Mfumo wa kiuchumi ni ule unaoamua jinsi ya kugawa utajiri, jinsi ya kuumiliki, na jinsi ya kuutumia au kuuondoa. Uamuzi huu unafuata mtazamo fulani wa maisha, au itikadi. Kwa hiyo, mfumo wa kiuchumi katika Uislamu ni tofauti na ule wa Ujamaa/Ukomunisti na ule wa Ubepari, kwa sababu kila mojawapo ya mifumo hii inafuata mtazamo wake wa kiitikadi kuhusu maisha. Sayansi ya uchumi inajadili uzalishaji, uboreshaji wake, uvumbuzi na uboreshaji wa njia zake. Sayansi ya uchumi, kama ilivyo kwa sayansi nyingine, ni ya ulimwengu wote kwa mataifa yote na haihusishwi na itikadi fulani. Kwa mfano, mtazamo kuhusu umiliki katika Ubepari unatofautiana na ule wa Ujamaa/Ukomunisti, na unatofautiana pia na ule wa Uislamu. Hata hivyo, kujadili uboreshaji wa uzalishaji ni suala la kitaalamu, ambalo ni la kisayansi kabisa, na ni sawa kwa watu wote, bila kujali mtazamo wao kuhusu maisha.

The economic system is that which determines how to distribute the wealth, how to possess it, and how to spend or dispose of it. This determination follows a particular viewpoint in life, or ideology. Therefore, the economic system in Islam is different from that of Socialism/Communism and that of Capitalism, since each of these systems follows its own ideological viewpoint of life. Economic science discusses production, its improvement, invention and improvement of its means. Economic science, as is the case with other sciences, is universal to all nations and is not associated with a particular ideology. So for example, the view towards ownership in Capitalism differs from that of Socialism/Communism, and differs from that in Islam. However, discussing the improvement of production is a technical issue, which is purely scientific, and the same for all people, no matter what their viewpoint about life is.

Muunganiko huu kati ya utafiti wa mahitaji na njia za kuyatosheleza, yaani kati ya kuzalisha bidhaa za kiuchumi na namna ya kuigawa, na kuyaleta yote kama suala moja na mada moja, ni kosa, ambalo lilisababisha mchanganyiko na mwingiliano katika tafiti za kibepari kuhusu uchumi. Matokeo yake, msingi wa uchumi wa kibepari ni potofu.

This merger between the study of the needs and the means of their satisfaction i.e. between producing the economic material and the manner of its distribution, and bringing them as one issue and one subject, is an error, which resulted in mixing and interference in the capitalists studies of economy. As a result the basis of the Capitalist economy is wrong.

2. Mahitaji ni ya Kimwili Tu Kutaja kwamba mahitaji yanayohitaji kutimizwa ni ya kimwili tu ni kosa, na linapingana na uhalisia wa mahitaji. Mbali na mahitaji ya kimwili, yapo pia mahitaji ya kimaadili na kiroho, kila moja likihitaji kutimizwa, na kila moja likihitaji bidhaa na huduma ili kutimizwa.

2. Needs are only Materialistic The reference to the needs which require satisfaction as being purely materialistic is an error, and contradictory to the reality of needs. In addition to material needs there are moral and spiritual needs, each requiring satisfaction, and each requiring commodities and services for their satisfaction.

3. Bidhaa na Huduma hazihusiani na muundo wa jamii Wanauchumi wa Kibepari huangalia mahitaji na manufaa jinsi yalivyo, si jinsi jamii inavyopaswa kuwa. Hii inamaanisha kwamba wanamtazama mwanadamu kama kiumbe wa kimaada tu, asiye na mahitaji ya kiroho, mawazo ya kimaadili, wala malengo ya kimaadili. Vilevile, hawajali jinsi jamii inavyopaswa kupangwa kwa mtazamo wa kuinua maadili, kwa kuyafanya mema kuwa msingi wa mahusiano ya jamii, wala kile kinachopaswa kutawala jamii kwa njia ya kuinua kiroho, yaani kufanya utambuzi wa uhusiano wa mwanadamu na Allah (kutambua kuwepo kwa Allah) kuwa nguvu inayosukuma mahusiano yote, kwa lengo la kupata radhi za Allah. Mwanauchumi wa Kibepari hatajali jambo hili kwa kuwa maslahi yake ni ya kimaada tu, kwa kadiri ya kile kinachotosheleza mahitaji ya kimaada. Kwa hiyo, mtu akiuza bila kudanganya, ni kwa sababu anaamini biashara yake itamletea faida; lakini akipata faida kwa kudanganya, basi kudanganya kungekuwa halali kwake. Hawalishi maskini kwa kutii amri ya Mungu ya kutoa sadaka, bali huwalisha ili wasimwibie. Lakini ikiwa njaa yao itaongeza utajiri wake, basi atawaacha wafe kwa njaa. Hivyo, lengo kuu la Mbepari ni kutafuta manufaa yanayotosheleza hitaji la kimaada peke yake. Mtu anayewaangalia wengine kwa msingi wa manufaa yake mwenyewe, na kuweka maisha ya kiuchumi juu ya msingi huu, ndiye hatari zaidi kwa jamii na kwa watu.

