Iqtisodiy tizim bu boylikni qanday taqsimlash, uni qanday egallash va uni qanday sarflash yoki tasarruf etishni belgilaydigan tizimdir. Bu belgilash hayotga oid muayyan qarashga, ya'ni mafkuraga asoslanadi. Shuning uchun Islomdagi iqtisodiy tizim Sotsializm/Kommunizm va Kapitalizm tizimlaridan farq qiladi, chunki ularning har biri o'z mafkuraviy hayotiy qarashiga ergashadi. Iqtisodiy fan esa ishlab chiqarish, uni takomillashtirish, vositalarini yaratish va yaxshilash masalalarini o'rganadi. Iqtisodiy fan boshqa fanlar kabi barcha xalqlar uchun umumiy bo'lib, muayyan mafkura bilan bog'liq emas. Masalan, Kapitalizmdagi mulkka qarash Sotsializm/Kommunizmdagi qarashdan farq qiladi va Islomdagi qarashdan ham farq qiladi. Biroq ishlab chiqarishni takomillashtirish haqidagi masala texnik masala bo'lib, sof ilmiy xarakterga ega va hayotga qarashi qanday bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, barcha odamlar uchun bir xildir.

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.

Ehtiyojlar va ularni qondirish vositalarini o‘rganish, ya’ni iqtisodiy ne’matlarni ishlab chiqarish bilan ularni taqsimlash usulini bir masala va bir predmet sifatida birlashtirish xatodir. Aynan shu xato kapitalistik iqtisod tadqiqotlarida aralashuv va chalkashlikka olib keldi. Natijada kapitalistik iqtisodning asosi noto‘g‘ri bo‘lib chiqdi.

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. Ehtiyojlar faqat moddiy emas Ehtiyojlarni faqat moddiy deb ko'rsatish xato bo'lib, ehtiyojlarning haqiqatiga zid keladi. Moddiy ehtiyojlardan tashqari axloqiy va ruhiy ehtiyojlar ham bor, ularning har biri qondirilishni talab qiladi va ularni qondirish uchun har biri tovar va xizmatlarga muhtoj.

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. Tovarlar va xizmatlar jamiyat tuzilishiga bog'liq emas Kapitalistik iqtisodchilar ehtiyoj va foydalarga jamiyat qanday bo'lishi kerakligi jihatidan emas, balki ular qanday bo'lsa, shunday qarashadi. Bu esa ularning insonni faqat moddiy mavjudot deb, ruhiy ehtiyojlardan, axloqiy tafakkurdan va ma'naviy maqsadlardan xoli deb bilishlarini anglatadi. Shuningdek, ular jamiyat axloqiy yuksalish jihatidan qanday tuzilishi kerakligiga, ya'ni fazilatlarni jamiyat munosabatlarining asosi qilishga yoki jamiyatda ma'naviy yuksalish jihatidan qanday narsa ustun bo'lishi kerakligiga, ya'ni inson va Alloh o'rtasidagi munosabatni (Allohning borligini anglashni) barcha munosabatlarning harakatlantiruvchi kuchi qilishga, Allohning roziligiga erishish uchun, e'tibor bermaydilar. Kapitalistik iqtisodchi bunga e'tibor bermaydi, chunki uning manfaatdorligi faqat moddiy ehtiyojlarni qondiradigan narsalar jihatidan moddiydir. Shunday ekan, agar inson sotishda aldamayotgan bo'lsa, bunga sabab uning savdosi foyda keltirishiga ishonchidir. Agar u aldash orqali foyda ko'rsa, aldash unga halol bo'lib qolardi. U kambag'allarni Allohning sadaqa berish haqidagi amriga javoban emas, balki ular undan o'g'irlik qilmasligi uchun boqadi. Agar ularning ochligi uning boyligini oshirsa, u holda ularni och qoldirib qo'yadi. Demak, kapitalistning asosiy maqsadi faqat moddiy ehtiyojni qondiradigan foydani izlashdir. Boshqalarga o'z manfaatidan kelib chiqib qaraydigan va iqtisodiy hayotni shu asosda quradigan shaxs jamiyat va odamlar uchun eng xavfli insondir.

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.

