Reviving the Sacred Market

When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilization, he famously replied "I think it would be a good idea" (if the West were to act as civilized as they claim to be). The same response can be apt to the question of what to think of the so-called free market, as extolled by so many modern uber-capitalists (even after the 2008 bank crash). It sounds so nice. The market described by them is an engine of prosperity, a bottomless pit of wealth-creation that rewards those who operate on innovation and ingenuity to serve the consumer. The reality though is anything but.

The globalized market of today is an ugly, inefficient, lifeless mess. It functions, through endless streams of advertising propaganda, to create insatiable demand among misinformed customers while ignoring their crucial needs. In fact, until the rise of public relations in the early part of the 20th century, courtesy of Edward Bernays, the demand-based economy as we see today didn't event exist. The supermarkets of the world, with their aisles and aisles of largely useless items, gives an illusion of choice. But underneath this veneer is the truth that much of the diversity of items found in locations across the world has given way to mass standardization. Visiting a mall in Saudi Arabia or Malaysia, with the exception of the absence of skimpy clothing, is hardly much different than visiting one in France or the US. Both are incredibly crass, spiritually vacuous, and reek of artificiality.

This free market is far from free. It encourages hoarding, allows collusion between mega corporations to rig and manoeuvre the market, and favours larger multinational monopolies over small local business. It periodically jeopardizes the public welfare at private expense through what the business sector refers to as 'externalities'. On a larger level, it functions as a cover for the pyramid scheme known as global finance.


Contrast this with the humbly elegant markets that existed for much of Muslim history, and you will realize what we have lost. The true free markets of the Muslim world, of which only a few remnants remain, were vibrant centers that pulsated with life and energy. The hustle and bustle, the pungent aroma of spices, the arresting sight of colourful pigments and dyes, the cacophony of the haggling merchants, all contributed to make the Muslim market a unique sensory experience. The real jewels of the medieval Muslim world were not the Taj Mahal or the Hagia Sophia. They were the fez cap makers of Tunis and the spice traders of Cairo. They were the Kapali Carsi of Istanbul and the carpet dealers of Isfahan. Commerce was the hallmark of Muslim civilisation.

Yet there was a sense of sacredness to Muslim commerce. The market would traditionally be located in close proximity to the Masjid, and this was not by accident. There was no dichotomy between earning a lawful income and performing salah, between the mundane activities and the holy, all were considered worship. Our Prophet (pbuh), himself a merchant, spoke of the high station granted in Paradise to righteous merchants, and trade was an important vehicle for propagating the faith to all corners of the world.

The principles of the Muslim market were beautiful in their simplicity. There were no market barriers to access for any prospective merchant who wished to ply his trade. There would be minimal intervention by the state in the market activities, except mainly to verify the accuracy of weights and measures, quality of the goods and the purity of the coinage. Prices would not be fixed, as this violated the tenet that demand and supply are forces under the control of God. In fact, the entire ethos of market participation was to foster a sense of independence from worldly actors and a pure submission to the Almighty, a far cry from the 'paycheck mentality' of today.

The reason the market thrived was that it was an organic product of the community that surrounded it. Major crime was rare. The customers and fellow merchants would all be family members, friends or close acquaintances. This communal aspect predominated over economic considerations much of the time. For example, it was not uncommon for a shopkeeper to close shop early once he had earned a sufficient livelihood for the day, to give his neighbouring shopkeeper a chance to make his earning. This would be unthinkable nowadays. This symbiotic relationship between the market and tight-knit community can explain why both suffered simultaneously in the post-colonial phase in Muslim lands.

Traditional bazaars relied on the fraternity and integrity of the merchants to survive. Rather than external government pressure, harmony was maintained through a sense of solidarity and internal control nurtured by the faith. But times have changed. Even the most basic market actions, such as the classic price bargaining (with an assortment of verbal and non-verbal cues depending on the time of day and seniority of the customer) have largely disappeared.

While Muslim modernists seem wholly fixated on retrofitting the existing financial architecture to transform it into the ideal 'Islamic economy', they often ignore the centrepiece of the market. Re-establishing the classic Muslim market is essential for any effective programme to combat riba. The idea of the market is not dead, but its spirit lies dormant within the Muslim communities, waiting to be revived.

Some encouraging efforts have been made in this regard. I will like to call the attention of all readers to an upcoming event planned by the UNRIBA campaign on 23 August to discuss with some local and international freemarketeers over their attempts to return to the classical market. Their work is inspiring, but more needs to be done by the rest of us. It's high time we brought back the market.

Please click here for more information on the event.

Being a Techno-skeptic is a good thing

I have expressed my reservations earlier in the blog over the use of smartphones. But I will admit that a certain part of my hesitancy to purchase one has been personal bias; I find the multitude of Apps superfluous and distracting, the wiggling gestures of our fingers on the touch-screen looks plain silly, and the degree of hyper-connectivity afforded by smartphones invades what's left of one's private life. Having said all that, circumstances may force their hand and I may have to swallow my pride and get one of those darned machines. My caution is not simply restricted to this piece of gadgetry, but other types of technology as well. It's the reason I proudly proclaim myself to be a techno-skeptic.

Techno-skepticism is a philosophy that states that new technology must be critically analysed and judged before being adopted. Claims of new technology must be proven, pros and cons must be discussed, and the adoption process must be slow and measured rather than rushed and clumsy. For the techno-skeptic, the onus is on the technology to justify itself as contributing something of significant value to one's life and to not be an unnecessary adornment. Whether it is the latest product on the market or in vogue is irrelevant.

