The Publisher’s Note

Islam is the only way of life ordained by Allah for humankind. After the passing of the last and greatest of the prophets, Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), the era of the four caliphs and of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him), renowned as the fifth caliph, is described as Islam’s Golden Age. This book offers a meticulous analysis of the social and political conditions of that era and presents its overall activities—such as the God-consciousness of the Caliph of the Muslims, lofty moral standards, public service, refusal to take even a farthing beyond one’s needs from the public treasury, social peace, discipline, justice, mutual affection, compassion, and so forth—as an exemplary model for all times and ages.

In this present age of neo-Jahiliyyah, this book will, God willing, help bring about a fundamental transformation in the Muslim nation and enable every Muslim, in his personal life, to gain a correct understanding of Islam’s essential message.

May Allah Almighty grant the readers the ability to benefit greatly from reading this book. Amen.

The Core Spiritual Force of Islam

If we look toward the radiant history of Islam, we find its core spiritual force constantly active there.

Anyone who seeks to know the true religion and studies its character, nature, and history will be able to perceive its spiritual force. He will see this force operating with full vigor within Islam’s laws and principles. It is so influential that no person can remain unaffected by it. Yet, just as no profound feeling or fundamental idea can be described within the confines of language, so too it is extremely difficult to describe this spiritual force. It remains active in emotion and inspiration, in purpose and objective, and in customs and traditions, but clothing it in the limited garment of language is exceedingly difficult.

This spiritual force points to the outline of that exalted, luminous horizon toward which Islam inspires and encourages its followers to journey. Islam urges its followers to reach life’s highest goal and, for that purpose, inspires them not merely to perform essential duties and customary formalities but willingly and joyfully to strive and exert themselves further. The path to a lofty goal is extremely difficult and arduous, and remaining steadfast upon reaching it is even more challenging. The powerful pressure of biological impulses and needs, and of everyday necessities, becomes a shackle on most people’s feet and an obstacle on the path to life’s higher goals. Even if, through the intensity of emotion and inspiration and the strength of their resolve, they sometimes reach that destination, it becomes impossible for them to remain there long while overcoming its obstacles, hardships, and dangers. For this exalted station entails important responsibilities connected with life and property, thought and action. Among them, the most serious is the responsibility placed upon every individual toward himself, his society, humankind, and above all his Creator. He must keep vividly alive the awareness that his Creator is always watching every one of his small and great deeds with His own eyes and is fully aware even of the secrets hidden deep within his heart and his unspoken actions. To help him realize this grave responsibility toward the Creator, Islam has made his conscience ever vigilant and alert, and his awareness and wisdom exceptionally keen and intense.

The difficulty of journeying toward the highest goal and the hardship of remaining there after attaining it do not mean that Islam is a poetic fantasy or some superhuman concept that one may claim to conquer but can never touch. That is not the case. Attaining the sublime and lofty station mentioned here is not obligatory for all people in every age. It is only a limit toward which one should aim. Its outline has been provided so that people will always strive to attain it. This effort was made in the past and should continue today and in the future. Past human societies strove to reach this goal—sometimes they attained it and sometimes they moved away from it. It is an ideal that can be attained only through deep faith in the human conscience and its inherent powers. This proves that there is no reason to despair of humanity in the future. Before this highest goal lies a vast expanse. That expanse is sufficient for the standard by which most people can pass through striving and achievement. It is Allah’s abiding principle that He does not compel anyone to strive beyond his capacity.

“Allah does not place upon any person a responsibility greater than his capacity.” (Surah al-Baqarah—the final verse) Islam’s character is so fond of justice and so moderate that it is content to require ordinary people to perform only the obligatory acts. For:

“There are different degrees of work for everyone.” Indeed, the responsibilities assigned as obligatory are sufficient for success in life. Beyond that, the path toward attaining the highest station always remains open, and Islam continually calls out with an inspiring invitation to advance along it.

