经济崩溃、金融危机、政府接管私营企业以及虚拟经济的崩塌,使自由企业和个人主义这一整套政治经济模式陷入破产。几乎所有人都一致认为,必须迫切地对现行政治经济模式进行根本性变革。这种变革以各种形式和口号出现在媒体上。其中一个口号借用了奥巴马的话,即“重塑美国”,它在《纽约时报》、《华盛顿邮报》、《今日美国》、《洛杉矶时报》等众多报纸的头版上反复出现127。

The economic meltdown, the financial crisis, the government takeover of privately owned enterprise, and the implosion of the virtual economy render the entire politico-economic model of free enterprise and rugged individualism a broken one. There is almost unanimous agreement that a fundamental change to the current politico-economic model is urgently needed. This change appeared in the media in various forms and slogans. One of these slogans was borrowed from Obama’s words, “remaking America,” which was repeated in the front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, and many more127.

这种论调推翻了一种信念：即纯粹自由市场形式的资本主义是历史经济演进的终极与最高阶段。这一信念在苏联式社会主义于1991年崩溃时达到顶峰。弗朗西斯·福山在其著作《历史的终结与最后的人》中倡导自由市场优越论，但他在2008年撰文《美国公司的衰落》（"The Fall of America, Inc."）时推翻了这一信念。这篇文章发表于2008年10月4日的《新闻周刊》，宣称当前版本的资本主义已经失败；用福山的话说，"某种资本主义的愿景已经崩塌"。一种新的愿景是必要的。

This tone has revoked the belief that capitalism in its purest free market form was the ultimate and highest point of historic economic evolution, a belief which climaxed as the Soviet brand of socialism collapsed in 1991. Francis Fukayama, who advocated the notion of free market superiority in his book End of History and the Last Man,33 revoked that belief in 2008 when he wrote, “The Fall of America, Inc.” The article which appeared in the Newsweek edition on October 4, 2008, declared that the current version of capitalism has failed; in Fukayama’s words, “a certain vision of capitalism has collapsed.” A new vision is required.

“A New Form of Capitalism Can Remake Broken Country”是另一篇文章的标题，该文发表于2009年1月22日的《独立日报》，文号为127。文章提出资本主义的一种新演变形式，可以作为政府与私营企业进行更广泛合作的模式。

“A New Form of capitalism Can Remake Broken Country” is the title of another article which appeared in the Independent Daily newspaper on January 22, 2009,127. The article suggests a new evolution of capitalism that could serve as model for broader collaboration between government and private enterprise.

关于新型资本主义的各种提法,反映出资本主义形象在公众眼中是如何受损的。其中一份出版物128提出了以下几种新型资本主义的替代名称:"泡沫资本主义"、"庞氏资本主义"、"裙带资本主义",以及"地理经济资本主义"。《纽约时报》畅销书作者詹姆斯·亚瑟·雷(James Arthur Ray)在《HuffPost社会新闻》129上发表了一篇题为《一种新型资本主义:应对原因而非结果》的文章。在这篇文章中,詹姆斯·亚瑟认为,社会主义和/或共产主义不可能成为资本主义的可行替代方案,因为社会主义本身已经失败。他总结道:"我认为资本主义是唯一可行的选择。然而,必须采用一种新型的资本主义,我称之为'有意识的资本主义'。"有意识的资本主义针对的是当前自由市场资本主义失败背后的道德因素。

The names that have been suggested for a new form of capitalism show how the image of capitalism has been tarnished in the eyes of the public. One of the publications128 presents the following alternative names for new forms of capitalism: “Bubble Capitalism,” “Ponzi Capitalism,” “Crony Capitalism,” and “Geonomic James Arthur Ray, New York Times best-selling author, wrote “A New Form of Capitalism: Dealing with the Cause Versus the Effect,” which appeared in the HuffPost Social News129. In this article, James Arthur argues that socialism and/or communism cannot be a viable alternative to capitalism because socialism itself has failed. He concludes, saying, “I submit capitalism is the only viable option. Yet a new type of capitalism must be adopted, a type that I call Conscious Capitalism.” Conscious capitalism addressed the moral factor behind the failure of current free market capitalism.

