Davi Barker will be sharing his thoughts and experiences from #OccupySF. We invite readers to share their own experiences from similar #Occupy movements across the country.

12/2/2011

It’s time to acknowledge that the Occupy movement began as an anarchist movement. Adbusters, the magazine that started the ball rolling, describes itself as “anti-consumerist,” but it’s arguably anarchist, or at least heavily influenced by anarchists.

The hand signals now commonplace at Occupy originated with the Direct Action Network, a confederation of anarchist groups formed to coordinate WTO protests in 1999. And the whole concept of the consensus process used at the general assemblies comes straight out of anarchist organizing manuals.

Mainstream commentators are baffled, because they are trying to define how this horizontal, leaderless movement intends to influence top-down, authoritarian politics. They don’t realize that the movement was designed from its outset to replace mainstream politics with a horizontal, leaderless society — building a new society in the shell of the old, as the saying goes.

There are no demands, because the movement is the demand.

Most of the occupiers probably don’t even know this, but it was those familiar with anarchist thought who picked up on these themes and became the early adopters of the movement. Anarchists still represent a minority, but they hold many key organizing positions.

Admittedly, most of them are social anarchists, not market anarchists; but I’m still hoping that the movement expands into a full-blown autonomous anarchocommunist experiment, because nothing spoils someone on communism quite like actually trying it. (Or I could be proven wrong. Either outcome would be excellent.)

I do have one piece of advice. It strikes me as strange that the “social-justice” crowd focuses on legislativeprocesses like democracy, when justice comes from ajudicial process. The movement needs to develop a judicial branch for dispute resolution. I suggest that the Occupy movement look to the existing anarchist judicial method in Somalia, which anthropologist Michael van Notten calls “kritarchy.” It could easily be adopted with or without approval from the general assemblies.

Kritarchy is a judicial process in which justice (“krito” in Greek), rather than written law, is the ruling principle. A kritarchy does not form a court of law. It forms a court of justice, which is completely compatible with the horizontal, leaderless nature of the Occupy movement.

There are two types of justice, commonly symbolized as the sword and scales. The sword connotes punitive justice, which assigns punishment for breaking written laws. The scales connote restorative justice, which holds that a person is liable for the damages they cause another person. Kritarchy is only concerned with restorative justice, not punitive justice.

Until someone claims to have suffered an injustice, all behavior is permissible. Disputes are mediated by judges, but it’s important to understand that judges do not enjoy any special status. They serve only at the request of the disputants. Anyone in the community may serve as a judge, or request a judiciary be formed, so a court of justice is truly a people’s court.

A simple kritarchy involves just three people: two disputants and any third person they approach to help them resolve the injustice. The judge investigates the conflict and attempts to discover the justice between them — to balance the scales. This could be as simple as mediation or as complex as weighing evidence and witness testimony.

The judge decides a case based on the normative customs of the community and the reason and conscience of the disputants. This judicial model is elegantly suited for the Occupy movement, because it’s not based on written law, and it can accommodate a wide diversity of philosophies.

The seeds of a simple kritarchy are already developing in the movement. Normative customs emerge out of people’s natural respectful conduct without any written law or central coercive authority; and there are already individuals in the movement developing a reputation for diffusing conflicts. They are commonly being called “peacekeepers.”

Peacekeepers are already engaged in the first phase of the judicial process in a kritarchy, which van Notten calls “segmental opposition.” Whenever there is a physical altercation between two individuals, those around them move in to establish a stalemate so that the dispute must be settled with words instead of fists. All that would need to change to make this a simple kritarchy is to transition from having proactive peacekeepers who break up fights to having proactive disputants who seek out peacekeepers to act as judges.

A recent conflict that occurred at OccupySF (San Francisco) could easily have been resolved by a simple kritarchy. Someone left his guitar in the common area while he went to the restroom. While he was gone, another Occupant used it without permission and accidentally broke one of the tuning pegs. This erupted into shouting. Segmental opposition prevented a physical fight, but justice was never satisfied.

A court of justice might have decided that the guitar player was liable to replace the broken part, or that the guitar owner was negligent in leaving the guitar in the common area. But either way, the discussion would happen in public, which facilitates the development of normative customs.

Hopefully the disputants honor the decision of the court, but if they refuse, they do so with their own names and reputations on the line.

Enforcement of a verdict requires a more complex level of kritarchy, and it would likely require the participation of the general assemblies. Somali society is organized into extended clans, called xolos, each composed of many subclans, called jilibs. Somali clans are unified by family ties, but they could be replaced by self-selecting groups based on common philosophies or goals. The regional occupations, for instance, could replace extended clans: Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Denver, Occupy Phoenix, and so on. And the autonomous groups within each occupation could replace subclans.

