经济制度是决定财富如何分配、如何占有以及如何花费或处置的制度。这种决定遵循一种特定的人生观或意识形态。因此，伊斯兰的经济制度不同于社会主义/共产主义的经济制度，也不同于资本主义的经济制度，因为这些制度各自遵循其自身的人生意识形态观点。经济科学讨论的是生产、生产的改进，以及生产手段的发明与改良。与其他科学一样，经济科学对所有民族都是普遍适用的，并不隶属于某种特定的意识形态。例如，资本主义对所有权的看法不同于社会主义/共产主义，也不同于伊斯兰的看法。然而，讨论生产的改进属于技术性问题，纯粹是科学问题，无论人们持何种人生观，对所有人都是相同的。

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.

这种将需求研究与满足需求的手段研究合并、即将经济物质的生产与其分配方式合并为同一问题、同一主题的做法，是一种错误。它导致了资本主义经济学研究中的混淆与干扰。因此，资本主义经济的基础是错误的。

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. 需求并不只是物质性的 把需要得到满足的需求仅仅说成是物质性的，是一种错误，也与需求的实际情况相矛盾。除了物质需求之外，还有道德需求和精神需求，它们各自都需要得到满足，并且都需要借助商品和服务来实现。

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. 商品与服务与社会结构无关 资本主义经济学家只着眼于需求与利益的现状，而不考虑社会应当如何。这意味着他们把人看作纯粹的物质性造物，缺乏精神需求、伦理思考和道德目标。同样，他们也不关心社会应当如何在道德提升方面构建：不关心以美德作为社会关系的基础，也不关心社会应当以何种精神提升为主导，即让认识真主、认识真主的存在，成为一切关系的驱动力，以求得真主的喜悦。资本主义经济学家对此不屑一顾，因为他们的兴趣纯粹在于什么能满足物质需求。因此，如果一个人在买卖中不欺诈，那是因为他相信这样交易会有利可图；而如果他通过欺诈能够获利，那么对他而言欺诈就是合法的。他供养穷人，不是因为真主命令他施舍，而是为了让穷人不偷他的东西；然而，如果穷人的饥饿能增加他的财富，他就会任由他们挨饿。由此可见，资本主义者的主要关切，只是寻求能满足物质需求的利益。那种以自身利益来看待他人，并以此建立经济生活的人，是对社会和民众最危险的人。

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.

从需要与利益的角度来看，资源与努力，即所谓的商品与服务，是个人为了获得它们而奋斗的对象，以便从中获得利益。人与人之间对资源与努力的交换，便在他们之间形成了各种关系，社会的结构也由此而成。因此，在评估资源与努力时，有必要从整体和细节两方面考察社会的结构应当是怎样的。

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.