The spiritual force we mentioned above played a complete role in giving practical form to Islamic society and civilization. Islam, which had once been merely the name of a belief, became embodied through individuals and historical events. Islam is no longer merely the name of a doctrine or ideology, nor is it simply a collection of sermons, admonitions, guidance, or fanciful notions. It has now taken the form of living, awakened human character and manifested itself in events of real life; above all, it has established social institutions and reformative achievements that anyone can see with his own eyes and hear with his own ears. These social institutions and reformative achievements deeply influenced the whole of human life and history. Indeed, all of this was the contribution of Islam’s magnificent ‘spiritual force.’ This spiritual force brought a revolution into the lives of people who were nearly dead and infused them with a new consciousness and fresh vitality.

Indeed, remarkable individuals appeared in the early period of Islamic history and in the periods that followed, and this is the correct explanation of those whose stirring and glorious life stories have been preserved in Islamic history. This is also the secret behind events of an incredible nature that seem like fairy tales created by lofty thought.

Purity of soul, fearlessness of conscience, unimaginable sacrifice and self-denial, a life-and-death resolve to achieve purpose and objective, extraordinary and inconceivable elevation of thought and spirit, and outstanding accomplishments in various spheres of life—things that even history is incapable of fully describing—all these were contributions of this revolutionary spiritual force of Islam.

We must acknowledge the profound relationship between the extraordinary achievements and events scattered across the pages of history and Islam’s revolutionary spiritual force. In reality, this inner spiritual force is the primary source of the power manifested in Islamic history.

If we try to view these achievements separately and in isolation from that spiritual force, our study will remain incomplete. As a result of this mistaken study, we will inevitably fall into grave confusion regarding the forces actively influencing life and the world. The consequence will be that, in determining the source of the glory and honor of every illustrious individual, we will give precedence to his personal greatness and disregard that spiritual force as the first stimulus and most influential cause of all these things. Yet it was this spiritual force that influenced the consciences and minds of those great individuals; empowered by it, they turned the course of history and made the stream of events flow in the direction they desired. Then they entrusted history to a wild, exuberant, dynamic stream of life. Relying on that stream, those unforgettable revolutionary achievements manifested themselves.

It would not be an exaggeration to describe the emergence of illustrious, great individuals and the manifestation of their achievements entirely as the contribution of this revolutionary spiritual force. In reality, this spiritual force is nothing other than a transcendent inspiration. Whatever achievements and personalities it has joined may outwardly appear to be small and separate forces, but in essence they are all transcendent forces. The measure of each personality’s greatness is the extent to which he demonstrated his capacity to receive that transcendent inspiration. Is it strange, then, to regard the prophethood of Muhammad, son of Abdullah (peace be upon him), as the highest degree of this capacity? In fact, his very being received the transcendent inspiration in its fullest form and remained throughout his life established in that sublime rank.

After the rank of prophethood there are many ranks of high distinction. The Companions of Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) and their successors attained these ranks. Whoever was able to receive the spiritual force of this great religion to whatever extent attained a corresponding degree of distinction. In truth, only after extensive study can we understand how deeply this inspiration influenced human souls—how it awakened their sleeping spirits, made them active and capable of action, inspired them to establish extraordinary and astonishing examples, and ultimately changed the course of all human history.

We can see the influence of this inspiration and spiritual force both in the great events of history and in the small events of daily life. It is well known that the extent of spiritual greatness cannot be measured in inches or yards; rather, it is related to quality. Its extent can be determined only through the series of events taking place in different circumstances and environments.

