We conducted an interview with Dr. Yunus Emre Aydınbaş about his book “Tax Justice and Islam.”
In your book, you treat tax justice not only as an economic issue, but also as a social, legal, and moral one. What was your primary motivation for adopting this multidimensional approach?
The greatest mistake made today in economic and fiscal matters is overlooking the human being. Economics is not just about macro data, and public finance is not merely about public revenues and expenditures. To see tax purely as a source of public revenue or a technical instrument of the economy is to miss how profoundly it affects overall social welfare, social peace, and the legal order. Conversely, to treat tax justice solely as an economic matter is to ignore a crucial historical process that made modern states and contemporary societies possible. More importantly, it is to negate the “human being”—flesh and blood, supporting a family, grieving, rejoicing, and striving to live virtuously—who is the true agent of all these economic processes.
Pre-modern societies essentially had two components: those who protected and those who were protected. To survive, one had to be strong or be under the protection of a power. Through contracts between the militarily and economically powerful segment of society—the protectors—and the weaker segment—the protected—the life, property, and honor of the protected were guaranteed. In return for this security, the weak paid the strong. These compacts enabled people to form societies, live together, and develop crafts, agriculture, and trade. In this early scene that reveals the first tax practices, the weak could not find the opportunity to gain strength due to the payments they made, while the strong, on the contrary, consolidated their power. Yet, distorted as they were, these developments did not appear everywhere simultaneously in a homogeneous historical flow. Still, however debatable their justice, the earliest forms of taxation made co-existence possible; and as humanity’s experience of living together produced more complex social structures, the need for taxation increased. Humanity had to wait for the institutionalization of the state—namely, the establishment of an independent justice mechanism—and for tax to become a systematic obligation in order for us to speak of tax justice.
Looking at the historical process, in the first great civilizations such as ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China, ensuring tax justice in the collection and distribution of taxes was seen as a fundamental principle for maintaining social order and state authority. For instance, the Code of Hammurabi includes various provisions to distribute tax obligations fairly and to prevent arbitrariness. In ancient Greece, Solon’s reforms, and in Rome the reorganization of the tributum, show us both that tax justice is closely tied to the making or unmaking of societies and that the demand for tax justice is a much older human heritage than we might assume.
Throughout human history, the concept of tax justice has been a touchstone for social peace, state legitimacy, and individual security. In the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun emphasizes that just taxation prolongs the life of the state, while injustice hastens its collapse. In the modern era, John Rawls notes that justice is the basic virtue of social institutions; the tax system stands foremost among these institutions. Rawls assigns a key role to the idea of virtue here. For tax justice to emerge, the virtue individuals must possess is to prioritize the public interest when forced to choose between personal benefit and the common good. Today we observe that in countries with high income inequality, social unrest, political polarization, and economic fragility intensify. Likewise, in countries lacking tax justice, inequalities in income distribution take on a dramatic character. From this perspective, to understand everything else in a society, it suffices to look at tax justice. Hence, especially today, a multidimensional examination of taxation is imperative. In short, the fundamental motivation of this work is the pursuit of a virtuous society grounded in virtue and justice.
You interpret the classical Islamic fiscal concepts of zakat, jizya, and kharaj not only in their historical context, but also comparatively with contemporary tax justice theories. What justice perspective can these three forms of taxation offer today’s approach to taxation?
Zakat, jizya, and kharaj are three foundational concepts of Islamic public finance that reflect the principles of justice, responsibility, and social balance. Zakat envisions balancing ownership with social responsibility. In the modern literature—just as Atkinson and Stiglitz argue—fair taxation of wealth and income is essential for ensuring social welfare and equality of opportunity. Zakat protects individuals below a minimum standard of living and institutionalizes basic social solidarity. Today, zakat is not merely an individual act of worship; it also compensates for failures of the welfare state and supports social welfare and social peace.
Jizya rests on the principle of recognizing, protecting, and sustaining religious and social differences. It overlaps with modern principles of minority rights and social inclusivity. In pre-modern Muslim societies, jizya guaranteed both the freedom of religion for non-Muslims and their right to benefit from public services. This parallels today’s principles of “equality in taxation” and “recognition of differences in taxation.”
Kharaj, as a tax levied on production, aims to ensure the sustainability of economic activity and to balance land ownership with social responsibility. In modern public finance, the just application of land and property taxes promotes both efficient resource use and balance in income distribution. We observe that in countries where taxes on land, real estate, and similar economic assets are effectively implemented, income distribution tends to be more equitable.
These three types of taxation allow modern tax systems to be informed by justice perspectives such as balancing property with social responsibility, recognizing differences, and ensuring the sustainability of production. With their function of ensuring that economic activities are carried out not only for individual gain but in harmony with social responsibility and ethical values, they also help cultivate a virtuous society.
