Je, umiliki binafsi ni mwelekeo wa asili?

Is private ownership a natural propensity?

Wakomunisti na wenzao wanasisitiza kwamba sivyo ilivyo. Wanadai kwamba hakukuwa na mali binafsi katika jamii za mwanzo kabisa ambako "ukomunisti wa kwanza" ulikuwepo. Vitu vyote, wanasema, vilikuwa mali ya umma iliyoshirikiwa na watu wote, ambao waliongozwa na roho ya upendo, ushirikiano na udugu. Wanajuta kwa huzuni kwamba zama hizo "za kimalaika" hazikudumu, kwa sababu ugunduzi wa kilimo ulileta mizozo kuhusu ardhi iliyolimwa na njia za uzalishaji. Hilo lilisababisha vita bila shaka. Wakomunisti wanadai kwamba binadamu anaweza kuukomesha uovu huu wa kutisha kwa kurudi zaidi kwenye "ukomunisti wa kwanza", ambapo hakuna mtu aliyekuwa na mali au kitu chake mwenyewe, na uzalishaji wote uligawanywa kwa usawa miongoni mwa watu wote. Wanaamini kwamba hii ndiyo njia pekee ya kurejesha amani, upendo na maelewano duniani.

Communists and their likes insist that it is not. They claim that there was no private property in the earliest societies where the "first communism" prevailed. All things, they say, were public property shared by all people who were guided by a spirit of affection, co-operation and brotherhood. They sadly regret that such “an angelic era" did not last because the discovery of agriculture involved disputes over the cultivated land and the means of production. This inevitably led to war. The Communists allege that humanity can put an end to this dreadful evil only by returning more to “the first Communism" where no one had a property or one's own and all production was equally shared by all people. They believe that this is the only way to restore peace, affection and harmony to the world.

Kwa upande mwingine, wanasaikolojia na wanasosholojia hawakubaliani juu ya tofauti iliyo wazi kati ya hisia, dhana na tabia za kibinadamu za asili na zile zilizopatikana.

On the other hand, psychologists and sociologists do not agree upon a clear distinction between natural and acquired human emotions, concepts and manners.

Vivyo hivyo pia wanatofautiana kuhusu umiliki binafsi. Baadhi ya wanasaikolojia na wanasosholojia wanashikilia kwamba umiliki binafsi ni tabia ya asili aliyozaliwa nayo mwanadamu bila kujali hali za mazingira yake. Wengine wanaamini kwamba hupatikana kupitia mazingira ya mwanadamu. Mtoto, wanasema, hukataa kuachia chochote kati ya vinyago vyake, ama kwa sababu ni vichache, au kwa sababu anaogopa kwamba mtoto mwingine anaweza kuvichukua. Pale kinyago kimoja kinapokuwa cha watoto kumi, ugomvi hakika utazuka; lakini, wanasema, pale vinyago kumi vinapokuwa vya watoto kumi, kila mmoja atakuwa na kinyago chake mwenyewe na hakutakuwa na mgongano.

Likewise they differ regarding private ownership. Some psychologists and sociologists maintain that private ownership is a natural propensity born with man regardless of the conditions of his environment. Others believe that it is acquired through man's environment. A child, they say, refuses to part with any of his toys either because they are too few or because he fears that another child may take them. When there is just one toy for ten children, quarrel is sure to break out, but, they say, where there are ten toys for ten children everyone will have a toy of his own and there will be no conflict.

Jibu letu kwa hoja zinazotolewa na wakomunisti na wanasaikolojia na wanasosholojia wengine ni kama ifuatavyo:- 1. Hakuna mwanasayansi aliyeweza kuthibitisha bila shaka yoyote kwamba umiliki binafsi si matokeo ya silika ya asili. Kile ambacho wanamapinduzi wa kushoto wanaweza kusema kuhusu jambo hili ni kwamba hakuna ushahidi wa uhakika unaopatikana kwamba ni matokeo ya silika ya asili. Lakini hilo ni swali jingine.

Our answer to the arguments put forward by communists and other psychologists and sociologists is as follows:- 1. No scientist has been able to prove beyond all doubt that private ownership is not the outcome of a natural instinct. All that the leftists could say in this regard is that there is no conclusive evidence available that it is the outcome of a natural instinct. But that is another question.

2. Mfano wa watoto na vichezeo vyao ambao wakomunisti wameutoa kuunga mkono msimamo wao hauwezi kuwafikisha kwenye hitimisho wanalolenga. Kwamba mabishano hayazuki pale watoto kumi wanapopewa vichezeo kumi hauondoi uwepo wa hamu ya asili ya kumiliki. Kinachomaanishwa ni kwamba hamu ya kumiliki, katika hali zenye afya, inaweza kutoshelezwa kupitia usawa kamili. Mfano uliotajwa hauondoi uwepo wa hamu hiyo, lakini unaweza kusaidia kufafanua asili yake. Zaidi ya hayo, hakuna mtu anayeweza kukana kwamba watoto wengi wasingesita kunyakua vichezeo vya marafiki zao endapo hawangezuiwa kufanya hivyo kwa sababu zilizo nje ya uwezo wao.