3. Commodities and Services are not related to the structure of the society The Capitalist economists look to the needs and benefits as they are, not as the society should be, which means that they look at man as a purely materialistic creature, empty of spiritual needs, ethical thoughts, and moral objectives. Similarly they do not care about how the society should be structured in terms of moral elevation, by making the virtues the basis for society’s relationships or what should prevail in the society by way of spiritual elevation i.e. making the realisation of man’s relationship with Allah (realising the existence of Allah) the driving force behind all relationships, for the sake of attaining the pleasure of Allah. The Capitalist economist would not care for this since his interest is purely material in terms of what satisfies the materialistic needs. So, if man does not cheat in selling it is because He believes his trade will profit, while if He were to profit by cheating, then cheating would be legal for him. He does not feed poor people in response to the order from God for Him to give charity, rather He feeds them so that they do not steal from him. If, however, their starvation increases his wealth then He would leave them to starve. Thus, the main concern of the Capitalist is to look for the benefit which satisfies a materialistic need only. The individual that looks at others based on his own benefit, and establishes economic life on this basis, is the most dangerous person to society and people.

Hili ni kwa mtazamo wa mahitaji na manufaa. Kwa mtazamo wa rasilimali na juhudi, ambazo huitwa bidhaa na huduma, mtu hujitahidi kuzipata ili kupata manufaa kutoka kwake. Ubadilishanaji wa rasilimali na juhudi baina ya watu huunda mahusiano baina yao, na kwa mujibu wake muundo wa jamii huundwa. Kwa hiyo ni lazima kuangalia muundo wa jamii unapaswa kuwa vipi, kwa ujumla na kwa undani, wakati wa kutathmini rasilimali na juhudi.

This is from the aspect of needs and benefits. From the aspect of resources and efforts, which are called commodities and services, the individual strives for them to obtain them, so as to gain benefit from them. The exchange of resources and efforts among people creates relationships among them, according to which the structure of the society is formed. So it is necessary to look at what the structure of the society should be, both in general and in detail, when evaluating the resources and the efforts.

