One of the most brutally felt dimensions of the sociopolitical crisis currently engulfing the Muslim world is the economy. Although economics is merely one aspect of social life—its material dimension—it is now regarded, due to its mismanagement through flawed parameters, as the root of nearly all crises. Karl Marx, who understood and explained the world in this way, saw the economy—or more precisely, the means of production—as the foundation (infrastructure) upon which all social relations (superstructure) are built. In his view, any change in the means of production inevitably transforms the superstructure as well.
The truth is, the world constructed by liberal capitalism—though theoretically opposed to Marxism—practically proves Marx’s analysis. Marx was a materialist who denied the existence of God and regarded religion as an “opiate of the masses.” In the liberal-capitalist world today, religion indeed plays no decisive role; the masses are numbed by the closed circuit of the market, shaped by the forces that dominate it. In practice, liberal capitalism is more materialistic than Marxism ever was in theory.
Properly diagnosing the core of the Muslim world’s sociopolitical crisis requires a deep analysis of the economic condition.
Undoubtedly, the relationship between human beings and the economy is one of the fundamental aspects of social life. While not the sole determining factor of life, it is certainly one of the most influential—and arguably more powerful than many others. God created each human being as unique. In addition to their individual characteristics, humans possess social dimensions. Human relationships unfold within society, for—as Muslim jurists have emphasized—human beings are, by nature, social creatures. Their capacity for civilization necessitates gathering, organizing, and living together. Within this framework, like politics, economics is a social phenomenon and must be understood in connection with other social realities.
At this point, a critical question arises:
Can a human being, who realizes their purpose of existence within society, maintain entirely separate or even conflicting modes of thinking in their social interactions? In other words, can a person with an integrated sense of self accept radical disconnections between their conscience and their intellect, their heart and their mind? Do they normalize such fragmentation and internalize schizophrenia—or do they seek coherence and unity through deliberate engagement?
Modern thinking assumes that individuals can maintain separate spheres of belief and behavior—holding private moral or religious convictions while navigating public life under a set of impersonal, rational imperatives. Thus, it promotes a strict separation between personal belief and systemic function. But this is a hollow assumption—one that lacks existential coherence.
A Muslim who is truly conscious of Islam’s metaphysical worldview and its guidance regarding worldly affairs, enters into economic life already surrounded by moral and legal boundaries. They consider not only why to produce, but what to produce, and how to ethically present goods or services to the marketplace. In principle, unrestricted and unregulated profit is illegitimate, and so is the hoarding of wealth (kenz). Yet engaging in economic activity becomes necessary in order to sustain life, improve the world, support the needy through charity, and build the strength to defend against adversaries.
Even when wealth is gained through entirely lawful means, it must be used responsibly—for the benefit of society, not wasted in reckless consumption. Ideally, it should be reinvested into production. Just as the permissible ways of earning are clearly defined, so too are the permissible ways of spending. For, as the Qur’an reminds us: “Was man created without purpose, left to himself?” (75:36)
For example, no matter how profitable it may be, a Muslim cannot produce alcoholic beverages, cannot circulate them in the market, cannot promote their consumption, and cannot consume them. The production, distribution, and consumption of alcohol are purely economic activities—but for a Muslim, they carry no value. This clearly shows that religion and economics are deeply and inherently linked, even when that connection is expressed through restriction.
The claim that economics is a purely technical and rational activity, devoid of ideology or values, is itself an ideological stance. If human beings were neutral beings devoid of values, and if the world contained zones of complete moral indifference, such a claim might hold weight. But neither the structure of existence nor the human condition supports this view. What matters most is: which values guide economic life, and to what purpose economic activity serves. In the end, economics is political—and it is the values that give life meaning which also shape economic systems.
The push to secularize economics—to detach it from religion just as politics has attempted to do—stems from a desire for total autonomy, inherited from the Enlightenment. The great powers behind national, regional, and global markets seek freedom from any transcendent source of moral accountability, be it religious or ethical. They now boldly declare, as if stating a truth: “Economics no longer operates under the control of politics; rather, politics is now subject to economics.”This narrative promotes the transfer of governance from elected leaders to economists and technocrats—thereby eliminating the need for politics altogether.
This view—which disregards human free will and the social dynamics of collective life—reflects a deeply liberal mindset, but is in essence hostile to politics itself. Since economics is, by its nature, shaped by political choices and values, this narrative is also inherently hostile to economics—it distorts it and undermines its connection to human purpose. Politicians who repeat this claim without understanding its deeper implications are effectively denying the very purpose of politics. Perhaps, before turning to the economists, we ought to ask: What do the philosophers and theologians have to say about the economy?
Support Our Work
Atlas Think Club is an independent, non-profit platform committed to critical thinking, democratic values, and evidence-based analysis. To sustain our research, publications, and outreach, we rely on the support of our readers.
If you find value in our work, please consider making a donation. Every contribution helps us stay independent and continue producing high-quality content.