2008年达沃斯年会上，比尔·盖茨提出了世界需要一种新型资本主义的观点，他称之为“创造性资本主义”130。比尔·盖茨表示，当今世界需要的是“制度创新，而非技术创新”。他认为，创造性资本主义应当利用因追求自身利益而产生的生产力，同时使那些无法获得利润的人也能从中受益。实质上，比尔·盖茨呼吁建立一种不同于价格机制和市场力量的财富分配机制。

In the Davos Annual Meeting 2008, Bill Gates addressed the need for a new form of capitalism, which he called “Creative Capitalism”130. Bill Gates stated that the world today needs more “system innovation than technology innovation.” Creative capitalism, according to Bill Gates, should harness the productivity generated by the pursue of self-interest, while at the same time it benefits the ones who do not have access to the profit. In essence, Bill Gates calls for a mechanism for wealth distribution other than the price mechanism and the forces of the market.

理查德·M·埃贝林（Richard M. Ebeling）是经济教育基金会（Foundation for Economic Education）的主席，他主张并不存在所谓的“资本主义”。相反，存在不同类型的资本主义，政府与社会可以从中作出选择131。埃贝林认为，社会主义或法西斯式的资本主义之所以被人们摒弃，仅仅是因为这些词语所携带的语言上和意识形态上的内涵。

Richard M. Ebeling, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, argues that there is no such thing as “capitalism.” Rather there are different types of capitalism from which governments and societies may choose131. According to Ebeling, the socialist or fascist brands of capitalism are dismissed only because of the linguistic and ideological connotation associated with these words.

真正的问题并不在于如何给资本主义改名。如果问题只是这个，完全可以举办一场世界性的征集活动，用一笔丰厚的奖金从各种名称中评选，或者征集全新的名字。已有一些出版物提出过各种名称，以下列举几个：自由资本主义、社会资本主义、法西斯资本主义、民族资本主义、创意资本主义、集体资本主义、竞争资本主义、自觉资本主义、泡沫资本主义、庞氏资本主义、裙带资本主义、地理经济资本主义，以及其他种种名目的资本主义。

The real issue here is not how to rename capitalism. If this was the issue, a world contest could be organized with a nice prize to choose from a wide range of names or to come up with a totally new name. To list a few of the names that have been tossed around in one or another publications, here is a short list: Liberal Capitalism, Social Capitalism, Fascist Capitalism, National Capitalism, Creative Capitalism, Collective Capitalism, Competing Capitalism, Conscious Capitalism, Bubble Capitalism, Ponzi Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Geonomic Capitalism, and What-Have-You capitalism.

关于资本主义的品牌、资本主义的未来、资本主义的更名、资本主义的演变以及资本主义的失败等讨论，揭示了在考虑重构经济制度时必须纳入考虑的三个主要根本因素。其中首要且最重要的因素与该制度的道德层面有关。各方几乎一致认为，自由市场政治经济模式的崩溃，之前已经出现了支撑它的道德结构的崩溃。认识到这一因素后，James Arthur提出了他所称的"有意识的资本主义"。无论新制度叫什么名字，

The discussions on the brand of capitalism, the future of capitalism, the renaming of capitalism, the evolution of capitalism, and the failure of capitalism reveal three major fundamental factors which must be taken into consideration when considering a restructuring of the economic system. The first and foremost has to do with the moral aspect of the system. It is almost unanimously agreed across the board that the collapse of the free market politico-economic model was preceded by a collapse of the moral structure that supports it. Recognizing this factor, James Arthur proposed what he called the “Conscious Capitalism.” The new system, no matter Capitalism.”.

它所取的名称，必须包含一个道德模型。该道德模型必须与系统紧密耦合、不可分割。道德模型不能是可选项，也不能是额外附加的价值；它必须是系统的一个组成部分。

what name it bears, must incorporate a moral model. The moral model must be tightly coupled with and inseparable from the system. The moral model cannot be an option, or an extra added value; it has to be an integral part of the system.

