The fate of those who imposed the quotas

 Let’s take a look at the true nature of "quotas" by examining some concrete examples.

First, there are "sales quotas"—the requirement to sell a certain amount by a specific deadline. If you fail to meet these, you’re often left with two grim choices: either engage in "self-inflicted sales" (buying the products yourself out of your own pocket) or resort to "forced selling" (pressuring others to buy things they don’t even need). In the latter case, salespeople might barge into a customer’s home and refuse to leave until a purchase is made, invent a fictitious "original price" to make a product look like a "half-price bargain," or falsely claim that "only a few items are left!"—even when there is still a massive surplus in stock—all to pressure the customer into buying. Those who do this feel no pangs of conscience; their moral sense has become completely paralyzed. They have ceased to be human. If one cannot make a living without deceiving others, hasn't one effectively joined the ranks of the wicked? How tragic. How pathetic. It is as if one’s very existence in this world has been rendered meaningless. My deepest sympathies.

Then there are "cost-cutting quotas." These, too, impose unreasonable demands—leading to practices like diluting concrete with water, reducing the number of steel reinforcing bars, faking inspections, or falsifying safety data—all while completely disregarding actual safety. The result? A world riddled with defective construction, which is only exposed when an earthquake strikes and the structures collapse—often at the cost of human lives.

While these examples are all driven by a desire for money, quotas exist even within public institutions. Consider, for instance, the "ticket quotas" imposed on the police. Officers may be required to issue a certain number of traffic citations, leading them to hide near poorly visible stop signs to catch drivers off guard, or to set up "speed traps" on roads with unrealistically low speed limits—ensuring that even those driving normally end up being cited for a violation. If the number of arrests is meant to be the outcome of proper law enforcement aimed at ensuring safety, then setting a target number of arrests beforehand—treating the result as a quota—is effectively reversing cause and effect. This is precisely why we end up with absurd or unreasonable enforcement practices.

I was initially going to blame these quotas entirely on money and argue that "capitalism is the root of the problem," but then I realized that communist states also rely on quotas. They set impossible numerical targets—like those in a "Five-Year Plan"—and if those targets weren't met, the person in charge faced immediate "purging." Consequently, officials would make it look as though the numbers had been achieved, while in reality, the system was riddled with fraud, leaving the organization exhausted and riddled with deep-seated distortions. Eventually, the entire regime would collapse—much like the Soviet Union.

Come to think of it, even religious organizations have quotas—targets for "recruiting new believers" or "collecting donations." This leads to people being signed up as members without their consent, or to the exploitation of individuals' vulnerabilities—coercing them into donating by claiming they will otherwise face "divine retribution." I previously noted that imposing quotas implies a lack of genuine faith; the fact that even religious groups use them suggests they have elevated their human leaders to the status of gods. In Islam, such a thing would be absolutely unacceptable—and on this point, I stand with the Islamic perspective.

Imagine if the world of sports were governed by quotas—demanding that a team must win, or that a player must throw a specific type of pitch at a specific moment. That is essentially "match-fixing"—a problem that, in reality, does occur.

Regardless of the context, quotas serve as a powerful incentive for wrongdoing; I believe they should be recognized as a form of criminal activity.

To clarify, simply assigning tasks is not what I mean by "quotas" in this context. Assigning tasks is merely defining one's "duties." For the police, the duty is to enforce the law and combat crime; the number of arrests made is the *result* of those duties. In sales, the duty is to sell products; the resulting revenue is the *outcome* of that work.

In sports, the act of playing the game is the "duty," while winning or losing is the *result* of that performance. Proselytizing is a "task," while the number of new converts is the "result" of that task.

The problem with imposing quotas—or *noruma*—is that it conflates the "task" itself with the "result," treating the latter as a foregone conclusion and demanding it from others in advance.

Ultimately, a "result" belongs to the future. Humans cannot live solely in the present; we naturally strive toward future goals. Yet, we have no way of knowing whether those goals align with the will of God—or the natural order of the universe. We simply exert effort, believing that our endeavors might be in accordance with the divine will. Whether or not that effort is rewarded is a matter that rests solely with God—not with human beings. This is precisely why one should remain humble, and why one should not impose quotas. Any goal must be framed with an implicit "Insha'Allah" (if God wills it)—it is always conditional. Consequently, if a goal is not met, one cannot place the full burden of responsibility upon the individual; to do so would be an act of overstepping—an encroachment upon the prerogative of God.

Conversely, those who do not believe in God often assume that the power to determine the future lies with humans. They place themselves in the position of God and impose quotas. This is exactly what leaders in communist regimes did—assuming the role of an omnipotent deity and mandating quotas—only to then ruthlessly purge those who failed to meet them.

And what became of them? What was the "result" for those who, in their arrogance, placed themselves in the position of God and imposed such quotas?

History leaves no room for doubt as to the extent of their ruin. And even today, the list of those who meet a similar, ruinous end continues to grow.

So, that covers the past and the present.

Now, shall we take a close look at the fate of those who impose quotas—looking ahead into the future? This will reveal who truly holds the power to determine the future: God, or human beings. Though, I suppose the answer is already clear. Wait—my apologies; the power to decide belongs to God, not me. I am not the one who gets to make that determination. But there’s no harm in making predictions, right?

Guided by love and compassion

←