A handful of people from the Arabian Peninsula subjugated two vast empires, Rome and Persia, within a very short time. In the entire history of humankind, no other example of such a great victory in so brief a period can be presented. Yet the glory and greatness of this glorious event would not be diminished in the least if we said that the same greatness was manifested in the patience displayed by a single Abyssinian slave named Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) in response to the oppression and persecution of the Quraysh. The torment inflicted by the Quraysh to force Hazrat Bilal al-Habashi (may Allah be pleased with him) to abandon Islam was beyond the endurance of any human being. Scorching sand burned him from below, a heavy stone was placed upon his stomach and chest, his chest was bursting from intense hunger and thirst, and on top of that he was beaten with tremendous force. Yet the words that issued from his lips amid this unbearable persecution were, ‘One, One.’

When this inspiration enters an ordinary wayfarer, he speaks plainly and firmly even while standing before a tyrannical emperor, and he does not fear anyone’s criticism or condemnation in the way of Allah. When the Rightly Guided Caliph, ruler of a vast empire, displays the utmost humility, contentment with little, and self-sacrifice, the same spiritual force is seen operating within him as well. Both individuals received strength from the same source, and that source is Islam’s invincible and revolutionary spiritual force.

Regarding the conquest of Rome and Persia, it seems necessary to say that Islam’s victory here was essentially the victory of a spiritual ideology. This ideology was able to conquer the inner souls of people. This event supports a spiritual analysis of history, because a material analysis is impossible here. It is impossible to identify the cause of this extraordinary victory through material analysis. The Arabs could not have subjugated two such vast empires through material force alone.

At the same time, it is necessary to remember that the psychological revolution Islam brought about in the Arabs’ thoughts and actions, purposes and goals, and social and economic systems was no less important than the conquest of those countries; rather, it was more important. This provides clearer evidence of the superiority of Islam’s spiritual force than the events of territorial conquest do. Everyone knows that between the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his death, no separate economic revolution took place in the Arabian Peninsula apart from the moral and cultural revolution he himself brought. Therefore, no fundamental change occurred in the economic conditions there that could have brought about such a great revolution in the Arabs’ thoughts and outlook, activities, and social system. In reality, all these achievements were the creation of this spiritual ideology.

It is not possible for us here to give a detailed account of this revolution. We shall present only one example. This example is found in a statement made by the Arabs of that era. They made this statement before the enemies of Islam, yet the latter could not refute a single word of it. This occurred in the early period of the movement. Exhausted by the oppression and persecution of the Quraysh, the Muslims migrated to Abyssinia to preserve their religion and faith. Fearing that the Muslims might gain strength after reaching Abyssinia, the Quraysh sent two representatives to King Negus. Their purpose was to arrange for the Muslim emigrants to be expelled from there. These two representatives were Amr ibn al-As and Abdullah ibn Abi Rabi‘ah. They went and said,

‘Your Majesty! A number of foolish young men from our country have come to live in your land. They have abandoned the religion of their own people and have not adopted your religion either. They have invented a religion of their own—one that is new to us and new to you as well. Their fathers, uncles, other relatives, and the leading figures of our people have sent us to you so that you may kindly send them back home. Those leading figures are far wiser than these young men. Our leaders understand better the things to which the young men object and which they call evil.’

Hearing this, Negus asked the Muslim youths, “What is this religion for which you have abandoned your own people and adopted neither my religion nor any other religion?”

In reply, Ja‘far, son of Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), said,

“O King! We were steeped in extreme ignorance and foolishness. We worshipped idols, ate carrion, and committed adultery. Disregarding the bonds of kinship and usurping the rights of neighbors were our daily habits. Those among us who were strong oppressed and exploited the weak. In such a state, Allah sent one of our own people to us as a prophet. We know his lineage and standing, his honesty and truthfulness, his trustworthiness and purity. He calls us to Allah and teaches us to believe that Allah is One and to worship, obey, and serve Him alone. He tells us to abandon the worship of the idols and stone images that we and our forefathers worshipped besides Allah. He commands us to be honest and truthful, trustworthy, and good to our relatives and neighbors. He forbids us from obscene and indecent acts, falsehood, consuming the wealth of orphans, and slandering chaste women. He commands us to worship Allah alone and forbids us to associate anyone with Him. He also commands us to establish prayer, give zakat, and fast.”