第二个要素与财富分配有关，目的是让社会中处境最不利、最贫穷的人也有机会分享由追求自身利益的力量所产生的巨额利润。在一个累计财富超过100万亿美元、而其中20%的人口（超过十亿人）每天生活费不足1美元的世界里生活，是绝对不能接受的。无论新制度采用什么名称，它都必须包含一种分配机制，承认所产生的财富可能因种种原因而无法惠及社会的某些群体。这种分配机制必须是制度的内在组成部分，而不是可以由政治家根据地方或世界局势随意增减的选项。分配机制还必须规定得足够明确，使司法系统和政治系统能够依法予以强制执行。

The second factor has to do with wealth distribution such that the least privileged and the poorest in a society may have the chance to benefit from the large sums of profits generated by the power of self-interest pursuit. It is simply unacceptable to live in a world with accumulative wealth exceeding $100 trillion and 20% of its population (more than one billion) lives under $1 a day. The new system, no matter what name it bears, must incorporate a distribution mechanism which recognizes the fact that the produced wealth may not reach a segment of the population for all types of reasons. The distribution mechanism must be an integral part of the system and not an option that can be added or removed by politicians based on local or world conditions. The distribution mechanism must be explicit to the extent that the judicial system and political system can enforce it with the power of law.

第三个因素与国家所有制和公共所有制需要与私有制并存有关。这一必要性已得到众多经济学家和政治家的认可，被称为凯恩斯式资本主义（得名于英国的约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯）。凯恩斯主张，政府必须进行干预以稳定市场。近期美国以及其他众多欧洲国家的实践进一步印证了这一必要性：这些国家的政府纷纷收购银行、保险公司、汽车工业等领域的所有权。

The third factor has to do with the need for state and public ownership to coexist with private ownership. This necessity has been recognized by scores of economists and politicians and had been known as Keynesian brand of capitalism (in reference to John Maynard Keynes of Great Britain). Keynes argued that the government must intervene to stabilize the market. This necessity has been further asserted through the most recent practices in the United States and score of other European countries, where governments moved to acquire the ownerships of banks, insurance companies, auto industries, and others.

但是，国家所有权不能仅以“需要”为依据，也不能以“大到不能倒”的口号来适用。国家所有权应当有更根本的界定：它应当成为整个制度的组成部分，由该制度来划定私人所有权、国家所有权和公共共有权的范围。谁拥有什么，不应任由政治和经济形势来决定，也不应等到危机迫在眉睫、迫使政治家们在哪些财产该收归国有、哪些财产该予以解散之间仓促抉择时才来决定。“大到不能倒”这一原则过于模糊，难以作为适用的依据。

But state ownership cannot be applied on a need only basis and under the slogan of “too big to fail.” State ownership should be more fundamentally defined; it should be an integral part of the system which defines the scope of private ownership, the state ownership, and the public common ownership. Who owns what should not be left to the political and economic conditions to dictate. It should not be left until crisis hit home and then force politicians to decide on which property to own and which property to dissolve. “Too big to fail” is too vague of a principle to apply.

美国政府以“大到不能倒”的原则,出手持有通用汽车、克莱斯勒、房地美、房利美和贝尔斯登的大部分股份。如今,政府对于生产哪些汽车、为购房者提供哪些抵押贷款,拥有压倒性的决定权。如果沃尔玛将来遭遇困境,并被认定为“大到不能倒”,政府是否也会出手持有其部分股份?政府是否还会决定人们穿什么样的衣服?这正是苏联在社会主义时期的运作方式。诚然,国有财产应当成为经济体系的一部分,但这一点应当依据体系的根本原则明确界定,而不能成为可有可无的选项或附加价值。国有财产和公共财产应当与私有财产一样受到法律保护。私有财产绝不应被转为国有或公共财产;同样,国有财产和公共财产也绝不应成为私有化的对象。各自的限度和界限必须由体系明确规定,而不能任由形势变化和政治人物来设定。

The US government moved to own a significant portion of General Motors, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Bear Stearns using the principle of “too big to fail.” Now the government has an overwhelming power of deciding what cars will be produced and what mortgages will be available for home buyers. Would the government move to own part of Wal-Mart if it ever experiences hardship and be deemed as too big to fail? And the government would decide on what type of clothes the people would wear? This is how the Soviet Union operated during the socialist era. It is true that state property should be part of the economic system, but it should be well defined based on integral principals of the system. It cannot be an option or an added value to the system. State and public property should be protected by law in the same manner private property is protected. Private property should never be transferred into state or public property; by the same token, state and public property should never be subject for privatization. The limits and boundaries of each must be clearly defined by the system and not left for the conditions and politicians to set these limits.

