Islam and Game theory

Source: Vertasium’s Content on Gametheory

The above table represents a game called the prisoner’s dilemma

Prisoner’s Dilemma best described as a game played between two individuals who are accused and are interrogated in seperate rooms by the police.

The Police Officer puts them in seperate rooms and interrogates them about their supposed crime. Here, the Police arrested them under suspicion but with no evidence with the goal of prying out the evidence in the form of a confession.

The Officer goes to Suspect A (Player A) and says that if he confesses, he will be let free and only his partner will be given a jail time.

The Officer then goes to Suspect B (Player B) and says that if he confesses, he will be let free and only Suspect A will be given a jail time.

They both have no knowledge of what the other suspect has chosen. Whether to stay silent ? or to confess ?

If they both confess, they both will be given a jail time. this is what the police officer wants.

If one confesses, and the other stays silent, then that is the second desirable outcome for the police officer but for the silent one, Be it wishful thinking or naivete it would be a disaster as he will receive a jail time for staying silent.

If they both stay silent, they both can go home after attending to some formalities.

This is a game played between two people, Suspect A and Suspect B. They need to gauge the best course of action for themselves by predicting what the other suspect will say.

What choice will you take? if you are playing with a stranger? it varies depending upon who is at the other side.

Games played between two entities in which one’s win is other’s loss is called as a zero-sum game.

Enter Professor Axelrod

Professor Robert Axelrod is an American Political Scientist. He conducted an experiment and later wrote a book on the above game with a few modifications called as the Evolution of Co-operation

He first determined that in a real world scenario, there would be multiple mini-games played between two individuals. These individuals will interact with each other over multiple times and the exact number of interactions would be “n” as no one would know for sure.

He conducted a tournament where game theorists around the world would come up with strategies to win the game. He assigned points to each outcome.

Points Received - (A, B)

Who gets the most points at the end of the round?

Various strategy computer programs were pitted against each other inside the poison jar where one would emerge victorious. All from different philosophies and thinking,

A taste of some of the strategy programs:

• Friedmann : Someone who holds a grudge

The one who submitted the program was called friedmann, thats y its called that. Here, if the other Player defects even once, the program will always defect until the end of time (‘n’ number of rounds)

Well, This is a strategy; not necessarily the best or good, but its a strategy. This program also reflects, real world scenarios where emotions and the notion of trust takes place. It would be very hard to trust a person who randomly defects especially when not provoked upon.

• Always Co-operate (turn the other cheek/ pacifism):

Here, Always Cooperate is classified as a strategy that aligns with “good” as it always prioritizes Co-operation. But, its not a good strategy by a long shot. If they are playing against someone who always defects, the one employing this strategy falls into oblivion.

The Strategy that actually won the game was TIT-FOR-TAT. This strategy, overcame all odds to be the one that scored the most points by playing against any other strategy on an average for “n” number of rounds.

• TIT-FOR-TAT :

Here, TIT-FOR-TAT analyses the last played move by the opposing player. If the Player B Defects in the 2nd round, it also defects in the 3rd round. But it rectifies itself after Player B co-operated in the 3rd Round.

TIT-FOR-TAT is a common occurance that one comes by when assessing international Geo-political relations. But in a real world scenario, one must account for the “noise” present in these interactions.

You got a nuke (X)? I get a nuke too(X), the global arms race.

Sometimes one might intend to co-operate but they come off as a hostile party due to the “noise” present between the interactions. One must carefully assess before deciding what to do with it.

After all this work, we end up with something as simple as TIT-FOR-TAT as the winner. Who wouldve known? Islam did. When it comes to a zero-sum game, Islam had the answer (the winning one) way before Professor Axelrod conducted his little tournament.

Surah An-Nahl (The Bee) Ch 17 Verse 126

وَإِنْ عَاقَبْتُمْ فَعَاقِبُوا۟ بِمِثْلِ مَا عُوقِبْتُم بِهِۦ ۖ وَلَئِن صَبَرْتُمْ لَهُوَ خَيْرٌۭ لِّلصَّـٰبِرِينَ ١٢٦

If you retaliate, then let it be equivalent to what you have suffered. But if you patiently endure, it is certainly best for those who are patient.

Islam allows for the victim of unprovoked hostility (or) injustice to retaliate, but in a proportionate manner. Remember, only retaliation is discussed, not the strategy of a pre-emptive strike. Retaliation gives one a casus belli, a just reason to go to war, a just reason to seek justice.

But Allah also mentions that if the victim patiently endures, it is certainly best for him who is patient.

Surah An-Nahl (The Bee) Ch 17 Verse 128

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ مَعَ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّقَوا۟ وَّٱلَّذِينَ هُم مُّحْسِنُونَ ١٢٨

Surely Allah is with those who shun evil and who do good ˹deeds˺.

Al-Ma’idah (The Tablespread) Ch 5 Verse 45

We ordained for them in the Torah, “A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth—and for wounds equal retaliation.” But whoever waives it charitably, it will be atonement for them. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the wrongdoers.

Now, how would someone choose when to be patient and when to be retaliate? This is as simple as choosing between dunya and akhirah depending upon the circumstances.

Surah Al-Qasas(The Narration) Ch 28 Verse 77

Rather, seek the ˹reward˺ of the Hereafter by means of what Allah has granted you, without forgetting your share of this world. And be good ˹to others˺ as Allah has been good to you. Do not seek to spread corruption in the land, for Allah certainly does not like the corruptors.”

Eternal gain or momentary gain?

For that, one should ask the circumstances regarding the issue and use that to weigh the pros and cons of choosing the dunya or akhira as Allah has ordained us to balance between both the worlds.

One must first give preference to the akhira (Be patient) but in case its too much to let go of, one is justified in choosing the dunya you get points accordingly.