Of course, much can be said about trade and income distribution. According to the Islamic prophet Muhammad, "Nine tenths of the income is in trade" (Doğan, 2023). Based on this hadith. According to Muslims, trade is a very virtuous activity. Before I was engaged in trade, I used to interpret this hadith as follows: If there were 10 units of income, 9 of them would be received by those engaged in trade. But my past commercial activities have enabled me to look at this hadith from a different perspective. I will give my own mushroom production process as an example. I produced oyster mushrooms for a period and sold them. The cost of mushroom production was around 2 Turkish Liras. But our sales price was generally 4-5 Turkish liras, although it varied. If this product reaches the end consumer through the market channel, it was 8 Turkish Liras and 10 Turkish Liras in the market. Depending on the quality, this mushroom variety, which was also on the menu of fish restaurants in the Bosphorus, was offered as a meal at very high prices. My observation during the process was this. After we started dealing with this trade, we employed one person, we bought seeds, we bought straw, we rented a place, we had transportation and packaging costs. At the end of the process, maybe we were the most tired party, but everyone got their share in this production and marketing process. Frankly speaking, I don't know who got how much from this process when 10 units of surplus value was produced, but everyone benefited from this production. At this point, if we separate production and sales. The trader is more important than the producer depending on the situation. I had the chance to observe both of these processes. If we only produced but never sold mushrooms, production would have no value. Let me put it this way, the mines in Africa are of almost no use to the natives. It is only a signal from a trader that can trigger them to own or produce the mineral. The world's best coffee beans, bananas, olives can be produced, but without a trader, it can remain a product consumed only by the locals. So in this way, the trader triggers production. And it increases the income of the producer. We can call this a backward link. On the other hand, transportation, customs, packaging, insurance, etc. create a new source of income in the middle of the trade process. Then, it offers this product to platforms such as wholesalers, retailers and dealers. We can call this forward connection. In other words, if we summarize the 3 stages of trade, backward connection, middle structure, forward connection. When we add up the added value realized in these 3 processes, a small trader can cause a large income. And the income generated by trade is distributed according to the service and production process in these 3 stages. In terms of fair income distribution, everyone will undoubtedly receive a share according to the risk they take in these 3 processes, the time they work, the tools, equipment and buildings they own. If what we need to understand from a fair income distribution is equality for everyone, this can be achieved. But perhaps it is fair to evaluate these 3 structures according to their efforts in trade. In other words, the more effort and effort there is, the more income can be earned. Since we started this article with a theological approach, let's end it with a theological approach. In the Qur'an, the holy book that Muslims believe in, Allah says to His servants. "We have made the destiny of every human being dependent on his own effort" (Isra, 13.)

Finally, the following question may come to mind. How will the elderly, children, physically or mentally disabled people, who are not involved in the trade process, get a share of this added value? Perhaps the answer to this question can be explained by material acts of worship in Islam such as zakat, charity and fitrah. For now, I think this is a topic for another article.

Doğan, H. İ. (2023). Halk Dilinde Müştehir Bir Hadis:‘Rızkın Onda Dokuzu Ticarettedir.’. Trabzon İlahiyat Dergisi, 10(1), 137-161.

Simple answer: No! Okba, you have given this answer yourself with your reasoning after the question. And, I think, that is true for any share of trade - however measured. In Austria, the value added of trade is slightly above 10% of GDP. In Turkey it is likely higher, but surely far below 50%.

I respect your views. I admit that I did not use a very academic approach. I just wanted to make a small contribution within the framework of my own religion and my own business story.

I would also like to know how you calculate the contribution of trade volume to Gross National Product for your country and Turkey without the multiplier effect of trade. I'm not just about the trade volume. I wanted to talk about the multiplier effect of trade. Maybe I couldn't convey the subject in this short article. The defect may be mine, obviously. If you can help with method code. This subject really intrigued me. I invite you to meet in a joint article.

Dear Mustafa, it is difficult, if not impossible, to compare economies of today with those 1500 years ago. And the terms are likely to be different, too. Obviously, Modammed meant by income the money (gold?) amount he received from his buyer. But, in fact, his income was by deducting all his cost from this amount. And this amount did not only include trade services, but mainly transport, which was very expensive and risky at that time.

The share of transactions of a sector compared to those of other sectors or to the sum of all transactions is of limided interest. What is more important is the shares of sectors in total value added. And if you look into the Turkish National Accounts, I am sure, that you will find the amounts for trade and other sectors and, of course, of GDP.

Dear Anton Rainer, I am new to academic life and researchgate page. Before that, I worked as a central bank officer, bank inspector, regional development specialist and tax inspector in Turkey.

I know my writing is not very academic. Just my own interest. But I care a lot about your point of view. Thank you for your comments and interest.

Trade facilitation does not ensure a fair distribution of income among different groups and sectors, but it can have positive effects on economic growth, trade volumes, diversification and integration.

I agree with you.

This question cannot be answered without a definition of the word "fair." There are literatures in economics, philosophy, psychology, and theology dealing with how to define it and the definitions do not agree.

There are certainly unequal social groups in the distribution of incomes and wealth, especially those achieved from the trade surplus through import and export operations.

The term "fair" is, unavoidedly, connected with (subjective) valuation. But I think, that there is a wide-spread (common) understanding that a more evenly distribution of income and wealth is fairer. However one defines fairness, trade (facilitation) is unlikely to lead to a fairer distribution (rather the contrary) by itself. But, of xourse, governments could try to restribute advantagies in favour of the poor.

Thank you for the replies, which include useful points of view on the subject.

Trade facilitation can affect income distribution in several ways. First, it can reduce the cost of trade, which can lower prices, increase competitiveness, and boost economic growth. However, the benefits are not evenly distributed across all income groups and regions. Instead, they often reinforce existing patterns of income inequality and create new ones.

The redistribution of income based on an undefined criterion of "fairness" will significantly distort economic incentives. No improvements can be expected. The consequences for trade and other areas will be unpredictable.

No. Trade facilitation does not grantee a fair distribution of income, it only has a positive effect on economic growth, but no impact on poverty alleviation, and no fair distribution of income.