Ehtiyojlar va manfaatlar nuqtai nazaridan qaraganda, tovarlar va xizmatlar deb ataladigan vositalar va mehnat nuqtai nazaridan, shaxs ulardan foyda olish uchun ularni qo‘lga kiritishga intiladi. Odamlar o‘rtasida vositalar va mehnat almashinuvi ular o‘rtasida munosabatlarni vujudga keltiradi, ularga muvofiq jamiyatning tuzilishi shakllanadi. Shu sababli, vositalar va mehnatni baholashda jamiyat tuzilishi umuman va batafsil qanday bo‘lishi kerakligini ko‘rib chiqish zarur.

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.

Shunday qilib, iqtisodiy tovarga faqat uning ehtiyojni qondirishi nuqtayi nazaridan qarash, jamiyat qanday bo‘lishi kerakligiga e’tibor bermaslik — tovarni munosabatlardan ajratishdir, bu esa tabiiy emas. Bu iqtisodiy tovar odamlar o‘rtasida almashiladi va shu tariqa ular o‘rtasida munosabatlarni vujudga keltiradi, munosabatlar esa jamiyatni tashkil etadi. Shuning uchun iqtisodiy tovarni ko‘rib chiqayotganda uning jamiyatga ta’siri nazarda tutilishi kerak. Demak, biror narsani faqat unga kimdir ehtiyoj sezgani uchun foydali deb hisoblash noto‘g‘ri, bu narsaning o‘zi zararli bo‘lsa ham, odamlar o‘rtasidagi munosabatlarga ta’sir qilsa ham yoki qilmasa ham, jamiyat e’tiqodida u man etilgan yoki ruxsat etilgan bo‘lsa ham baribir. Balki narsalar jamiyat qanday bo‘lishi kerakligi nuqtayi nazaridan haqiqatan foydali bo‘lsagina foydali deb hisoblanishi lozim. Shu sababli, kimdir ularni istagani uchun kanab, afyun va ularga o‘xshash narsalarni foydali tovarlar va iqtisodiy tovarlar deb hisoblash noto‘g‘ridir. Aksincha, bu iqtisodiy tovarlarning odamlar o‘rtasidagi munosabatlarga ta’siri, ya’ni narsani iqtisodiy tovar sifatida qaraladimi yoki yo‘qmi, uning foydasini belgilashda albatta hisobga olinishi kerak. Narsalarga jamiyat qanday bo‘lishi kerakligi bilan bog‘liq holda qarash lozim. Narsaga jamiyat qanday bo‘lishi kerakligidan qat’i nazar, faqat o‘z holicha qarash noto‘g‘ridir. Ehtiyojlarni qondirish masalasini ehtiyojlarni qondirish vositalari masalasi ichiga kiritib, vositalarni faqat ehtiyojni qondirish nuqtayi nazaridan, boshqa hech qanday e’tibor bermasdan ko‘rib chiqish orqali iqtisodchilar boylikni taqsimlashdan ko‘ra boylik ishlab chiqarishga ko‘proq e’tibor qaratadilar. Ehtiyojlarni qondirish uchun boylikni taqsimlashning ahamiyati ikkinchi darajali bo‘lib qoldi. Shuning uchun kapitalistik iqtisodiy tizimning yagona maqsadi mamlakat boyligini umuman oshirishdir va u mumkin bo‘lgan eng yuqori darajadagi ishlab chiqarishga erishish uchun ishlaydi. U'z jamiyat a'zolari uchun mumkin bo'lgan eng yuqori darajadagi farovonlikka mamlakatda ishlab chiqarish darajasini oshirish va milliy daromadni ko'paytirish orqali erishiladi, deb hisoblaydi, shuningdek, shaxslarga mulkni egallash va ishlab chiqarishda ishlash erkinligi berilganda ular boylikni o'z qo'liga oladi. Demak, iqtisodiyot shaxslarning ehtiyojlarini qondirish va jamiyatdagi har bir shaxsning qondirilishini ta'minlash uchun mavjud emas, balki shaxslarning ehtiyojlarini qondiruvchi narsalarni ko'paytirishga, ya'ni ishlab chiqarish darajasini oshirish va mamlakatning milliy daromadini ko'paytirish orqali jamiyatning ehtiyojlarini qondirishga qaratilgan. Milliy daromad mavjudligi orqali, mulk erkinligi va mehnat erkinligi vositasida jamiyat a'zolari o'rtasida daromad taqsimlanadi. Shunday qilib, har bir kishi ishlab chiqarish omillariga ega bo'lganiga qarab, boylikdan qo'lidan kelganicha oladi, barcha shaxslar yoki faqat ayrim shaxslar qondiriladimi, bu shaxslarga havola qilinadi. Bu siyosiy