Commentor Swarthmoor said the following …
Commentor Swarthmoor said the following over at Tariq’s site:
Just so folks are clear about the Religious judgment: uions don’t work Islamically, in the first place. An employer can hire/fire whomever he wills and for whatever reason, and he can pay the employee whatever he wants–as long as both parties agree to the contract (beforehand). The employer is not obligated to provide insurance (which is in its essence also haraam) and other bennies. If the employees don’t like what a given business offers, then they are free to go elsewhere. Very simple, and it eliminates A LOT of goernment meddling in people’s affairs.
I’ve heard reference to such an opinion about labor unions before…I also believe based on scholars I trust that health insurance is haram but it seems it may be a necessity in our situation. Anyways, what I wanted to ask was whether anyone can point me to a different opinion on labor unions or just a detailed fatwa (regardless of its verdict) on labor unions and worker’s rights from an Islamic perspective.
abunoor, 
abunoor 4:13 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink
Muzammil Siddiqi argues here from a set of general principles about workers’ rights and dignity that formation of unions is indeed a right under Shari’ah.
Tariq Nelson 4:14 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink
I used to think that health insurance was sinful until my first son cost me over $10,000
islamoyankee 4:27 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink
I’m curious as to the question of health insurance. From a perspective of the maqasid, and from the historical formation of guilds, it seems that while the formation of unions may be contentious, one is on sound ground arguing either opinion. If you can argue unions, the principles involved seem to be similar for the necessity of insurance. Is there truly no argument for the permissibility of health insurance?
aziz 5:53 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink
Tariq – LOL
I’m not keen in blanket statement about what is Islamic and what isn’t, though I am happy to share my own interpretations and practices. In a nutshell, health insurance is a way to reduce cost for something critical, by spreading the cost out so that healthy people subsidize the sick. You can think of health insurance thus as a form of zakat.
Life insurance, on the other hand, is a payment to your family to “take care of them: because you won’t be able to anymore” – which implies that there is no faith in Allah to do teh needful. Thats the reasoning why many madhab say that life insurance is haram (including mine).
If you really want to get hard core then you should stay away from extended warranties.
Swarth Moor 6:25 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink
Abu Noor,
If this is the person that used to be the head of ISNA (or ICNA), then he apparently has some REAL PROBLEMATIC issues in his `Aqidah, so i wouldn\’t use him as a reference. (Ya, that\’s the case–he\’s former head of ISNA.) The author of the piece also needs to be careful with his words–such as, claiming all people are \”equal.\” That clearly isn\’t the case in the Shar`. That is more in line with the talk of the apologists/modernists.
The statement about putting minors to work seems to be intentionally ambiguous. In Islam, a person ceases being a minor at the age of pubescence, so a 12 year old (or younger) very well may no be a legal minority. Also, i don\’t know of anything in the Shar` that says that women must be guaranteed maternity benefits. One would be hard pressed to find anything in the Hadith of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) about that.
Furthermore, there is the principle–that the author somehow failed to mention–which is the right of the employer to hire, fire, serve, and do business with whomever he chooses. The workers have the right to form a group to rally for higher wages… and the owner has the right to fire them. It is, afterall, HIS BUSINESS, and not the property of the workers.
With that said, i am not saying that business owners should not treat their workers well. That is all part of good management. But we also need to be clear about what the limits of the Religion are before people attempt to impose matters upon others which are Religiously unjustified.
swarthmoor.wordpress.com
thabet 10:05 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink
Like wearing a headscarf? Or growing a beard? Or wanting a few minutes each day to pray salat?
Or being of the wrong skin colour?
razib 10:53 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink
I also believe based on scholars I trust that health insurance is haram
religion is retarded
yes, yes, not always, and there are many smart religious people. but when non-religious people say retarded things that’s just their retarded opinion. but when religious people say “my religion says fill_in_in_the_blank_with_retarded_opinion,” then the religion has to be pretty retarded.
Swarth Moor 9:36 am on February 9, 2009 Permalink
Thabet,
Let’s first deal with the principal: WHO OWNS THE BUSINESS? Does the business belong to the workers or to the owners? If i have a business i am not obligated to hire a woman in a scarf–because i am not obligated to hire women. PERIOD. (Actually, hiring a woman who does not wear hijaab becomes problematic, for she is leaving her home uncovered.) I may not want to hire a woman, for instance, because i have a small staff of men, and having a woman employed will lead to matters of khalwah. And even if that were not the case, i am not obligated to hire women.