2. The example-about children and their toys-which the communists give in support of their stand cannot lead to the conclusions they aim at. That quarrels do not break out when ten children are given ten toys does not rule out the existence of a natural desire for ownership. It means that the desire for ownership may, in healthy cases, be satisfied by absolute equality. The aforesaid example does not rule out the existence of such desire but it may help to define its nature. Besides, no one can deny that many children would not hesitate to usurp the toys of their friends unless they are prevented from doing so for reasons beyond their control.

3. Kuhusu "zama ya malaika" ambazo wakomunisti wanadhani zilikuwepo katika jamii za mwanzo kabisa, inaweza kusemwa kwamba hakuna ushahidi wa kweli kwamba zama kama hizo zilikuwepo kweli. Hata kama zama kama hizo zingekuwepo, zisingeweza kuwa na njia zozote za uzalishaji wakati huo. Je, migogoro ingeweza kutokea kuhusu kitu ambacho hakikuwepo? Wakati huo watu walipata chakula chao kwa urahisi na moja kwa moja kutoka kwenye miti. Walipokwenda kuwinda, ilibidi waende kwa makundi kwa kuogopa wanyama wa porini. Haikuwezekana kuhifadhi wanyama waliouawa kwa sababu wangeharibika haraka. Kwa hiyo ilibidi wawaliwe haraka iwezekanavyo. Kutokuwepo kwa mgogoro katika hali hiyo hakukatai kuwepo kwa hamu ya asili ya kumiliki. Kwa kweli, kutokuwepo kwa mgogoro kunatokana na kutokuwepo kwa kitu chenye thamani ya kugombewa. Ndiyo maana ugunduzi wa kilimo ulileta mgogoro. Ugunduzi huo ulichochea mwelekeo uliokuwa umelala hadi wakati huo, ambao ulikosa kichocheo cha kuchukua hatua.

3. As to "the angelic era" which the communists suppose to have accompanied the earliest societies, it may be said that there is no real evidence that such an era did really exist. Even if there had been such an era, there could have been no means of production at the time. How could disputes arise over something that did not exist? At that time people got their food easily and directly from trees. When they went hunting they had to go in groups for fear of wild animals. It was impossible to store slain animals for they would soon go bad. So they had to be eaten up as soon as possible. The absence of conflict in that case does not rule out the existence of a natural desire for ownership. As a matter of fact, absence of conflict is due to absence of anything worth the strife. This is why the discovery of agriculture brought about conflict. The said discovery stimulated a hitherto dormant tendency which till then lacked the incentive for action.

4. Hakuna mtu anayeweza kukataa kwa uhakika kwamba katika zama za mapema kama hizo mzozo unaweza kuwa umekuwepo baina ya wanaume kadhaa kwa ajili ya kumiliki mwanamke fulani. Licha ya kuwepo kwa ukomunisti wa kingono katika zama hizo, hakuna mtu anayeweza kusema kwa hakika kwamba ulienea katika jamii nzima, au kwamba kuwepo kwake kulizuia wanaume kupigana wao kwa wao kwa ajili ya kumiliki mwanamke ambaye waliona kuwa ni mvuto mkubwa.

4. No one could firmly deny that at such an early era a conflict could have existed among a number of men for the possession of a particular woman. In spite of the existence of sexual communism in that era no one can say for sure that it was prevalent throughout society or that its existence prevented men from fighting each other for possessing a woman whom they considered very attractive.

Hitimisho muhimu linatokana na hili: pale ambapo mambo yote ni sawa na yanafanana, uwezekano wa mgongano unaweza kuondolewa. Lakini mradi mambo ni tofauti, mgongano na mapambano yatalazimika kuzuka hata katika "jamii ya malaika" ya kufikirika ambayo wakomunisti wanajenga matarajio yao ya baadaye juu yake.

This leads to an important conclusion: where all things are equal and similar the possibility of a conflict may be ruled out. But as long as things are different, conflict and struggle are bound to break out even in the imaginary "angelic society" upon which communists build their future prospects.

5. Mwishowe, hakuna mtu anayeweza kukanusha ukweli kwamba baadhi ya wanaume waliishi katika zama hizo za mwanzo walitamani kupata heshima binafsi, iwe kwa kuonyesha ushujaa wao na nguvu za mwili au kwa njia nyinginezo. Baadhi ya makabila ya kizamani—mifano ya kile kinachoitwa "jamii ya kwanza ya kikomunisti"—bado yanakataa kuwapa binti zao katika ndoa isipokuwa kwa wanaume wale ambao wangestahimili viboko mia moja bila kuonyesha dalili yoyote ya uchovu au maumivu.

