Inson o'z ehtiyojlarini qondiradigan mol-mulkni ishlab chiqarish uchun tabiiy ravishda intiladi. Insonning ehtiyojlari ko'p, va ularni boshqa odamlarsiz qondira olmaydi. Shuning uchun inson jamiyatda yashashi va boshqalar bilan o'z mehnatining mahsulotlarini almashishi zarur bo'lib qoladi. Demak, jamiyatda yashayotgan inson o'z mehnatini ham bevosita o'zi foydalanish (iste'mol) uchun, ham almashinuv uchun ishlab chiqarishga sarflaydi. Uning ehtiyojlari ko'p bo'lgani uchun u butun mehnatini faqat bevosita iste'molga sarflamaydi, chunki unda yo'q bo'lgan mol-mulkka ehtiyoj sezadi. Ta'lim va tibbiyot kabi ehtiyojlarida bo'lgani singari, u boshqalarning mehnatidan bevosita foydalanishi zarur bo'lib qoladi.

Man rushes naturally to spend effort in producing the property by which He fulfils his needs. Man’s needs are numerous and He cannot meet them in isolation of other people. Therefore, it becomes inevitable that man lives in a society in which He exchanges with others the products of their efforts. Therefore, man who lives in a society spends his effort to produce both for his direct use (consumption) and for exchange. Because his needs are numerous, He does not spend all his efforts for his direct consumption only, for He is in need of properties which He does not have. It becomes necessary for Him to benefit directly from the efforts of others, as in his need for education and medicine and the like.

Shunday qilib, inson ishlab chiqaradigan mulk turlari, qanchalik xilma-xil va ko'p bo'lmasin, uning barcha ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun yetarli emas. Chunki u o'z kuchi bilan barcha ehtiyojlarini qondiradigan narsalarni ishlab chiqara olmaydi. Aksincha, u boshqalarning mehnatiga tayanishi kerak. Shuning uchun u o'z mehnatini yoki mulkini boshqalarning mehnati mevalariga almashtirishi lozim. Demak, odamlar mehnatini almashish zarur. Bu mehnatlar boshqa mehnat yoki mulk bilan to'lanishi mumkin bo'lgani uchun, mehnat mevalarining barchasini bir-biriga nisbatan qiymatini belgilaydigan o'lchov bo'lishi zarur bo'ladi, shunda ular almashtirilishi mumkin. Bu mulklarning qiymatini belgilaydi, shunda ular bir-biri bilan yoki mehnatga almashtirilishi mumkin. Shuning uchun mehnat qiymatini belgilash uchun ishlatiladigan o'lchov bilan mulk qiymatini belgilash uchun ishlatiladigan o'lchov bir xil bo'lishi zarur, toki mulkni mulkka, mulkni mehnatga va mehnatni mehnatga almashtirish mumkin bo'lsin.

Therefore, the types of properties which man produces, however different and numerous they are, are not enough to fulfil all his needs. This is because He cannot produce by his own effort the things that fulfil all his needs. Rather He must depend on the efforts of others. So He has to exchange his effort or his property with the fruits of the others efforts. Therefore, the exchange of people’s efforts is necessary. Since these efforts may be recompensed by another effort or property it becomes necessary to have a measure that defines the values of all the fruits of efforts, relative to each other, in order that they may be exchanged. This defines the values of properties, so that they can be exchanged with each other or for labour. Therefore it is necessary that the measure used to define the value of efforts, and the measure used to define the value of properties is the same, so as to enable the exchange of properties with each other, the exchange of property with effort and the exchange of effort with effort.