Clans serve two basic functions for the judicial process. First, judges emerge from the confidence of subclans. So if a dispute occurs between individuals in different subgroups, they may select a judge from each subgroup to decide the case. Second, clans maintain communal funds that members voluntarily contribute to. This fund serves many purposes. Among them, it operates as a social insurance for every member against liability. If a person owes restitution that they cannot or will not pay, the responsibility falls on the subgroup to cover the liability with the communal fund.

This ensures that victims can always be made whole, and also incentivizes clans and subclans to enforce verdicts on their own members, because they are ultimately liable for the damages. The regional occupations already have substantial communal funds of donations that could easily serve this purpose.

A conflict at Occupy Oakland can help illustrate how a complex kritarchy operates. During one of the marches, the windows of Tully’s Coffee were broken. This was particularly egregious because the owner of Tully’s Coffee had been a substantial supporter of the occupation. The cafe is adjacent to Oscar Grant Plaza, and the owner had allowed activists to use her restrooms and Wifi Internet, and she had made donations of food and money.

The specific activists who broke her windows are unknown because they cover their faces with bandannas, but the subgroup is known and had a regular tent site. In a kritarchy, the owner of Tully’s Coffee could serve a claim of injustice against the offending subgroup. A judge representing Tully’s Coffee would approach a known judge inside the subgroup and request a Court of Justice be convened, and the two judges would attempt to find agreement over the liability.

If the individuals who broke the windows will not take responsibility, the damages can be paid by the subgroup collectively. Holding them accountable for their actions would incentivize them to be more judicious with their tactics in the future.

But imagine that an agreement could not be reached. In that case, a third judge would be approached from the extended clan, meaning the general assembly of Occupy Oakland. If this third judge awards damages and neither the individuals nor the subgroup will abide by the verdict, the restitution would come out of the occupation’s general fund.

First and foremost, this prevents the movement from losing the support of its productive members because of the injustices of its destructive members; but also, by placing the burden of injustice on the general fund you express clearly that the movement will not tolerate injustice internally, and you cause a huge hit to the reputation of those activists who refuse to balance the scales.

If the price of injustice becomes too great, and reputations become too poor, an individual may be cast out of a subgroup, or a subgroup may be cast out of the occupation to preserve justice. Social ostracism is sufficient to enforce the vast majority of verdicts in Somalia, and it would likely be the only mechanism available to the Occupy movement. (Also, in a kritarchy, an outcast no longer enjoys the protection of any court of justice until they offer restitution.)

Developing a judicial branch of the movement also has exciting and powerful long-term potential. If a simple kritarchy can become a normative custom and a complex kritarchy can become as firmly established as the general assemblies are, then we will be able to begin developing a real alternative to the state monopoly of the courts.

11/1/2011

10/26/2011

Oakland Occupants meet at the Main Library at 4pm to protest the pre-dawn raid of the encampment. What was just a hundred, becomes thousands as they march in an effort to reclaim the plaza but are met with police in riot gear & are diverted to side streets.

This young woman was targeted, pulled in & slammed onto the ground by two huge police officers after protesting the arrest of another Occupant.

At some point a group of Occupants covered police in paint. I didn’t witness this, but here is Tom’s raw footage.

At least two helicopters with spotlights and one low flying CHP helicopter followed the Occupants through Oakland. After being diverted into side streets by police the march returned briefly to Snow Park, which was a backup location and ultimately decided to take their stand at the Plaza, which was blocked by multiple levels of metal barricades, and multiple lines of riot police. Every side entrance was also barricaded and guarded by riot police standing shoulder to shoulder in two rows at least. It was the most well protected empty field I’ve ever seen. Occupants immediately grabbed hold of the first line of barricades and dragged them into the street (knocking me over by the way). And police began repeating over the loud speaker, “This is the Oakland Police Department. This has been declared an illegal assembly. Immediately Leave now! If you do not you are subject to removal by whatever force necessary which may result in serious injury.”

A lone Navy Veteran stood toe-to-toe with the police line waving the flag of Veterans for Peace.

After everyone refused to leave the intersection of 14th and Broadway, in front of the Plaza, police began firing tear gas, flash bombs, and percussion grenades into the crowd.

The crowd disbursed, if only temporarily. Tear gas is nasty! It’s like rubbing a first full of wasabi in your eyes. And the Occupants in wheelchairs got it much worse than me. But the last to leave was that lone Navy Veteran who stood right in front and then walked through the tear gas calmly, seemingly unaffected. They must have special training. It looked like a scene out of an action film.

