Zubair Hussaini
A host of recent reports, surveys and audits have revealed a disturbing portrait of gross inequalities and sporadic access to basic provisions such as education, healthcare and local services within the UK. A picture has emerged of a few, affluent areas with good quality services surrounded by larger, poorer and more deprived neighbourhoods. In particular certain groups, such as the Muslim community, have been adversely affected in being subject to some of the worst living conditions in society. These problems are due to the Capitalist belief in the “free market”, and have resulted in service provision being dependent on where you live and what you can pay for.
The findings of the various reports have shown that common phrases such as the ‘beautiful South’ and ‘its grim up North’ have been sadly proven to be true. Research done by the National Audit commission showed that unemployment in the north of England is three times higher than in the south. The proportion of the workforce without a job is also higher with 8% in the North compared with 2.75 % of the workforce in the South of England. The most deprived wards are in the North West and North East of England and that over 4000 jobs have been lost this year alone.
A survey from the Institute for Public Policy Research revealed the average worker in the North East would only get half the national average wage by the year 2020. It showed that along side higher levels of unemployment, greater numbers of people were claiming sickness and disability benefits. Moreover, parts of the North had the lowest levels of academic qualifications and the least number of graduates throughout the country.
The North East Chamber of Commerce indicated the fragile nature of the economy in the region due to long-term poor investment by national governments. As a result, the region is heavily dependent on exports, up to 80% of produce, which makes the area particularly vulnerable to global instability and market turbulence.
The 2001 census also confirmed that the North East was lagging behind the rest of the UK in areas of health, employment and education. The North East Regional Assembly conceded that:
“It is unacceptable that someone born in the North East is likely to have a shorter life, fewer qualifications and earn less than someone born in the South East”
Alongside such blatant regional disparities, unequal service provision can also be seen within large cities and towns. The facilities provided by local authorities to residents of council estates and poor neighborhoods are in stark contrast to the better services given in wealthy areas. For example, one only has to drive through wealthy parts of London, such as Islington, to see well-maintained roads, newly built houses and clean and tidy streets with little or no rubbish. However, just a few streets away in run-down Hackney reveals a picture of dirty streets, rubbish and debris everywhere, broken pavements, pot holed roads and dilapidated buildings.
The Muslim community has also suffered from the unequal standard of housing, education and health provided for by local councils and national governments. Unemployment rates amongst Pakistani’s and Bengali’s is far higher than amongst other groups. Research from the University of Warwick showed Muslims in the UK to be accommodated in the worst level of housing with 32% suffering from overcrowding. It also showed that Muslims in these areas suffered from higher levels of poor health, particularly amongst the elderly.
In the city of Birmingham the 2001 census results showed the predominantly Muslim areas to have the least access to good education, health and other opportunities. Sparkbrook, where 59% of the people are Muslim, was ranked the 33rd worst of all wards in Britain in relation to standards of health, environment, employment and housing. Similarly, other wards with large numbers of Muslims fared badly; Aston ranked 27th and Washwood Heath came 186th. In all these areas, Muslim communities resided in the top 0.5% of wards with the worst living conditions.
The University of Warwick, Centre for Research in Ethnic Minorities stated:
“We need to look at the policies and treatment of Muslims. The current policies are inadequate and non-existent”
What allows such inequalities to exist in parts of the country and amongst different sections of society is the Capitalist belief in the “free market” as the best way in which services and provisions should be distributed amongst the citizens. Therefore, western states have permitted the introduction of a “free market” via the privatisation and outsourcing of local services such as education, health and transport. The Capitalists claim that a free market, without any government interference or regulation, will raise standards of service for all concerned.
However, the free market experience in the provision of local services has resulted in a poorer service for citizens with differing levels of provision depending on where you live. Those who have benefited from the free market are the private firms who have made huge profits. But this has been at the expense of passenger safety, price rises for the consumer and increasing redundancies. Moreover, private companies become selective in their levels of investment and involvement only choosing those parts of the country where returns on their money are greatest. All these factors add to the inequalities and erratic level of services seen throughout the country.
As a result of the free market approach unprofitable local facilities that require money and maintenance, such as those in the Muslim areas, have been ruthlessly closed down. And services that fail to generate sufficient revenues have been similarly abandoned, such as local bus routes and inner-city schools. Equally, the free market has seen the replacement of low-cost housing by private firms intent upon building luxury apartments and riverside complexes that are beyond the means of the majority. As a consequence, the only people who benefit from the better schools, hospitals, transport links and services are those who can afford to pay for them such as the rich and wealthy.
For those services and facilities that the private sector does not wish to own or has discarded in their relentless pursuit of profit, western governments reluctantly step in so as to avoid social unrest and disorder. This only compounds the problem of inequality and poor access as government controlled education, health and transport in the West is invariably second rate, inadequate and starved of resources.
In the Islamic State, the provision of basic services is radically different from states governed by Capitalism. Islam deems access to housing, health and education is a basic right for all the citizens of the Khilafah, Muslim and Non Muslim alike, and considers such services to be public property; namely that all people are partners in them and should share their benefits. Therefore, in these areas the welfare of people is not left to the mercy of the market. Individuals and companies are not permitted to own them and the profit motive is completely removed so as to concentrate on providing a good quality service.
The Prophet (saw) said:
"Muslims are partners in three things: in water, pastures and the fire" [ibn Majah].
The manner in which these services are secured for the citizens of the Khilafah is through the State. The Khaleefah is responsible for providing schools, hospitals, roads and rail services such that the needs of the people are actually met. This may be done by the collection of the various revenues Islam permits such as Kharaj or through taxation upon the rich. For example, during the Abbassid Khilafah cities such as Baghdad, Cordoba and Toledo had numerous, high quality universities and hospitals to cater for the people. This ensured that health and education were readily accessible and that individuals did not have to disperse in search of them.
As the Khaleefah is in charge of all state revenues and finances, disparities in service and inequalities in wealth can be prevented by the Khaleefah’s management of resources. If a province (wilayah) of the state were particularly wealthy and prosperous it would not be allowed to keep these revenues for itself or its immediate citizens. Rather, the revenues of the various wilayah would be pooled together and then re-allocated by the Khaleefah depending on each individual province’s needs and requirements. In this way a more equitable system of redistribution of wealth occurs and gross inequalities and regional differences are avoided.
The Prophet (saw) described the role of the Khaleefah when he (saw) said:
“Each and every one of you is a Shepard and he is responsible for his flock. The Ameer is a Shepard…”
Muslims in Britain are at the forefront of the many injustices that the Capitalist way of life provides for Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Muslims must not be beguiled by the idea of a free market that results in gross inequalities, and whose access depends upon how much you can afford. Rather, every opportunity must be taken to understand the underlying principles of the western way of life so that they may be refuted. At the same time, every effort must be made to bring about the practical example of an Islamic society that would enlighten the darkness we see around us in the shape of the Khilafah ruling system.