Shunga ko'ra, odamlar o'zlarining ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun zarur bo'lgan mol-mulk va mehnatni olish imkonini beradigan pul mukofotiga kelishib oldilar. Tovarlarga nisbatan bu pul mukofoti narx, mehnatga nisbatan esa ish haqi hisoblanadi. Buning sababi shundaki, tovarlarni almashishda bu tovarning o'zi uchun to'lovdir, mehnatni almashishda esa u insonning sarflagan mehnatidan olinadigan foyda uchun to'lovdir. Shunday qilib, savdo bitimlari va yollash shartnomalari inson uchun zarurdir, garchi savdo va yollash o'rtasida odamlar orasidagi shaxslararo bitimlar bundan tashqari hech qanday aloqasi bo'lmasa ham. Demak, yollash sotishga bog'liq emas va ish haqi narxga bog'liq emas. Shuning uchun ish haqini baholash narxni baholashdan farq qiladi va ular o'rtasida hech qanday munosabat yo'q. Buning sababi shuki, narx mol-mulk uchun to'lovdir, shuning uchun u, qiymat yoki narx bilan baholangan bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, muqarrar ravishda mol-mulk evaziga berilgan mol-mulkdir. Ish haqi esa mehnat uchun to'lovdir, bu mehnat albatta mol-mulk yaratishi shart emas; aksincha, u mol-mulk yaratishi ham, yaratmasligi ham mumkin. Mehnatdan olinadigan foyda faqat mol-mulk ishlab chiqarish bilan cheklanmaydi, chunki mehnatdan mol-mulkdan tashqari foydalar ham kelib chiqadi. Shunga ko'ra, qishloq xo'jaligi, savdo va sanoatda sarflangan mehnat, uning turi va miqdoridan qat'i nazar, mol-mulk yaratadi va bu to'g'ridan-to'g'ri mamlakat boyligini oshiradi. Ammo shifokor, muhandis, advokat, o'qituvchi tomonidan ko'rsatiladigan xizmatlar va boshqa shunga o'xshash xizmatlar mol-mulk yaratmaydi va to'g'ridan-to'g'ri xalq boyligini oshirmaydi. Agar ishlab chiqaruvchi ish haqi olsa, u buni yaratgan mol-mulki evaziga olgan bo'lar edi, ammo agar muhandis ish haqi olsa, u buni mol-mulk evaziga olmagan bo'lar edi, chunki u hech qanday mol-mulk yaratmagan. Shuning uchun narxni baholash muqarrar ravishda mol-mulk evaziga amalga oshiriladi. Bu, mehnat natijasidan olinadigan foydani baholashga zid bo'lib, u mulkni qaytarish emas, balki foydani qaytarishdir, bu foyda mulk bo'lishi ham, bo'lmasligi ham mumkin. Shu tarzda sotish ishchini yollashdan farq qiladi va narx haqiqiy baholash bo'yicha ish haqidan farq qiladi. Biroq sotishning yollashdan, narxning ish haqidan farqi ular o'rtasida hech qanday bog'liqlik yo'qligini anglatmaydi. Aksincha, ularning farqi shuni anglatadiki, yollash sotishga asoslanmasligi kerak va sotish yollashga asoslanmasligi kerak. Shuning uchun narxni baholash ish haqini baholashga asoslanmaydi va ish haqini baholash ham narxni baholashga asoslanmaydi. Chunki ulardan birini ikkinchisiga asoslash ishchi ishlab chiqaradigan tovarlarning narxlari uning oladigan ish haqini boshqarishiga olib keladi, holbuki tovarlar narxi ishchini emas, balki ish beruvchini boshqarishi kerak. Agar narxlar ishchini boshqarishga qo'yib yuborilsa, bu ish beruvchining ishchini boshqarishiga olib keladi; shunda u narxlarning pasayishi yoki oshishi bahonasida ish haqini istagancha kamaytirishi yoki oshirishi mumkin bo'ladi, bu esa ruxsat etilmagan ishdir. Chunki ishchining ish haqi uning mehnatining foydasi evaziga beriladi, shuning uchun uning ish haqi foydasining qiymatiga teng bo'lishi kerak va u ishchi ishlab chiqaradigan tovarlar narxlariga bog'lanmasligi kerak. Tovar narxi tushganda ish beruvchini baholangan ish haqini to'lashga majburlash uning zararga uchrashiga va shu sababli ishchini ishdan bo'shatishga olib keladi, deb da'vo qilish noto'g'ridir. Bu faqat tovar narxi butun bozorda tushib ketganda yuz beradi. Shuning uchun bu masala ishchining manfaati uchun mutaxassislarning baholashiga havola etiladi va ish beruvchiga qoldirilmaydi. Chunki mutaxassislar mehnatning umumiy foydasini nazarda tutadilar, faqat bitta holatni emas. Shuning uchun ijara haqining bahosi tovarning narxiga qarab emas, balki mutaxassislarning bahosiga ko'ra belgilanadi.

Bundan tashqari, ijarani sotuvga, sotuvni esa ijaraga bog‘lash ishchiga zarur bo‘lgan mahsulotlar narxining uning ish haqini nazorat qilishiga olib keladi, holbuki ishchiga zarur bo‘lgan mahsulotlar narxi uning ish haqini emas, balki ishchining rizqini belgilashi kerak. Agar ishchiga zarur bo‘lgan mahsulotlar narxiga uning ish haqini nazorat qilish huquqi berilsa, bu ishchining rizqini ish beruvchining zimmasiga yuklaydi, uni esa ish beruvchi ta’minlashi shart bo‘lib qoladi. Holbuki, har bir insonning rizqi uning ishlari orasida davlat tomonidan ta’minlanishi lozim bo‘lgan qismidir, ish beruvchi tomonidan emas. Shuningdek, ishchining rizqini uning mahsulotiga bog‘lash mutlaqo joiz emas, chunki ishchi nozik badanli bo‘lishi mumkin va ozgina mahsulot ishlab chiqara oladi, bu esa uning ehtiyojidan kam bo‘ladi. Shunday ekan, agar uning ish haqi u ishlab chiqargan narsaga bog‘lansa, u munosib turmush darajasidan mahrum bo‘ladi, bu esa joiz emas. Demak, fuqarolarning har bir kishisi uchun yashash huquqi, u ko‘p yoki oz ishlab chiqarishidan, qodir yoki qodir emasligidan qat’i nazar, ta’minlanishi lozim. Shuning uchun uning ish haqi uning foydasi qiymati bilan belgilanadi, ish haqi uning ehtiyojlarini qondirishga yetarli bo‘ladimi yoki yo‘qmi, bunga bog‘liq emas.

Moreover, building hiring upon selling, and selling upon hiring leads to the prices of commodities needed by the worker controlling his wage, though the prices of his needed commodities should control the sustenance of the worker, and not his wage. So if the prices of the commodities needed by the labour were given control over his wage, it would make the sustenance of the worker a duty upon the employer, which He has to secure. However, the sustenance of every person is a part of his affairs which have to be cared for by the State, not by the employer. It is also not allowed absolutely to link the sustenance of the worker with his production, as the worker could be of a delicate body and not able to produce but a little, which is below his need. So if his wage is linked to that which He produces then He will be deprived of a decent livelihood, a matter which is not allowed. Thus the right of livelihood has to be secured for every person of the citizens whether He produces much or little, and whether He was able or unable to produce. Therefore, his wage is assessed by the value of his benefit, whether his wage was enough to meet his needs or not.