5. Finally, no one could rule out the fact that some men who lived in that early era desired to achieve personal distinction either by showing their bravery and physical strength or by any other means. Some primitive tribes-examples of the so-called "first communist society"-do still refuse to give their daughters in marriage except to those men who would endure a hundred lashes without showing any signs of weariness or pain.

Hakuna shaka kwamba sababu pekee inayowasukuma vijana kuanza safari yenye mateso makubwa kama hiyo ni tamaa yao ya kujipatia heshima na umaarufu binafsi.

There is no doubt that the only reason that invites young men to set out for such a painful ordeal is their desire to achieve personal distinction.

Ikiwa ni kweli kwamba mambo yote yanafuata hali ya usawa kamili, basi tunapaswa kutafuta sababu inayowafanya baadhi ya watu kudai kwamba wao si sawa na wengine, bali ni bora kuliko wengine. Hii inatuongoza kwenye hitimisho kwamba, ikiwa umiliki binafsi si matokeo ya mwelekeo wa kiasili, basi lazima uhusiane kwa karibu na mwelekeo mwingine wa kiasili, yaani hamu ya kupata utofauti binafsi, iliyopo kwa binadamu tangu zamani za kale.

If it is true that all things follow a state of absolute equality, we must then search for a reason that leads some people to assert that they are not equal to but even better than others. This leads us to the conclusion that if private ownership is not the outcome of a natural tendency it must be closely connected with another natural tendency namely the desire to achieve personal distinction present in man from time immemorial.

Wakomunisti wanadai kwamba umiliki binafsi umehusishwa katika zama zote na dhulma, na kwa hiyo, ikiwa ubinadamu unataka kudumisha amani na kujiondolea migogoro chungu, lazima uufute umiliki binafsi.

The communists allege that private ownership has been coupled throughout the ages with injustice and, therefore, if humanity wants to maintain peace and rid itself of bitter conflicts it must abolish private ownership.

Lakini wafuasi wa ukomunisti wanaonekana kusahau mambo mawili muhimu: kwamba juhudi za watu binafsi zilichangia maendeleo ya binadamu, na kwamba maendeleo yalipatikana katika kile kinachoitwa "zama za malaika" za "ukomunisti wa kwanza". Inaweza kusemwa kwamba binadamu alianza kupiga hatua yoyote ya maendeleo tu baada ya kuwepo kwa mgogoro kuhusu umiliki. Hii inamaanisha kwamba mgogoro wa namna hiyo si uovu mtupu baada ya yote. Kinyume chake, kuwepo kwake, ndani ya mipaka inayofaa, ni hitaji la kisaikolojia, kijamii na kiuchumi.

But communists seem to forget two important facts: that individual efforts contributed to the progress of humanity and that do progress had been achieved during the so-called "angelic era" of "the first communism". It can be said that humanity started to make any progress only after the existence of conflict over ownership. This means that such conflict is not after all an absolute evil. On the contrary its existence, within reasonable limits, is a psychological, social and economic necessity.

Aidha, inapaswa pia kukumbukwa kwamba Uislamu hauchukulii kuwa ni jambo la kawaida kwamba umiliki wa mali binafsi ndio msingi wa dhuluma zote zilizowapata wanadamu. Dhuluma kubwa iliyoambatana na umiliki wa mali binafsi barani Ulaya na nchi nyingine zisizo za Kiislamu kwa ujumla ilitokana na ukweli kwamba tabaka lenye mali katika nchi hizo ndilo lililokuwa likitunga sheria na pia kutawala. Ilikuwa ni jambo la kawaida kwa tabaka kama hilo kutunga sheria zinazolinda maslahi yake kwa gharama ya matabaka mengine. Uislamu hautambui kuwepo kwa tabaka tawala. Katika Uislamu sheria hazitungwi na tabaka maalum lenye upendeleo; sheria hizi zimetungwa na Mungu aliyeumba matabaka yote. Haiwezekani kufikirika kwamba Mungu awape upendeleo baadhi ya watu au matabaka kwa gharama ya wengine. Angekuwa na sababu gani ya upendeleo kama huo? Kwa mujibu wa Uislamu, kiongozi huchaguliwa kwa uhuru na Waislamu wote. Hateuliwi kwenye madaraka kwa sababu ya mazingatio ya tabaka lolote. Baada ya kuchukua majukumu ya ofisi yake, kiongozi lazima afuate sheria ambayo hakuitunga yeye mwenyewe, sheria iliyoteremshwa na Mungu Mwenyewe. Kuhusiana na hili tunaweza kunukuu kauli ya Abu Bakr, Khalifa wa kwanza: "Nitiini mimi mradi ninamtii Mungu katika utawala wangu juu yenu, lakini nitakapomwasi Mungu, hamtanitii." Kiongozi katika Uislamu hana mamlaka ya kisheria yanayomruhusu kujipa mwenyewe au wengine haki yoyote ya kutunga sheria. Hana uwezo wa kuyapendelea matabaka fulani kuliko mengine, wala kutenda kwa kuitikia ushawishi wa kisiasa wa tabaka lenye mali kwa kupitisha sheria zinazolinda maslahi yake huku zikiwakandamiza matabaka mengine.