Kwa hiyo, kujali bidhaa ya kiuchumi kwa kuzingatia kwamba inatimiza hitaji, bila kujali jamii inapaswa kuwa vipi, ni kutenganisha bidhaa ya kiuchumi na uhusiano, jambo ambalo ni kinyume cha maumbile. Bidhaa hii ya kiuchumi hubadilishwa baina ya watu na hivyo kuunda uhusiano baina yao, na uhusiano huo ndio unaounda jamii; kwa hiyo athari yake kwa jamii inapaswa kuzingatiwa wakati wa kuzingatia bidhaa ya kiuchumi. Hivyo, si sahihi kuchukulia kitu kuwa na manufaa kwa sababu tu kuna mtu anakipenda, iwe chenyewe ni hatari au si hatari, iwe kinaathiri uhusiano baina ya watu au hakiathiri, na iwe kimekatazwa au kimeruhusiwa kwa imani ya watu katika jamii. Badala yake, vitu vinapaswa kuchukuliwa kuwa na manufaa ikiwa kweli vina manufaa kwa mtazamo wa kile jamii inapaswa kuwa. Hivyo, si sahihi kuchukulia bangi, afyuni na vitu kama hivyo kuwa bidhaa zenye manufaa, na kuvichukulia kuwa bidhaa za kiuchumi kwa sababu tu kuna mtu anavitaka. Badala yake, athari za bidhaa hizi za kiuchumi katika uhusiano baina ya watu katika jamii lazima izingatiwe wakati wa kuzingatia manufaa ya vitu, yaani wakati wa kuamua kama kitu hicho ni bidhaa ya kiuchumi au la. Vitu vinapaswa kutazamwa kwa kuhusiana na kile jamii inapaswa kuwa. Si sahihi kutazama kitu kama kilivyo tu, bila kujali jamii inapaswa kuwa vipi. Kwa kuweka somo la kukidhi mahitaji ndani ya somo la njia za kukidhi mahitaji, na kwa kuangalia njia za kukidhi mahitaji kama zinavyokidhi hitaji tu, na si kwa kuzingatia jambo lingine lolote, wanauchumi wamejikita zaidi katika uzalishaji wa mali kuliko usambazaji wa mali. Umuhimu wa usambazaji wa mali ili kukidhi mahitaji umekuwa wa pili. Kwa sababu hiyo, mfumo wa kiuchumi wa kibepari una lengo moja, nalo ni kuongeza utajiri wa nchi kwa ujumla, na unafanya kazi kufikia kiwango cha juu kabisa cha uzalishaji. Inadhani kwamba kufikia kiwango cha juu kabisa kinachowezekana cha ustawi kwa wanachama wa jamii kutatokana na kuongeza mapato ya taifa kwa kuinua kiwango cha uzalishaji nchini, na kwa kuwawezesha watu binafsi kuchukua mali, kwa kuwa wameachwa huru kufanya kazi katika kuizalisha na kuimiliki. Hivyo uchumi haupo ili kukidhi mahitaji ya watu binafsi na kuwezesha kukidhi kila mtu binafsi katika jamii; badala yake unalenga kuongeza vile vinavyokidhi mahitaji ya watu binafsi, yaani unalenga kukidhi mahitaji ya jamii kwa kuinua kiwango cha uzalishaji na kuongeza mapato ya taifa la nchi. Kupitia upatikanaji wa mapato ya taifa, usambazaji wa mapato miongoni mwa wanachama wa jamii hutokea, kwa njia ya uhuru wa kumiliki na uhuru wa kufanya kazi. Hivyo, inawaachia watu binafsi kupata wanachoweza katika mali hiyo, kila mmoja kulingana na kile alichonacho katika vipengele vyake vya uzalishaji, iwe watu wote au baadhi ya watu tu wamepata kuridhika. Huu ndio uchumi wa kisiasa, yaani uchumi wa kibepari. Hili ni kosa dhahiri, na linapingana na uhalisia; halipelekei kuboresha kiwango cha maisha kwa watu wote, wala halitimizi ustawi wa msingi wa kila mtu binafsi. Kasoro iliyomo katika mtazamo huu ni kwamba mahitaji yanayohitaji kukidhiwa ni mahitaji ya mtu binafsi; ni mahitaji ya mwanadamu; kwa hiyo ni mahitaji ya Muhammad, Salih na Hasan, na si mahitaji ya kundi la binadamu, kundi la mataifa, au kundi la watu. Anayejitahidi kukidhi mahitaji yake ni mtu binafsi, iwe anayakidhi moja kwa moja kama kula, au anayakidhi kupitia kukidhiwa kwa kundi lote kama ulinzi wa taifa. Kwa hiyo, tatizo la kiuchumi linalenga katika kusambaza njia za kukidhi mahitaji kwa watu binafsi, yaani usambazaji wa fedha na manufaa kwa wanachama wa taifa au watu, si kwa kuzingatia mahitaji ambayo taifa au watu wanayahitaji bila kujali kila mtu binafsi ndani ya taifa. Kwa maneno mengine, tatizo ni umaskini unaompata mtu binafsi, si umaskini unaolipata taifa. Lengo la mfumo wa kiuchumi lazima liwe tu katika kukidhi mahitaji ya msingi ya kila mtu binafsi, si katika utafiti wa kuzalisha bidhaa za kiuchumi. Kwa hiyo, utafiti wa mambo yanayoathiri ukubwa wa uzalishaji wa taifa ni tofauti na utafiti wa kukidhi mahitaji yote ya msingi ya watu wote kibinafsi na kikamilifu. Somo la utafiti lazima liwe mahitaji ya msingi ya binadamu, kama binadamu, na utafiti wa kugawa mali kwa wanachama wa jamii ili kuhakikisha kukidhi mahitaji yao yote ya msingi. Hili ndilo linapaswa kuwa somo la utafiti, na linapaswa kufanywa kwanza kabisa. Zaidi ya hayo, kutibu umaskini wa nchi hakutatui tatizo la umaskini kwa watu binafsi, mmoja mmoja. Badala yake, kushughulikia matatizo ya umaskini wa watu binafsi, na kugawa utajiri wa nchi miongoni mwao, huwahamasisha watu wote wa nchi kufanya kazi katika kuongeza pato la taifa. Utafiti wa mambo yanayoathiri ukubwa wa uzalishaji na kuongezeka kwa pato la taifa, unapaswa kujadiliwa kama sayansi ya uchumi, yaani katika majadiliano ya bidhaa za kiuchumi na kuongezeka kwake, badala ya majadiliano ya kukidhi mahitaji, ambayo yanadhibitiwa na mfumo wa kiuchumi. Wanakapitalisti wanadai kwamba tatizo la kiuchumi linalokabili jamii yoyote ni uhaba wa bidhaa na huduma. Pia wanadai kwamba mahitaji yanayoongezeka mfululizo, na kutoweza kuyakidhi yote, yaani kutosheleza kwa bidhaa na huduma kukidhi mahitaji yote ya binadamu kikamilifu, ndiko msingi wa tatizo la kiuchumi. Mtazamo huu si sahihi na kwa kweli unapingana na uhalisia. Hii ni kwa sababu mahitaji yanayopaswa kutimizwa ni mahitaji ya msingi ya mtu kama binadamu (chakula, makazi na mavazi), na si anasa, ingawa nazo pia zinatafutwa. Mahitaji ya msingi ya binadamu ni machache, na rasilimali pamoja na juhudi ambazo huitwa bidhaa na huduma zilizopo duniani hakika zinatosha kukidhi mahitaji ya msingi ya binadamu; inawezekana kukidhi kikamilifu mahitaji yote ya msingi ya wanadamu. Kwa hiyo, hakuna tatizo katika mahitaji ya msingi, bila kujali kuliona kuwa ndilo tatizo la kiuchumi linalokabili jamii. Tatizo la kiuchumi, kwa kweli, ni usambazaji wa rasilimali hizi na juhudi, unaowawezesha kila mtu kukidhi kikamilifu mahitaji yote ya msingi, na baada ya hapo kuwasaidia kujitahidi kupata anasa zao.

Kuhusiana na mahitaji yanayoongezeka kwa kasi, hili si suala linalohusiana na kuongezeka kwa mahitaji ya msingi, kwa sababu mahitaji ya msingi ya mwanadamu kama binadamu hayaongezeki, ilhali ni anasa zake ndizo zinazoongezeka na kubadilika. Ongezeko la mahitaji linalotokea kutokana na maendeleo ya mwanadamu katika maisha ya mijini linahusiana zaidi na anasa kuliko mahitaji ya msingi. Mwanadamu hufanya kazi ili kutosheleza anasa zake, lakini kutotoshelezwa kwake hakusababishi tatizo; kinachosababisha tatizo ni kutotoshelezwa kwa mahitaji ya msingi. Zaidi ya hayo yote, suala la kuongezeka kwa anasa ni suala linalowahusu baadhi tu ya watu wanaoishi katika nchi fulani, si watu wote wa nchi hiyo. Suala hili hutatuliwa kupitia hamu ya asili ya mwanadamu ya kutosheleza mahitaji yake. Hamu hii, inayotokana na ongezeko la anasa, humsukuma mwanadamu kufanya kazi ili kuyatosheleza, ama kwa kupanua rasilimali za nchi yake, kufanya kazi katika nchi nyingine, au kwa upanuzi na kuzitwaa nchi nyingine. Hili ni tofauti na suala la kutosheleza kikamilifu mahitaji ya msingi ya kila mtu katika jamii. Hii ni kwa sababu tatizo la kugawa mali kwa kila mtu ili kutosheleza mahitaji yake ya msingi, na kumwezesha kila mtu kutosheleza anasa zake, ni tatizo linalohusiana na mtazamo wa maisha, ambao ni mahsusi kwa taifa fulani lenye itikadi fulani. Hili ni tofauti na suala la kuongeza pato la taifa kwa kuongeza uzalishaji, ambalo linahusiana na hali ya nchi mahsusi, na linaweza kufikiwa kwa kutumia rasilimali za nchi, uhamiaji, upanuzi, au kuungana na nchi nyingine. Suala hili la kuongeza utajiri linategemea uwezekano wa vitendo wa suluhisho, wala halihusiani na mtazamo mahsusi, wala si la taifa mahsusi au itikadi mahsusi.