因此，只关注经济商品能否满足需要，而不顾社会应当是什么样子，这就是把经济商品从人际关系中剥离出来，这是不自然的。经济商品在人们之间交换，从而形成彼此之间的关系，而这些关系构成了社会，所以在考虑经济商品时，应当察觉它对社会所产生的影响。因此，仅仅因为有人喜欢某物就认为它有益，是不正确的；无论它本身是否有害，无论它是否影响人与人之间的关系，无论它在社会民众的信仰中是被禁止还是被允许，都不应如此认定。相反，只有在符合社会应当成为什么样子的前提下确实有益的事物，才应被视为有益。 因此，把大麻、鸦片及类似之物视为有益的商品，并仅仅因为有人需要它们就将其当作经济商品，是错误的。相反，在考虑事物是否有益，即是否将其视为经济商品时，必须考虑这些经济商品对社会中人与人之间关系的影响。事物应当结合社会应当成为什么样子来看待。仅仅就事物本身来看待它，而不顾社会应当是什么样子，是错误的。 经济学家把满足需要的主题纳入满足需要之手段的主题之中，并且仅仅将满足需要的手段视为满足某种需要，而不加其他任何考虑，因此他们更注重财富的生产而非财富的分配。分配财富以满足需要的重要性已退居次要地位。因此，资本主义经济制度只有一个目标，即增加国家的整体财富，并努力达到尽可能高的生产水平。 它认为，社会成员达到可能的最高福利水平，将依靠提高国民收入来实现，而提高国民收入则依靠提升国内的生产水平，同时让个人能够获取财富，即让他们自由地从事生产并拥有财富。因此，经济并不是为了满足个体的需要，也不是为了促进社会中每一个个体的需要得到满足，而是专注于增加能够满足个体需要的东西，也就是通过提高生产水平和增加国家的国民收入来满足社会的需要。随着国民收入的可得，社会成员之间的收入分配便通过占有自由和劳动自由而实现。于是，个人可以依据自己所拥有的生产要素，各自尽其所能地获取财富，至于是所有人还是只有部分人得到满足，则听其自然。这就是政治经济学，即资本主义经济。这种观点显然是错误的，与现实相悖：它既不能提高所有个人的生活水平，也无法实现每个人的基本福利。这一观点的谬误在于，需要得到满足的需求是个体的需求，是人的需求；它们是穆罕默德、萨利赫和哈桑的需求，而不是一群人、一群民族或一群人群的需求。努力满足自身需要的是个体，无论他是直接满足，如饮食，还是通过整个群体的满足来间接满足，如保卫国家。因此，经济问题的核心在于分配个体满足需要的手段，即…… 国家或民族成员之间的资金与利益分配,应当着眼于该民族或人民所需要的基本需求,而不是不顾国家内每个个体的需要。换言之,问题在于个人所遭受的贫困,而非国家所遭受的贫困。经济制度所关注的,只应是满足每个个体的基本需求,而不是研究如何生产经济商品。因此,研究影响国民生产规模的各种因素,与研究如何全面、彻底地满足每个人的全部基本需求,是两回事。研究的主题应当是人作为人的基本需求,以及如何分配社会财富以保障社会成员的所有基本需求得到满足。这应当是首要的研究对象。 此外,解决一个国家的贫困问题,并不等于逐个解决个人的贫困问题。相反,针对个人贫困问题的治理,以及在他们之间分配国家财富,能够激励全国人民努力工作,增加国民收入。影响生产规模和国民收入增长的因素,应当作为经济科学来讨论,即在讨论经济商品及其增长时加以探讨,而不应放在本由经济制度所调节的需求满足问题中讨论。 资本主义者声称,任何社会面临的经济问题,是商品与服务的稀缺。他们还主张,需求不断增长,而又无法全部满足,即商品与服务不足以完全满足人的所有需要,才是经济问题的根源。这种观点是错误的,实际上也与现实相矛盾。 这是因为必须满足的需要,是个人作为人所具有的基本需要(食物、住所和衣着),而不是奢侈品,尽管人们也会追求奢侈品。人的基本需要是有限的,世界上存在的被称为商品和服务的资源与努力,确实足以满足人的基本需要;完全满足全人类的所有基本需要是可能的。因此,抛开把它视为社会所面临的经济问题不谈,基本需要本身并不存在问题。实际上,经济问题在于如何分配这些资源与努力,使每个人都能完全满足所有基本需要,然后再帮助他们努力获取奢侈品。