We have to be clear that Islam is not the same as Western liberalism. And even in Western liberalism–in very liberal places, such as college campuses, you find various exclusive (or virtually exclusive) organizations are promoted: female athletic teams, sororities, “women centers,” Asian/Black/Latino cultural centers, etc. As an (hypothetical) employer, i have the right to hire and serve whomever i want (and i am not talking about depriving a Muslim of the bare essentials for survival). I wouldn’t, for instance, hire an openly homosexual man as a grade school teacher (i wouldn’t hire a homo, PERIOD). Now according to the secular law, i would be doing something illegal. Clearly i am not in Islam–for i have the right to hire and fire whomever i choose.
If i prefer to hire people from my family, or my ethnic background, or an ethnic background that i get along well with, then, that is my perogative. I amy find some habits of people from certain cultures intolerable. I am not obligated to hire them AT MY BUSINESS. A person needs to be clear that there is nothing sinful in that. (Keep in mind, i am not advocating that a person conduct their business in such a fashion–i am just saying that is the right of the employer.)
abunoor 10:08 am on February 9, 2009 Permalink
Swarthmoor — You continue to make absolutist statements, many of which I find extremely troubling others of which I actually agree with. Are these your own scholarly opinions or are you repeating the teachings of a scholar? If so who are those scholars?
Lawrence of Arabia 10:18 am on February 9, 2009 Permalink
“(Keep in mind, i am not advocating that a person conduct their business in such a fashion–i am just saying that is the right of the employer.)”
that seems to be a fairly pointless clarification, since if there is nothing ‘sinful’ about the behavior, I assume there is no reason they should not run their business in precisely that way? [i.e., being bigoted, discriminatory and socially and economically divisive is not only NOT sinful, it's your god given right as business owner apparently?] that’s hardly a very convincing position or much of a basis for a just society (in fact, pretty much by definition, it has no interest in a just society).
Swarth Moor 10:36 am on February 9, 2009 Permalink
@ Abu Noor,
I am laying down basic principles. I am not intending to make absolutist statements, so i appreciate you correcting me on that point. However, if we don’t agree on the basic principles, then it isn’t practical to talk about extenuating circumstances and exceptional cases.
If i have a business, i am not OBLIGATED to hire people i don’t want to hire. Can you find a principle in the Religion that says otherwise? Furthermore, i am conveying what i learned from my teachers in the Shafi`i school. I’ve never learned (or read) from traditional sources anything otherwise.
aziz 10:39 am on February 9, 2009 Permalink
Razib, I think you mean, it’s retarding. In some cases, anyway – but well within normal human variance.
Swarth Moor 10:58 am on February 9, 2009 Permalink
Lawerence,
The clarification isn’t pointless, for there is a distinction between doing something merely halaal and doing something that is, generally speaking, better and wiser. I can sell soda in my shop, and i can sell fresh squeezed juices. Both are halaal–but the latter would be better to sell (from a health perspective).
The basis of a just society is OBEDIENCE TO ALLAH. Telling an employer that he is OBLIGATED to hire people he doesn’t want to hire is unjust. What are you going to do? Open up people’s hearts (which you can’t do) to see if he is discriminating in a fashion that you don’t like?!? And then are you going to imprison him for doing so? If you don’t like his discriminatory practices, you are free not to do business with him–and you are free to tell others to do the same. Furthermore, if this person doesn’t want to hire (or serve) certain people, that means that others are FREE to open up businesses to cater to those people. What the former does may not be practical from a business point of view–but, again, he can choose to run the way he chooses.
I think the undelying problem is that some people here might be operating from the “‘politically correct’ victimology” mind set–and not from the Rules of the Religion. We are assuming that we are on the receiving end of discrimination. That is often the case in the West, but that should mean that Muslims work harder to develop their own independent institutions (besides, many of the Malikis say that it is not allowed to work for non-Muslims).
Lawrence of Arabia 11:46 am on February 9, 2009 Permalink
The clarification is meaningless, because you are still saying that God sanctions and protects divisive, bigoted and in some cases just plain hateful behavior “I may find some habits of people from certain cultures intolerable.”). We are not talking about magical mind reading here; we are talking about the things people do; actions are not isolated from others, nor is the manner in which we dispose of our private property. Thus, it seems rather obvious that the society is going to have a deep interest in those actions. All you have done is provide a rationalization for discrimination and a society which is hopelessly divided.
A society is just only to the extent that it is whole.
thabet 12:18 pm on February 9, 2009 Permalink
You seem to be promoting some sort of simple minded economic libetarianism and avoided the point that businesses operate in societies and have direct social, cultural and environmental impact.
Do you really believe people are ‘free’ to walk in and out of jobs?
Swarth Moor 3:56 pm on February 9, 2009 Permalink
Lawerence,
First of all, in the Shar` there are matters that (and people who) are to be hated. People are not treated equally. So “equality” is not even an operating principle in Islam–nor is it in the West, for if it were, you wouldn’t have affirmative action, female athletic teams, and women’s shelters.
