulani. Bila hayo, mikopo kama hiyo pamoja na sehemu kubwa ya shughuli za kibenki vinategemea riba, ambayo Uislamu umeikataza waziwazi.

Economists say that the development of capitalism from its early benevolent phase to its present morbidly evil phase was accompanied by its increasing dependence on national loan. This led to the creation of banks which carried on financial operations, and advanced loans in return for some interest. Without that such loans as well as the majority of banking operations are based on usury which is expressly prohibited by Islam.

Kwa upande mwingine, ushindani mkali, ambao ni sifa nyingine ya ubepari, husababisha kuangamizwa kwa kampuni ndogo au kuunganishwa kwake na kampuni kubwa. Hili huhimiza ukiritimba, ambao pia umekatazwa na Uislamu, kama inavyothibitishwa na baadhi ya kauli za Mtume ﷺ. Alisema: "Mwenye kuhodhi ni mdhalimu." Kwa kuwa Uislamu umekataza riba na ukiritimba, ingekuwa haiwezekani kwa ubepari kukua chini ya Uislamu hadi kufikia hatua yake ya sasa ya uovu, inayohusisha unyonyaji, ukoloni na vita.

On the other hand, tough competition, which is another feature of capitalism, leads to the destruction of minor companies or to their merger into major ones. This encourages monopoly which is also prohibited by Islam, as is borne out by some sayings of the Prophet. He said: “He that monopolizes is a wrong-doer" Because Islam prohibited usury and monopoly it would have been impossible for capitalism to develop under Islam into its present evil stage which involves exploitation, colonialism and war.

Hakika Uislamu haungezuia viwanda kubaki kwenye warsha ndogo ambapo faida hugawanywa kati ya mwajiri na mfanyakazi. Uzalishaji ungekuwa mkubwa zaidi, lakini uhusiano kati ya mwajiri na wafanyakazi ungekuwa umekua kwa mwelekeo tofauti na ule uliobainisha maendeleo ya uhusiano wa mwajiri na mwajiriwa huko Ulaya katika karne ya kumi na tisa na ishirini. Ungekua kulingana na kanuni za msingi za Uislamu, kama kanuni iliyotajwa hapo juu inayoweka mgawanyo sawa wa faida kati ya wafanyakazi na mwajiri wao.

Surely Islam would not have restricted industry to minor workshops whose profit is shared by the employer and the workman. Production would have rather grown but the relationship between the employer arid workmen would have developed on different lines from those outlining the development of the employer-employee relations in Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It would have developed in accordance with the basic principles of Islam such as the above-mentioned principle which provides for an equal division of profit between the workmen and their employer.

Kwa kufanya hivyo, Uislamu ungekuwa umeepuka kutegemea riba au ukiritimba, na ungeweza kuzuia dhuluma ambayo wafanyakazi wanaikumba chini ya ubepari, ambapo wananyonywa na kuachwa wateseke kwa umaskini na udhalilifu.

By so doing Islam would have avoided resorting to usury or monopoly and would have precluded the injustice to which workmen are subjected under capitalism where they are exploited and left to suffer poverty and humiliation.

Would be foolish kudhani kwamba Uislamu usingeweza kuanzisha haki kama hiyo bila kwanza kupitia magumu makubwa, migogoro ya kitabaka na shinikizo za kiuchumi ambazo hatimaye zingeleta marekebisho ya sheria zake. Imethibitishwa bila shaka yoyote kwamba Uislamu ulikuwa mbele ya mataifa yote katika kushughulikia masuala ya utumwa, ukabaila na ubepari wa mwanzo. Katika hilo, Uislamu haukuwa ukitenda chini ya shinikizo lolote la nje kabisa. Badala yake ulikuwa ukitenda kwa hiari na kulingana na dhana yake yenyewe ya haki na usawa wa milele, dhana ambayo waandishi wa kikomunisti huidharau. Kwa upande mwingine, ni ukweli kwamba Urusi, nchi ya mfano ya kikomunisti, yenyewe ilipita moja kwa moja kutoka ukabaila hadi ukomunisti bila kupitia hatua ya kati ya ubepari. Kwa njia hii Urusi, iliyopitisha mafundisho ya Karl Marx, kwa vitendo inaipinga nadharia ya Marx kuhusu hatua za maendeleo ambazo, kwa mujibu wake, kila taifa lazima lipitie.

It would be foolish to suggest that Islam could not have established such justice without first passing through hard ordeals, class conflicts and economic pressures which would ultimately lead to the amendment of its legislations. It is proved beyond all doubt that Islam had been ahead of all nations in dealing with the questions of slavery, feudalism and early capitalism. In so doing Islam was not acting under any outside pressure whatsoever. It was rather acting voluntarily and in accordance with its own conception of eternal equity and justice scoffed at by communist writers. On the other hand, it is a fact that Russia, a model communist state, itself passed directly from feudalism to communism without passing through the intermediary stage of capitalism. In this way Russia which adopted the doctrine of Karl Marx-practically gives the lie to Marx's theory regarding the phases of development which, he says, every state has to experience.