In addition to this, it should also be borne in mind that Islam does not take it for granted that private ownership underlies all the injustice which afflicted humanity. The serious injustice that accompanied, private ownership in Europe and other non-Islamic countries in general was due to the fact that the propertied classes in those countries were themselves the legislators as well as the rulers. It was only natural that such a class should make the legislations that safeguarded its interests at the expense of the other classes. Islam does not recognize the existence of a ruling class. In Islam laws are not made by a specially privileged class; these had been made by God who created all classes. It is beyond imagination that God should favor some individuals or classes at the expense of others. What reasons could He have for such favoritism? According to Islam, the ruler is freely elected by all the Muslims. He is not nominated to office by virtue of any class consideration. After assuming the duties of his office, the ruler must follow a law which he did not make, a law that was revealed by God Himself. In this connection we may quote a saying by Abu Bakr, the first Caliph: "Obey me as long as I obey God in my rule over you but where I disobey God you shall not obey me". A ruler in Islam has no legal power authorizing him to confer upon himself or others any legislative privileges. He has no power to prefer one class to another or to act in response to the political influence of the propertied class by enacting legislations which safeguard its interests while oppressing other classes.

Inapaswa kubainishwa kwamba tunapozungumzia utawala wa Kiislamu, tunamaanisha kipindi hicho katika historia ya Kiislamu ambapo kanuni na maelekezo ya Uislamu zilitekelezwa kikamilifu kwa maana yake halisi. Hatumaanishi vipindi ambavyo ufisadi uliubadilisha mfumo wa utawala kuwa ufalme. Uislamu hautambui serikali za aina hiyo, wala hauwezi kubebeshwa lawama kwa utawala wa namna hiyo.

It should be pointed out that when we talk about Islamic rule we refer to that period in Islamic history wherein the principles and instructions of Islam were fully applied in their true sense. We do not refer to the periods when corruption changed the system of rule into a monarchy. Islam does not recognize such governments nor can it be held responsible for such rule.

Ukweli kwamba utawala huo wa Kiislamu, pamoja na haki yake yote na misingi yake ya kiidealisti, ulidumu kwa kipindi kifupi tu hautakiwi kumaanisha kwamba ni mfumo wa kufikirika usiofaa kwa matumizi ya kiutendaji. Baada ya yote, kile kilichowahi kutekelezwa kwa mafanikio kinaweza kutekelezwa tena, na ni wajibu wa watu wote kufanya kazi kwa bidii kwa ajili ya kurejesha enzi kama hiyo. Hata hivyo, wakati wa sasa ni mzuri zaidi kuliko wakati wowote ule kwa ajili ya kuanzisha tena utawala wa Kiislamu.

That Islamic rule with all its justice and idealism remained in force only for a brief era should not mean that it is an imaginary system unfit for practical application. After all, what was successfully applied once may be applied again, and it is the duty of all people to work hard for the restoration of such an era. The present time, however, is more propitious than ever for the re-establishment of Islamic rule.

Chini ya utawala wa Kiislamu, watu wenye mali hawatapewa nafasi ya kutunga sheria zinazolinda maslahi yao peke yao. Uislamu unaagiza kwamba watu wote lazima watendewe kwa sheria zilezile bila ubaguzi wowote kuhusu haki za binadamu au utu wao. Ikitokea tofauti yoyote katika kutafsiri baadhi ya vifungu vya sheria, jambo ambalo hutokea kuhusu kila sheria duniani, wanazuoni wa fiqhi ndio watakaokuwa na neno la mwisho. Ni jambo la kujivunia kuandikwa kwamba wanazuoni wakubwa wa fiqhi wa Kiislamu hawakuwahi kutafsiri sheria yoyote kwa namna inayoweza kutumikia maslahi ya watu wenye mali kwa gharama ya walio maskini. Kinyume chake, daima walionyesha mwelekeo wa pekee wa kutimiza mahitaji ya msingi ya tabaka la wafanyakazi na kuwapa haki zao kamili. Kwa kweli, baadhi ya wanazuoni wa fiqhi wa Kiislamu walienda mbali hadi kumchukulia mfanyakazi au mkulima kuwa ni mshirika (kwa upande wa faida) wa mwajiri wake.