I am confident that there are some cultures (and the people therefrom) you prefer over others. You probably would prefer to hire people whom you feel more comfortable with and those whom you work with feel more comfortable. That’s just common sense. Furthermore, as a principle, you cannot force people to hire those whom one does not want to hire. What are you going to do–imprison someone who chooses to hire a family member over a stranger?!? It doesn’t work IN PRINCIPLE in the Religion. This isn’t anything to argue about. Now, if we are talking about some sort of extenuating circumstances, well there may be exceptions. But, as Abu Irlandee reminded me, i am talking about general principles in the Religion–which every Muslim should be able to agree upon.
Swarth Moor 4:14 pm on February 9, 2009 Permalink
Thabet,
No, i do not believe that all people are free to walk out of their jobs. Slaves, for instance, do not have that right. But free people, generally speaking (not talking about Muslims in an Islamic military, for example), cannot be compelled to work for someone whom they don’t want to work for.
Thabet, do you see the absurdity of where your position naturally leads? If i am FORCED to hire people that i don’t want to hire, then the business, in essence, ceases to be my business. Are you also going to FORCE my business to buy from specified suppliers? Are you going to FORCE my business to offer certain groups discounts on my products? Furthermore, consider all the alleged discrimination cases wherein lousy disgruntled employees who are seeking an easy buck by litigation. If i have the right to hire and fire as i choose, then you eliminate that mess.
Lawrence of Arabia 4:46 pm on February 9, 2009 Permalink
I am human, and sinful, and so carry my own bigotries as a matter of course. I don’t, on the other hand, generally try to justify them as sanctioned by God. I try to overcome them on the way to union with God.
And I wasn’t thinking equality. I don’t think I mentioned the word: it is an abstraction with its own independent set of problems. That said, I would be happy to go there, after a fashion(I am usually critical of political liberalism and capitalism, but they are relatively progressive forces, and together they are certainly better than libertarianism)
…BUT I was thinking of ideas like tawhid and the ummah as goals of human action (both individually and communally), which your account not only undermines, but vigorously acts against. Our actions are to be directed towards the Good, not towards disposing of our private property however we want.
And yes, of course, there are all sorts of circumstances in which the community, society and ultimately the political sphere, imposes penalties for actions of which it is does not improve. I don’t know that we have to run straight to throwing people in jail…why not start with fines? In any case, there is certainly nothing inherently contradictory about the idea.
abunoor 5:05 pm on February 9, 2009 Permalink
Swarthmoor,
I would try to consult with contemporary scholars about these issues and give them specific examples. The economy (and government) were very different at the time of the Prophet (saw) and the time when most classical fiqh works were written than they are today. The general rulings are of course timeless but it takes a scholar to apply them to specific situations today.
Yes, there is a general principle of freedom of contract and right to private property. But they are not absolute (we agree on those basics). Now, whether prohibiting racial discrimination is acceptable, I would put that to a scholar and not just assume that the answer should be one way or the other.
This was a debate held in western societies. There were people arguing that child labor laws and minimum wage laws and racial discrimination laws (heck, abolition laws) were against private property and even that they were unconstitutional. These arguments were overcome by other arguments in both the constitutional, legal, and political spheres.
I appreciate very much your perspective in that we should NOT ASSUME that the results of a Shari’ah analysis would be the same and we should not simply privilege our biases as products of such societies (western, liberal) in the discussion. However, we should neither simply privilege some right wing libertarian capitalist assumptions which may or may not exactly line up with the Shari’ah either. We should take the process and these questions seriously and that’s why I am very interested in serious, respected, traditional scholars who have addressed these issues. I am not trying to win debating points, I am seriously interested in what they might have to say. And not just their final fatwa, but their process of ijtihad in attacking such issues.
Allaah knows best.
Allaah knows best.
Swarth Moor 3:26 pm on February 10, 2009 Permalink
Abu Irlandee,
First, i’d like to say that i don’t know much about libertarianism. I remember reading a newspaper or two of their’s about decade ago. (I can’t remember the big exponent of it here in the States….) So i am not trying to promote their agenda (if i remember they didn’t have a problem with legalizing drugs or homosexuality–under the auspices of “freedom”–so i am DEFINITELY not a libertarian). I do remember one of the Brothers i studied with was impressed with their stuff to the extent that it did comply with the Shar`–minus their amoral stance on many moral issues.
These issues (of contracts/dealings) came up over the years when i was studying (quite a bit) and regularly exposed to people doing business and seeking to know the related judgments (my life isn’t so complicated nowadays). As i said–and i thank you for making me make the clarification–that i am laying down basic principles, so that Muslims become aware of them. And i do agree that there are cases of exception when we are talking about the greater good of the society (and how that is determined in itself has a great deal of detail). I don’t want to go beyond my (very narrow) limits, so i don’t have much else to say on the subject, but it is important that Muslims don’t assume that judgments pertaining to dealings/contracts are going to mimic post-60′s America values.