the abbasìd’s golden age 203The religious counter-argument is based on various other aœàdìth
that encourage cultivation so much so that the cultivator is rewarded
for even the bird eating from his field, and that, “The cultivator is
a trader with God”. The religious argument was vital, particularly,
at that time when the whole economic system was based on divine
law.
The reason why al-Shaibànì regarded agriculture as relatively
superior to other production activities is, to him, fourfold: first, it is
the sector on which other production sectors are based. It provides
the industry with raw materials and trade with traded agricultural
produce, and when the subject of trade is manufactured goods this
would not have been possible without raw materials. Second; agri-
culture is more widely beneficial to people in general than other sec-
tors, as it is particularly important for sustaining lives. And when
the œadìthsays that the best of you is the most beneficiary to oth-
ers, this leads to deducing that cultivators engaged in agriculture are
superior to others. Third; agriculture, and its derived activities, is
the main provider of the needs of other living beings, birds and
animals, which may be edible or otherwise. Fourth; by contrast to
other vocational occupations, agriculture provides a source for Zakàh
from within as compulsory alms, as Zakàh, on agriculture is stipu-
lated in the Qur"àn. All said al-Shaibànìconfirmed that all sectors
are inseparably useful, and cooperation among the sectors is indis-
pensable, but that the superiority of agriculture is, however, a rela-
tive superiority.
Trade
For the creation of wealth, or income, and the relationship between
agriculture and trade we find al-Shaibànìproviding a very interest-
ing statement: agriculture provides what is necessary to the individ-
ual but with trade and exchange, wealth is developed. Although this
is a simple statement, it has a very important implication, which is
that al-Shaibànì has indeed preempted the Physiocrats’ thinking
almost ten centuries later.
The similarity, and dissimilarity, between the thinking of al-Shaibànì
on agriculture and the Physiocrats may merit a brief comparison.
Appearing in France in the eighteenth century, the Physiocrats con-
centrated on agriculture as the only sector that is capable of pro-
ducing a net product, produit net, and as such, they contributed to
discarding the mercantilist’s belief that wealth and its increase were