The protest was scattered at that point. Divided groups walking back and forth between the Plaza and Snow Park. Scattered reports of more tea gas and flash bang grenades throughout the night. Small patrols of riot police stationed on almost every side street. At one point formations of riot cops were clearing streets block by block.

Ultimately everyone ended up at the Plaza. At some point someone threw a bottle at the cops and the crowd began chanting “Don’t throw shit!” The person was eventually identified and scolded by other Occupants.

I have to say something about this. There’s one perspective out there that force should be met with force. I have no moral objection to this, although I think it’s stupid tactically. But when you have a crowd that has an overwhelming consensus that they are non-violent and non-retaliatory, and that’s a central part of their message and strategy, if you provoke the beast and then disappear into the crowd you are a coward. You endanger the lives and bodily integrity of others when you should be taking responsibility for your own risk taking. The police response to such actions is completely predictable, and when you take such an action in a crowd you are exploiting the bodies of those bystanders as human shields knowing full well that one of them is more likely to suffer the wrath of the beast than you. If you want to be a tough guy, and throw stuff at police, do it like they do did in Tahrir Square. Stand by yourself in the middle of the street. Don’t use our bodies as a shield without our permission. Maybe we can organize a time for trigger-happy cops and bottle-throwing “anarchists” to fight without endangering the rest of us. You probably have more in common than you think.

Around midnight all the black clad riot police were relieved by new grey units who assumed the front line. They had no badges or patches, just “Sheriff” across the front. They had thicker armor and no shields. Just batons and zip ties. I figured new units meant new strategy and decided it was time to leave.

In closing all I can say is I’m optimistic. If they have to call in goons from 12 different departments just to control one Plaza in Oakland that means they’re probably spread pretty thin as it is. Imagine if two Bay Area cities marched on the same day? It’d be over.

That’s all for now. I’m headed back out there. But if you’d like to contribute a verse to this powerful play you can call Oakland Mayor Jean Quan and let her know how you feel. 510-238-3141

10/25/2011

Breaking: Riot Police Destroy Occupy Encampment and Tear Gas Media

Chris Rock once said, “That tiger didn’t go crazy. That tiger went tiger!” Well this morning the Oakland Police department went State. 500 paid thugs (i.e. officers and sheriff’s deputies) from over 12 agencies assisted the OPD in a pre-dawn raid of OccupyOakland, evicting campers from the newly named Oscar Grant Plaza in front of Oakland city hall. Riot police clad in gas masks used rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, flash grenades, tear gas canisters and an LRAD sonic cannon against non-violent peaceful protesters. Mass Arrests are being reported, and although the police reported that there were no injuries, live-twitter accounts disagree. City Officials have advised downtown business to remain closed until further notice.

The Occupiers were not unprepared for this eventuality and have activated an “emergency reconvergence plan” beginning with an emergency assembly today at 4pm at Oakland Public Library on 14th and Madison. I’ll be there, and I’ll keep you updated.

One of the first eyewitness accounts is coming from Kevin Army, a journalist with Salon.com. He reports that when the police lined up before the raid he attempted to capture video of their helmet numbers when officer #570 shouted and rammed into him, pushing him to the ground. He was told by a commanding officer to stand in a designated area with the mainstream media trucks and other independent media. After the police had herded all the media together, Kevin reports that they were shot with tea gas, disbursed and not allowed to return to cover the raid. He believed this was intentional.

Here’s his video:

OccupyOakland had been dubbed a “demilitarized zone.” While OccupySF has faced raids and police brutality from it’s inception, the City of Oakland had been exceptionally welcoming of the encampment. They were permitted to set up over 150 tents. The encampment had portable toilets and garbage service. They had both a first-aid and childcare tent. They even hosted live music and screened films with a projector on a theater sized screen. Although there were isolated reports of fights, drug use, and sexual harassment… such is Oakland… and the encampments General Assemblies were already organizing autonomous solutions to these problems. A leaderless patrol of 10 to 20 Occupiers originally formed to run 24-hour “cop watch” for the encampment were working to diffuse fights, discourage hard drug use, and protect women and queer Occupiers from sexual harassment. OccupyOakland had become more than an organized protest. It was an experiment in self-governance, addressing many of the systemic problems the City of Oakland is not addressing. For nearly two weeks not a single person went hungry in Oakland, and many of the cities homeless population reported a sense of safety in the encampment not felt anywhere else in the city.