So caring for the economic commodity with respect to its fulfilling a need, without caring for what the society should be, is a detachment of the economic commodity from the relationship, which is unnatural. This economic commodity is exchanged among the people thereby creating relationships among them, and the relationships form the society, so the effect on society should be perceived when considering the economic commodity. Therefore, it is incorrect to consider a thing as beneficial just because there is somebody who likes it, whether it is itself harmful or not, and whether it affects the relationships among people or not, and whether it is prohibited or permitted in the belief of the people in the society. Rather things should be considered beneficial if they are really beneficial in respect of what the society should be. Therefore, it is incorrect to consider cannabis, opium and the like as beneficial commodities and to consider them economic commodities just because there is somebody who wants them. Instead, the effect of these economic commodies on the relationships between people in society must be considered when considering the benefit of things i.e. when considering the thing as an economic commodity or not. Things should be viewed in relation to what the society should be. It is wrong to look at a thing merely as it is, regardless of what the society should be. By including the subject of satisfying the needs within the subject of the means of satisfying needs, and by viewing the means of satisfaction only as satisfying a need, and not by any other consideration, economists concentrate on production of wealth more than distribution of wealth. The importance of distribution of wealth to satisfy the needs has become secondary. Therefore, the capitalist economic system has one aim, which is to increase the country’s wealth as a whole, and it works to arrive at the highest possible level of production. It considers that the achievement of the highest possible level of welfare for the members of society will come as a result of increasing the national income by raising the level of production in the country, and in enabling individuals to take the wealth, as they are left free to work in producing and possessing it. So the economy does not exist to satisfy the needs of the individuals and to facilitate the satisfaction of every individual in the community, rather it is focused on the augmentation of what satisfies the needs of the individuals i.e. it is focused on satisfying the needs of the community by raising the level of production and increasing the national income of the country. Through the availability of the national income, the distribution of income among the members of society occurs, by means of freedom of possession and freedom of work. So it is left to the individuals to obtain what they can of the wealth, everyone according to what He has of its productive factors, whether all the individuals or only some individuals are satisfied. This is the political economy i.e. the capitalist economy. This is manifestly wrong, and contradicts reality; it does not lead to an improvement in the level of livelihood for all individuals, and does not fulfil the basic welfare of every individual. The erroneous aspect in this view is that the needs which require satisfaction are individual needs, they are needs of a man; so they are needs for Muhammad, Salih and Hasan and not needs for a group of human beings, a group of nations, or a group of people. The one who strives to satisfy his needs is the individual, whether He satisfies them directly such as eating, or He satisfies them through the satisfaction of the whole group such as the defence of the nation. Therefore, the economic problem is focused on distributing the means of satisfaction for individuals i.e. the distribution of the funds and benefits to the members of the nation or people, not on the needs which the nation or the people require without regard to every individual within the nation. In other words, the problem is the poverty which befalls the individual not the poverty which befalls the nation. The concern of the economic system must only be in satisfying the basic needs of every individual, not the study of producing economic commodity. Consequently, the study of the factors that affect the size of national production differs from the study for satisfying all the basic needs of all individuals personally and completely. The subject of study must be the basic human needs of man, as a human being, and the study of distributing the wealth to the members of society to guarantee the satisfaction of all their basic needs. This should be the subject of study, and should be undertaken in the first place. Moreover, the treatment of the poverty of a country does not solve the problem of poverty for individuals, individually. Rather, the treatment of the poverty problems of the individuals, and the distribution of the wealth of the country among them, motivates all the people of the country to work in increasing the national income. The study of factors that affect the size of production and the increase of the national income, should be discussed as economic science, that is, in the discussion of the economic commodity and its increase, rather than in the discussion of satisfying the needs, which are regulated by the economic system. The Capitalists claim that the economic problem which faces any society is the scarcity of commodities and services. They also claim that the steadily increasing needs, and the inability to satisfy all of them i.e. the insufficiency of commodities and services to satisfy all of man’s needs completely, is the basis of the economic problem. This view is erroneous and in fact contradicts with reality. This is because the needs which must be met are the basic needs of the individual as a human (food, shelter and clothing), and not the luxuries, although they too are sought. The basic needs of humans are limited, and the resources and the efforts which they call the commodities and services existent in the world are certainly sufficient to satisfy the basic human needs; it is possible to satisfy all of the basic needs of mankind completely. So, there is no problem in the basic needs, quite apart from considering it the economic problem that faces society. The economic problem is, in reality, the distribution of these resources and efforts enabling every individual to satisfy all basic needs completely, and after that helping them to strive for attaining their luxuries.

关于不断增长的需求，这一问题并不涉及基本需求的增长，因为人作为人的基本需求并不会增加，而增加并多样化的是他的奢侈性需求。人在城市化生活中的进步所引起的需求增长，与其说关系到基本需求，不如说关系到奢侈品。人工作是为了满足其奢侈性需求，但这些需求得不到满足并不会造成问题；真正造成问题的是基本需求得不到满足。除此之外，奢侈性需求增长的问题，只与某国的某些人有关，而非该国的所有个体。这一问题通过人满足其需要的天然欲望而得到解决。由奢侈性需求增长所引发的这种欲望，驱使人去努力满足这些需求，途径包括扩大本国资源、到其他国家工作，或通过扩张和吞并其他国家。这与使社会中每一个人的基本需求得到完全满足的问题不同。因为，把财富分配给每一个人以满足其基本需求，并使每一个人都能满足其奢侈性需求，这一问题与特定意识形态下某一民族的人生观有关。这与通过增加生产来提高国民收入的问题相反，后者关系到特定国家的具体情况，可以通过利用本国资源、移民、扩张或与其他国家合并来实现。财富增长的问题取决于解决方案的可行性，而不涉及某种特定的观点，也不与某个特定民族或意识形态相关。

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.