The two representatives of the Quraysh were both present at the court. One of them was Amr ibn al-As, unmatched in eloquence and diplomatic skill. Yet neither of them objected to the picture Ja‘far (may Allah be pleased with him) had drawn of the condition of pre-Islamic Arabia or to the account he had given of the way of life brought by the Messenger of Allah. This proved that the description of Arabia’s past and present was entirely accurate.

This is only one historical testimony concerning the Arabian Peninsula. A non-Muslim of the modern age gave a similar testimony concerning the whole world of that time. J. H. Denison wrote in his book Emotion as the Basis of Civilization,

“In the fifth and sixth centuries, the civilized world had reached an extremely dangerous stage of anarchy. It seemed that the great civilization built through four thousand years of unceasing effort was about to be torn apart, and humanity had become eager to return to the primitive age of savagery and barbarism. Terrible disputes and conflicts raged between tribe and tribe. Instead of law and order, division and chaos were being produced. It was as though the widespread branches of a mighty tree sought to cover the entire earth with their shade, but from within its trunk had been so thoroughly eaten away by worms down to its roots that the tree could collapse at any moment. The civilization of that time had confronted precisely such a condition. Just when the signs of such total destruction had become manifest, the man was born who united the whole world.”[Taken from Islam and New World Order, written by Maulana Muhammad Ali and translated into Arabic by Ustad Ahmad Jawad al-SanuharIslam and New World order].In any case, we shall now present several historical examples related to Islam’s social principles of justice.

Examples of Conscientious Awareness

Before presenting the examples, I feel it necessary to mention several examples that shed light on something even more important: the conscience desired by Islam. For the entire system of Islam is founded upon this conscience. As I have said before, Islam teaches the individual to keep his conscience ever awake and to make his awareness and feelings extremely keen and intense. Islamic history has preserved so many examples of this conscientious awareness and intensity of feeling that it is impossible to describe them all in this limited book. Here, instead of many examples, only a few of various kinds can be presented.

Hazrat Buraydah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that,

“Ma‘iz ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) appeared before the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, purify me.’ The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, ‘May you come to your senses; go and repent to Allah.’ Ma‘iz went some distance away, then returned to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, purify me.’ The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) gave the same reply. This happened three times. The fourth time, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, ‘From what shall I purify you?’ Ma‘iz said, ‘From adultery.’ The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) asked the people, ‘Is this man not intoxicated?’ They all replied that he was not intoxicated. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) asked, ‘Has he been drinking wine?’ A man went and smelled Ma‘iz’s mouth. It was found that he had not been drinking wine. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) asked him again, ‘Have you really committed adultery?’ Ma‘iz replied, ‘Yes.’ Then he ordered the punishment, and the punishment was carried out by stoning him to death.”

Two or three days after this incident, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “Pray to Allah for Ma‘iz’s forgiveness. He has repented with such repentance that, if it were distributed among an entire nation, it would suffice for them.”

Afterward, a woman from the Azd tribe came to him. She said, “O Messenger of Allah, purify me.” The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “May you come to your senses; go and repent to Allah.” She said,

“Do you wish to send me back as you sent Ma‘iz back? I am pregnant because of adultery.” The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “Are you truly pregnant because of adultery?” She said, “Yes.” He told her, “Wait until you give birth.” Then he sent the woman to be placed under the care of an Ansari until she gave birth. After some time, the Ansari came and informed the Messenger of Allah that the woman had given birth. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “I will not have her executed while there is no one to nurse the child.” An Ansari then said, “O Messenger of Allah, I undertake responsibility for nursing the child.” Thereafter, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) carried out the death sentence upon her.