iqtisod, ya'ni kapitalistik iqtisoddir. Bu aniq noto'g'ri bo'lib, haqiqatga zid keladi; u barcha shaxslar uchun turmush darajasining yaxshilanishiga olib kelmaydi va har bir shaxsning asosiy farovonligini ta'minlamaydi. Bu qarashdagi xato shundaki, qondirilishi kerak bo'lgan ehtiyojlar shaxsiy ehtiyojlardir, ular insonning ehtiyojlaridir; demak, ular Muhammad, Solih va Hasan uchun bo'lgan ehtiyojlardir, inson guruhi, xalqlar guruhi yoki odamlar guruhi uchun emas. O'z ehtiyojlarini qondirishga intiladigan kishi shaxsning o'zidir, u ularni bevosita, masalan, ovqatlanish orqali yoki butun guruhning qondirilishi orqali, masalan, millatni himoya qilish orqali qondirishi mumkin. Shuning uchun iqtisodiy muammo shaxslar uchun qondirish vositalarini taqsimlashga qaratilgan, ya'ni davlat yoki xalq a'zolariga mablag' va foydalarni taqsimlash, xalq yoki millat ichidagi har bir shaxsni hisobga olmasdan, millat yoki xalq talab qilayotgan ehtiyojlar asosida amalga oshirilmasligi kerak. Boshqacha aytganda, muammo millatga tushgan qashshoqlik emas, balki shaxsga tushgan qashshoqlikdir. Iqtisodiy tizimning e'tibori faqat har bir shaxsning asosiy ehtiyojlarini qondirishga qaratilishi kerak, iqtisodiy tovarlar ishlab chiqarishni o'rganishga emas. Shu sababli, milliy ishlab chiqarish hajmiga ta'sir qiluvchi omillarni o'rganish, barcha shaxslarning asosiy ehtiyojlarini shaxsan va to'liq qondirishni o'rganishdan farq qiladi. O'rganish predmeti insonning inson sifatidagi asosiy ehtiyojlari hamda jamiyat a'zolariga ularning barcha asosiy ehtiyojlari qondirilishini kafolatlaydigan darajada boylikni taqsimlash bo'lishi kerak. Bu o'rganish predmeti bo'lishi va birinchi navbatda shu narsa amalga oshirilishi lozim. Bundan tashqari, mamlakatning qashshoqligini bartaraf etish shaxslarning qashshoqlik muammosini alohida-alohida hal qilmaydi. Aksincha, shaxslarning qashshoqlik muammolarini bartaraf etish va mamlakat boyligini ular o'rtasida taqsimlash mamlakat aholisining barchasini milliy daromadni oshirishga undaydi. Ishlab chiqarish hajmi va milliy daromad o'sishiga ta'sir etuvchi omillarni o'rganish iqtisodiy fan sifatida, ya'ni iqtisodiy tovar va uning o'sishi muhokamasi doirasida olib borilishi kerak, iqtisodiy tizim tomonidan tartibga solinadigan ehtiyojlarni qondirish muhokamasi doirasida emas. Kapitalistlar har qanday jamiyat duch keladigan iqtisodiy muammo tovarlar va xizmatlarning kamyobligi ekanligini da'vo qilishadi. Ular shuningdek, doimiy ortib borayotgan ehtiyojlar va ularning barchasini qondira olmaslik, ya'ni inson ehtiyojlarini to'liq qondirish uchun tovarlar va xizmatlarning yetarli emasligi iqtisodiy muammoning asosi ekanligini ta'kidlashadi. Bu qarash xato bo'lib, aslida voqelikka zid keladi. Bu sababli, ta'minlanishi lozim bo'lgan ehtiyojlar insonning inson sifatidagi asosiy ehtiyojlari (oziq-ovqat, turar joy va kiyim-kechak) bo'lib, hashamatlar emas, garchi ularga ham intilinsa-da. Insonning asosiy ehtiyojlari cheklangan, dunyoda mavjud bo'lgan, ular tovarlar va xizmatlar deb atagan resurslar va mehnat esa inson asosiy ehtiyojlarini qondirishga, albatta, yetarlidir; insoniyatning barcha asosiy ehtiyojlarini to'liq qondirish mumkin. Shunday ekan, jamiyat duch keladigan iqtisodiy muammoni hisobga olmaganda ham, asosiy ehtiyojlarda hech qanday muammo yo'q. Aslida iqtisodiy muammo — bu resurslar va mehnatni shunday taqsimlashki, har bir inson asosiy ehtiyojlarini to'liq qondira olsin, shundan keyin esa ularga hashamatlariga erishish uchun intilishda yordam berish demakdir.

