Economics and the Integration of Opposites in the Models of Joseph and Sheba (Societal welfare is among the most important requirements of sovereignty) Captain Mohamed Hassan Al-Taher

Date: 4 November 2026

Among God’s finest blessings upon us, the people of Sudan, is that He made us a moderate nation, neither excessive nor negligent. The people of this country were raised to cooperate in righteousness and piety, so their literature is full of brotherhood in hardship and in prosperity.

In today’s ever more savage world, capitalist societies ask a question: who rules the world, capital or systems of governance and governments? The question implies a rupture between the two, as though they were opposites. Its resolution is found in the Qur’anic narratives, the model of Joseph and the model of Sheba, which the Divine Book described as “the best of stories.”

In the story of Joseph, two opposites come together: the prison and the palace. Joseph went from the depths of the well to the prison, and then from the prison to the storehouses of the land. He became a model of crisis management, in which hardship is turned into a project.

In contrast stands the Queen of Sheba with a different model. She said: “I do not decide any matter until you are present with me,” making consultation (shura) the basis of decision-making.

The two models bring out discipline and legitimacy in their highest forms:

Joseph represents the approach of speed and discipline:

A clear strategic vision that begins at the top, and a plan spanning fifteen years:

seven years of diligent production,

then storing the harvest in its ears,

then seven hard years of disciplined consumption.

Here, leadership sets the framework and then carries it down into implementation.

The Queen of Sheba represents the mechanism of participation and legitimacy:

She begins by gathering the opinions of the council,

and assesses capability and strength.

The best of stories is not built on rupture but on wisdom, which lies in combining the two. This achieves:

social benefit, which maximizes people’s welfare,

and the national interest, which represents the state’s security, sovereignty, and borders.

Joseph combined them:

he fed the people,

and strengthened the power of the state at the same time.

He also prevented the imbalance that occurs when one of them overwhelms the other. This is what we need today, we the nation of the Final Prophet, who taught us the longest supplication for entering the market, as if the market needs prophets to regulate it. Under the dominance of the black market, how do we preserve the most important of the five essential objectives (al-kulliyyat al-khams), which urges the preservation of life? Here the question arises:

Can the popular market be integrated with the black market? (The Zimbabwe model)

The reality is that they meet at the point of need:

The black market arises where systems fail to meet demand, and it exposes the gaps in regulation.

However, true integration does not mean legalizing the violation. It means absorbing what is legitimate in it into the formal economy:

through simplification and oversight,

easing obstacles,

and drying up whatever is built on monopoly and fraud.

If:

capitalism sanctifies ownership and freedom,

and socialism sanctifies distributive justice,

then Islam stands between them:

It affirms individual ownership and freedom of trade,

and restricts them with zakat and the prohibition of usury, monopoly, and fraud, making wealth something that “does not circulate only among the rich.”

Thus the economy becomes a balance that combines efficiency and justice, just as Joseph combined prison and palace, making from the two opposites a single path to stability. Just as the Qur’anic narrative joined Joseph and Bilqis (Sheba’s queen) as two models of successful management in creating the means of a dignified livelihood, to bring Egypt out of the prison of hunger into the comfort of a dignified life.

In the story of Joseph, peace be upon him, two contrasting places stand side by side: the prison and the palace. But Joseph did not cross from one to the other by chance; he did so through his ability to solve problems. In prison he built his reputation from the ground up: serving people, interpreting their dreams, and earning their trust. This is the Bottom-Up Mechanism, where solutions arise from lived reality and rise to the top. Then, once in the palace, he presented an integrated economic plan for the years of plenty and scarcity: saving, storing, and distributing. This is the Top-Down Technique, where policy is designed from above and brought down to society.

The Queen of Sheba presents the complementary model: leadership that consults and does not tyrannize, “I do not decide any matter until you are present with me.” The decision issues from the top but is built on consultation with the base.

Thus it becomes clear that successful problem-solving is not a choice between the two approaches but a combination of them: a vision from above, and feedback from below. The goal is maximizing the welfare of individuals and society, while giving priority to the state, its security, and its identity.

The first approach may neglect sovereign considerations,

and the second may sacrifice the individual for the sake of the entity.

Joseph combined them:

he stored wheat to preserve the state’s security,

and opened the storehouses to the people of Canaan and others, so the public benefit was achieved without compromising sovereignty.

The popular market, with its spontaneity and naturalness, reflects people’s real needs. The black market, by contrast, is a response to shortage, prohibition, or exploitative pricing, a shadow economy that feeds on monopoly and corruption. Integrating the two in the sense of legitimizing it is not possible, but learning the lesson is:

when the black market flourishes, it is an indicator of a flaw in policy,

and the remedy is to bring legitimate activities into the formal market and to fight monopoly and fraud, not to legalize the forbidden. For a society where “it suffices a person to have a few morsels” cannot be built on the gluttony of some of its members at the expense of others.

Islam holds a middle course:

Capitalism sanctifies private ownership and market freedom (and therefore produces sharp inequality),

while socialism sanctifies public ownership and distributive justice, which may stifle initiative.

Islam came to stand between them:

It affirms individual ownership and restricts it with social rights (zakat, the prohibition of usury and monopoly),

and affirms the state’s role in oversight and regulation without confiscating initiative.

It is a moral moderation before it is an economic one: “And thus We have made you a median nation.”

Between the base and the top, between the individual and the state, and between the free market and planning, the models of Joseph and Sheba offer us one lesson: a successful economy is one that balances opposites and turns difference into complementarity.