With reference to the steadily increasing needs, it is not a subject related to increasing basic needs, because the basic needs of man as a human do not increase, whereas, it is his luxuries which increase and vary. The increase in needs which occurs due to the progress of a human in his urbanised life is related to the luxuries rather than to the basic needs. Man works to satisfy his luxuries, but their non-satisfaction does not cause a problem; what does cause a problem is the non-satisfaction of the basic needs. Besides all of this, the question of the increasing luxuries is a question which is only related to some people who live in a certain country and not to all individuals of that country. This question is solved through the natural urge of a human to satisfy his needs. This urge, resulting from the increase in luxuries, drives man to work towards satisfying them, either by expanding the resources of his country, working in other countries, or through expansion and annexation of other countries. This is different from the issue of completely satisfying the basic needs of each and every individual in society. This is because the problem of distributing the wealth to each and every individual to satisfy his basic needs, and enabling every individual to satisfy his luxuries, is a problem related to the viewpoint in life, which is particular to a certain nation carrying a particular ideology. This is contrary to the question of increasing national income through increasing production, which is related to the situation of particular countries, and could be achieved through utilising the resources of the country, emigration, expansion, or merging with other countries. This issue of increasing wealth depends on the practicality of the solution, and is not related to a particular viewpoint, and not related to a particular nation or ideology.

Kanuni za kiuchumi ambazo zinapaswa kuwekwa ni kanuni zinazohakikisha usambazaji wa utajiri wa ndani na wa nje wa nchi kwa kila mtu wa taifa, ili zihakikishe kukidhiwa kikamilifu kwa mahitaji yote ya msingi ya kila mtu, kisha ziwawezeshe kila mtu kutafuta kukidhi anasa zake. Hata hivyo, kuinua kiwango cha uzalishaji kunahitaji utafiti wa kisayansi, na kujadili jambo hilo ndani ya mfumo wa kiuchumi hakutatatua tatizo la kiuchumi, ambalo ni kukidhi kikamilifu mahitaji ya kila mtu. Kuongezeka kwa kiwango cha uzalishaji husababisha kuongezeka kwa kiwango cha utajiri wa nchi, lakini hakulazimishi kukidhi kikamilifu mahitaji yote ya msingi ya kila mtu. Nchi inaweza kuwa tajiri kwa maliasili, kama ilivyo kwa Iraq na Saudi Arabia, lakini mahitaji ya msingi ya wananchi wao wengi bado hayajakidhiwa kikamilifu. Kwa hiyo, kuongeza uzalishaji peke yake hakutatatua tatizo la msingi ambalo linapaswa kushughulikiwa kwanza kabisa, ambalo ni kukidhi kikamilifu mahitaji ya msingi ya kila mtu, na baada ya hapo kuwawezesha kukidhi anasa zao. Kwa hiyo, umaskini na uhitaji unaopaswa kushughulikiwa ni kutokukidhiwa kwa mahitaji ya msingi ya binadamu kama mwanadamu (yaani chakula, makazi na mavazi), si anasa zinazoongezeka kutokana na maendeleo ya mijini. Hivyo, tatizo linalopaswa kushughulikiwa ni umaskini na uhitaji wa kila mtu katika jamii, si umaskini na uhitaji wa nchi inayopimwa kwa ujumla wake. Umaskini na uhitaji kwa mtazamo huu (yaani kwa kila mtu mmoja mmoja) hautatuliwi kwa kuongeza uzalishaji wa taifa, bali unatatuliwa kwa namna utajiri unavyogawanywa kwa watu binafsi katika jamii, kuwezesha kukidhiwa kikamilifu mahitaji yao yote ya msingi, kisha kuwawezesha watu binafsi kukidhi anasa zao.

The economic principles which have to be laid down are the principles which guarantee the distribution of the country’s internal and external wealth to each and every individual of the nation, so that they secure the complete satisfaction of all basic needs for each individual, and then enable every individual to seek the satisfaction of the luxuries. However, raising the level of production requires scientific research, and its discussion in the economic system does not solve the economic problem, which is the complete satisfaction of the needs of each and every individual. An increase in the level of production leads to a rise in the level of the wealth of the country but does not necessarily lead to the complete satisfaction of all the basic needs of each and every individual. The country could be rich in natural resources, as in the case of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, but the basic needs of most of their citizens are not satisfied completely. Therefore, the increase of production by itself, does not solve the basic problem which must be treated first and foremost, which is the complete satisfaction of the basic needs of each and every individual, and following that enabling them to satisfy their luxuries. Therefore, the poverty and deprivation required to be treated is the nonsatisfaction of the basic needs of man as a human being (i.e. food, shelter and clothing), not the increasing luxuries resulting from urban progress. Hence, the problem to be treated is the poverty and deprivation of every individual in the society, not the poverty and deprivation of the country measured as a whole. The poverty and deprivation from this perspective (i.e. for every individual) is not treated by increasing national production, rather it is treated by the manner in which the wealth is distributed to the individuals in society enabling complete satisfaction of all their basic needs, and then enabling the individuals to satisfy their luxuries.