Another narration states that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said to the woman, “Go, and return after you have given birth.” When she came after giving birth, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “Go and nurse the child. Return when you have weaned it.” When the child had been weaned, she came to the Messenger of Allah carrying the child in her arms. The child was holding a piece of bread. She said, “O Messenger of Allah, I have weaned the child. He has now learned to eat bread and other things.” He then entrusted the child to a Muslim and ordered that the woman be executed. A pit was dug as deep as her chest; then, at the Messenger of Allah’s command, the people stoned her to death. Khalid ibn al-Walid (may Allah be pleased with him) stepped forward and threw a stone at her head. Some blood splattered onto Khalid’s face. He then uttered an insulting remark to the woman. Hearing this, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “Khalid! Watch what you say. By Allah, this woman has repented with such repentance that if an unjust tax collector were to repent in the same manner, he would be forgiven.” Then, at his command, the funeral prayer was performed for the woman, and she was buried in the proper manner. (Muslim, al-Nasa’i).

The character of Māʿiz ibn Mālik and that woman is clear before us. Neither of them was unaware of the severe punishment for adultery. No one had seen them commit the sin, nor was there any means of proving it. Nevertheless, both of them repeatedly pressed the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Moved by the tenderness of his heart and Islam’s justice-oriented nature, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) initially wished to forgive their punishment on the basis of doubt. But they pressed the matter so insistently that every avenue of escape was closed to them. The woman even spoke rather sharply, asking whether he intended to send her back like Māʿiz—as though she wished to accuse the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) of showing laxity and indulgence regarding the unequivocal injunctions of Islam.

Why was this so?………Their saying, “O Messenger of Allah, purify me,” points to a living and intense impulse within them, more powerful and vibrant than the desire to remain alive itself. This impulse was nothing other than awakened conscience and the intensity of remorse. The burning desire to be purified from a sin known to no one but Allah, and the tremendous shame arising from the realization that they would have to appear before Allah while impure, had made them restless.

This is true Islam. The offender’s intense remorse, the Prophet’s initial mercy and compassion, and then, once the offense had been proven, the firmness and wisdom to carry out the punishment without being swayed by the greatness of the offender’s repentance and confession—all this is an expression of Islam. For both the offender and the ruler, the most desirable thing was that Islam should remain established on its firm foundations and that its glory should remain unstained.

When the Muslim conscience is in this condition regarding penal law, one can easily imagine what its role will be in the social causes for which even life must be sacrificed.

In this connection, the removal of Khālid ibn al-Walīd from command of the Syrian army and the appointment of Abū ʿUbayda as commander is worth considering. Khālid was that glorious commander who had not yet suffered defeat in any battle. A soldierly nature and ability had become ingrained in his very being. In the Age of Ignorance and even after accepting Islam, he was the unrivalled warrior. Yet such a Khālid was removed from command, and he neither withheld his cooperation nor harbored resentment. Shame or wounded pride did not prompt him to flee the battlefield. Rebellion was utterly out of the question. Alone on the battlefield, he continued fighting with equal passion and enthusiasm, inspired by the triumph of Islam and animated by the desire for martyrdom. At that time he allowed no evil thought or evil prompting to find room in his mind. For the conscious Muslim conscience stands far above such thoughts. They held no significance for him.

The other side of the matter is also meaningful. ʿUmar’s removal of Khālid arose from the same consciousness and impulse. During the caliphate of Abū Bakr, he noticed several faults in Khālid ibn al-Walīd that disturbed ʿUmar’s conscience. One was that Khālid acted hastily in killing Mālik ibn Nuwayra and married his wife immediately afterward. He then noticed a similar fault. On the day when twelve hundred leading Companions were martyred in the battle against Musaylima the Liar, Khālid married Majjāʿa’s daughter at dawn the very next day.

