Inequality and the Path to Economic Justice in Islam
The CELIOS report for April 2026 on Indonesia’s economic inequality deserves to be read as a serious warning for the nation. The data presented shows that the wealth of Indonesia’s 50 richest individuals reaches around Rp 4,651 trillion, larger than the state budget, equivalent to about one-fifth of GDP, and comparable to the wealth of 55 million citizens.
These figures are not merely shocking statistics but a reflection of the fundamental problems facing the national economic structure, where wealth is increasingly concentrated at the top, while the majority of society still struggles to meet basic needs, obtain decent employment, own a home, educate their children, and maintain hope for a better life.
However, this report also needs to be read critically. Inequality cannot be fully understood merely as the difference between the rich and the poor. Inequality is a structural issue.
It is linked to who controls assets, who manages natural resources, who gains access to policies, and who reaps the greatest benefits from development.
If the wealth of a handful of individuals can surpass the state’s fiscal capacity, the problem is no longer just individual success but systemic imbalance between private spheres and public interests.
One key finding from CELIOS is that around 58 percent of the wealth of the 50 richest individuals comes from the extractive sector. This indicates deeper roots to the problem.
Great wealth in Indonesia does not always arise from productive innovations that spread benefits widely but often relies on control over mining, energy, commodities, and natural resources.
The extractive sector can indeed provide state revenues, but if its governance is weak, it easily turns into a rent-seeking machine. Nature is depleted, profits are concentrated, producing regions are not always prosperous, workers remain vulnerable, and ecological burdens are passed on to future generations.
Inequality is also evident in the broken link between work and welfare. CELIOS notes that the oligarchs’ assets increase by around Rp 13 billion per day, while workers’ wage increases are only about Rp 2,000 per day. Even, in the report’s illustration, labourers would need about 2.8 centuries to match the wealth of the top 50 trillionaires.
This data depicts a painful issue: hard work no longer automatically leads to social mobility. When someone works every day but still struggles to live decently, the problem is not just individual capability but an unfair design in the distribution of development outcomes.
It is in this context that the Islamic economic perspective becomes highly relevant. Islam does not oppose wealth. Islam respects hard work, trade, investment, and private ownership. Many of the Prophet’s companions were successful merchants and great philanthropists.
But Islam rejects the accumulation of wealth that stifles social circulation. The Quran emphasises that wealth should not circulate only among the rich. This principle provides direction that wealth has a social function, not just a private one. Wealth may grow, but it must continue to promote public benefit.
The Islamic economic perspective on the CELIOS report lies in viewing inequality not only as income disparity but as a crisis in wealth circulation and a crisis of trust.
When wealth, resource access, and policy influence revolve in a narrow circle, the state risks losing its role as a guardian of justice.
In Islamic economics, the state is not merely a market regulator but a holder of trust to ensure that development does not oppress the weak, pamper the strong, and does not allow wealth to become a tool of social domination.
Therefore, the idea of a wealth tax needs to be discussed clearly. CELIOS calculates that a two percent tax on the 50 richest individuals could potentially generate around Rp 93 trillion. If applied to all super-rich groups with assets above Rp 84 billion, the potential revenue is said to reach Rp 142 trillion.
Of course, this idea must be tested technically: how is the data base, how to value assets, how to prevent tax evasion, and how to ensure funds do not leak. But in principle, a wealth tax is not a punishment for the rich but an instrument to restore the social function of wealth.
Nevertheless, taxes alone are not enough. Islamic economics offers a more comprehensive approach. Zakat, infak, sedekah, and productive waqf must be strengthened, but they should not replace structural reforms.
Zakat can help the needy, waqf can build social assets, and sedekah strengthens solidarity. However, if the structure of resource control remains unequal, conflicts of interest among officials are not monitored, workers’ wages are not decent, and public policies are easily captured by elites, then Islamic social instruments become mere bandages for wounds continuously produced by the system.
The way out must address the roots. First, governance of the extractive sector must be reformed so that the benefits of natural resources are more fairly distributed to regions, workers, surrounding communities, the environment, and future generations. Second, transparency of officials’ wealth and strengthening of conflict-of-interest rules need to be reinforced so that public policies are not held hostage by capital interests.
Third, protection for informal workers, decent wages, and the creation of dignified employment must be priorities. Fourth, access to education, housing, public transportation, and productive financing for young people must be expanded as pathways to social mobility.
In the end, the measure of a nation’s progress is not how many trillionaires it has but how widely the people can live with dignity.
Islamic economics reminds us that growth without distribution is lame, wealth without trust is dangerous, and a state without bias towards the weak will lose its spirit of justice.
The 2026 CELIOS report gives a loud alarm that wealth must not stop at the top. It must return