Techno-skepticism should not be confused as the irrational fear, hatred or rejection of all new technology (that's technophobia). Rather, it is a thoughtful and pragmatic approach to technology that takes a holistic view. A certain degree of suspicion can be healthy.

Two factors are of paramount importance for techno-skeptics: simplicity and humanity. Simplicity is not to suggest that we resort to living like cavemen. Technology that paves an easier path to accomplishing our objectives shouldn't be rejected, but technology that adds extra layers of complexity and confusion should be balanced against its return value. Very often, a simpler and properly designed device can be as helpful as a more complex one. The finer points of older technology often go unappreciated once they are chucked away.

The second factor is to remember that technology is meant to serve human beings and not the other way around. To uncritically accept new technology without any consideration for the larger social, communal and even spiritual ramifications can be hazardous. Technology that only ends up dehumanizing us is quite simply not worth it no matter how flashy it seems.

Technophiles who indulge in blind love and almost pseudo-worship of any new device on the market can fall easily prey to false claims and marketing tricks. Such people have an almost utopian worldview when it comes to technology, that any human desire can be satiated, any inconvenience dealt away with, and any obstacle overcome as long as there's a device designed to do so. Techno-skeptics are thus in a noticeable minority, while lust for technology has become the cult of the majority.

Employing the techno-skeptic approach in your own lifestyle can yield surprising results. I can list a few examples, but perhaps you can be a bit creative and think for yourself. You may take for granted how much time and effort it takes to cater to all the devices in your daily routine, and may not realise how burdensome it has become. Or, more likely, you may think I'm a crank and nostalgic and perhaps should be writing about something else.

Is this really 1914?

For those historical-minded among us, we recently witnessed the Centennial Anniversary of the commencement of World War 1, which began on 28 July 1914. More than any event in modern history, WW1 was truly epoch-changing in its consequences. Prior to the war, the world was divided into competing empires, each Crown gaining its legitimacy through an appeal to a higher religious claim, be it the Ottomon Muslim Caliphate, the Christian Eastern Orthodox Czar of Russia or the Catholic Church of Western Europe. Post-war, and 9 million deaths later, there was an entirely different landscape: secular nation-states replaced imperial strongholds, and a religious world order was done away altogether. The partitioned Muslim world in particular is still reeling from the effects of what was known as the "The War to End All Wars" (which it clearly was not).

With its 100th anniversary, many Western historians still ponder as to what exactly caused this breakout of war, even if they are agreed that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was the trigger. Yet an even more interesting discussion is taking place; are we at the cusp of a new global conflict? With nuclear-armed Russia and NATO at seeming loggerheads over Ukraine and civil war, bloodshed and anarchy spread over much of the Middle East, the situation seems quite precarious. The ingredients seem there. Yet much of the prognostication over whether we may be heading for WW3 or not (for example, here and here) also has at its heart an idea an interesting conception of history, that history is patterned.

In the ancient world, the vision of history was either one of decline (that history has departed from a glorious utopian age to gradually one of increasing ignorance and decadence) or cyclical (history will continuously experience peaks and troughs, rises and falls). Only in the modern West over the last 500 years did we begin to view history as one of progressive incline, with each era being more enlightened and just plain better, be it in the areas of scientific knowledge, material well-being or cultural sensibilities.

As history marches onward, and with each passing century, we can look back and reflect on how far we've trodden. In these moments of reflection, we are struck by the occurrence of seminal events that echo those which have occurred before or after by almost a century.  Major events which occur at around the same time in one century often have a parallel event at approximately the same year in the century that has passed or is to come. Are the parallels mere coincidences, or do they suggest that there are deeper patterns to history that we have yet to uncover?

A classic example is the dual assassinations of U.S. Presidents Abraham Lincoln (1865)  and John. F Kennedy (1963), both with far-reaching implications. The presidents were elected to the House in 1860 and 1960 respectively, and both purportedly assassinated by assassins with three names you are likely to remember (John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald). Both also were known to dabble in some interesting monetary experiments, in Lincoln's case being the Greenbacks, and Kennedy by issuing silver certificates. The more you dig beneath the surface, the more similarities arise.

In the early 1870s, the world powers, headed by the British Empire, at the time colluded to introduce the world's first international gold standard, allowing for convertibility of paper money into gold by a fixed standard ratio. Conversely, this time period is marked by historian as the exact peak point of British power, following which the empire when into imperial decline and steadily experienced a loss of financial capital and dominance. Nearly a 100 years later, in 1971, the super power of the time, the USA, made the decision to do away with the gold standard altogether, now having the dollar alone as the reserve standard for the world with gold no longer functioning as money. Strangely, the exact period is also seen by analysts as the peak of US dominance, with the de-industrialization, deregulation and Reagonomics slowly but surely whittling the might of the super power following that.

Not all parallels have to be exact matches, many are opposites as well. In the same way that 1914 ushered in a time of conflict between competitive nation states, nearly a 100 years earlier in 1815, the Congress of Vienna was held in Europe to settle the Napoleonic Wars, with a diplomatic settlement leading to a century of peace and prosperity in the region between the colonial powers.

There are many, many more example to bring up of history repeating itself in significant ways. Moving to the present moment, there is in the background undeniably a sense of foreboding, that the troubling hotspots in different parts of the world are only a sign of larger conflagration to come, threatening to engulf all of Mankind. Perhaps this may seem a tad fatalistic though. In the end, we also must believe in human agency as being able to set our own destiny, and the destiny need not necessarily be destruction. Nevertheless, what we can expect soon to come in the world stage are events that will likely dictate the course of the next century, assuming human beings survive that long. As the Chinese may have said, "may you live in interesting times."