Ubepari unaona thamani kuwa ni kitu cha kulinganishwa tu na si kitu halisi, na hivyo huichukulia kama kipimo cha kibinafsi. Kwa hiyo, thamani ya yadi moja ya kitambaa ni manufaa yake ya ziada (marginal benefit) kwa kudhani kuwa kinapatikana sokoni. Thamani yake pia ni kiasi cha bidhaa na juhudi ambavyo vingeweza kubadilishwa kwa ajili yake. Thamani hugeuka kuwa bei ikiwa kile kinachopatikana kwa yadi ya kitambaa ni fedha. Kwa mtazamo wao, thamani hizi mbili ni tofauti, nazo zina majina mawili tofauti: manufaa (benefit) na thamani ya kubadilishana (value of exchange). Maana ya thamani kwa mujibu wa ufafanuzi huu ni sahihi, kwa sababu thamani ya bidhaa yoyote ni kiasi cha manufaa yaliyomo ndani yake, huku ukizingatia kipengele cha uhaba. Kwa hiyo mtazamo sahihi kuhusu bidhaa yoyote ni kuangalia manufaa yake huku ukizingatia uhaba wake, iwe imepatikana na mtu tangu mwanzo kama kwa uwindaji, au kwa kubadilishana kama kwa kuuza; na iwe hilo linahusiana na mtu au linahusiana na kitu chenyewe. Hivyo, thamani ni jina la kitu maalum chenye uhalisia mahususi, wala si jina la kitu cha kulinganisha, ambacho hutumika katika upande mmoja na hakitumiki katika upande mwingine. Kwa hiyo thamani ni kipimo cha lengo (objective) na si kitu cha kulinganisha. Kwa msingi huo, mtazamo wa wanauchumi kuhusu thamani ni potofu tangu mwanzo wake.

Capitalism considers value as being relative and not real, and so it is treated as a subjective measurement. Hence, the value of a yard of cloth is the marginal benefit of it assuming its availability in the market. Its value is also the quantity of commodities and efforts that could be exchanged for it. The value becomes a price if what is obtained for the yard of cloth is money. These two values, in their view, are separate, and they have two distinct names; benefit and the value of exchange. The meaning of value according to this definition is wrong, because the value of any commodity is the quantity of benefit in it, taking into account the element of scarcity. So the real view towards any commodity is to observe its benefit whilst taking into account its scarcity, whether it is possessed by man from the start like from hunting, or by exchange like selling; and whether this was related to the person or related to the thing. Thus, value is a name for a designated thing which has a specific reality, and not a name for a relative thing, which applies to it in one respect and is not applicable in another. So the value is an objective measurement and not a relative thing. Therefore, the view of the economists towards value is wrong from its basis.

Kinachoitwa thamani ya kando ya matumizi (marginal utility) ni makadirio yanayolenga kuelekeza uzalishaji kwa kuzingatia hali mbaya zaidi ya usambazaji wa bidhaa. Hivyo thamani ya bidhaa hukadiriwa kwa kiwango cha chini kabisa ili uzalishaji uendelee kwa msingi wa uhakika. Thamani ya kando ya matumizi si kweli thamani ya bidhaa, wala hata bei yake, kwa sababu thamani ya bidhaa inapaswa kukadiriwa kwa kiasi cha manufaa yaliyomo ndani yake wakati wa kukadiria, kwa kuzingatia kipengele cha uhaba wakati huo. Thamani yake haitashuka endapo bei yake itapungua baadaye, wala haitapanda endapo bei yake itapanda, kwa sababu thamani yake ilizingatiwa wakati wa tathmini yake. Kwa hiyo, nadharia ya thamani ya kando ya matumizi ni nadharia ya bei na si nadharia ya thamani, na kuna tofauti kati ya bei na thamani, hata kwa mtazamo wa wanauchumi wa kibepari. Kinachoongoza makadirio ya bei ni wingi wa mahitaji pamoja na uhaba wa usambazaji, au wingi wa usambazaji pamoja na uhaba wa mahitaji; mambo haya yanahusiana na kiwango cha uzalishaji wa bidhaa, na hayahusiani na usambazaji wake. Ama thamani hukadiriwa kwa kiasi cha manufaa yaliyopo katika bidhaa wakati wa tathmini, huku kipengele cha uhaba kikizingatiwa, bila kukifanya kuwa sehemu ya makadirio; hivyo usambazaji na mahitaji hayaathiri thamani kabisa. Kwa hiyo, mada ya thamani ni potofu tangu msingi wake, na mada yoyote inayojengwa juu yake ni hakika potofu, kwa kuwa dhana ya msingi ni ya uongo. Hata hivyo, endapo thamani ya bidhaa ingekadiriwa kwa msingi wa manufaa yake yanayopimwa kwa manufaa ya bidhaa nyingine au kwa juhudi, basi tathmini kama hiyo ingekuwa sahihi na ingeleta utulivu mkubwa zaidi kwa muda mfupi. Lakini endapo thamani ingekadiriwa kwa bei, tathmini hiyo ingekuwa ya jamaa na si ya kweli, na ingekaribia kubadilika kila mara kulingana na soko. Katika hali hii ya mwisho, ni makosa kuiita kuwa ni thamani, hivyo neno thamani halitatumika kwa kweli kwake. Badala yake, inakuwa njia ya kupata fedha kulingana na soko, si kulingana na manufaa iliyo nayo.