这三个要素——道德模式、财富分配机制以及财产所有权的界限——正是资本主义内部危机的实质所在。解决这一危机，既不是给资本主义换个名称，也不是通过若干修补来增添制度，就能得到答案。当这三个要素被整合进制度之中时，资本主义的根本原则将发生改变，以至于后代再也不会认出它就是资本主义。制度原则的根本性改变，并不是一个渐进演化的问题。

These three factors: the moral model, the wealth distribution mechanism, and the property ownership boundary limits, are the essence of the crisis within capitalism. The solution to this crisis is not simply a renaming of capitalism. Neither can a solution be obtained by augmenting the system with some modifications. When the three factors are integrated into the system, the fundamentals of capitalism would have changed in a manner that the future generations would not recognize capitalism at all. Fundamental changes to the principals of a system are not a matter of evolution.

当社会主义者终于意识到社会主义存在重大缺陷时，他们决定另谋出路，干脆彻底更换了这一制度。修补它、增添新的特征，或将其演变为资本主义社会主义、自由社会主义、现代社会主义、民族社会主义、自觉社会主义、创造性社会主义，或任何其他名目的社会主义，都毫无意义。戈尔巴乔夫的改革彻底废除了社会主义。当时俄罗斯人的选择是资本主义，他们全力以赴地转向了资本主义。

When the socialists finally realized that there were major defects within socialism, they decided to move on; they replaced the system altogether. There was no sense in mending it, adding new features, or evolving it into a capitalist socialism, liberal socialism, modern socialism, national socialism, conscious socialism, creative socialism, or what-have-you socialism. The perestroika of Gorbachev abolished socialism altogether. The alternative for the Russians at the time was capitalism. They moved to capitalism with full force.

现今资本主义的替代方案是什么？当然，社会主义不在考虑之列。社会主义经过七十多年的检验，已经失败。在本书的下一部分，我将论证伊斯兰教提供了一个可行的替代方案。它提供了一套制度，既以明确界定的财产所有权为基础，清楚区分私有、国有和公有；它包含一种财富分配机制，既能消除贫困，又能提高生产力、促进财富创造；它还提供了一套健全而切实可行的道德模式。

What is the alternative to capitalism today? Of course socialism is not an option. Socialism failed after it has been tested for more than seventy years. In the next part of this book, I argue that Islam provides a viable alternative. It provides a system that integrates a well-defined property ownership with clear distinction between private, state, and public; it incorporates a wealth distribution mechanism which eliminates poverty while it boosts productivity and wealth generation, and it provides a sound and practical moral model.

我在本书中的论点是：伊斯兰提供了一套关于政治经济模式的完整观点。它阐述了任何经济制度所必须依托的基本原则。它系统地阐述了财产所有权的概念；它也系统地处理财富分配问题，使财富不会只流向富人一方。

My argument in this book is that Islam provides a comprehensive view of the politico-economic model. It addresses the basic principles upon which any economic system must stand. It systematically details the concept of property ownership; it systematic ally addresses the wealth distribution such that wealth does not flow in the direction of the rich only; .

它提供了一个道德基础，系统性地要求将贪婪和自私从生产与消费的过程中加以消除。

it provides a moral foundation which systematically calls for the removal of greed and selfishness from the process of production and consumption.

本书对伊斯兰模式的介绍，旨在将关于经济制度的讨论与分析，从当前的二元格局（资本主义与社会主义）拓展为三元格局（资本主义、社会主义与伊斯兰）。我的目的并不是用伊斯兰制度的细节去说服读者。然而，主要目标在于得出这样一个结论：世界上还有另一种制度，能够组织人们的事务、管理金融与经济交易，并规范人与人之间的关系，这种制度就是伊斯兰制度。在下一部分（第二部分）介绍这一制度之后，我将进入第三部分，探讨一个非穆斯林读者始终关心的问题：伊斯兰对世界共同体而言是威胁还是益处？

The presentation of the Islamic model in this book is meant to broaden the discussion and analysis of economic systems from the current dual character (capitalism and socialism) to a tri-character (capitalism, socialism, and Islam). My objective is not to persuade the reader with the details of the Islamic system. The main objective, however, is to conclude that yet there is one more system in the world capable of organizing the affairs of people, managing the financial and economic transactions, and conducting the relations between people. This system is the Islamic system. After introducing this system in the next part (part 2), I will then move to part 3 to address the ever-burning question to the non-Muslim reader: is Islam a threat to the world community or a benefit?