Friday afternoon the city posted eviction notices saying that those who stayed would be subject to arrest because, “neither the demonstrators nor the City could maintain safe or sanitary conditions.” Karen Boyd, a spokesbureaucrat for the mayor, told the Oakland Tribune that, “the protesters had shown themselves incapable of self-governance.” But that’s patently false. All the city’s complaints were already being spontaneously handled by the Occupiers. The purpose of this raid, in my opinion, was precisely because they were showing that they were capable of self-governance, and both Police and City Officials are terrified that you’ll realize we don’t need them. Occupiers had no intention of leaving, deciding at the next General Assembly to defend the encampment. Several hundred Occupiers worked to block off the entrances to the plaza using dumpsters, wooden pallets, and even police-style metal barricades in the hours before the raid.

Around 3:00 AM reports circulated amongst the campers that 10 to 20 police cars were patrolling the streets around the plaza. At least two helicopters lit up the plaza from above. Police action began around 4:40 AM when hundreds of officers from multiple Bay Area cities surrounded the encampment. About 170 Occupiers remained on site when officers ordered them to disburse over loud speakers. The Occupiers locked arms and shouted as police moved in. The invaders fired tear gas and beanbag rounds at the non-violent protesters and ultimately arrested 75 for “misdemeanor illegal lodging.” Police ripped apart the tents and threw them in the street. According to authorities the plaza was “contained” around 5:30 AM.

PHOTOS
Truly horrific photos of OccupyOakland police raid

The Occupy Oakland account live tweeted the raid:

The Occupiers fully intend to retake the Plaza insisting that they are neither defeated nor discouraged. They expect this aggression from the city to fire people up even more and to translate into a new protesters.

10/21/2011

Occupy Property Rights

The prohibition of interest in Islam is a Divine ruling; hence a Muslim seeks to submit to it. Nonetheless, there are two crucial aspects to such submission. Firstly, we believe that all Divine rulings have wisdom, even if we are not cognisant of the wisdom. Secondly, with abstinence of and opposition to interest, as with any act of obedience done with profound reflection and inner awareness, there is huge potential of high spiritual benefit in both this world and the next, by the will of God. Nevertheless, the opposition to interest can also be seen in the context of the Islamic imperative for Muslims to be at the forefront of pushing the agenda for global social justice. A collective observance of the prohibition is a defence against societal and economic corruption, which ultimately can smite the good and bad alike, without differentiation. Sadly, in the face of the defences of interest based on economic theories founded on a false understanding of the reality of humanity and the general acceptance of interest, one will be able to apply to the issue of interest the following words that Leo Tolstoy wrote against current theories of art in his What is Art?

“If a theory justifies the false position which a certain part of society is in, then, however baseless and even obviously false the theory may be, it will get adopted and become the belief of that part of society…However baseless theories of this sort may be, however contradictory they may be to everything mankind knows and recognizes, however obviously immoral they may be, they are accepted on faith, without criticism, and are preached with passionate enthusiasm, sometimes for centuries, until the conditions they justify are done away with or the absurdity of the theories becomes too obvious.”

An Introduction to Interest

Shaykh Muhammad Shafi, in The Issue of Interest, enumerates the many Quranic verses that prohibit riba, such as 2:275-6 and 2:278-9. The latter includes the stern warning: “O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains [due to you] of riba, if you should be believers. And if you do not, then be informed of a war [against you] from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal – [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged.” Shafi explains how riba is translated into Urdu as sud as though they ‘are one and the same thing in Arabic and Urdu,’ but ‘riba carries a general and wider connotation and the prevailing phenomenon of sud is a kind or type of riba. The prevailing phenomenon of sud refers to lending of a specific amount for a specific period on a specific rate of profit or increase, and no doubt this is riba. But riba is not limited to this and has a much wider connotation. It includes many transactions of sale, purchase, where there is no element of credit.’ This discussion can be directly applied to a similar mistake in English if we only understand riba as interest. In summary, interest is, in the words of Shafi, ‘the compensation or the excess paid for an extension in the tenor of the loan’ as  ‘the offer by the borrower that he will pay an extra sum of money if the lender extends the moratorium for repayment.’

In specific response to those who might claim that it is acceptable to merely receive interest from a bank, Shaykh Hussain Hamed has written:

“Bank deposits are considered loans by law and by the consensus of jurists, and “any increment in a loan is riba,” as the Prophet ﷺ states in his hadith. In reality, banks deal freely in people’s deposits; they unilaterally dispose of them by using them in lending to other people for interest. At the same time, banks are committed to pay that money back with interest. These are the characteristics of loans as stated in law, with no regard to how such interest is estimated, what its percentage is, or what the name given to it is. It is no matter whether such extra money given on the capital is called benefit, gain, earning, interest, reward, gift or whatsoever. What matters are the actual results effected by the contract between the bank and the dealers, because contracts are governed by the results they entail. Rulings are generally given to real matters not to hypotheses. Moreover, the claim that banks are just investors by proxy that invest money deposited therein in legal projects has already been refuted by law, Shari`ah [Islamic law] and by experience.”

