374 chapter nine
Free will gives man the freedom of choice. But Naqvi wishes to
emphasise that the human freedom applies to both the “individual
man” and the “collective man” as a member of society, with an
adequate balance between the two (ibid.). It follows that, the Islamic
concept of freedom differs from the Western concept that gives the
individual an almost unlimited right to private property with a full
reliance on the individual to achieve the maximum contribution to
social good. Islam, Naqvi reiterates what Islamic economists unani-
mously agree on, does not grant unqualified sanction to an individ-
ual’s right to private ownership as all properties belong to God and
man’s ownership is ownership by trusteeship.
Turning our attention to the fourth ethical axiom of Islamic eco-
nomics, responsibility, Naqvi emphasises that it sets the limits to what
man can do through his free will. Indeed free will and responsibil-
ity can be viewed as the two sides of one coin. As free will gives
the individual the freedom of choice, the responsibility axiom restricts
his freedom so as to exercise this freedom in a responsible manner.
In other words, freedom must be counter balanced by responsibil-
ity, if only to satisfy the dictates of nature’s equilibrium (ibid.).
But Naqvi extends the point of private property further and takes
it to an unusual position. We find him advocating that when there
is a state of wealth inequality in society a transfer of private prop-
erty ought to be made to “collective ownership” through a process
he refers to as a process of “collectivization”. In developing his argu-
ment, we find him stating, “since the existence of private property
rights is a major barrier to any move towards equalization, private
wealth beyond a certain point will have to be(italics ours) collectivized
and redistributed” (ibid.). Other means do not seem to be sufficient
for him to rectify the situation as he continues, “this point is rein-
forced by the fact that fiscal devices have been singularly unsuc-
cessful in equalizing the distribution of income” (ibid.). Whether
“collectivization” means “nationalization”, is a question that may come
to mind. Naqvi promptly answers the question negatively; the transfer
of property is not to go to the state. As he mistrusts the state and
asserts that civil servants may “feather their nests at the expense of
the society” (ibid.), the ideal situation to him would be the “collective
control of private wealth by the community (Ummah), as a whole,
and not State control”, (ibid.).
In an Islamic society therefore, explicit laws must be enacted with
a view to: (a) limiting the ownership of private property to socially
acceptable levels, and (b) having a broad-based ownership of total