What is referred to as the marginal utility value is an estimation meant to concentrate production based on the worst case scenario of distributing the commodities. Thus the value of a commodity is estimated based on the lowest limit so that production proceeds on a guaranteed basis. The marginal utility is not really the value of the commodity, nor even the price of the commodity, because the value of the commodity should be estimated by the amount of benefit in it at the time of estimation, taking into account the element of scarcity at that time. Its value would not drop if its price decreases later on, nor would it rise if its price increases as well, because its value was considered at the time of its evaluation. Therefore, marginal utility theory is a theory for price and not a theory for value, and there is a difference between price and value, even in the view of Capitalist economists. What governs the estimation of price is the abundance of demand together with the shortage of supply or the abundance of supply together with the shortage of demand; these matters are related to the level of production of a commodity, and not related to its distribution.Whereas value is estimated by the quantity of benefit present in the commodity at the time of evaluation, bearing in mind the element of scarcity, without considering it as part of the estimation; so supply and demand do not utterly affect the value. Therefore, the subject of value is wrong from its basis, and any subject based on it is definitely wrong since the basic concept is false. However, if the value of the commodity was evaluated in terms of its benefit measured by the benefit of a commodity or an effort, then such an evaluation would be correct and would lead to much greater stability over the short term. If the value was estimated by the price, the evaluation would be relative not real, and it comes closer to changing every time according to the market. In this latter situation, it is false to refer to it as a value, and so the term value would not truly apply to it. It would rather become a means to obtain money according to the market and not according to what it possesses of benefits.

Wanaoitwa Wakapitalisti husema kuwa faida ni matokeo ya juhudi ambazo mwanadamu hutumia. Kwa hiyo, ikiwa malipo hayalingani na kazi, bila shaka kiwango cha uzalishaji hupungua, na kutokana na hili wao hufikia hitimisho kwamba njia bora ya kugawa utajiri miongoni mwa wanachama wa jamii ni ile inayohakikisha kufikia kiwango cha juu zaidi kinachowezekana cha uzalishaji. Mtazamo huu ni wa makosa kabisa, kwa sababu kwa kweli rasilimali ambazo Mwenyezi Mungu ameziumba ndizo msingi wa manufaa yaliyomo katika bidhaa. Gharama zinazotumika katika kuongeza manufaa ya rasilimali hizi, au kuanzisha manufaa ndani yake pamoja na kazi, ndizo zilizozifanya zichukue umbo linalotoa manufaa fulani. Basi kuchukulia manufaa kuwa ni matokeo ya juhudi peke yake ni kosa tupu, na ni kupuuza malighafi na gharama nyinginezo. Kwani katika baadhi ya hali, gharama hizi zinaweza kuwa fidia ya malighafi, si ya juhudi. Hivyo, manufaa yanaweza kuwa matokeo ya juhudi za mwanadamu, au matokeo ya kuwepo kwa malighafi, au matokeo ya vyote viwili, lakini si matokeo ya juhudi za mwanadamu peke yake. Kuhusu kupungua kwa kiwango cha uzalishaji, hakutokani peke yake na kupungua kwa malipo ya kazi, kwani kunaweza pia kutokana na kumalizika kwa utajiri wa nchi, au kutokana na vita, au sababu nyinginezo. Kwa mfano, kupungua kwa uzalishaji nchini Uingereza na Ufaransa baada ya Vita vya Pili vya Dunia hakukutokana na kupunguzwa kwa malipo ya kazi, bali kulitokana na kupungua kwa ushawishi wao juu ya koloni zao tajiri, na kuhusika kwao katika vita. Kupungua kwa uzalishaji wa Marekani wakati wa Vita vya Pili vya Dunia hakukutokana na kupunguzwa kwa malipo ya kazi, bali kulitokana na kuhusika kwake katika vita dhidi ya Ujerumani. Kupungua kwa uzalishaji katika Ulimwengu wa Kiislamu leo hakukutokana na kupunguzwa kwa malipo ya kazi, bali ni matokeo ya kudorora kiakili ambako Ummah mzima ulitumbukia. Kwa hiyo, udhaifu wa malipo kwa kazi si sababu pekee ya kupungua kwa uzalishaji, na ni makosa kudhani kutokana na msingi huu kwamba njia bora ya ugawaji ni kuhakikisha kuongezeka kwa kiwango cha uzalishaji. Kufikia kiwango cha juu zaidi cha uzalishaji hakuna uhusiano wowote na ugawaji wa utajiri miongoni mwa watu. Wanaubepari husema kwamba bei ndiyo motisha ya uzalishaji, kwa sababu sababu inayomfanya mtu atumie juhudi yoyote ni malipo yake ya kimali. Mtazamo huu si sahihi na unapingana na uhalisia. Mwanadamu mara nyingi hutumia juhudi kwa ajili ya thawabu ya kimaadili, kama kupata malipo kutoka kwa Mwenyezi Mungu, au kwa lengo la kupata sifa ya kimaadili, kama kulipa wema kwa wema. Mahitaji ya mwanadamu yanaweza kuwa ya kimali, kama faida ya kimali; yanaweza kuwa ya kiroho, kama utakaso; au ya kimaadili, kama sifa. Kwa hiyo, kuzingatia mahitaji ya kimali pekee ni makosa. Kwa kweli, mtu anaweza kutumia rasilimali kwa ukarimu zaidi katika kutimiza hitaji la kiroho au la kimaadili kuliko anavyotumia katika kutimiza hitaji la kimali. Hivyo, bei si motisha pekee ya uzalishaji. Kwa mujibu wa hayo, mchonga mawe anaweza kujitolea kufanya kazi kwa miezi kadhaa akikata mawe kwa ajili ya kujenga msikiti, kiwanda kinaweza kutenga uzalishaji wake kwa siku kadhaa za mwaka kwa ajili ya kugawiwa maskini, na taifa linaweza kutenga baadhi au kuelekeza juhudi zake zote katika kujiandaa kulinda mipaka yake. Uzalishaji wa namna hii hauchochewi na bei. Zaidi ya hayo, thawabu ya kimali yenyewe haikomei kwenye bei, bali inaweza kuja kwa njia ya bidhaa nyingine au huduma. Kwa hiyo, kuchukulia bei kuwa motisha pekee ya uzalishaji si sahihi.