[The full explanation of the details regarding riba is beyond the scope of this article, but one would be well-advised to view the in-depth explanation in Shaykh Wahbah Zuhayli’s Financial Transactions in Islamic Jurisprudence.]

Imam Qurtubi, in his Tafsir on Qur’an 2:275-9, relates the strongest condemnations of the practice of riba narrated from the hadith and pious early generations, especially in relation to God’s declaration of ‘war’ against the people of riba and how God obliterates riba. He further states that 2:279 indicates that practising riba is a major sin and there is no disagreement upon that. Indeed, he narrates that Ibn Khuwayzimandad stated that the belief that riba is lawful is an act of apostasy. Muhammad Shafi, in his Ma’ariful Qur’an in commentary of 2:279, says, ‘So severe is this warning that any other warning of such severity does not appear anywhere in the Qur’an in relation to any other sin, no matter how great, except kufr (disbelief), of course.’

Over the ages, the matter of interest has been treated with abhorrence and condemnation. In the West, this disgust goes back to the Greek philosophers. John Kenneth Galbraith, in A History of Economics: The Past as the Present, notes how Aristotle ‘strongly condemned the taking of interest’ because, in Aristotle’s (384-322 B.C) words, ‘money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest.’ Galbraith explains the reasoning for this dislike: ‘interest was an unworthy extraction from the less fortunate arising from possession of the money by the more fortunate.’ He notes that ‘interest continued to be strongly condemned throughout the Middle Ages’ until it was later ‘redefined as a payment for productive capital – when it became compellingly evident that the one who borrowed money made money out of doing so and should, in all justice, share some of the return with the original lender’, and then it was considered ‘reputable.’ At that point, Galbraith states that the ‘religious precept and the accepted ethic were then, not exceptionally, adjusted to this circumstance’, ‘but the taking of interest for personal needs or use continued to have a slightly unwholesome, even suspect, reputation.’

Galbraith notes that ‘early Christian doctrine strongly condemned the exaction of interest; as with the Greeks, it was seen as extortion by the fortunately affluent from the unfortunate, unwise or impoverished who were pressed by needs and obligations beyond their means.’ Moreover, this orthodox condemnation of interest is shown by Galbraith to extend to the leading Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), as exhibited in his Summa Theologica. However, Galbraith argues that ‘mercantilism involved…a marked break with ethical attitudes and instructions of Aristotle and of Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Middle Ages in general’ due to the influence and dominance of merchants in society, and that the charging of interest ‘lost its evil or dubious connotation’; and with it, in the words of Galbraith, ‘religious faith was accommodated to economic circumstance and need.’ He adds that ‘both Catholic and Protestant church doctrine’ changed their stances, ‘however reluctantly and gradually.’ [Galbraith explains that ‘merchant capitalism’ or ‘mercantilism’ is said to cover ‘three hundred years, from very roughly the middle of the fifteenth century to the middle of the eighteenth, with the end vividly marked by the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution and the publication of Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith [in 1776].’]

Both Shaykh Taqi ‘Uthmani in The Historic Judgment On Interest: Delivered in the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Ahamed Kameel Mydin Meera in The Theft of Nations: Returning to Gold have brought forth a number of passages from the Old and New Testaments that order people not to charge ‘interest,’ such as Exodus 22:25. Now ‘Uthmani presents Qur’an 4:161 as the evidence that the Tribe of Isra’il was prohibited to charge interest. Meera states that all ‘three Abrahamic faiths – Judaism, Christianity and Islam –…strongly condemned the practice of charging interest.’ The latter assertion becomes a somewhat difficult argument to sustain when one takes Judaism and Christianity from within what has become their tradition, as opposed to taking a Qur’anic method towards explaining their faiths.

Firstly, as pointed out by Israel Shahak in Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, numerous Biblical verses are ‘understood’ in what Shahak calls ‘classical Judaism’ or latter-day ‘Orthodoxy’ in a manner ‘quite distinct’ to the ‘literal meaning’ or understood by a Christian or reader of the Old Testament. Shahak argues that these forms of Judaism are bound more by Talmudic law than the Biblical text. In the case of interest, Shahak argues that Talmudic law only initially banned Jews from charging interest from fellow Jews; but, over time, innovative legal stratagems were devised to even get around this latter prohibition.