In the face of these actions, which in my view were faulty, the caliph Khālid attached no importance to his bravery or victories. Without doubt, Khālid was the greatest commander. He had won more battles than anyone else. Moreover, the Muslim nation was facing the most important and decisive battles in Syria and Iraq, where the military skill of an undefeated commander like Khālid was urgently needed. Yet none of these qualities of Khālid could suppress the agitation and unease that his serious faults had created in ʿUmar’s conscience. None of them could alter his view that Khālid should be removed from command and later from the army itself. Another reason was that Khālid performed his duties in an extremely arbitrary manner, which was contrary to ʿUmar’s temperament. His sense of responsibility urged him to intervene and keep watch even over minor matters. (From the book Khālid ibn al-Walīd by Sādiq Urjūn.)

Someone may ask: if Khālid had committed such a grave error, why did ʿUmar leave him in place? The real matter is that Abū Bakr’s opinion of Khālid ibn al-Walīd was not as severe as ʿUmar’s. He believed that Khālid had made an error of judgment and had not deliberately committed any wrongdoing or sin. For this reason, although angry with him, he forgave him. Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) did, of course, regard the second incident with strong disapproval and sent him an angry letter. Even so, he considered Khālid’s errors forgivable and ultimately did forgive him.

The foregoing interpretation of the events is entirely consistent with the highly developed status of the collective Muslim conscience in that age. But I was truly astonished by the interpretation given by a person like Dr. Haykal of Abū Bakr’s and ʿUmar’s policies concerning Khālid. Haykal’s interpretation has no connection whatsoever with Islam’s vital force. It is, however, perfectly consistent with the dirty politics of this age. On pages 150–152 of his book al-Siddīq Abū Bakr, Dr. Haykal writes:

“The reader has surely understood how far the disagreement between Abū Bakr and ʿUmar concerning Mālik ibn Nuwayra went. There is no doubt that both of them sought the welfare of Islam and the Muslims. The issue here is whether Khālid’s error was extremely grave in the eyes of one and extremely minor in the eyes of the other, or whether the real disagreement arose over determining the correct policy in the delicate circumstances of Muslim life in the Arabian Peninsula, beset by widespread rebellion and apostasy?”

In my view, the real disagreement concerned policy. Given the difference in the two caliphs’ natures, this disagreement was entirely natural. ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) was the embodiment of uncompromising justice. In his view, Khālid had wronged a Muslim. Therefore, it was necessary to remove him from the army so that he would not again have the opportunity to commit such disgraceful acts that damaged his reputation. Even if Khālid could be forgiven on the grounds that his judgment concerning Mālik had been mistaken—although ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) could not accept this—failing to punish his indecent conduct with Mālik’s wife, Laylā, could in no way have been proper.[If ʿUmar’s opinion had truly been so harsh and extreme, he would certainly have imposed the punishment for adultery during his own caliphate—the author.]“He is an undefeated commander” and “He is the sword of Allah”—such statements would not have been sufficient to excuse him. For that would have amounted to making the unlawful lawful for people like Khālid. Had this been done, it would have set before the Muslims the worst example of disrespect for Allah’s law. Because of this opinion, ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) repeatedly drew Abū Bakr’s attention to the matter. Eventually, Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) summoned Khālid (may Allah be pleased with him) and issued a stern warning against his conduct.