Ehtiyojlarning doimiy ortib borishiga kelsak, bu asosiy ehtiyojlarning ortishi bilan bog'liq masala emas, chunki insonning inson sifatidagi asosiy ehtiyojlari ortmaydi, balki uning hashamatli ehtiyojlari ortadi va turlanadi. Insonning shahar hayotida taraqqiy etishi natijasida yuzaga keladigan ehtiyojlarning ortishi asosiy ehtiyojlarga emas, balki hashamatli ehtiyojlarga tegishlidir. Inson o'z hashamatli ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun ishlaydi, ammo ularning qondirilmasligi muammo tug'dirmaydi; muammo tug'diradigan narsa asosiy ehtiyojlarning qondirilmasligidir. Bularning barchasidan tashqari, hashamatli ehtiyojlarning ortishi masalasi faqat ma'lum bir mamlakatda yashovchi ayrim odamlarga tegishli bo'lib, o'sha mamlakatning barcha fuqarolariga tegishli emas. Bu masala insonning ehtiyojlarini qondirishga bo'lgan tabiiy intilishi orqali hal etiladi. Hashamatli ehtiyojlarning ortishidan kelib chiqqan bu intilish insonni ularni qondirishga harakat qilishga undaydi: yo o'z mamlakatining resurslarini kengaytirish, yo boshqa mamlakatlarda ishlash, yo boshqa mamlakatlarni kengaytirish va bosib olish orqali. Bu esa jamiyatdagi har bir shaxsning asosiy ehtiyojlarini to'liq qondirish masalasidan farq qiladi. Chunki boylikni har bir shaxsga uning asosiy ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun taqsimlash va har bir shaxsga hashamatli ehtiyojlarini qondirish imkonini berish muammosi ma'lum bir mafkurani tutgan muayyan xalqqa xos bo'lgan hayotiy qarashga bog'liq muammodir. Bu esa ishlab chiqarishni oshirish orqali milliy daromadni ko'paytirish masalasiga zid keladi: bu masala muayyan mamlakatlarning ahvoli bilan bog'liq bo'lib, mamlakat resurslaridan foydalanish, ko'chib ketish, kengayish yoki boshqa mamlakatlar bilan birlashish orqali amalga oshirilishi mumkin. Boylikni oshirish masalasi yechimning amaliyligiga bog'liq bo'lib, muayyan qarash, muayyan xalq yoki mafkura bilan bog'liq emas.

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.