必须确立的经济原则,是那些保证将国家内部与外部财富分配给国民中每一个人的原则,从而确保每个个体的基本需要得到完全满足,然后使每个个体能够追求奢侈性需要的满足。然而,提高生产水平需要科学研究,而在经济制度中讨论这一点并不能解决经济问题,经济问题即每一个个体需要的完全满足。生产水平的提高会带动国家财富水平的上升,但不必然导致每一个个体所有基本需要的完全满足。一个国家可以拥有丰富的自然资源,如伊拉克和沙特阿拉伯,但其大多数公民的基本需要仍未得到完全满足。因此,仅仅增加生产本身并不能解决首要且必须优先处理的根本问题,即每一个个体基本需要的完全满足,随后才是使他们能够满足奢侈性需要。所以,需要加以解决的贫困与匮乏,是人作为人的基本需要(即食物、住房和衣着)未能得到满足,而不是城市进步所带来的奢侈需求的增加。因此,需要处理的问题是社会中每一个个体的贫困与匮乏,而不是以整体计算的国家的贫困与匮乏。从这一视角(即针对每一个个体)看,贫困与匮乏并不是通过提高国民生产来解决的,而是通过财富在社会个体之间的分配方式来解决:使个体的所有基本需要得到完全满足,然后再使个体能够满足其奢侈性需要。

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.

资本主义认为价值是相对的而非真实的,因此将其视为一种主观的衡量。于是,一码布料的价值就是在假定其可在市场上获得的情况下它所带来的边际效益。它的价值也是能够用来与之交换的商品数量和劳动付出。如果换得的是货币,那么这一价值就成为价格。在他们看来,这两种价值是分开的,并且有两个不同的名称:效用与交换价值。依照这一定义来理解价值的含义是错误的,因为任何商品的价值,是指其中所含的利益数量,同时考虑到稀缺性这一因素。因此,对任何商品的正确看法是:在考虑其稀缺性的同时,观察其利益,无论该商品是人从一开始就拥有的(如通过狩猎获得),还是通过交换(如出售)得来的;也无论这与人相关还是与物相关。由此可见,价值是对某一特定事物的称谓,它具有确定的实在性,而不是对相对之物的称谓,即一种在某一方面适用、在另一方面却不适用的东西。所以,价值是一种客观的衡量,而非相对之物。因此,经济学家们对价值的看法从根本上就是错误的。

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.

边际效用价值所指的是一种估算,其目的在于依据商品分配的最坏情形来集中生产,从而以最低限度来估算商品的价值,以保证生产得以稳妥进行。边际效用其实既不是商品的价值,也不是商品的价格,因为商品的价值应当依据估算时其所含的效益数量来衡量,并考虑到当时的稀缺因素。商品的价值不会因为其价格之后下跌而降低,也不会因为其价格之后上涨而升高,因为其价值是在评估之时被考虑的。因此,边际效用理论是一种关于价格的理论,而不是关于价值的理论;即便在资本主义经济学家看来,价格与价值之间也存在差别。决定价格估算的是需求的充裕与供给的短缺,或者供给的充裕与需求的短缺;这些事项与商品的生产水平有关,而与其分配无关。 而价值则是依据评估时商品中所含效益的数量来估算的,同时考虑稀缺因素,但不将供求纳入估算之中;因此,供求并不会全然影响价值。所以,价值这一课题从根本上就是错误的,任何建立在其上的课题必然也是错误的,因为其基本概念是虚假的。然而,如果商品的价值是依据其效益来评估的,即以某一商品或某一劳动的效益来衡量,那么这样的评估便是正确的,并且会在短期内带来更大的稳定性。如果价值是以价格来估算的,那么这种评估便只是相对的而非真实的,并且会越来越倾向于随市场而每次变化。 在后一种情况下，把它称为一种价值是不符合实际的，因此"价值"一词并不真正适用于它。它更像是一种根据市场来获取金钱的手段，而不是依据其所具有的效用来衡量。

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.