On the other hand, in Abū Bakr’s view the situation was so precarious that it was impossible to give such matters importance. At that time the existence of the whole country was threatened, and rebellion had arisen throughout Arabia. In such circumstances, what importance could the killing—whether accidental or deliberate—of one person or several persons have? The commander accused of faulty conduct was the strongest means of saving the country from that terrible danger. Marrying a woman before the completion of her waiting period was not contrary to Arab custom, especially for a victorious commander, since through war he acquired ownership of captive women.[Only someone who knows not even the first letter of Islamic law could make such a statement. If Khālid had truly violated the wife of a Muslim, it would have been essential to carry out the punishment for adultery upon him. Moreover, since Mālik was a Muslim, there could be no question of enslaving his wife.]It was not essential to apply the law with severity in the case of an extraordinary man like Khālid, particularly in circumstances when doing so would conflict with the interests of the state and might endanger its existence. At that time Khālid’s sword was indispensable to the Muslims. On the very day Abū Bakr summoned him and warned him, the Muslims needed Khālid most. Near al-Baṭṭāḥ, where Khālid (may Allah be pleased with him) was stationed, Musaylima was arrayed for battle with forty thousand young men of Banū Ḥanīfa. His rebellion against Islam and the Muslims was the most dangerous of all rebellions. He had captured ʿIkrima (may Allah be pleased with him), one of the Muslim commanders, and at that point all hopes of victory depended entirely on Khālid’s sword. In such circumstances, how could it have been right to remove Khālid (may Allah be pleased with him) because he had killed Mālik ibn Nuwayra, or because of Laylā, the exceptionally beautiful woman who had captivated Khālid, thereby allowing the Muslim army to suffer a disastrous defeat at the hands of Musaylima? Would that not have exposed Allah’s religion to the gravest danger on earth? Khālid was Allah’s standard and Allah’s sword. Therefore, Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) rightly judged that the best course was to summon him, confine himself to reprimanding him, and order him to go immediately to al-Yamāma to confront Musaylima.

This, in my view, is the true picture of the difference between Abū Bakr’s and ʿUmar’s policies concerning Khālid ibn al-Walīd. When the false claimant to prophethood among Banū Ḥanīfa captured ʿIkrima (may Allah be pleased with him), Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) sent Khālid to confront him. Perhaps his purpose was that the people of Medina and the supporters of ʿUmar’s view would thereby understand that Khālid was Islam’s greatest ally in its hour of crisis. By this order, Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) placed him in a severe trial. His intention was that Khālid would either be martyred on the battlefield—in which case that would be a better punishment than the injustice done to Mālik and his wife—or he would be victorious, and that victory would purify him of his sin. In the end he was victorious and returned to the capital with immense spoils. Thus he delivered the Muslims from such a great danger. Compared with that danger, the errors he committed while stationed at al-Baṭṭāḥ were of no importance.

This is how the situation appears from Dr. Haykal’s perspective. I am astonished that a person can spread the wings of his imagination, enter the early period of Islamic history, and write while seated under the shadow of those awakened and conscious consciences. Yet his own conscience and mind, far from rising above the modern materialist outlook when interpreting events, have been deeply influenced by it. His outlook has no relation whatsoever to Islam’s essential vital force or to the actual history of that special age. This is merely the politics of the present age. In the eyes of this politics, it is entirely legitimate to resort to inferior methods and means for the sake of superior objectives. Such politics makes the human conscience and intellect slaves to circumstances and expediency, then calls this higher “diplomacy” and superior efficiency and competence.

Anyone with sight can see how low and base the personality of Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) has been made to appear in the picture Dr. Haykal presents and claims to be the only authentic one.

Fortunately, Abū Bakr’s personality stands far above the telescopes through which people in today’s degraded society are accustomed to view things. Through such telescopes it is utterly impossible to observe that highly developed level of humanity. The matter becomes even more confused if the observer is also ignorant of Islamic law.

In his own book al-Fārūq ʿUmar, Dr. Haykal discusses this matter again. He attempts to analyze ʿUmar’s mental state when he decided to remove Khālid. There too he was once again influenced by modern, decadent civilization. The character of the political leader before whom nothing matters except apparent welfare and regional necessity—and who cannot perceive Islam’s vital force—has become fixed in the author’s mind. On pages 99 and 100 he writes:

“It is difficult to understand why ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) took such a dangerous decision as removing Khālid (may Allah be pleased with him), when the entire military strength of the Muslims in Syria was under Khālid’s command. It was an extremely critical moment for the Muslim army. They stood face to face with the Roman troops. No open battle was taking place, yet neither side could overcome the other. The situation that had existed before Khālid’s arrival from Iraq continued after his arrival. Both sides were waiting for a suitable opportunity to attack. The caliph should have understood that removing Khālid would diminish the Muslims’ enthusiasm and make the situation even more dangerous. In fact, the caliph should have waited until Khālid had led the Muslims beyond that dangerous moment; afterward he could have issued whatever order he wished.”