When you compare the understanding of justice implicit in the Islamic tax system with modern public finance, what are the primary points of convergence and divergence?
At its core, the Islamic tax system embodies an understanding in which justice integrates with social welfare and individual responsibility. In this system, tax is not only a source of state revenue, but also a guarantor of social peace and economic balance. A key point of convergence between the Islamic tax system and modern public finance is that taxation aims to enhance social welfare and balance income distribution. There is a strong parallel between Musgrave’s approach, which systematizes the three core functions of public finance as allocation, distribution, and stabilization and seeks to maximize social welfare through public revenues and expenditures, and the taxes applied in the earliest period of Islam.
However, while in modern public finance tax is often seen as a technical and fiscal instrument, in the Islamic tax system it is not only a moral responsibility and a social obligation, but also a duty to the Creator. In modern systems, tax justice is frequently reduced to technical calculations on income and wealth, whereas in Islam justice integrates individual and social responsibility. Tax is too important to be left to people’s consciences, yet also too important to dispense with conscientiousness. Tax evasion and income inequality wound consciences and call into question the social legitimacy of the tax system. In the Islamic tax system, social legitimacy and conscientious awareness are indispensable.
In explaining Islam’s approach, we can draw on Weber’s concept of inner-worldly asceticism. In his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber developed this concept. Asceticism is a way of life whereby a person deliberately distances themselves from material and worldly pleasures for spiritual growth and enlightenment. According to Weber, especially under Calvinist influence, Western societies developed a disciplined work ethic within the world rather than fleeing from it. Weber’s perspective is meaningful here: economic activity and taxpaying behavior should be shaped not only by external compulsion but also by internal moral motivations.
In your book, you describe tax as not just an “obligation” but as “scales of justice.” In this context, how do modern states’ tax collection practices measure up against Islam’s principles of justice?
Modern states’ tax collection practices often focus on technical efficiency and fiscal yield. Yet in this process, ensuring justice—that is, distributing the tax burden fairly among different segments of society—is often neglected. Today, globally, the share of indirect taxes (such as value-added tax and special consumption taxes) in total tax revenues—classified as unjust yet easy and inexpensive to collect—has exceeded 60%. This leads to a disproportionate increase in the tax burden on low-income groups. A similar picture exists in Turkey: according to 2024 data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK), indirect taxes constitute 65% of total tax revenues.
Islamic principles of justice, however, call for distributing the tax burden according to individuals’ ability to pay, thereby ensuring social solidarity and protecting social peace. Early Islamic tax practices were grounded more in social responsibility than in individual interest. The test for modern states vis-à-vis these principles arises especially in the just application of income and wealth taxes and in using tax revenues to enhance social welfare. To pass this test, modern states must view the tax system not merely as a technical instrument but also as a vehicle of social justice and legitimacy.
Your book draws not only on tax law but also on the sociology of religion, economics, and public finance. In your view, how does this interdisciplinary approach help overcome misunderstandings or incomplete interpretations concerning the Islamic tax system?
An interdisciplinary approach reveals that the Islamic tax system is not just a set of legal norms, but also a social, economic, and moral system. This approach helps overcome three key misunderstandings in particular.
First is the misconception that the Islamic tax system is static and merely historical. Sociological and economic analyses show that it possesses a flexible and dynamic structure responsive to social changes and economic conditions.
Second is the notion that taxation is only a fiscal obligation. Interdisciplinary analysis shows that tax is also a vehicle for social peace, moral responsibility, and social justice. Weber’s concept of “value-rational action” becomes important again here: this refers to actions undertaken on the basis of specific values (religion, morality, ideology, aesthetics). Whereas instrumental rationality predominates in modern public finance, value-rational action and social responsibility are foregrounded in the Islamic tax system.
Third is the incomplete interpretation that the Islamic tax system is incompatible with modern public finance. In fact, through comparative analyses with contemporary public finance theories, we see that the Islamic tax system aligns with universal principles of justice. In countries where social transfers and income distribution policies are effective, social peace and economic growth are more sustainable. At this point, the principled stance of the Islamic tax system goes far beyond merely inspiring today’s tax practices.
Finally, what was the most striking or transformative finding for you while writing this book? What core takeaway do you hope will similarly affect readers?
The most striking finding for me was that justice is not merely a legal norm but a social ideal and a moral responsibility. Historical and contemporary data show that a just tax system is a cornerstone of social peace, economic development, and mutual trust among individuals. In particular, the Islamic tax system’s integration of social solidarity with individual responsibility offers a warm, human foundation in contrast to the technical and cold approach of modern public finance.
Professional and economic activities should be conducted not only for individual gain but in harmony with social responsibility and ethical values. I hope readers will see in this book that justice is not only a concept but a livable social ideal, and that they will bring this ideal to life in their own lives and social relations. For justice, ultimately, is the firmest foundation for a society’s peace and development.