Shunga ko'ra, ishchining mehnatini u ishlab chiqaradigan tovarlarning narxi bilan yoki u talab qiladigan tovarlarning narxi bilan baholash noto'g'ri. Shuning uchun ijarani sotuvga, sotuvni ijaraga asoslash noto'g'ri bo'ladi; ya'ni ulardan birini ikkinchisiga asoslash mumkin emas. Demak, ish haqini narxga asoslash ham, narxni ish haqiga asoslash ham joiz emas. Chunki ish haqini baholash narxni baholashdan boshqa masala bo'lib, ularning har biri baholashga ta'sir etuvchi o'ziga xos omillar va alohida e'tibor masalalariga ega. Ish haqi mehnat keltirgan foyda bilan baholanadi, shuning uchun baholash faqat foyda bo'yicha bo'ladi, mehnat bo'yicha emas, garchi keltirilgan foyda shaxs sarflagan mehnat tufayli bo'lsa ham. Mutaxassislar ish haqini shu foyda bo'yicha, uning foydalanilishiga ko'ra baholaydilar. Ish haqini baholash doimiy emas; u kelishilgan muddatga yoki bajarilishi kelishilgan ishga bog'liqdir. Muddat tugagach yoki ish bajarilgach, ikki shartnoma tomoni tomonidan yoki mutaxassislar tomonidan teng ish haqini belgilash uchun yangi baholash boshlanadi. Muddat kunlik, oylik yoki yillik bo'lishi mumkin.

In this way, it is wrong to estimate the wage of the worker by the prices of the commodities that He produces, or by the prices of the commodities that He requires. So it becomes wrong to build the hiring upon selling and selling upon hiring; i.e. it is not allowed to build one of them upon the other. Therefore, it is not allowed to build the wage upon the price, nor the price upon the wage. This is because the estimation of the wage is a matter different from the estimation of the price; and each of them has particular factors and special considerations, which have control over the estimation. The wage is estimated by the benefit that the effort produces, so the estimation is only by the benefit and not by the effort, though the benefit produced is due to the effort spent by the person. The experts estimate the wage by this benefit, according to its utilisation. The estimation of the wage is not permanent; rather it is linked to the period agreed upon, or to the job which is agreed to be performed. Once the period finished or the work is accomplished, a new estimation of the wage starts, whether by the two contracting parties or by the experts, in estimating the equivalent wage. The period could be daily, monthly or annually.

Narx — pul miqdorining teng qiymatdagi tovarlar (mahsulotlar) miqdoriga bo‘lgan nisbati demakdir. Demak, narx ma’lum bir vaqtda tovarning bir birligi uchun berilayotgan puldir. Uning bahosini belgilashda bozor tabiiy ravishda odamlarning ushbu tovarga bo‘lgan ehtiyoji asosida qaror qiladi. Narxni xaridorning tovarga bo‘lgan ehtiyoji darajasi bilan baholash mumkin, shunda u narxi qanday bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar uni oladi. Shuningdek, uni sotuvchining ehtiyoji darajasi bilan baholash mumkin, shunda u narxi qanday bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar uni sotadi. Ammo bunga ruxsat berilmaydi: bu jamiyat uchun xavflidir va yo‘l qo‘yilmasligi kerak. Bu ghubon (aldov) deb ataladi. Shu sababli bu vaziyatda muhim bo‘lgan narsa bozordagi sotuvchilar va xaridorlarning qaroridir, aniq shartnoma tuzayotgan sotuvchi va xaridorning kelishuvi emas. Boshqacha aytganda, narx bozor tomonidan baholangan tovar qiymatidir. Shuning uchun bozor belgilagan narxni xaridor qabul qilishi majburiy, bozor belgilagan narxni sotuvchi qabul qilishi ham majburiydir. Bu narxni belgilab, sotuvchi va xaridorni uni qabul qilishga majbur qiladigan omil — tovar sotilayotgan jamiyatdagi tovarning foydaliligiga bo‘lgan talabdir, ishlab chiqarish xarajatlaridan qat’i nazar. Demak, narxni baholash ish haqini baholashdan farq qiladi va ikki baholash o‘rtasida hech qanday bog‘liqlik yo‘q. Ish haqini baholash narxni baholashga asoslanmaydi. Narx faqat tovarga bo‘lgan talab bilan belgilanadi, bu baholashda bozordagi tovar tanqisligi omil sifatida hisobga olinadi. Narxni ishlab chiqarish xarajatlari bilan o‘lchab bo‘lmaydi, chunki qisqa muddatda, vaziyatga qarab, narx ishlab chiqarish xarajatlariga teng bo‘lmasligi mumkin: u undan past yoki yuqori bo‘lishi mumkin. Ammo uzoq muddatda bozor belgilagan narx bilan ishlab chiqarish xarajatlari o‘rtasida tabiiy ravishda muvozanat qaror topadi. Biroq, bu ish haqini tovarning narxiga bog‘lamaydi, chunki sotuvchilar ham, xaridorlar ham qisqa va uzoq muddatda tovarni savdo qilayotganda uning tannarxiga qaramaydilar. Aksincha, ikkala holatda ham uning narxi tovarga bo‘lgan talab bilan belgilanadi, bunda bozordagi kamyobligi omili ham hisobga olinadi.