Iqtisodiy qoidalar shunday belgilanishi kerakki, ular mamlakatning ichki va tashqi boyligini millatning har bir fuqarosiga taqsimlashni kafolatlasin, shunda har bir shaxsning barcha asosiy ehtiyojlari to‘liq qondiriladi va so‘ngra har bir shaxs hashamatli narsalarga bo‘lgan ehtiyojini qondirishga intilishi mumkin bo‘ladi. Biroq ishlab chiqarish darajasini oshirish ilmiy tadqiqotni talab qiladi va uni iqtisodiy tizimda muhokama qilish iqtisodiy muammoni hal etmaydi, bu muammo esa har bir shaxsning ehtiyojlarini to‘liq qondirishdir. Ishlab chiqarish darajasining oshishi mamlakat boyligi darajasining ko‘tarilishiga olib keladi, lekin bu har bir shaxsning barcha asosiy ehtiyojlarining to‘liq qondirilishini zarur ravishda ta’minlamaydi. Mamlakat Iroq va Saudiya Arabistonida bo‘lgani kabi tabiiy resurslarga boy bo‘lishi mumkin, ammo ularning fuqarolarining aksariyatining asosiy ehtiyojlari to‘liq qondirilmagan. Shuning uchun ishlab chiqarishning o‘zi oshishi, avvalo va eng muhimi hal etilishi lozim bo‘lgan asosiy muammoni, ya’ni har bir shaxsning asosiy ehtiyojlarini to‘liq qondirishni hal qilmaydi, undan keyin esa ularga hashamatli narsalarini qondirish imkonini beradi. Demak, bartaraf etilishi kerak bo‘lgan qashshoqlik va mahrumlik inson sifatida insonning asosiy ehtiyojlarining (ya’ni oziq-ovqat, turar joy va kiyim-kechak) qondirilmasligidir, shaharlashuv taraqqiyotidan kelib chiqadigan ortib borayotgan hashamatli narsalar emas. Shunday ekan, hal etilishi kerak bo‘lgan muammo butun mamlakat miqyosida o‘lchangan qashshoqlik va mahrumlik emas, balki jamiyatdagi har bir shaxsning qashshoqligi va mahrumligidir. Ushbu nuqtai nazardan (ya’ni har bir shaxs uchun) qashshoqlik va mahrumlik milliy ishlab chiqarishni oshirish orqali bartaraf etilmaydi, balki boylikning jamiyatdagi shaxslarga taqsimlanish usuli orqali hal etiladi, bu usul ularning barcha asosiy ehtiyojlarining to‘liq qondirilishini ta’minlaydi va shundan so‘ng shaxslarga hashamatli narsalarini qondirish imkonini beradi.

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.

Kapitalizm qiymatni nisbiy, haqiqiy emas, shuning uchun sub'ektiv o'lchov deb hisoblaydi. Shunga ko'ra, bir yard matoning qiymati bozorda mavjudligi taqdirida uning chekka foydasidir. Uning qiymati, shuningdek, bir yard mato evaziga olish mumkin bo'lgan tovarlar va mehnat miqdoridir. Agar bir yard mato evaziga olinadigan narsa pul bo'lsa, qiymat narxga aylanadi. Ularning nazarida bu ikki qiymat bir-biridan ajratilgan bo'lib, ularning ikki xil nomi bor: foyda va ayirboshlash qiymati. Bu ta'rifga ko'ra qiymatning ma'nosi noto'g'ri, chunki har qanday tovarning qiymati unda mavjud foyda miqdoridir, kamyoblik omilini hisobga olgan holda. Demak, har qanday tovarga to'g'ri qarash uning foydasini kamyoblikni hisobga olgan holda kuzatishdir, bu tovar insonda dastlabdan bo'lganmi, masalan ov orqali, yoki ayirboshlash orqali, masalan sotish yo'li bilan qo'lga kiritilganmi, va bu shaxsga yoki narsaga tegishli bo'lishidan qat'i nazar. Shunday qilib, qiymat ma'lum bir haqiqatga ega bo'lgan belgilangan narsaning nomidir, bir jihatdan unga tegishli, boshqa jihatdan tegishli bo'lmagan nisbiy narsaning nomi emas. Demak, qiymat nisbiy narsa emas, balki obyektiv o'lchovdir. Shu sababli, iqtisodchilarning qiymatga qarashi asosidanoq noto'g'ridir.

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.