资本主义者认为,利益是人所付出努力的结果。因此,如果报酬与工作量不相称,那么产量无疑会下降,他们由此得出结论:在社会成员之间分配财富的理想方式,是那种能保证实现最高可能产量的方式。这种观点是完全错误的,因为实际上,真主所创造的资源,才是商品中利益的基础。而为提高这些资源的利益、或与劳动一道在其中开创利益所付出的开支,正是这些开支使它们呈现出能够提供特定利益的形态。因此,仅仅把利益视为努力的结果是完全错误的,它忽略了原材料和其他开支。因为在某些情况下,这些开支可能是对原材料的补偿,而非对努力的补偿。所以,利益可能是人的努力的结果,也可能是原材料存在的结果,或者两者兼而有之,但它绝不仅仅是人的努力的结果。至于产量的下降,它并非仅仅源于劳动报酬的减少,因为它还可能源于国家财富的耗竭、战争或其他原因。例如,第二次世界大战后英国和法国产量的下降,并非源于劳动报酬的减少,而是源于它们对富饶殖民地的影响力的萎缩,以及它们卷入战争。美国在第二次世界大战期间产量的下降,也并非源于劳动报酬的减少,而是源于它卷入对德国的战争。今天伊斯兰世界产量的下降,同样并非源于劳动报酬的减少,而是整个乌玛陷入智识衰退的结果。 因此,产量下降的原因并不仅仅在于劳动回报不足。由此前提推断出理想的分配方式在于提高产量,是错误的。达到尽可能高的产量水平,与财富在个人之间的分配并无关系。资本主义者认为,价格是促使生产的动力,因为人付出任何努力的动机都在于其物质报酬。这种看法是不正确的,也与现实相矛盾。人往往为了某种精神上的回报而付出努力,例如获得真主的赏赐,或是为了达到道德上的善行,例如报答他人的恩情。人的需求可以是物质性的,例如物质利益;可以是精神性的,例如灵魂的净化;也可以是道德性的,例如赞誉。因此,仅仅考虑物质需求是不正确的。事实上,人在满足精神或道德需求时所付出的资源,可能比满足物质需求时更为慷慨。所以,价格并不是生产的唯一动力。据此,一位石匠可能自愿投入数月时间为建造清真寺而凿石,一家工厂可能每年抽出若干天,将产品分发给贫困的人,一个国家也可能将其部分或全部力量用于准备保卫领土。这样的生产并非出于价格的驱动。而且,物质报酬本身也不限于价格,它还可以表现为其他商品或服务。因此,把价格视为生产的唯一动力,是不正确的。

The Capitalists say that benefits are the result of the efforts which man expends. So, if the reward was not equal to the work then no doubt the level of production declines, and they conclude from this that the ideal method to distribute the wealth among the members of society is that which guarantees to achieve the highest possible level of production. This approach is totally wrong, since in reality the resources, which God has created, are the basis of the benefit in the commodities. And the expenses spent in increasing the benefit of these resources, or initiating a benefit in them together with the work, are that which made them in the form that provides a particular benefit. So considering the benefit as a result of the efforts only is completely wrong and it neglects the raw material and other expenses. For in some cases, these expenses could be a compensation for a raw material, and not for an effort. Thus, the benefit could be a result of man’s efforts or could be a result of the existence of the raw material, or could be a result of both of them, but it is not only as a result of man’s efforts. As for the decline in the level of production, it does not result solely from a decrease in the reward for work, since it could also result from the depletion of the wealth of the country, or from war, or for other reasons. As an example, the decline of production in both Britain and France after the Second World War did not result from a reduction in the reward to work, it resulted from the shrinkage in their influence over their rich colonies, and their involvement in the war. The decline in production of the US during the Second World War did not result from a reduction in the reward to work, it resulted from its involvement in the war against Germany. The decline in the Islamic World today did not result from a reduction in the reward to work, it is as a result of the intellectual decline into which the whole Ummah fell. Therefore, the inadequacy of the reward to work is not the only reason for decline in production, and it is false to assume from this premise that the ideal method of distribution is to secure the raising of the level of production. Arriving at the highest possible level of production has no relationship with the distribution of wealth amongst individuals. The Capitalists say that the price is the incentive for production, because the motive for the person to expend any effort is his reward materially. This view is incorrect and contradicts reality. Man often expends effort in return for a moral reward such as the attainment of a reward from God, or for the sake of achieving ethical merit such as returning a favour. The needs of man can be materialistic such as material profit, they can be spiritual such as sanctification, or moralistic such as praise. So taking into consideration materialistic needs only is incorrect. In fact, a man could expend resources in satisfying a spiritual or a moral need more generously than He spends in satisfying a materialistic one. Therefore, the price is not the only incentive for production. Accordingly a stonemason could designate himself to work for months in cutting stones for building a mosque, a factory may assign its production for some days of the year for distribution to poor people, and a nation could allocate some or focus all of its efforts on preparing to defend its territories. Such production is not motivated by price. Moreover, the materialistic reward itself is not confined to price, it could come in the form of other commodities or services. Hence, considering the price as the only incentive for production is incorrect.