Moja ya ajabu kubwa za Ubepari ni kuchukulia bei kuwa ndiyo kipimo pekee cha kugawa utajiri miongoni mwa wanachama wa jamii. Wao husema kwamba bei ndiyo kizuizi pekee kinachomlazimisha mlaji katika umiliki wake na matumizi yake kukubali kikomo kinacholingana na mapato yake, na ni bei inayozuia matumizi ya kila mtu kulingana na kile mapato yake yanavyoruhusu. Kwa hiyo, kupitia kupanda kwa bei ya baadhi ya bidhaa na kushuka kwa bei ya nyingine, na kupatikana kwa fedha kwa baadhi ya watu na kutopatikana kwake kwa wengine, bei ndiyo inayodhibiti ugawaji wa utajiri miongoni mwa walaji. Hivyo, sehemu ya kila mtu katika utajiri wa nchi hailingani na mahitaji yake ya msingi, bali inalingana na thamani ya huduma ambazo amechangia katika kuzalisha bidhaa na huduma, yaani inalingana na kile anachomiliki cha ardhi au mtaji, au inalingana na kazi na miradi aliyoitekeleza.

One of the great anomalies of Capitalism is its consideration of price as the only regulator for distributing wealth amongst the members of society. They say that the price is the only constraint that forces the consumer in his possession and consumption to accept a limit comparable to his income, and it is the price which restricts the consumption of every individual in acceptance to what his revenues permit. Accordingly, through the rise in price of some goods and drop in the price of others, and in the availability of money to some people and its non-availability to others, the price regulates the distribution of wealth amongst consumers. Thus, every individual’s share of the wealth of a country is not equal to his basic needs, but is equal to the value of the services in which He has contributed in producing commodities and services i.e. equal to what He owns of land or capital, or equal to what He carried out of work, and projects.

Kutokana na kanuni hii, ambayo hufanya bei kuwa kidhibiti cha usambazaji, Ubepari umeamua kwa vitendo kwamba mtu hastahili kuishi isipokuwa awe na uwezo wa kuchangia katika uzalishaji wa bidhaa na huduma. Mtu asiyeweza kuchangia, iwe amezaliwa na ulemavu wa mwili au wa akili, haistahili kuishi, wala hastahili kuchukua katika utajiri kile kinachokidhi mahitaji yake. Pia mtu aliyezaliwa mwenye nguvu za mwili au za akili, na ambaye ana uwezo zaidi wa kuunda na kumiliki utajiri kwa namna apendavyo, anastahili kutumia maisha ya anasa na anastahili kufanya udhibiti na utawala juu ya wengine kwa mali yake. Vilevile, yule ambaye msukumo wake wa kutafuta faida za kimali ni mkubwa zaidi atawapita wengine katika kumiliki utajiri, ilhali yule ambaye kushikamana kwake na thamani za kiroho na kimaadili (ambazo zinamdhibiti wakati wa kutafuta utajiri) ni kubwa zaidi, atakuwa na kidogo kuliko wengine katika mali au utajiri. Mtazamo huu unaondoa vipengele vya kiroho na kimaadili katika maisha, na kuzaa maisha yaliyojengwa juu ya mapambano ya kimali ya kupata njia za kukidhi mahitaji ya kimali. Hali hii hatimaye hutokea katika nchi zote zinazopitisha na kutekeleza Ubepari. Utawala wa mashirika makubwa ya kibepari umeenea katika nchi zinazofuata Ubepari, huku wazalishaji wakitawala walaji. Kundi dogo la watu, yaani wamiliki wa mashirika makubwa ya mafuta, magari na viwanda vizito, wamekuja kuwatawala walaji, wakiwatawala kwa kuweka bei fulani kwa bidhaa wanazozalisha. Hili limesababisha juhudi za "kuziba viraka" mfumo wa kiuchumi. Walifanya hivyo kwa kuipa Dola (serikali) haki ya kuingilia kati katika kupanga bei (udhibiti wa bei) katika hali maalum ili kulinda uchumi wa taifa, kuwalinda walaji, na kupunguza matumizi ya baadhi ya bidhaa, pamoja na kupunguza mamlaka ya mashirika ya kibepari. Pia wameweka katika udhibiti wa uzalishaji baadhi ya miradi ya umma inayoelekezwa na serikali. Hizi hatua zinapingana na msingi wa mfumo wao wa kiuchumi, ambao ni uhuru wa kiuchumi, na hutumika tu katika hali maalum. Zaidi ya hayo, Wakapitalisti wengi hawakubali mbinu hii ya kuingilia kati (Wahafidhina) na wanaidharau, wakidai kwamba utaratibu wa bei peke yake unatosha kuleta maelewano kati ya maslahi ya wazalishaji na maslahi ya watumiaji, bila haja yoyote ya kuingiliwa na serikali. Suluhisho hizi za kiraka zinazopendekezwa na wafuasi wa kuingilia kati (Waliberali) hutumika tu katika mazingira na masharti fulani, na hata katika mazingira hayo, usambazaji wa mali miongoni mwa watu binafsi hauwezi kufikia utoshelevu kamili wa mahitaji yote ya msingi kwa kila mtu mmoja mmoja.