Marjinal foydalilik qiymati deb ataladigan narsa mahsulotni tovarlarni taqsimlash bo‘yicha eng yomon holatga asoslangan holda yo‘naltirish uchun mo‘ljallangan bahodir. Shunday qilib, tovarning qiymati eng past chegaraga asoslanib baholanadi, shunda ishlab chiqarish kafolatlangan asosda davom etadi. Marjinal foydalilik aslida tovarning qiymati ham, hatto narxi ham emas, chunki tovarning qiymati baholash vaqtidagi undagi foyda miqdori bo‘yicha, o‘sha paytdagi kamyob bo‘lish omilini hisobga olgan holda baholanishi kerak. Keyinchalik uning narxi pasaysa, qiymati tushmaydi, narxi ko‘tarilsa ham qiymati oshmaydi, chunki uning qiymati baholangan paytda hisobga olingan edi. Shuning uchun marjinal foydalilik nazariyasi narx nazariyasi bo‘lib, qiymat nazariyasi emas va hatto kapitalistik iqtisodchilarning qarashida ham narx bilan qiymat o‘rtasida farq bor. Narxni baholashni talabning ko‘pligi va taklifning kamligi, yoki taklifning ko‘pligi va talabning kamligi belgilaydi; bu masalalar tovarning ishlab chiqarish darajasi bilan bog‘liq bo‘lib, uning taqsimoti bilan bog‘liq emas. Qiymat esa baholash vaqtida tovarda mavjud bo‘lgan foyda miqdori bilan, kamyoblik omilini esa baholashga kiritmasdan hisobga olgan holda baholanadi; shuning uchun talab va taklif qiymatga butunlay ta’sir qilmaydi. Demak, qiymat masalasi o‘z asosidanoq noto‘g‘ri, uning asosiy tushunchasi yolg‘on bo‘lgani uchun unga asoslangan har qanday masala albatta noto‘g‘ri. Biroq, agar tovarning qiymati uning foydasi bo‘yicha, ya’ni tovar yoki mehnatning foydasi bilan o‘lchangan holda baholansa, bunday baholash to‘g‘ri bo‘lardi va qisqa muddatda ancha katta barqarorlikka olib kelardi. Agar qiymat narx bo‘yicha baholansa, baholash nisbiy bo‘lib qolardi, haqiqiy emas, va u bozorga qarab har safar o‘zgarishga yaqinlashardi. Bu oxirgi holatda, uni qiymat deb atash noto'g'ri bo'ladi va shuning uchun qiymat atamasi unga haqiqatda nisbatan qo'llanilmaydi. Bu, aksincha, bozorga ko'ra pul olish vositasiga aylanadi, uning foydalilik xususiyatlariga ko'ra emas.

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.