Secondly, as highlighted by Taqi ‘Uthmani in his What is Christianity?, one has to understand the wide scope for legal reform within Christianity in light of Paul’s renunciation of the Law of the Torah in favour of just faith in Jesus, which conflicted with the earliest conveyors of Jesus’ disciples and is pivotal because Paul is, as stated by ‘Uthmani is the latter work, really the ‘founder of present day Christianity’ – if one takes a Biblical method then one is forced to become ‘bewildered’ like Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh in The Dead Sea Scroll Deception in trying to accurately determine the details of the life of Jesus (upon him be peace). Hence this foundational spirit of freedom exhibited by Paul has led Christians to freely amend laws and attitudes over time, for even if they reject some of Paul’s positions, they can still use his methodology and apply it as they see fit. Tom Holland, in a recent documentary on Paul for Channel Four in the UK, entitled ‘The Bible: A History’ and aired on 28 February 2010, felt it was apt to end his programme with, ‘That all you need is love’ – after arguing in favour of the thesis that the central method of Paul’s invitation of faith to non-Jews, like Greeks and Romans, was to emphasise that they could dispense with the Law, and just suffice with loving Jesus (upon him be peace). Thus Holland mentions that the roots of changing the Law can be seen in Paul himself; furthermore, even if Paul and the Church adhered to current ‘morals,’ they could be ever changed on the basis of ‘love.’

The acceptance of interest is now almost universal, and it is intrinsically linked to the modern banking system; and the latter is crucial for what we see as development in the West. For example, look at the industrial development of Britain and the crucial role played by the establishment of the Bank of England. Dan Snow’s BBC series entitled ‘Empire of the Seas: How the Navy Forged the Modern World’ – in an account that is essentially supported by Galbraith in Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went and Tarek El Diwany in The Problem with Interest, but Snow makes broader connections – shows that Britain’s affluence is due to the facility of interest-based loans administered through the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694, in order to raise funds for the King to develop the navy for military engagement with the French. In this scenario, the newly-formed Bank agreed to pay 8% on loans of £25 from the people; then the massive wealth raised by the keen accepters of this offer was loaned to the King by the Bank. This method was far more popular than raising taxes, but it also was the beginning of the national debt. Nevertheless, the financial revolution was to spur on the industrial revolution, as the influx of newly-available money led to industrial innovations and bolstered agricultural produce that were created to feed and aid the navy. Snow talks of these matters coupling with the belligerent and war-mongering pursuit of booty by the English, and a strategy of ‘relentless aggression,’ which also included the conquering of lands by force for the opening up of wealth and the utilisation of the slave trade (especially in the Caribbean). Consequently, Britain achieved ‘global supremacy’ when defeating the French in 1759. Thus it is difficult for us English to view interest and banking in a cold impartial light when it is so deeply embedded in the economic comfort that we so enjoy now; and anything murky, especially widespread bloodshed, is slightly disconcerting to the image of purity we so seek to construct about ourselves.

Wisdom and Cause in the Sacred Law

In The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi argues that God, al-Rahman al-Rahim (The All-Merciful, The Compassionate), prohibits and permits for ‘people’s well-being,’ for He is not ‘arbitrary’ in regard to legislation. He adds:

“Accordingly, He has neither permitted anything except what is pure nor has He prohibited anything except what is impure…If something is entirely harmful it is haram [forbidden], and if it is entirely beneficial it is halal [lawful]; if the harm of it outweighs its benefit it is haram, while if its benefit outweighs its harm it is halal. This principle is explained in the Qur’an in relation to wine and gambling: ‘They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say (O Prophet): In them are great sin and some benefit for human beings, but the sin is greater than the benefit…’ (2:219). By the same logic, if it is asked, what is halal in Islam? The answer is, the good things. Good things are those which moderate people acknowledge to be wholesome and which are approved by human beings in general without relation to the habits of a particular group. Allah Ta’ala [God the Exalted] says: ‘They ask thee what is lawful to them (as food). Say: Whatever is good is lawful to you…’ (5:4). He also says: ‘Today whatever is good is made lawful to you…’ (5:5).

“The Muslim is not required to know exactly what is unclean or harmful in what Allah has prohibited; it may be hidden from him but be apparent to someone else, or its harm may not have been discovered during his lifetime but may be understood at a later period. What is required of a Muslim is simply to say, ‘We have heard and we shall obey’ [Qur’an, 2:285]. Do we not observe that Allah prohibited the eating of pork without the Muslims being aware of the reason for its prohibition apart from the fact that the pig is a filthy animal? Centuries passed, and then scientific research discovered the presence of parasites and deadly bacteria in its flesh. Yet even if scientific research had discovered nothing in pork, or if it had discovered much more than this, the Muslim would still continue to believe it to be unclean.”