Under Islamic rule, the propertied classes will not be given the chance to make laws which serve their interests only. Islam prescribes that all people must be treated according to the same laws without any discrimination regarding human rights or dignity. In case of any differences as to the interpretation of some provisions of law-which happens with respect to every law on earth-the jurisprudents will have the last word. It is to be recorded with pride that the great Muslim jurisprudents did never interpret any law in a manner which might serve the interests of the propertied classes at the expense of the poorer ones. On the contrary, they have always been especially inclined to satisfy the basic demands of the working classes and to give them their full due. In fact, some Muslim jurisprudents went so far as to regard the workman or the peasant to be in partnership (as far as profits are concerned) with his employer.

Kwa upande mwingine, Uislamu haumdharau kiasi hicho asili ya mwanadamu kiasi cha kudhani kwamba umiliki daima utamwongoza bila shaka kwenye dhuluma na ukandamizaji. Katika uwanja wa kuboresha na kuelimisha asili ya mwanadamu, Uislamu ulipata mafanikio yasiyo na mfano. Baadhi ya Waislamu walikuwa na mali, lakini {hawakuwa na tamaa mioyoni mwao kwa kile walichopewa, bali huwapendelea wengine kuliko nafsi zao hata kama umaskini ni fungu lao} (Al-Hashr: 9). Hivyo walishiriki kwa hiari mali zao wenyewe na wengine, bila kutarajia malipo yoyote isipokuwa msamaha na thawabu kutoka kwa Mungu.

On the other hand, Islam does not rate human nature so low as to take it for granted that ownership will always inevitably lead to injustice and oppression. In the field of refining and educating human nature, Islam achieved an unmatched success. Some Muslims owned property yet "they entertained no desire in their hearts for that which hath been given them but give preference to others over themselves though poverty become their lot" (Iix: 7). So they willingly shared their own property with others without expecting any return save forgiveness and recompense from God.

Tunapaswa daima kukumbuka mifano hii tukufu na ya juu—ijapokuwa ni nadra. Mifano hii inapaswa kuchukuliwa kuwa mwanga unaoongoza hatua zetu za baadaye na kutufunulia mafanikio mazuri ambayo binadamu anaweza kutamani kuyatimiza siku zijazo.

We should always try to remember such noble and lofty examples-rare as they may be. They should be regarded as a ray of light that guides our future steps and unfolds to us the noble achievements which humanity may aspire to realize in future.

Inapaswa kueleweka kwamba Uislamu kamwe hautaki sisi tuishi katika ulimwengu wa ndoto, wala hauzifanyi maslahi ya umma yategemee kabisa "nia njema" zisizo na uhakika.

It should be understood that Islam never wants us to live in a world of dreams nor does it make the public interests wholly dependent on uncertain "good intentions".

Licha ya kujali kwake kupita kiasi utakaso na uboreshaji wa nafsi, Uislamu hausahau kamwe mambo ya kivitendo. Sheria za Kiislamu zinahakikisha usambazaji wa mali kwa haki. Kwa kutozingatia tu utakaso wa nafsi, bali pia kutunga sheria za haki, Uislamu unaweka misingi imara ya jamii yenye afya. Pengine hili ndilo alilolikusudia Uthman Ibn Affan, Khalifa wa tatu, aliposema: "Mungu anazuia kwa nguvu kile ambacho hakukizuia kwa Qur'ani." Kurudi kwenye swali la umiliki, inaweza kusemwa kwamba umiliki ulikuwepo katika zama fulani bila kuleta dhuluma. Uislamu uliruhusu umiliki wa ardhi, lakini haukuruhusu kamwe kuupeleka kwenye ukabaila kama ulivyofanya huko Ulaya. Uislamu ulichukua tahadhari zinazohitajika kwa kutunga sheria za kiuchumi na kijamii zilizozuia ukabaila na kuhakikisha kiwango cha maisha chenye heshima hata kwa wale ambao hawakumiliki ardhi yoyote. Ni dhamana ya namna hiyo iliyoilinda tabaka maskini dhidi ya unyonyaji wa tabaka lenye mali.

Despite its excessive care for the purification and refinement of souls, Islam never forgets practical considerations. Islamic legislation ensures a fair distribution of wealth. By not only concentrating on the purification of the soul but also enacting just legislation, Islam lays the proper foundations for a healthy society. Perhaps this was what Othman Ibn Affan, the third Caliph, had in mind when he said: "God restrains by power what He does not restrain by the Quran." To return to the question of ownership, it can be said that ownership existed in certain ages without leading to injustice. Islam permitted ownership of land but never allowed it to lead to feudalism as it did in Europe. Islam took the necessary precautions by enacting economic and social legislations which precluded feudalism and ensured a respectful standard of living even for those who did not own any land. It was such a guarantee that protected the poor class from exploitation by the propertied one.