Kapitalistlar foydalar insonning sarflagan mehnati natijasidir, deydilar. Shunday ekan, agar mukofot mehnatga teng bo‘lmasa, shubhasiz, ishlab chiqarish darajasi pasayadi, va ular shundan xulosa qilib, jamiyat a’zolari o‘rtasida boylikni taqsimlashning ideal usuli — bu mumkin bo‘lgan eng yuqori ishlab chiqarish darajasiga erishishni kafolatlaydigan usul, deb hisoblaydilar. Bu yondashuv mutlaqo noto‘g‘ri, chunki haqiqatda Alloh yaratgan resurslar tovarlardagi foydaning asosidir. Bu resurslarning foydasini oshirish yoki ularda mehnat bilan birga foyda yaratishga sarflangan xarajatlar esa ularni alohida foyda beradigan shaklga keltirgan narsadir. Shuning uchun foydani faqat mehnat natijasi deb hisoblash mutlaqo noto‘g‘ri bo‘lib, u xom ashyo va boshqa xarajatlarni e’tibordan chetda qoldiradi. Chunki ba’zi hollarda bu xarajatlar mehnat uchun emas, balki xom ashyo uchun kompensatsiya bo‘lishi mumkin. Demak, foyda insonning mehnati natijasi bo‘lishi mumkin, yoki xom ashyoning mavjudligi natijasi bo‘lishi mumkin, yoki ikkalasining natijasi bo‘lishi mumkin, ammo u faqat insonning mehnati natijasi emas. Ishlab chiqarish darajasining pasayishiga kelsak, u faqat mehnat mukofotining kamayishidan kelib chiqmaydi, chunki u mamlakat boyligining kamayishidan, urushdan yoki boshqa sabablardan ham kelib chiqishi mumkin. Masalan, Ikkinchi jahon urushidan keyin Buyuk Britaniya va Fransiyada ishlab chiqarishning pasayishi mehnat mukofotining kamayishidan emas, balki ularning boy mustamlakalari ustidan ta’sirining qisqarishi va urushda ishtirok etishlaridan kelib chiqdi. AQShda Ikkinchi jahon urushi davridagi ishlab chiqarishning pasayishi mehnat mukofotining kamayishidan emas, balki uning Germaniyaga qarshi urushda ishtirok etishidan kelib chiqdi. Bugungi kunda Islom dunyosidagi ishlab chiqarishning pasayishi mehnat mukofotining kamayishidan emas, balki butun ummatni qamrab olgan aqliy tanazzulning natijasidir. Shuning uchun ishning mukofoti yetarli emasligi ishlab chiqarish pasayishining yagona sababi emas va bu asosdan taqsimotning ideal usuli ishlab chiqarish darajasini oshirishni ta'minlashdir, deb faraz qilish noto'g'ri. Ishlab chiqarishning eng yuqori mumkin bo'lgan darajasiga erishish boylikni shaxslar o'rtasida taqsimlash bilan hech qanday aloqaga ega emas. Kapitalistlar narx ishlab chiqarish uchun rag'batdir, chunki odamning biror harakat qilishga undaydigan sababi uning moddiy mukofotidir, deyishadi. Bu qarash noto'g'ri va haqiqatga zid. Inson ko'pincha Allohdan savob olish kabi ma'naviy mukofot uchun yoki yaxshilikka yaxshilik bilan javob qaytarish kabi axloqiy fazilatga erishish uchun kuch sarflaydi. Insonning ehtiyojlari moddiy foyda kabi moddiy bo'lishi mumkin, poklanish kabi ma'naviy bo'lishi mumkin yoki maqtov kabi axloqiy bo'lishi mumkin. Shuning uchun faqat moddiy ehtiyojlarni hisobga olish noto'g'ri. Darhaqiqat, inson moddiy ehtiyojni qondirishga sarflaganidan ko'ra, ma'naviy yoki axloqiy ehtiyojni qondirishga ko'proq saxiylik bilan mablag' sarflashi mumkin. Demak, narx ishlab chiqarishning yagona rag'bati emas. Shunga ko'ra, toshtarosh bir necha oy davomida masjid qurish uchun tosh kesishga o'zini bag'ishlashi mumkin, zavod yil davomida bir necha kun mahsulotini kambag'allarga tarqatish uchun ajratishi mumkin, xalq esa hududlarini himoya qilishga tayyorgarlik ko'rishga o'z kuchlarining bir qismini yoki barchasini yo'naltirishi mumkin. Bunday ishlab chiqarish narx bilan rag'batlantirilmaydi. Bundan tashqari, moddiy mukofotning o'zi faqat narx bilan cheklanmaydi, u boshqa tovarlar yoki xizmatlar shaklida ham bo'lishi mumkin. Shunday ekan, narxni ishlab chiqarishning yagona rag'bati deb hisoblash noto'g'ri.

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

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.