Furthermore, by way of emphasising the above from Qaradawi, Muhammad Shafi says in commentary of Qur’an 2:275 in Ma’ariful Qur’an:

“When He declares something to be halal, and something else to be haram, you should immediately realize that there must be some loss or harm or evil in that which has been declared haram, even if one does or does not see through it. This is because the actual reality of this whole system, and the benefit and harm that lies therein, can only be encompassed by the same ‘Alim (the Knower) and Khabir (the Aware) from Whose reach of knowledge the minutest particle of the world cannot escape. The individuals or groups in this world can identify their expedient gains and their losses, but they cannot claim to have encompassed the entire range of benefits and harms affecting the whole wide world. There are things that appear to be beneficial for a certain person or group but, when looked at in the perspective of the whole nation or country, the same things prove to be harmful.”

Shaykh Ibn ‘Ashur, in his Treatise on Maqasid al-Shari’ah, argues in a manner that really does not require commentary, for it succinctly sums up the whole affair:

“From a comprehensive thematic analysis of the textual sources of the Shari’ah pertaining to the objectives of legislation, we can draw the following conclusions. Both its general rules and specific proofs indicate that the all-purpose principle (maqsad ‘amm) of Islamic legislation is to preserve the social order of the community and insure its healthy progress by promoting the well-being and righteousness (salah) of that which prevails in it, namely, the human species. The well-being and virtue of human beings consist of the soundness of their intellect, the righteousness of their deeds as well as the goodness of the things of the world where they live that are put at their disposal…If He had not intended the orderly running of the world, He would not have ordained punitive laws to deter people from perpetrating corruption nor permitted them to enjoy the beautiful and good things of life…Human beings have a natural propensity for perfection. However, their actual achievement of perfection develops only gradually in tandem with their spiritual purification and moral uplifting.”

A righteous soul, believing that their Lord is All-Wise in His rulings, might easily confuse wisdom and cause; and therefore permit or deem unlawful on the basis of wisdom, whilst contradicting the ruling established by the necessary cause or causes, hence reaching an incorrect conclusion due to failing to observe a sound jurisprudential method. This is outlined by Taqi ‘Uthmani in the Historic Judgment in his differentiation between ‘illa and hikma. He establishes that ‘illa in this issue of interest is:

“The basic feature of a transaction without which the relevant law cannot be applied, whereas Hikmat is the wisdom and the philosophy taken into account by the legislator while framing the law or the benefit intended to be drawn by its enforcement. The principle is that the application of a law depends on the Illat and not on the Hikmat…To cite another example, the Holy Qur’an has prohibited liquor. The Illat of its prohibition is intoxication but the Hikmat of this prohibition has been mentioned by the Holy Qur’an in the following words: ‘The Satan definitely intends to inculcate enmity and hatred between you by means of liquor and gambling, and wants to prevent you from remembering Allah. So would you not desist?’ (5:91)…It is in the same way that after mentioning the transaction of Riba, the Holy Qur’an has mentioned the Zulm [inequity] as a Hikmat or a philosophy of the prohibition, but it does not mean that prohibition will not be applicable if the element of Zulm appears to be missing in a particular case. The Illat (basic feature) on which the prohibition is based is the excess claimed over and above the principal in a transaction of loan…Another point worth mentioning here is that the Illat of a law is always something determinable by hard and fast definition which leaves no room for a dispute as to whether the Illat is or is not available. Any relative term which is ambiguous in nature [like Zulm] cannot be held to be the Illat of a particular law because its existence being susceptible to doubts and disputes…”

To be continued in the second part.

As though being late wasn’t bad enough, to top it off, you are made to feel as though the money you’ve worked for isn’t your right; they are doing you a favor by paying you anything at all. This Islamic Organization is simply out of money, and you have to wait until they get some. It coincidentally comes to your attention that some employees in higher positions had their checks issued on time and without any delay.

An Islamic school wanted you to teach two subjects and pay you as a quarter-time employee. Apparently if you don’t teach 4 subjects to the entire school then you will not be considered a full-time teacher (that isn’t a sarcastic remark). In addition, you were told that your pay was based on 1/4 of the full-time teacher’s pay. When you find out what that rate is, you know that your pay is much lower than what 1/4 actually is. They are trying to take advantage of the fact that you are new and don’t know anyone or how much they make. Sadly, you do know another teacher, and you realize their dishonesty. As a result, you quit.

Another school refused to pay you your last paycheck after they were informed that you wouldn’t be returning next year. They claimed that withholding the pay was their right since you breached your contract, when in fact you had signed no contract in the first place. Now you have to take legal action in order to get your money. Contracts are made on a yearly basis, so to leave at the end of the year is simply to choose not to renew a contract. There should be no conditions on getting paid for work that was already done. That same school was telling you and all of its employees to report lower income than they were actually getting, in order for the school to be eligible for a tax break.