Pia, ikidhaniwa kwamba ubepari ungeweza kuwepo katika Uislamu, ni lazima ieleweke kwamba Uislamu ungeruhusu aina ile tu ya ubepari ambayo ingehudumia maslahi ya umma. Kwa kuitakasa na kuiboresha tabia ya binadamu, na wakati huo huo kwa kutunga sheria zinazohitajika, Uislamu usingeruhusu ubepari ukue na kuwa nguvu ya kudhulumu na kunyonya. Kwa njia hiyo Uislamu ungeuokoa ulimwengu na maovu yanayoutesa ulimwengu wa Magharibi wa leo. Zaidi ya hayo, ruhusa ya umiliki binafsi chini ya Uislamu ilikuwa na vikwazo fulani. Kwa mfano, iliwekwa kwamba rasilimali za umma ni mali ya umma. Pale kanuni za haki zilipodai hivyo, Uislamu ulikataza umiliki binafsi, na uliruhusu tu pale ambapo dhamana za kuridhisha dhidi ya dhuluma na ukandamizaji zilikuwa zimewekwa.

On the other hand, granting that capitalism might have existed in Islam, it must be understood that Islam would have permitted only such type of capitalism as would serve the public interest. By purifying and refining human nature and at the same time making the necessary legislations, Islam would not have allowed capitalism to grow into an oppressive and exploiting force. By so doing Islam would have relieved the world from the evils which plague the present western world. Besides, the permission of private ownership under Islam was subject to certain restrictions. It was prescribed, for example, that public resources are public property. Where principles of justice required it, Islam prohibited private ownership and permitted it only when satisfactory guarantees had been made against injustice and oppression.

Ili kufafanua jambo hili, tunaweza kukopa mfano kutoka nchi zisizo za Kiislamu, yaani nchi za Skandinavia. Waingereza, Waamerika na Wafaransa, wafuasi thabiti wa ubaguzi wa rangi na wa kitaifa, wanakiri kwamba watu wa Skandinavia ndio watu waliostaarabika zaidi na wenye upendo zaidi duniani. Inapaswa kuelezwa kwamba nchi kama hizo hazijaondoa umiliki binafsi, bali zimeweka dhamana zinazohitajika kwa ugawaji wa haki wa utajiri. Dhamana kama hizo huziba pengo kati ya matabaka, na wakati huo huo huamuru kwamba mishahara iwiane na kazi. Inaweza kusemwa kwamba katika jambo hili, nchi za Skandinavia zimekaribia zaidi kuliko nchi nyingine yoyote duniani kutimiza baadhi ya vipengele vya Uislamu.

In order to make this point clear, we may borrow an example from non-Muslim countries i.e., the Scandinavian states. The English, the Americans and the Frenchstaunch advocates of racial and national discrimination-admit that the Scandinavian peoples are the most civilized and affectionate peoples on earth. It is to be pointed out that such countries have not abolished private ownership but made necessary guarantees for a fair distribution of wealth. Such guarantees bridge the gap between the classes and at the same time prescribe that wages should be proportionate to work. It can be said that the Scandinavian states have in this connection come closer than any other state in the world-to a realization of some aspects of Islam.

Haiwezekani kutenganisha mfumo wowote wa kiuchumi na falsafa za kijamii na kiakili zinazoufanya msingi. Ikiwa tutapitia itikadi tatu zinazoenezwa kwa sasa—ubepari, ukomunisti na Uislamu—tutatambua jinsi mfumo wa kiuchumi na nadharia ya umiliki katika kila itikadi zinavyohusiana kwa karibu na mazingira yao ya kijamii. Kama ilivyotajwa awali, ubepari umejengwa juu ya dhana kwamba mtu binafsi ni kiumbe kisichoweza kukiukwa, ambaye uhuru wake hauna budi kuwekewa vizuizi vyovyote vya kijamii. Kutokana na hilo, ubepari huelekea kuruhusu umiliki binafsi usio na mipaka.

It is impossible to separate any economic system from the social and intellectual philosophies underlying it. If we review the three doctrines that are currently propagatedcapitalism, communism and Islam-we shall realize how the economic system and the theory of ownership in each doctrine are closely related to their social background. As previously mentioned, capitalism is based on the assumption that the individual is an inviolable being whose freedom must not be subjected to any social restrictions. It follows that capitalism tends to permit unrestricted private ownership.