The price is the ratio of exchange between the quantity of money and the quantity of equivalent goods (commodities). So the price is the money given in return for a unit of a certain commodity at a certain time. In regard to its estimation, it is decided naturally by the market based upon the need of the people for that commodity. It is true that the price could be estimated by the extent of the need of the buyer for the commodity, so He takes it whatever it’s price. It could also be estimated by the amount of the need of the seller, so He sells it whatever is its price. However this is not allowed; it is dangerous for the society and must not be permitted. This is what is called Ghuban (fraud). Therefore, what matters in this situation is what the sellers and buyers in the market decide and not what the (particular) contracting seller and buyer agree upon. In other words, the price is the value of the commodity estimated by the market. So the acceptance of the buyer of the price defined by the market is compulsory, and the acceptance of the seller of the price defined by the market is compulsory. The matter that defined this price and forced the seller and the buyer to accept it is the demand for the benefit of the commodity in the society in which it was sold, irrespective of its production costs. Therefore, the estimation of the price differs from the estimation of the wage, and there is no relationship between the two estimations. So, the estimation of the wage is not based on the estimation of the price. The price is only defined by the demand for the commodity, taking the shortage of the commodity in the market as a factor in this estimation. The price cannot be measured by the cost of production, as the price may not be equal to the production costs, since it could be less or could be more according to the circumstances in the short term. But in the long term, a balance occurs naturally between the price defined by the market and the production costs. However this does not make the wage linked to the commodity’s price, as the buyers and the sellers, in the short and long terms, do not look at the cost of the commodity when they trade it. Rather its price in both cases is defined by the demand for the commodity, taking into consideration the factor of its scarcity in the market.

Kapitalistlar va Kommunistlar ishchining ish haqini baholashda bir-biriga zid bo‘lib qolgan darajada farqlanadilar. Kapitalistlar ishchiga tabiiy ish haqini beradilar, ularning fikricha, bu ishchining yashash uchun zarur bo‘lgan hayot vositalarini o‘zining eng kam darajasida ta’minlaydigan miqdordir. Yashash xarajatlari ushbu eng kam darajadan oshsa, ular ish haqini oshiradilar, xarajatlar kamaysa, ish haqini kamaytiradilar. Shunday qilib, ishchining ish haqi uning mehnati ish beruvchiga va jamiyatga keltirgan foydasidan qat’i nazar, yashash xarajatlariga qarab belgilanadi. Yevropa va Amerikada ishchilar oladigan ish haqi esa Kapitalizm tizimining o‘zgartirilgan shakli sifatida ko‘rsatiladi, chunki ishchiga uning huquqlaridan va mulk erkinligi bergan imkoniyatdan ko‘proq berilmoqda. Shunga qaramay, bu o‘zgartirishdan keyin ham ishchi oladigan ish haqi hali ham yashash darajasining eng kam miqdorida bo‘lib, bunsiz u norozilikda yashashdan boshqa iloj topa olmaydi. Yevropa va Amerikada yashash darajasining ko‘tarilishi ishchi oladigan eng kam ish haqining ham oshishiga imkon berdi va bu ishchining ahvoli yaxshilanganini ko‘rsatadi. Biroq, u o‘zi ishlab chiqargan mahsulotga teng miqdorda olmaydi. Demak, Yevropa va Amerikada ishchi ish haqining baholanishi, u boshqa mamlakatlarga nisbatan kambag‘al emasligini va asosiy ehtiyojlarini, ba’zi hashamatlarini qondirishga imkon berayotgan bo‘lsa-da, ishchi yashayotgan jamiyatdagi yashash darajasi bilan solishtirganda nisbatan pastdir. Yevropa va Amerikada ishchilarning yashash darajasi oshgan bo‘lsa-da, u yerdagi, shuningdek barcha kapitalistik mamlakatlardagi ish haqining baholanishi, o‘z jamiyatlari bilan solishtirganda, hali ham yashash darajasining eng kam miqdorida qolmoqda.

Capitalists and Communists differed in estimating the wage of the worker to the point that they became contradictory. Capitalists give the worker the natural wage which is, in their view, that which the worker needs of the living means at their minimum standard. They increase this wage as the living costs increase over this minimum standard, and they reduce the wage if the living costs decrease. Hence the wage of the worker is estimated according to the living costs irrespective of the benefit which his effort produced for the employer and the society. Whereas, what the workers take of wages in Europe and America as Capitalists states, is an amendment of the Capitalist system by giving the worker more than his rights and more than that which the freedom of ownership gives him. Despite that amendment, that which the worker takes is still at the minimum standard of living, without which He can’t live except in discontent. Raising the level of living in Europe and America allows the minimum standard of wage the worker receives, showing Him to be better off, however He does not take equal to what He produces. So the estimation of the wage of the worker in Europe and America, though it does not make the worker poor compared with other countries, and enables Him to fulfil his basic needs and some of his luxuries is, compared with the standard of living in the community in which He lives, relatively low. Despite raising the standard of living of workers in Europe and America, the estimation of the wage there, and in all Capitalist countries, is still at the minimum standard of living compared with their society.