A Muslim-owned business approached you and requested a redesign for their website. When you gave them your price, they said it was too high. So you agreed to do it at a lower price, and explained your terms for design work (limiting the number of revisions to the design once you finalize it, requiring 50% pay upfront, and overtime will be charged at an hourly rate). In response you got a horrible attitude, they requested your references, more samples of your work, and said they might consider hiring you. When they had approached you in the first place and offered you the work, based on a design you did, that they saw, and liked. Other non-Muslim businesses you work with have gladly paid you the 50% and agreed to abide by these same terms.

Subhan’Allah (glory be to Allah). All of these are real stories.

You start to wonder if these organizations had planned to abuse you from the get-go.

But, you haven’t done anything wrong to them, so why would they bother? Then you remember Allah’s words from the Qur’an, “O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin” (49:12).

Is it because you are working with Muslim organizations, so your work is “Feesabillilah”—for the sake of Allah—that people pushing the boundaries shouldn’t bother you?

The short answer is no. Because if it was, we would all be willing to sacrifice to help get things done, and more importantly to help each other. That executive would give up part of his salary to help you pay your rent on time.

Is it because this is my Muslim brother or sister that I should let them fall behind on the payments?

It can’t be because they are the ones that want you to be there on time, every time, to work for them. They want flawless work, in a hurry, with an impossible deadline and an insane volume of work to be completed. This is a paid position: you were promised a paycheck in exchange for specific tasks and duties, and it is an agreement between you and your employer.

Allah requires us to respect these agreements, as stated in Surat Al-Israa, “…And fulfill [every] commitment. Indeed, the commitment is ever [that about which one will be] questioned” (17:34).

Are all employees doing right by their employers, and inherently the victims?

Of course not. Obviously both cases exist, but unprofessionalism just breeds more unprofessionalism. The employee that slacks should be fired. The employer that mistreats their worker should lose that employee to a more deserving firm.

“Woe to those who give less [than due], who, when they take a measure from people, take in full. But if they give by measure or by weight to them, they cause loss. Do they not think that they will be resurrected for a tremendous Day – the Day when mankind will stand before the Lord of the worlds?” (Qur’an, 83:1-6)

Allah warns us specifically about this type of behavior in the Holy Quran. Yet it seems as though Muslims are failing (repeatedly) to recognize or abide by this obligation.

In Project Management there are three main areas that need to be balanced in order to successfully complete a project.

1. The Budget, or how much money is allocated to completing the project.
2. The Schedule, which breaks the project into smaller tasks and their respective deadlines.
3. The Scope, which are the things that need to be completed and delivered by the due date.

Whenever any of these three factors are changed, the entire project is thrown off.

How is that?

Here’s a situation:

You gave me $20 and asked me to go to a store and get some items on a list. The list costs exactly $20 including tax. So I have 45 minutes to go and bring the groceries back. The project here is getting the groceries. If you were to call me on the phone, and tell me you need some meat from the Halal store as well, that would throw me off. Because of the money, I am now over my budget; also, it will increase the time I’ll need, so I won’t be able to deliver on schedule.

You see?

So changing any of the three factors in a project will change the other two. If you push these limits then either the project will fail or it will be completed with poor quality.

Bottom line: When the balance is lost, the project suffers.

I believe that to be the exact case with these Muslim businesses and institutions. They are attempting to ‘milk’ employees for work they aren’t willing (or able) to pay for. They have expectations that exceed their ability or willingness to fairly compensate. Employees come in with higher than usual expectations from a Muslim employer, and expect über-ethical and fair treatment. Employees’ morale and trust in their employer drops, and as a result the quality of their work suffers.

Expectations have to be made clear, respected, and fulfilled by both sides. If we all know Allah is watching us, then we should act like it. Muslim businesses and Islamic organizations are the pillars of our community; when we build our Ummah on broken principles it will fall apart overnight.

Most of you reading this know that sadly this is the situation in general. I am sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I have traveled, searched, and have yet to find a case where this doesn’t stand true in one way or another.

We have reached rock bottom when Muslims sincerely warn other Muslims against getting jobs with Muslim companies or Islamic organizations. Why is it that in exchange for being in a so-called Islamic environment, you will face all sorts of head- and heartache?

I’m not writing this with the intention to bash other Muslims or talk smack about the Ummah. On the contrary, I want to point this out and have it addressed and remedied, so that it is no longer the case. I make du`a’ that Allah guides us all to the best of manners and etiquette, and that we are among those that heed good advice and follow the best of it. Ameen.