Ushbu tamoyildan kelib chiqadigan bo'lsak, narx taqsimotni tartibga soluvchi bo'lib, Kapitalizm amalda shunday qaror qabul qildiki, inson tovar va xizmatlar ishlab chiqarishga hissa qo'sha olmasa, hayotga loyiq emas. Jismoniy yoki aqliy nogironlik bilan tug'ilgan, hissa qo'sha olmaydigan kishi hayotga loyiq emas va boylikdan o'z ehtiyojlarini qondiradigan narsani olishga haqli emas. Shuningdek, tanasi yoki aqli kuchli tug'ilgan, boylik yaratish va uni istagancha egallashga qodir bo'lgan kishi hashamatda yashashga va boyligi bilan boshqalar ustidan nazorat va hukmronlik qilishga haqli. Moddiy foyda izlash ishtiyoqi kuchliroq bo'lgan kishi boylikka egalik qilishda boshqalardan ustun keladi, boylik topish jarayonida ma'naviy va axloqiy qadriyotlarga bo'lgan rioya qilish kuchliroq bo'lgan kishi esa boshqalarga nisbatan kam mulk yoki boylikka ega bo'ladi. Bunday yondashuv hayotdan ma'naviy va axloqiy unsurlarni chiqarib tashlaydi va moddiy ehtiyojlarni qondirish vositalarini egallash uchun moddiy kurashga asoslangan hayot yaratadi. Oxir-oqibat bu Kapitalizmni qabul qilib, uni qo'llaydigan barcha mamlakatlarda yuz beradi. Kapitalistik monopoliyalarning hukmronligi Kapitalizmni qabul qilgan mamlakatlarda rivojlanib, ishlab chiqaruvchilar iste'molchilar ustidan nazorat o'rnatdi. Yirik neft, avtomobil va og'ir sanoat korporatsiyalari egalaridan iborat kichik bir guruh iste'molchilarga hukmronlik qila boshladi va ishlab chiqarayotgan tovarlariga o'zlari belgilagan narxlarni joriy qilish orqali ularni boshqarib keldi. Bu iqtisodiy tizimni "tuzatishga" urinishlarga olib keldi. Ular davlatga maxsus holatlarda narxni belgilashga (narx nazorati) aralashish huquqini berdilar, bu milliy iqtisodiyotni himoya qilish, iste'molchilarni himoya qilish, ba'zi tovarlar iste'molini kamaytirish, shuningdek, monopoliyalarning vakolatlarini cheklash maqsadida amalga oshirildi. Shuningdek, ishlab chiqarishni tartibga solishga davlat boshqaradigan ayrim jamoat loyihalarini ham kiritdilar. Bu choralar ularning iqtisodiy tizimining asosi bo'lgan iqtisodiy erkinlikka zid keladi va ular faqat muayyan holatlardagina qo'llaniladi. Bundan tashqari, ko'plab kapitalistlar bu aralashuvchi yondashuvni (konservatorlar) qabul qilmaydi va uni rad etadi, ularning fikricha, faqat narx mexanizmining o'zi ishlab chiqaruvchilarning manfaati bilan iste'molchilarning manfaati o'rtasida uyg'unlikka erishish uchun yetarli bo'lib, davlat aralashuvi zarur emas. Aralashuvchilar (liberallar) tomonidan tavsiya etilgan bu bo'lakbo'lak yechimlar faqat ma'lum holatlar va shart-sharoitlarda qo'llaniladi va hatto bunday holatlarda ham boylikning shaxslar o'rtasida taqsimlanishi har bir inson uchun barcha asosiy ehtiyojlarning to'liq qondirilishiga erishmaydi.

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.

Mahsulotlar va xizmatlarning noadolat taqsimlanishi, bu mulk erkinligi tushunchasidan hamda narxni boylikni taqsimlashning yagona vositasi qilish tushunchasidan kelib chiqqan bo'lib, kapitalizmni qo'llagan har bir jamiyatda hukmron bo'lib qolaveradi. Amerika jamiyatiga kelsak, ko'pgina amerikaliklar mamlakat boyligidan o'zlarining asosiy ehtiyojlarini to'liq qondirishga, hatto ba'zi hashamatli narsalarini ham qondirishga yetarli ulushga ega edilar. Bu vaziyat o'sha mamlakatning ulkan boyligi tufayli yuzaga keldi, bu boylik har bir shaxsga barcha asosiy ehtiyojlarini va ba'zi hashamatlarini qondirish imkoniyati yaratadigan darajaga yetgan edi. Biroq bu, shaxsning ulushini ishlab chiqarishda qo'shgan xizmatining qiymatiga teng qilinganligi tufayli emas edi. Bundan tashqari, taqsimotni boshqaruvchi vosita sifatida narx mexanizmini qo'yish G'arbdagi kapitalistik monopoliyalarni xomashyo olish va mahsulotlarini sotish uchun yangi bozorlarni boshqa mamlakatlardan izlashga majbur qildi. Dunyo mustamlakachilik, ta'sir doiralari va iqtisodiy bosqinchilik jihatidan azob chekayotgan narsa aynan shu monopoliyalarning va narxni boylikni taqsimlash vositasiga aylantirishning natijasidir. Shunday qilib, dunyo resurslari shu asosda kapitalistik monopoliyalar qo'lida to'planadi. Bularning barchasi kapitalizm o'rnatgan noto'g'ri qoida va tamoyillar tufayli sodir bo'lmoqda.

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.