Lekin ishchining ish haqi qiymati uning hayot kechirish vositalaridan minimal darajada zarur bo'lgan narsalar bilan belgilanar ekan, ishchilarning mulki ular o'z ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun zarur bo'lgan miqdor bilan cheklanib qoladi, ular yashayotgan jamiyat bilan solishtirganda minimal darajada. Bu ularning yashashi faqat asosiy ehtiyojlarni qondirish uchun bo'ladimi yoki asosiy ehtiyojlar va hashamatli narsalarni qondirish uchun bo'ladimi, farqi yo'q. Birinchi holat intellektual jihatdan orqada qolgan mamlakatlarda (masalan, islom mamlakatlarida) uchraydi, ikkinchisi esa intellektual jihatdan rivojlangan mamlakatlarda (masalan, Yevropa va Amerikada) ishchilar uchun xosdir. Bunday barcha mamlakatlarda ishchining mulki, yashash darajasi yuqori bo'ladimi yoki past, u yashayotgan jamiyatga nisbatan minimal yashash darajasi bilan cheklanadi. Ish haqining qiymati ishchining hayot kechirish vositalaridan minimal darajada zarur bo'lgan narsalar bilan belgilanar ekan, vaziyat shunday bo'lib qoladi.

However, as long as the estimation of the wage is dictated by what the worker needs of means of living at their minimum, it will result in the ownership of the workers being limited to the amount they require to meet their needs, at their minimum standard compared with the community among which they live. This is regardless of whether their living was to meet their basic needs only, as is the case of workers in the intellectually declined countries (like the Islamic countries), or to meet their basic needs and luxuries, as is the case of workers in the intellectually progressed countries (like Europe and America). The ownership of the worker in all such countries is limited to the minimum standard of living in relation with the community among which He lives, whether the standard of living is high or low. This is the case, as long as the estimation of the wage is dictated by what the worker needs of the means of living at their minimum standard.

Kommunistlar xodim bajargan ishni mahsulot ishlab chiqarishda va uni tayyorlab tugallashda asosiy omil deb hisoblaydilar; shunday ekan, ish yoki ishlash qobiliyati mahsulot ishlab chiqarishda muhim rol o'ynaydi. Shu asosda kommunistlar xodimning mehnatini ishlab chiqarishning asosi deb biladilar, shuning uchun xodimning ish haqi uning ishlab chiqargan narsasiga teng bo'ladi va barcha ishlab chiqarish xarajatlari bitta elementga, ya'ni mehnatga bog'lanadi. Bu, albatta, noto'g'ri va haqiqatga zid. Ochiq haqiqat shuki, koinotdagi mulk (Allah (SWT) tomonidan yaratilgan) mahsulot qiymatining asosidir; o'sha mulkning foydasini oshirishga yoki unda foyda yaratishga sarflangan xarajatlar, mehnat bilan birga, uni ma'lum foyda beradigan shakliga o'tkazadigan elementlardir. Demak, mehnatni asos qilib olish noto'g'ri va haqiqatga ziddir. Bundan tashqari, ishlab chiqarilgan mahsulotni xodimning ish haqiga tenglashtirish xom ashyo va uni ishlab chiqarishga sarflangan xarajatlarni bekor qilishdir, ularni esa boshqa xodim sarflashi mumkin edi, u esa allaqachon shu uchun ish haqi olgan bo'lardi. Shunday ekan, hozirgi xodim mahsulotni ishlab chiqarmagan, va ishlab chiqarish faqat uning mehnatiga bog'liq emas, shuning uchun mahsulotni uning ish haqi sifatida berish asossizdir.

The Communists consider that the work, which the employee carried out, is the main factor in producing the commodity and completing its manufacture; so the work, or the ability to work, plays an essential role in producing the commodity. Thereupon, Communists consider the work of the employee is the basis of production, so the wage of the employee is equal to what He produces, and all the production costs are attributed to one element, which is the work. This is, of course, wrong and in disagreement with the reality. The tangible reality is that property in the universe, (which is created by Allah (swt)), is the basis of the value of the commodity; the costs spent on increasing the benefit of that property or in creating a benefit in it, together with the work, are the elements which transferred it to the form by which it provides a certain benefit. Hence making the work as the basis is wrong and contradictory to the reality. Moreover, making the produced commodity equal to the wage of the employee is an invalidation of the raw material and the costs spent on its production, which could have been spent by another employee who already took a wage for it. So the current employee did not produce the commodity, and the production is not attributed solely to his work, in order to be given the commodity as his wage.

Agar biz ishchi deganda umuman ishchini nazarda tutsak, deylik, unda Alloh (swt) yaratgan xom ashyo (foydaning bir qismi sifatida) baribir qoladi va uni mavjud emas deb hisobga olmaslik noto'g'ri bo'ladi. Bundan tashqari, ish haqini baholash uchun ishchini umumiy ma'noda ko'rish noto'g'ridir, chunki ishchilar aniq belgilangan shaxslardir va ish haqi aynan shu shaxslar uchundir. Shunday ekan, ishchini umumiy ma'noda ko'rish ish haqini baholashga olib kelmaydi, balki ish haqining bekor qilinishiga va mulkchilik huquqining bekor qilinishiga olib keladi. Bu esa insonning tabiatiga zid bo'lgan masaladir. Bu, shuningdek, hech qanday real asosga ega bo'lmagan noto'g'ri fikrdir.

However if we assume that what is meant by the worker a worker in general, then the raw material which Allah (swt) created still remains (as part of the benefit) and it is improper to be considered as not existent and not accounted for. Moreover, considering the worker in general terms for estimation of the wage is wrong, because the workers are designated persons and the wage is but for these persons. So considering the worker in general does not lead to estimation of the wage, rather it leads to the abolition of the wage and the abolition of ownership, a matter which contradicts with man’s nature. It is also an incorrect thought that has no tangible reality.