资本主义的一大反常之处在于，它认为价格是在社会成员之间分配财富的唯一调节者。他们说，价格是唯一的约束，迫使消费者在其占有和消费上接受一个与其收入相当的限度；正是价格限制了每个人的消费，使其与他的收入所允许的范围相一致。因此，通过某些商品价格的上涨和另一些商品价格的下跌，以及金钱对某些人可得、对另一些人不可得的情况，价格调节了消费者之间的财富分配。这样，每个人在国家财富中所占的份额，不是与他的基本需要相等，而是与他在生产商品和服务中所贡献的服务价值相等，即等于他所拥有的土地或资本，或等于他所完成的工作和项目。

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.

从这一原则出发，即以价格作为分配的调节者，资本主义实际上已经裁定：人只有在能够为商品和服务的生产作出贡献时，才配得上生存。那些无法作出贡献的人，无论是天生身体残疾还是智力残疾，都不配生存，也不配从财富中获取满足其需求的部分。而那些天生体魄或智力强健、更有能力以任何方式创造和占有财富的人，则配得上奢侈地消费，并配得上凭借其财富对他人施加控制和支配。再者，追求物质利益的动机越强烈的人，占有财富就会超过他人；而在谋取财富时，其对精神和道德价值的遵守越坚定（这些价值本应约束他），其拥有的财产或财富反而会少于他人。这种做法将精神和道德要素排除在生活之外，使生活建立在为满足物质需求而进行的物质争夺之上。这种情况最终会出现在每一个采纳并实行资本主义的国家。在采纳资本主义的国家中，资本主义垄断集团的统治逐渐形成，生产者控制消费者。一小群人，即大型石油、汽车和重工业公司的所有者，已经支配了消费者，通过为其所生产的商品规定特定价格来统治他们。这导致人们试图对经济制度进行“修补”。他们的做法是赋予国家（政府）在特殊情况下干预定价（价格管制）的权利，以保护国民经济、保护消费者、减少某些商品的消费，并限制垄断者的权力。他们还将由政府主导的某些公共项目纳入生产的调节之中。 这些措施与其经济体系的基础相矛盾，而该基础正是经济自由，而且它们只在特定情况下才被采用。此外，许多资本主义者并不采取这种干预主义的做法（保守派），并且鄙视这种做法，他们主张仅凭价格机制就足以实现生产者利益与消费者利益之间的和谐，无需任何政府干预。那些由干预主义的支持者（自由派）所推荐的东拼西凑的解决方案，也只在某些情况和条件下才被应用，而即便在这些情况下，财富在个人之间的分配也无法实现每一个人基本需求的完全满足。

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.

资源与服务的分配不均，源于所有权自由的观念以及以价格作为财富分配唯一机制的观念，这种状况将继续主导每一个实行资本主义的社会。就美国社会而言，许多美国人拥有足以完全满足其大部分基本需求、甚至满足部分奢侈需求的财富份额。这种情况的出现，是由于该国财富极其丰厚，已达到每个人都有机会满足全部基本需求和部分奢侈需求的程度。然而，这并不是因为个人所得的份额与其在生产中所贡献的服务价值相等。此外，以价格机制作为分配的调节者，使西方的资本主义垄断集团不得不向国外寻找新的市场，以获取原材料并销售其产品。世界所遭受的殖民统治、势力范围划分和经济侵略，仅仅是这些垄断以及以价格作为财富分配工具的结果。因此，世界的资源正是在这一基础上被积聚到资本主义垄断集团手中。这一切都源于资本主义所确立的错误规则和原则。

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.