Economics in religions: what do original sources say?

The paper’s goal of localizing principles of economics in Jewish, Christian, Islamic and Buddhist religions is not approached by study of the huge literature on theological exegesis; the paper concentrates, instead, on inspection of fundamental original sources and draws on some of the already existing literature on economics in religions.

Economics in the Tora

The five books of Moses constitute the Tora, which is the written religious law of the Jews. The book Exodus 16 reports that during the Jews’ 40 years migration through the desert, their God Jahwe provided them with manna from heaven. Everybody was allowed to collect not more than a small quantity. This egalitarian distribution made it possible to satisfy the basic needs of all. In normal times of the population’s settlement, individual engagement in trade and accumulation of wealth were principally accepted. In Genesis 33, the twin brethren Jakob and Esau were both wealthy men. But only Jacob was humble, while Esau boasted with his affluence and thus did not comply with the Tora’s request of responsible handling of wealth.

The Tora establishes very peculiar rules of giving loans and of taking interest. With respect to Jewish fellow citizens, it was prohibited to take interest for loans, and all loans had to be cancelled in the seventh, sabbatical year. With respect to non-Jewish partners, these rules were, in contrast, not obligatory (Deuteronomium 15, 23).

A regulation similar to the egalitarian distribution of manna in the desert was the distribution of land. Jahwe had promised that, after the hard time of migration through the desert, every family would receive its own land. Moses was charged to distribute the land according to the number of people (Numeri 26, 33). To sell the land was possible, but only for the period ending at the next 50-years jubilee of the State Israel, when the land by the buying family had to be returned to the selling family.

Economics in the New Testament

All of the four gospels report on Christ’s creation of food for 5000 people. One may interpret this as a message similar to that of manna in the desert: There are resources sufficient for all. The New Testament seems to indicate a very critical position of Christ toward individual wealth: “No servant can be the slave of two masters; .. you cannot serve God and Money” (Mt 6, 24). “…it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Mk 10, 21). On close inspection one may notice, however, that Christ did not condemn a man just for his wealth; but wealth was seen to have the strong power to distract him from his straight-forward orientation toward a life in God’s sense.

When looking for economic principles, two of the famous parables in the gospels are remarkable. In the first parable, a wealthy master had entrusted to each one of his three servants a different amount of money for a limited time. The first and the second servant succeeded in duplicating the money; they received their master’s thanks and rewards. The third servant just kept the money; he got his master’s disapproval and was even punished by being told to pass the money to the first servant (Mt 25, 14-30; Lk 19, 11-27). The parable indicates that the New Testament cares for economic productivity of resources. In the second parable, the owner of a vineyard in the morning hires workers for one day’s work at the usual wage of one denar. At noon and in the afternoon, he hires more workers, and in the evening he pays to them the same amount of one denar. The vineyard-entrepreneur insists he is not unfair to those who had been working since the morning. “Your agreed on the usual wage for one day, did you not? … I choose to pay the last man the same as you. Surely I am free to do what I like with my money”. (Mt 20, 1-16). The second parable indicates that there is no care for clear-cut wages; there is no vote against arbitrariness and injustice in income distribution. The feudal world of rich people and poor people, of owners and non-owners, of masters and servants was taken as given, was not questioned in the New Testament.

Economics in the Koran and the “New Islamic Economics”

Islam’ prophet Muhammad was not a rich man, but he was open to trade and wealth. He is told to have been a buyer and an auctioneer during the period he spent at Medina. A positive position towards economic behaviour is reflected in the Koran: Allah has “allowed selling” (2,275). Honest trade is seen as a service to the community: “It shall be no crime … if you seek an increase from your Lord” (2,198). The Koran prohibits, however, monopolistic pricing and profits from speculative business. Apart from its positive position towards competitive business and profit, The Koran charges social justice on Muslims. One instrument to realize this is redistribution from the wealthy to the poor by a tax named “zakat”.

The Koran imposes consumption regulations on economic behaviour, for instance prohibition of alcohol. And there is strong prohibition of interest or “riba”. Interest is always translated into “usury”. One of the numerous Koran-texts on “riba” is: “Those who swallow down usury, shall arise in the resurrection only as he ariseth whom Satan had infected his touch. … Those who return to usury, shall be given over to the fire; therein they abide for ever” (2.275). The Koran’s prohibition of interest remained an essential regulation which was not revised in contemporary “New Islamic Economics”. There are, nevertheless, elements similar to interest in financing durable consumers goods and in financing of business. Special Islamic banks will, because of interest prohibition, not give loans to firms at predetermined interest rates; they will, rather, participate in firm’s business as joint-venture investment partners receiving a shar of the uncertain profit. Meanwhile, the global financial world has started to circumvent interest prohibition by constructing Islam-conforming contracts for the large volume of capital from Islamic countries.

Economics in Buddhism

According to Buddha, all phenomena of life are without essence, are limited in time, and carry pain. There is nothing with permanent substance. But there is a revival of human existences. One cannot escape consequences of good or bad actions in former existences. But in present life, everybody is free to decide himself for good or for bad action. The oldest Buddhist school, Theravada, insists to include economic actions into the normative concept of good actions. A businessman should be prudent, should know costs, turnover and profit. It would be in Buddha’s sense to apply diligence and honesty in order to acquire property and wealth which are finally destined to perform good actions. Individuals’ wealth promotes the society’s capacity to give help to the monks and to the poor. This picture of Buddhism is very different from that given by Max Weber.

Conclusions

Religions are not hostile to economic principles. They reject wealth only if used without responsibility toward others. There is a bias to egalitarian distribution in times of collective hardship. Traditional feudal layers of wealthy and of poor people are not questioned in the sources of religions. Responsible handling of wealth implies support of monks and help for the poor.