Kwa upande mwingine, ukomunisti unategemea imani kwamba jamii ndiyo msingi, na kwamba mtu binafsi hana uwepo wa pekee wake mwenyewe. Kwa hivyo, ukomunisti unakabidhi kwa dola (kama mwakilishi wa jamii) umiliki wa mali zote, na hivyo kuwanyima watu wote haki hiyo.

On the other hand, communism is based on the belief that the Community is the base and that the individual has no separate existence of his own. Therefore, communism renders unto the state (as representative of the community) the ownership of all properties, thus depriving all individuals of such a right.

Uislamu una dhana tofauti ya kijamii, na kwa hivyo unakubali mfumo tofauti wa kiuchumi. Kuhusu uhusiano kati ya mtu binafsi na jamii, Uislamu unashikilia kwamba mtu ana uwezo mbili kwa wakati mmoja: uwezo wake kama mtu huru anayejitegemea na uwezo wake kama mwanachama wa jamii. Mwitikio wake kwa mojawapo ya uwezo huu wakati mwingine unaweza kuwa mkubwa kuliko mwitikio wake kwa uwezo mwingine, lakini hatimaye atayaunganisha na kuyapatanisha yote mawili.

Islam holds a different social concept and, therefore, it adopts a different economic system. With respect to the individual-community relationship, Islam maintains that an individual has two simultaneous capacities: his capacity as an independent individual and his capacity as a member of the community. His response to either capacity may at times be greater than his response to the other one but he will finally combine and harmonize both.

Dhana ya kijamii inayotokana na imani kama hiyo haimtenganishi mtu binafsi na jamii yake, wala haiwaoni kama nguvu mbili zinazopingana zinazojaribu kushindana. Kwa kuwa mtu binafsi ana uwepo huru na wakati huo huo ni mwanachama wa jamii, inahitajika kwamba sheria ilete maelewano kati ya mielekeo ya mtu binafsi na ile ya jamii, pamoja na maelewano kati ya maslahi ya kila mtu binafsi na yale ya wengine. Lakini maelewano hayo lazima yapatikane bila kuacha maslahi yoyote kwa ajili ya mema ya mwingine. Sheria isilenge kuwaponda watu binafsi kwa ajili ya jamii, wala isiruhusu jamii kuvunjika kwa ajili ya mtu mmoja au zaidi.

The social concept based on such a belief does not separate the individual from his community nor does it regard them as two conflicting forces trying to overcome one another. Since an individual has an independent existence and is at the same time a member of the community, it is required of legislation to establish harmony between individual and communal propensities as well as between the interests of each individual and those of others. But such harmony must be achieved without sacrificing either interest for the good of the other. Legislation should not aim at the crushing of individuals for the sake of society nor should it allow society to disintegrate for 'the sake of one or more individuals.

Mfumo wa kiuchumi wa Uislamu umejengwa juu ya dhana ya uwiano iliyotajwa hapo juu, ambayo ni aina ya njia ya kati kati ya ubepari na ukomunisti. Unachanganya sifa nzuri za mifumo yote miwili bila kufanya makosa au upotovu wa yoyote kati yao. Kimsingi unaruhusu umiliki binafsi, lakini unauwekea vikwazo vya aina ambavyo vitaufanya usiwe na madhara kabisa. Uislamu unaidhinisha jamii na mtawala, kwa nafasi yake kama mwakilishi wa jamii, kutunga sheria zinazohitajika za kupanga umiliki, na kubadilisha sheria hizo wakati wowote atakapoona kwamba maslahi ya umma yanahitaji hivyo.

The economic system of Islam is based on the above-mentioned concept of harmony which is some sort of a happy medium between capitalism and communism. It combines the merits of both systems without making the mistakes or deviations of either. It permits private ownership in principle but subjects it to such restrictions as would render it quite harmless. Islam authorizes the community and the ruler in his capacity as the representative of the community to enact the necessary legislation organizing ownership and to change such legislation whenever he deems that the public interest requires it.

Uislamu unaruhusu umiliki binafsi kwa sababu una uwezo wa kuondoa kwa njia mbalimbali maovu yoyote yanayoweza kutokana nao. Itakumbukwa kwamba kuruhusu umiliki binafsi kwa kanuni, huku jamii ikipewa uwezo wa kuupanga na kuudhibiti, ni mpangilio bora zaidi kuliko kufuta kabisa umiliki kwa dhana isiyo na uhakika kwamba si mwelekeo wa kimaumbile wala hitaji la kibinadamu. Ukweli kwamba Urusi ya Kisovieti imelazimika kuruhusu kiwango fulani (kidogo) cha umiliki binafsi ni ushahidi wazi kwamba kukidhi mwelekeo wa asili ya binadamu ndilo jambo bora kwa maslahi ya mtu binafsi na ya umma.