Haqiqiy voqelik shuni ko'rsatadiki, inson o'z ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun o'zi shoshiladi; shu sababli u koinotdan yoki boshqa odamdan mahsulot olishga yoki koinotda mavjud narsalarga o'z mehnatining bir qismini qo'shishga intiladi, shunda mulk uning ehtiyojlarini qondirishga yaroqli bo'ladi. Shuning uchun ishchining ish haqini u ishlab chiqargan tovarga teng deb baholash haqidagi kommunistlar nazariyasi noto'g'ri; ish haqini xom ashyo bundan mustasno, ishlab chiqarilgan narsaga teng deb belgilash ham noto'g'ridir. Chunki ishchi foydalangan asboblar va sarflagan xarajatlar tovarni shakllantirishga hissa qo'shgan, lekin ular ishchining mehnatining bir qismi emas. Agar ularni umuman mehnatga qarab ishchining mehnatining bir qismi deb hisoblasak, bu ish haqini bekor qilishga olib keladi, bu esa, oldinroq muhokama qilinganidek, noto'g'ridir.

The tangible reality indicates that man rushes to fulfil his needs by himself; thus He strives to obtain products from the universe, or from another person, or by attaching some of his effort to the things which exist in the universe, so that the property becomes suitable to fulfil his needs. Therefore, the Communist’s theory of the estimation of the wage of the worker as being equal to the commodity He produced is wrong; and defining the wage as equal to what He produced excluding the raw material is wrong also. This is because the tools which the worker used and the expenses He spent have contributed to forming the commodity, yet they are not a part of the worker’s work. If they were considered as a part of the workers’ work looking at work in general, this leads to abolition of the wage which is wrong as was discussed previously.

Ishchining ish haqi tovarga bog'liq emas, na uning qiymati, na narxi bilan. Aksincha, u ishchining mehnati shaxs va jamiyatga keltirgan foyda bilan bog'liqdir. Bu foyda xom ashyoda mavjud bo'lishi mumkin, masalan qo'ziqorin va olma misolida, yoki ishchining ishga qo'shgan hissasida, masalan bug' dvigatelida. Demak, ish haqini baholash mahsulotga emas, balki u keltirgan foydaga bog'liqdir. Shuning uchun ishchi ish haqini qanday miqyosda bo'lmasin, ma'lum bir chegara bilan cheklash noto'g'ri bo'lib, ochiq voqelikka zid keladi. Ish haqi ma'lum bo'lishi yetarli, ma'lum bir chegara bilan belgilanishi shart emas. Shu sababli kapitalistlar, kommunistlar va sotsialistlar foydalanadigan ish haqini baholash nazariyasi noto'g'ri va voqelikka ziddir. Bu nazariya, shuningdek, odamlar ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun mehnat jarayonida zarur ravishda vujudga keladigan munosabatlarda buzilish keltirib chiqaradi.

The worker’s wage is not linked with the commodity, whether its value or its price. Rather it is linked with the benefit which his effort provided to the individual and the community, whether this benefit exists in the raw material, like the mushroom and the apple, or it exists in the worker’s contribution to the work like in the steam engine. Thus the estimation of the wage is linked with the benefit not with the commodity which He produces. Therefore, limiting the worker’s wage by a certain limit, whatever its scale, is wrong and contradicts to the tangible reality. It is sufficient that the wage be known rather than defined by a certain limit. Thereupon, the theory of the wage estimation used by the Capitalists, the Communists, and the Socialists is wrong and contradicts the reality. It also causes disruption in the relationships which necessarily arise among the people during the work for fulfilling their needs.

Ishchining mehnat haqini baholashdagi bu farq, tovar qiymatining ma'nosini belgilashdagi, ya'ni tovar qiymatini aniqlashdagi ularning farqlari tufaylidir. Ba'zi kapitalistlar qiymatni tovarning vaqt, mehnat va xom ashyo uchun sarflangan miqdoriga teng deb belgilashdi. Masalan, bug' dvigateli velosipedga qaraganda yuqoriroq baholanadi. Bu qiymat ular uchun bu tovarlarning kamyobligiga qarab belgilanadi. Boshqalar esa narsaning qiymati uning foydasiga, ya'ni ehtiyojlarni qondirish qobiliyatiga bog'liq, deb aytdilar. Yana boshqalar, har qanday tovarning qiymati uni ishlab chiqarishga sarflangan mehnat miqdoriga, shuningdek ishlab chiqarish jarayonida ishlatiladigan mashina va asboblarni tayyorlashga sarflangan mehnat miqdoriga bog'liq, deb aytdilar. Eng so'nggi nazariya («chegaraviy foydalilik nazariyasi» deb ataladi) qiymatga ishlab chiqaruvchi va iste'molchi nuqtayi nazaridan, ya'ni taklif va talab nuqtayi nazaridan qaraydi va shu tariqa taklif va talabga bog'liq deb hisoblaydi. Shunday qilib, chegaraviy foyda talabni boshqaradi, ya'ni u ehtiyojni qondirish uchun tovar foydasining minimal chegarasi bo'lib, bu chegaradan keyin ehtiyojni qondirishga intilish kamayadi yoki zararli bo'lib qoladi. Ishlab chiqarishning chegaraviy xarajatlari esa taklifni boshqaradi, ya'ni ular tovarni ishlab chiqarishga sarflangan oxirgi mehnat miqdoridir, shundan keyin ishlab chiqarishga qo'shimcha mehnat sarflash zararga aylanadi. Shunday qilib, qiymat bu ikki hodisa o'rtasida muvozanatni saqlagan holda o'zgarib turadi.

