trurle
Banned
I have the feeling what the methods of monetary distributions entrenched in the Muslim traditions as described above, has contributed to the apparent funding problems of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, when the stream of fa'i (loot) has largely ceased.Your question makes extensive assumptions regarding economics and of governmental structures. The concept that a state in the “modern world” exists only (you implied this) in the sense of the large bureaucratic and redistributive models of the west, to me is making objective statements regarding a subjective field of discussion.
It is entirely possible for much of the modern amenities that one has in Saudi Arabia, would exist without the massive state models seen in the US, France, Russia, etc... You must prove that such advancements in technology or economics cannot exist without the large bureaucratic driven state now en vogue.
In regards to how a state can maintain incomes for the reasons it claims it requires these (excluding looting), we must first remove some assumptions.
1. The bureaucracy and state structures of the western and now entire world, are funded by and large by the populace with which they rule over. Thus it is a symbiotic or in some cases, parasitic relation. Bureaucracy and rulers are intended to offer benefits to the populace and in exchange, the populace provide an income for these.
My opinion is, I reject this concept for the Islamic society. Bureaucracy and the rulers with which Allah has given us, do not live to be provided for by the labor of the ‘subjects of Allah’. Instead, these bureaucracy are payed for by various other means, which could include:
-Payments by the Royal family and or aristocracy. This would be in the form of patronage or gifts. These are those who will most likely pay.
-Kharaj or taxes upon land.
-The aforementioned tariffs.
-Assuming the state is ruled by land owning elites or at least a state with large land ownership, bureaucracy can be tasked with operation of plots of land in districts that they service.
-Grants from the commoners or Islamic institutions, which are voluntary.
-Any business or income making opportunities.
-Another option is that the bureaucracy is those religious officials who are supported by zakat. Thus, you remove much of the issues regarding payment and also to whom the bureaucracy actually is.
In essence, I reject the notion that the bureaucracy individually speaking, should be provided for by immutable tax laws, which are to begin with, haram according to Allah.
2. In similar methods, the state or actual rulers above the bureaucracy in most states today, rule and in exchange receive forced payments in the form of taxation. These rulers can be elected officials, aristocracy, dictators or royalty. What they are, once they exist upon immutable and haram taxation, does not matter.
The conception of the state, within Islam further, is different than yours. Yours seems to be that the state is a provider, one to whom Power is given only to provide or that it exists in the realm above human interactions as a regulator of these interactions. Our conception is separate. Ours is based upon the understanding that the state is a construct that is not necessary according to Islamic law and that includes any system, the state can be circumvented by all means and the Shariah is such that it gives us a constant and immutable means to avoid the state, if we so choose.
When a state exists, it exists at the behest of Allah and has certain privileges, but not ones with which it is above the rest of the populace. So, the state is in actual terms, non existent to us; it is made up of individuals and entities to whom the right to rule has been gifted.
With this stated, the opinion of myself, is that much of the concepts you discuss exist primarily in a society wherein the rulers are elected and expected to end their previous occupations. My conception differs; for me, the preferable state of affairs is one wherein a state is ruled by a land owning royalty supported by landed aristocracy and a smaller system of local voting of provincial leaders who have some powers, but less so that the aristocracy and royalty.
Thus, in each case, these leaders are supported by the land or business with which they held prior to rule.So, the immutable taxation is not necessary.
“Every road cannot be a toll road”
I do not see why not? However, this may not be ideal, agreed. The idea that because the state in terms of the bureaucracy and rulers, do not provide all road payments and maintenance through immutable income taxes, that these roads will always require toll is flawed. For one, charity provides outlets to pay these tolls for those who cannot pay through either zakat or other forms of charity.
If tolls are too high, the commoners or the Islamic religious institution have rights to protest this by refusal to use said roads or demonstration. Or, it is permissible for them to seek aid of their rulers to pay tolls or discuss lowering the toll levels.
“Issue of where the money comes from”
For one, any form of permissible taxes that do exist and at accumulated by the state; are to be used primarily for military spending and afterwards used for saving and balancing budgets. It is considered a sin for one to take income and then create a deficit when there is no necessity for such.
“If private donations do not cover costs”
For one, only those who cannot pay for their own healthcare or insurance are to be supported by zakat. To pay the entire nation’s population in healthcare or insurance, requires either irregular amounts of income from resources owned by the rulers (say, oil and gas reserves) or high immutable income taxes, which are haram (assuming we wish to balance state budgets).
Secondly, the idea that the government or state has a moral right or duty to provide payments where zakat cannot provide, is rejected by our opinion. These payments should be and preferably coveted by private institutions and or zakat.
—————-
Yes, jizya would still be appropriate. It is the payment due from protector to protected, and submitted to his/her master. One can be exempt from jizya, however, the whole world absent of state fitnah is not one.
Back to original point of the thread, at least in Egypt the total cost of social obligations (including taxes) were at periods even higher for Muslim subjects (remember some private talks with Egyptian officers and engineers in 2006-2010 period). It mostly dependent on the indirect costs of military service by Muslim subjects. Yes, it could be period-specific and state-specific, and i would agree with John7755 يوحنا, what jizya was typically neither dominant obligation nor obligation applied for non-muslims only.