Islam approves of private ownership since it has ti1e power to eliminate by various means any evils that may result from it. It will be remembered that permission of private ownership in principle while vesting the community with the power to organize and restrict it is a much better arrangement than outright abolition of ownership on the uncertain assumption that it is neither a natural propensity nor a human necessity. The fact that Soviet Russia has had to permit a certain (small) degree of private ownership is clear evidence that satisfying the propensities of human nature is the best thing for both the individual and public interest.

Kwa nini tuondoe umiliki binafsi? Kwa madhumuni gani tuiite Uislamu ufanye hivyo?

Why shall we abolish private ownership? For what ends shall we call upon Islam to do so?

Ukomunisti unadai kwamba kufutwa kwa umiliki binafsi ndiyo njia pekee ya kuanzisha usawa miongoni mwa watu na kukandamiza hamu ya asili ya kutawala na kupata madaraka. Urusi ilifuta umiliki wa njia za uzalishaji, lakini je, imefikia malengo iliyotarajia kuyafikia kwa kufutwa huko? Inakumbukwa kwamba Urusi chini ya Stalin ililazimika kuanzisha zamu ya ziada ya kazi ya hiari kwa wale waliokuwa na nguvu za kuifanya, kwa malipo ya ziada ya mshahara. Kwa kufanya hivyo, Urusi ilikuwa inaunda tofauti katika mishahara inayolipwa kwa wafanyakazi.

Communism alleges that the abolition of private ownership is the only means to establish equality among people and to suppress the inherent desire for domination and power. Russia abolished ownership of the means of production but has it realized the objectives it hoped to achieve by such abolition? It will be remembered that Russia under Stalin had to introduce a voluntary overtime work shift for those who had the energy to do it in return for extra wages. By so doing Russia was creating differences in the wages paid to workers.

Je, watu wote nchini Urusi wanapokea mishahara sawa? Je, inawezekana madaktari na wauguzi wanapata mishahara sawa? Wapropaganda wa kikomunisti mara nyingi hutuambia kwamba wahandisi ndio wanaopata mishahara ya juu zaidi nchini Urusi, na kwamba wasanii ndio wanaopata kipato kikubwa zaidi. Kwa kusema hivi, bila kukusudia wanakiri kuwepo kwa tofauti za mishahara kati ya tabaka mbalimbali nchini Urusi. Tofauti hizo hazionekani tu kati ya wanachama wa tabaka tofauti, bali pia kati ya wanachama wa tabaka moja.

Do all people in Russia receive the same wages? Is it possible that doctors and nurses draw the same salaries? Communist propagandists often tell us that engineers get the highest wages in Russia and that artists collect the biggest income. By saying this they unwittingly admit the existence of differences in wages among the various classes in Russia. Such, differences are noticeable not only among members of the various classes but also among members of the same class.

Ninahitaji maandishi ya Kiingereza ili niyatafsiri kwa Kiswahili. Tafadhali bandika sehemu unayotaka kutafsiriwa.

Has communist Russia managed to wipe out the instinct of domination or the desire to achieve personal distinction? If so, how are trade union leaders, factory managers, senior administrators and commissars selected? How do they sort out active members of the ruling Communist Party?

Mbali na swali la kufutwa au kuidhinishwa kwa umiliki binafsi, je, hatupaswi kukubali kwamba hamu ya kutawala na kujitofautisha binafsi imo katika tabia ya mwanadamu?

Apart from the question of the abolition or approval of private ownership, should we not admit that the desire for domination and personal distinction is inherent in human nature?

Kwa kuwa kufutwa kwa umiliki hakukuweza kuiokoa binadamu kutoka kwa kile ambacho ukomunisti unakiona kuwa uovu mkubwa, kwa nini tufuate mfano wake kwa kuchukua njia inayopingana na asili ya binadamu, na hivyo kujaribu kutimiza lengo lisilowezekana?

Since the abolition of ownership could not rescue humanity from what communism regards as a great evil, why should we follow its example by taking a course that conflicts with human nature and thus attempt to realize an impossible end?

Ikiwa wakomunisti wanasema kwamba tofauti kati ya tabaka na kati ya watu binafsi nchini Urusi ni ndogo mno kiasi cha kusababisha anasa au umaskini uliokithiri, basi tunaweza kusema kwamba-miaka elfu moja mia tatu kabla ya kuibuka kwa ukomunisti-Uislamu ulijumuisha miongoni mwa kanuni zake umuhimu wa kuziba mapengo kati ya watu, kukataza anasa, na kuondoa umaskini.

If the communists say that the differences among the classes and the individuals in Russia are too small to lead to luxury or deprivation we may say that-thirteen centuries before communism came into existence-Islam included among its principles the necessity of bridging the gaps among people, prohibiting luxury and wiping out deprivation.