Introduction
In one of the most dramatic upheavals in European history, the enclosure of common lands in England was a violent turning point in the concept of property. Once a shared resource for all, these lands were suddenly transformed into private domains, enriching a few at the cost of impoverishing the many. As R.H. Tawney famously described it, the Enclosure Movement was nothing short of a “revolution of the rich against the poor,” a ruthless exercise in power that forever changed the relationship between people and land.
But how and why did this revolution take place? In this post, we’ll explore the political forces that enabled the Enclosures, examine the human cost of this shift, and contrast it with the ethical, communal land systems of Islamic law.
1. The Pre-Enclosure Balance of Power
Before the Enclosures, the idea of land as a communal resource was woven into the very fabric of rural life. The king, typically, acted as a balancing force between the wealthy aristocracy and the peasantry, often siding with the common people to preserve his own power. As Tawney noted, the idea that the powerful might trample over the weak was not new, but the large-scale privatization of the commons created unprecedented levels of displacement and suffering.
For centuries, common land was a lifeline for rural communities—people grazed their livestock, gathered firewood, and grew food on these shared lands. But all this changed in the 16th and 17th centuries when wealthy landowners began enclosing these commons, fencing them off for private use. This wasn’t just about reorganizing land; it was a complete upending of social structures that had existed for generations.
2. The Aristocratic Push for Enclosures: The Glorious Revolution and Beyond
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 marked a key turning point in this power struggle. The aristocracy, having supported the return of the monarchy after years of civil war and political chaos, demanded concessions from the king in return for their loyalty. What they wanted—and what they got—was control over vast tracts of land, with the right to privatize these common resources.
In Tawney’s evocative description, this was a victory for the aristocracy, who had long been pushing for greater control over land and wealth, but it came at a steep cost to the peasants, who were left landless and desperate. The political shift of the Glorious Revolution had weakened the monarchy’s ability to resist these demands, and the aristocrats exploited this weakness to the fullest.
3. The Human Cost: A Revolution Against the Poor
The consequences of the Enclosures were immediate and devastating. As common lands were fenced off and transformed into private property, countless peasants were thrown off the land. They were, in Tawney’s words, “cast adrift,” forced to seek their fortunes in rapidly growing urban centers or to eke out a living as wage laborers on what had once been their own land.
Deprived of their rights to access common lands, the poor had little choice but to sell their labor to survive. In the dark and smoky factories of the Industrial Revolution, they toiled in what William Blake called “Satanic Mills,” places of grinding exploitation where human lives were sacrificed for the profits of the wealthy. Enclosures didn’t just change land ownership; they transformed the very lives of the poor, forcing them into wage slavery and stripping them of their dignity.
4. The Absurdity of Modern Property Notions
Modern Western property law, with its emphasis on individual ownership, often stretches into absurdity. As Kogl (2005) points out, the notion that merely landing on an island makes one the owner of that land is a deeply flawed idea. This mindset echoes through history, even in the naming of the American continents after the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci. Despite the fact that these lands were home to vast indigenous populations with their own civilizations, the act of “discovery” by a European was enough to claim ownership and impose a foreign name.
This idea—that someone can simply arrive and declare ownership—demonstrates the arrogance embedded in modern property concepts. The indigenous peoples, who had lived on these lands for thousands of years, were dispossessed without any recognition of their rights. This echoes the Enclosure Movement, where the rich fenced off lands that had long belonged to rural communities. In both cases, the original inhabitants were rendered invisible, and their rights dismissed.
5. Islamic Property Law: Ethical Ownership for Public Good
In contrast to the Western shift toward privatization, Islamic law views property as a trust from God (Amana), and ownership is based on the ability to benefit the community. In Islam, land is not simply a commodity to be hoarded or exploited; it must serve a higher purpose.
One of the most illustrative principles of Islamic law is the concept of reviving dead land. If someone can make barren land productive, they are entitled to own it—not because they simply claim it, but because they bring it back to life for the public good. Ownership in Islam is deeply tied to the idea of stewardship, and it is granted not for personal gain but for the benefit of society.
The waqf system, where land is endowed for public projects such as schools, hospitals, or infrastructure, further highlights the communal responsibility of landowners. The use of land is always oriented toward serving the needs of the community, and wealth is redistributed through zakat to ensure that those in need are not left behind.
6. Conclusion: A More Just Approach to Property
The transformation of property rights in Europe was not just an economic change; it was a profound injustice. The Enclosures robbed the poor of their livelihoods, forcing them into lives of labor and misery in the new industrial age. The absurdity of modern property notions—where land can be claimed simply by arriving—further highlights the flaws in this system.
By contrast, Islamic law offers a more ethical approach, where ownership is granted based on responsibility and the ability to benefit society. In a world where inequality and exploitation continue to plague our economic systems, perhaps it’s time to revisit these more just and humane approaches to property.
An Islamic WorldView 