From this principle, which makes the price the regulator of distribution, Capitalism has effectively decided that man does not deserve life unless He is capable of contributing to the production of commodities and services. The person who is incapable of contributing, whether He was born with a physical or mental disability, does not deserve life, and does not deserve to take from the wealth that which satisfies his needs. Also the person who was born strong in body or in mind, and who is more capable of creating and possessing wealth however He wishes, deserves to consume luxuriously and deserves to practice control and mastery over others with his wealth. Also the one whose motivation to seek material gains is stronger will exceed others in possessing wealth whereas, the one whose adherence to spiritual and moral values (which control Him during the earning of wealth) is stronger, will have less than others in possessions or wealth. This approach excludes the spiritual and moral elements from life and produces a life built upon a materialistic struggle to gain the means of satisfying materialistic needs. This eventually occurs in all countries which adopt and apply Capitalism. The domination of Capitalist monopolies has developed in countries adopting Capitalism, with producers exercising control over consumers. A small group of people i.e. the owners of large oil, automotive, and heavy industry corporations, have come to dominate consumers, reigning over them by imposing certain prices for the commodities they produce. This has led to attempts to “patch up” the economic system. They did this by giving the State (government) the right to intervene in fixing the price (price control) in special circumstances to protect the national economy, to protect consumers, and to reduce consumption of some commodities, as well as limiting the authority of monopolies. They also included in the regulation of production certain public projects directed by the government. These measures contradict the basis of their economic system, which is economic freedom, and they are only applied in specific circumstances. Moreover, many Capitalists do not adopt this interventionist approach (Conservatives) and they scorn it, contending that the price mechanism alone is sufficient to achieve harmony between the interest of the producers and the interest of the consumers, without any need for governmental intervention. These patchwork solutions which are recommended by the supporters of intervention (Liberals), are only applied in certain circumstances and conditions, and even in these circumstances, the distribution of wealth amongst the individuals does not achieve the complete satisfaction of all basic needs for each and every individual.

Usambazaji duni wa bidhaa na huduma, uliotokana na dhana ya uhuru wa umiliki na dhana ya kufanya bei kuwa njia pekee ya kugawa mali, utaendelea kutawala kila jamii inayofuata Ubepari. Kuhusu jamii ya Kimarekani, Wamarekani wengi walikuwa na sehemu ya kutosha ya mali ya nchi hiyo, iliyowatosheleza kikamilifu mahitaji yao mengi ya msingi, na hata baadhi ya anasa zao. Hali hii ilitokea kutokana na utajiri mkubwa wa nchi hiyo, ambao ulikuwa umefikia kiwango ambacho kila mtu alikuwa na fursa ya kutosheleza mahitaji yake yote ya msingi na baadhi ya anasa. Hata hivyo, hili halikutokana na kufanya sehemu ya mtu binafsi iwe sawa na thamani ya huduma alizochangia katika uzalishaji. Zaidi ya hayo, kuweka utaratibu wa bei kuwa msimamizi wa usambazaji kumesababisha mashirika makubwa ya kibepari ya Magharibi kutafuta masoko mapya katika nchi nyingine, ambayo kutoka kwake yangepata malighafi na kuuza bidhaa zao. Yale ambayo dunia inayateseka, kwa upande wa ukoloni, maeneo ya ushawishi na uvamizi wa kiuchumi, ni matokeo tu ya mashirika haya makubwa na kufanya bei kuwa chombo cha kugawa mali. Hivyo, rasilimali za dunia zinakusanywa kwa msingi huu mikononi mwa mashirika makubwa ya kibepari. Yote haya yanatokana na kanuni na misingi potofu iliyowekwa na Ubepari.

The poor distribution of commodities and services, which resulted from the concept of freedom of ownership and from the concept of making the price the only mechanism for distributing wealth, will continue to dominate every society that applies Capitalism. With regard to American society, many Americans had a sufficient share of the wealth of the country, to satisfy most of their basic needs completely, and to satisfy even some of their luxuries. This situation occurred due to the immense wealth of that country which had reached a level by which there was an opportunity for every individual to satisfy all of his basic needs and some of his luxuries. However, this was not due to making the share of the individual equal to the value of the services He contributed in production. Furthurmore, putting the price mechanism as the controller of distribution has caused Capitalist monopolies in the West to look abroad to other countries for new markets, from which to gain raw materials and to sell their products.What the world suffers from, in terms of colonisation, regions of influence and economic invasion, is merely a result of these monopolies and making price a tool in the distribution of wealth. Thus, the resources of the world are accumulated on this basis into the hands of Capitalist monopolies. All this is due to the false rules and principles established by Capitalism.