This difference in estimating the wage of the worker is due to their differences in assigning the meaning of the value of the commodity i.e. in defining the value of the commodity. Some of the Capitalists defined the value as equal to what the commodity costs of time, effort and raw materials. As an example, the steam engine is evaluated more than the bicycle. This value is considered according to the scarcity of these commodities to them. Others said that the value of a thing depends on its benefit i.e. on its ability to fulfil the needs. Others said that the value of any commodity depends on the amount of work spent in its production, in addition to the amount of work spent in producing the machinery and tools used in the production process. The most recent theory, (called the ‘marginal utility theory’), looks at the value from the viewpoint of the producer and consumer together i.e. from the viewpoint of supply and demand, thus depending on the supply and demand. Thus the marginal benefit controls the demand i.e. it is the minimum limit of the commodity’s benefit for fulfilling the need, such that the keenness for fulfilment after this marginal limit diminishes or becomes harmful. While the marginal costs of production control the supply i.e. they are the last amount of work spent in producing the commodity such that spending any more work in production becomes a loss. Thus the value fluctuates such that it maintains a balance between these two phenomena.

Kommunistlarning qiymat haqidagi qarashlariga ko'ra, Karl Marks qiymatning yagona manbai uni ishlab chiqarishga sarflangan mehnat ekanini ta'kidlagan. Kapitalist moliyachi ishchining kuchini uni tirik qolishi va ishlashi uchun zarur bo'lgandan ortiq bo'lmagan ish haqiga sotib oladi. Keyin u bu kuchdan ishchiga to'lanadigan ish haqidan ancha yuqori qiymatga ega tovarlar ishlab chiqarish uchun foydalanadi. Marks ishchi yaratgan narsa bilan unga haqiqatda to'lanadigan narsa o'rtasidagi farqni "qo'shimcha qiymat" deb atagan. U bu qo'shimcha qiymat yer egalari va tadbirkorlar daromad, foyda va kapital foizi nomi ostida ishchining huquqlaridan o'zlashtirib olgan miqdorni ifodalashini bayon qilgan, ularning qonuniyligini esa, albatta, tan olmagan.

With regard to the value according to the Communists, Karl Marx mentioned that the only source of the value is the work spent in its production, and that the Capitalist financier buys the power of the employee for a wage which is not more than He needs to stay alive and able to work. Then He exploits this power to produce commodities whose values greatly exceed the wage which He pays to the employee. Marx called the difference between what the worker produces and what is really paid to Him ‘the surplus value’. He stated that this surplus value represents the amount which landlords and businessmen usurp of the worker’s rights under the name of the revenue, profit and the capital interest whose legality He of course, did not acknowledge.

Haqiqatda, har qanday tovarning qiymati uning foydasi miqdori bo‘lib, uning kamyob (yetishmovchilik) omili hisobga olinadi. Mehnat bu foydani olish yoki uni ishlab chiqarish vositasi bo‘lsa-da, bu tovar boshqa tovarga almashtirilganda ham, undan foydalanilganda ham umuman hisobga olinmaydi. Shuning uchun har qanday tovar uchun to‘g‘ri qarash uning foydasiga, uning yetishmovchilik elementini hisobga olgan holda qarashdir, bu tovar insonga dastlab ov kabi yo‘l bilan tegishli bo‘lganmi yoki savdo kabi almashinuv orqali bo‘lganmi, farqi yo‘q. Bu masalada Moskva jamiyati, Parij jamiyati va Madina jamiyati o‘rtasida hech qanday farq yo‘q. Chunki inson har qayerda tovarni qo‘lga kiritishga intilar ekan, bozordagi yetishmovchiligini hisobga olib, undagi foyda miqdorini baholaydi. Bu odamlar nazarida tovarning qiymati bo‘lib, u haqiqiy qiymatidir.

The fact is that the value of any commodity is the amount of its benefit, taking into consideration the factor of its scarcity (shortage). Though work is a means to obtain this benefit, or a means to produce it, it is not considered at all when this commodity is exchanged with another, nor when using it. Therefore the true view for any commodity is the view of its benefit, taking into consideration the element of its shortage, whether this commodity was possessed by man initially like from hunting, or by exchange like trading. There is no difference regarding this matter in the society of Moscow, the society of Paris and the society of Madinah. This is because man everywhere, when He strives to obtain a commodity assesses the amount of benefit that exists in it, taking in to account its shortage in the market. This is the value of the commodity as men view it, which is its true value.

Lekin tovarning haqiqiy qiymati uning boshqa bir narsa, tovar yoki pul bilan almashinish miqdori orqali belgilanadi. Bu ma'noda qiymat vaqt, makon va sharoitlarning o'zgarishiga qaramay doimiy bo'lib qoladi. Tovar narxiga kelsak, u ma'lum vaqtda, ma'lum joyda va ma'lum sharoitda shu tovarning bir birligiga berilgan pul miqdoridir. Bu miqdor vaqt, makon va sharoitlar o'zgarishi bilan o'zgaradi. Boshqacha aytganda, narx – pul miqdori bilan unga teng keladigan tovarlar miqdori o'rtasidagi almashinuv nisbatidir.

But the actual value of the commodity is estimated by the amount of its exchange with another thing, whether a commodity or money. This value, by this sense, remains constant despite the change of time, place and circumstances. With regard to the price of the commodity, it is the amount of money which is given in exchange of one unit of this commodity in a certain time, certain place and in certain circumstances. This amount changes as the time, place and circumstances change. In other words, the price is the ratio of exchange between the amount of money and the equivalent amount of commodities.

Shunday qilib, agar kishi biror ayolga uylansa va uning mahriga ma'lum tavsifdagi bir javon (shkaf)ni kiritsa, uning qiymatini ellik dinor deb aytsa va oxirida uni ayolga topshirsa, u holda javonning qiymati uni tovar sifatida qabul qilishi orqali belgilangan bo'ladi. Agar keyinchalik erkak uni ayoldan olib qo'ysa va ayol shu sababli uning ustidan da'vo qo'zg'atsa, u holda erkak unga javonning o'zini topshirishi kerak, uning narxini emas. Agar javonning shikastlangani isbotlansa yoki erkak uning shikastlangani haqida da'vo qilsa, u holda u ayolga ellik dinor to'lashi kerak, chunki bu javonning qiymati hisoblanadi, sud ishi paytida xuddi shunday javonning narxi ellik dinordan ko'p yoki kam bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, chunki bu uning haqiqiy baholangan qiymatidir. Xuddi shunday javonning bozor narxi e'tiborga olinmaydi. Bu holat nikoh shartnomasida javonning narxi ellik dinor deb zikr qilingan va erkak oxirida javonni xotiniga topshirgan holatdan farq qiladi. Unda, agar erkak uni ayoldan olib qo'ysa va ayol u ustidan da'vo qo'zg'atsa, erkakning ixtiyori bor: javonni unga topshirish, uning narxini (ellik dinor) to'lash yoki ellik dinorga unga boshqa javon sotib olish (sud ishi paytida javon ellik dinordan ko'p yoki kam bo'lishidan qat'i nazar). Demak, u har doim narxi ellik dinor bo'lgan javonni topshirishga majburdir.

So if a person married a woman and made, as a part of her dowry, a certain described cupboard, and He mentioned its value as fifty dinars, and He eventually handed it to her, then the value of the cupboard had been designated through her receiving it as a commodity. If He later took it from her and she brought a lawsuit against Him over it, then He has to hand over to her the cupboard itself not its price. If the cupboard was proved to be damaged, or He alleged that it was damaged, then He should pay her fifty dinars, because this is the value of the cupboard whether the identical cupboard at that time of the court case was more or less than fifty dinars, because this is its actual estimated value. The price of an identical cupboard is not considered. This is different than the case if it were mentioned in the marriage contract that the price of the cupboard was fifty dinars and the husband eventually handed the cupboard to his wife. Then if He took it from her and she brought a lawsuit against Him over it, He would have the choice to hand the cupboard to her or to pay her its price (fifty dinars), or to buy her another cupboard with fifty dinars (whether the cupboard at the time of the court case was more or less than fifty dinars.) So He is obliged to hand to her a cupboard whose price is fifty dinars at all times.

Shunday, qiymat o'zgarmaydi, lekin narx o'zgaradi. Demak, tovarning haqiqiy qiymati uni baholash vaqtidagi almashuv miqdori, tovarning narxi esa bozorda uning evaziga to'langan pul miqdoridir. Qiymat bilan narx o'rtasidagi bu farq savdo-sotiqda va turli xil almashuvlarda amal qiladi. Ammo xodimning ish haqi – bu uning mehnatining foydasi baholangan miqdor bo'lib, shartnoma tuzilgan vaqtda belgilanadi. Ijara muddati tugagach, u yana qayta baholanadi. Shunday ekan, xodimning ish haqi bilan tovarning qiymati yoki ishlab chiqarish xarajatlari o'rtasida, shuningdek, ish haqi bilan turmush darajasi o'rtasida hech qanday bog'liqlik yo'qdek ko'rinadi. Bu boshqa masala: bu ish beruvchi oladigan foydaning qiymatidir. Ushbu foydani baholash ish beruvchiga emas, balki uning ushbu foydaga bo'lgan ehtiyojiga bog'liq. Demak, xodimning ish haqini hisoblash birligi – tavsiflangan foydadir. Bu ish haqi ish turiga qarab farqlanadi va bir xil ishda mahorat darajasiga ko'ra o'zgaradi. Shunday qilib, muhandisning ish haqi duradgorning ish haqidan farq qiladi, malakali duradgorning ish haqi esa oddiy duradgorning ish haqidan farq qiladi. Bir xil ish bajaruvchi odamlarning ish haqi ularning mehnat foydasini oshirish darajasiga ko'ra ortadi. Bu ularga lavozim ko'tarilishi sifatida qaralmaydi, balki ular mehnatlarining foydasini yaxshilagani uchun loyiq bo'lgan ish haqlaridir.

This is because the value does not change but the price changes. So the actual value of the commodity is the amount of its exchange at the time of estimation, and the price of the commodity is the amount of money paid in the market as an exchange for it. This differentiation between the value and the price applies in trading and the different types of exchange. But the wage of an employee is the amount at which the benefit of his effort is estimated, at the time of contract. It is estimated again at the end of the hiring period. Thus it appears that there is no relationship between the wage of the worker and the value of the commodity or between the wage of the worker and the costs of production, nor between the wage of the worker and the standard of living. It is a different matter; it is the worth of the benefit which his employer obtains. The estimation of this benefit is not left to the employer but to his need for this benefit. So the unit of estimating of the worker’s wage is the described benefit. This wage differs according to the type of work, and varies with the degree of perfection in the same work. So the wage of an engineer differs from that of a carpenter, and the wage of a skilled carpenter differs from that of an ordinary carpenter. The wage of people who do the same work increases according to their perfection in their effort’s benefit. This is not considered a promotion to them, but rather it is their wage which they deserve as they improved the benefit of their effort.