“In the rise and fall of war, these matters are extremely important, and it is essential to take them into account. Abū ʿUbayda (may Allah be pleased with him) gave full attention to these matters, disregarding the caliph’s displeasure and disagreement. But ʿUmar viewed the matter from another angle. If he had postponed removing Khālid until the war ended, his policy would have been compromised and the matter would have become complicated. It was clear that the Muslims would either win or lose the war. If they lost, removing Khālid would have achieved nothing. But if the Muslims won under Khālid’s leadership, it would have been impossible for ʿUmar to remove him by bringing him down from the glory of victory and success. Doing so would have been a grave mistake.”

“Overall, ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) had made the firm decision not to retain Khālid as commander in Syria or anywhere else. This was why he hurried to issue the order of removal. His justification was that Khālid (may Allah be pleased with him) had not properly followed the instructions of Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). Nevertheless, since the Muslims had won, no one could object to ʿUmar. He did what he thought best. Khālid, too, was in such a position that no charge of injustice could be brought against the one who removed him.”

This is the thinking of the twentieth-century “Pasha” Haykal, which he seeks to impose upon ʿUmar al-Fārūq of the first Hijri century. He had previously done the same concerning Abū Bakr. Such audacious statements can be made only by someone whose spirit could not even touch the spirits of Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and ʿUmar, and who, despite breathing for some time in an Islamic environment, could not free himself for a single moment from the filth and ugliness of the twentieth century. It is perfectly clear that the writer has not escaped the worst features of modern civilization or its expediency that disregards conscience, truthfulness, religion, and everything else. Moreover, the philosophy of falsehood and deception of this age has clouded his thought and vision.

The question is: what did Mr. Haykal think of ʿUmar al-Fārūq (may Allah be pleased with him)? If circumstances had been different and such an opportunity had not existed, would ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) have spared Khālid (may Allah be pleased with him)? Yet, according to Haykal Pasha’s own account, ʿUmar’s conscience was fully certain that Khālid’s conduct concerning Mālik ibn Nuwayra, and concerning Allah and His religion, was wholly mistaken and unjust.

Could that ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him), who could move mountains but never deviate from principle, whose faith could turn the force of a storm yet who himself never wavered, have surrendered to circumstances?

The Umayyad and Abbasid kings used to act in this way. People called such actions “diplomacy” and “cleverness.” But ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) and Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) stood far above all this. If anyone has begun to think of them in the same way, that is the effect of the degraded mentality and low standards of the present age.

I have given a somewhat detailed presentation of this line of thought and clarified its errors, because otherwise it is impossible to rescue minds from the destructive confusion of the modern age. Some people wish to interpret the mode of thought prevalent during the age of Islam’s supreme vitality in the light of today’s materialist mode of thought. Yet this mode of thought is far removed from the spiritual consciousness and awakening prevalent then. I wish to refute this misleading misinterpretation, because it may seriously damage the human conscience and its inherent powers.

Of course, I do not wish to present the people of the first century dressed in an artificial garb, nor do I wish to portray them as free from every human weakness. I only want people to learn once again to rely on conscience. For this purpose, I wish to present the true character of the lives of the Muslims. Thus, those consciences that possess the capacity to advance toward that elevated level will be able to understand that character.

I shall now again present examples of the conscientious awareness displayed by the Muslims of the first century in various spheres of life.

One day, Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allah be pleased with him) was seen carrying a waterskin on his shoulder. His son asked him indignantly, “Why are you doing this?” He replied, “My soul had become afflicted with pride and self-glorification, so I decided to humiliate it.” Consider the intensity of his awareness! For a moment, the slightest pride concerning the caliphate, the conquest of kingdoms, and honor and prestige in future generations had raised its head in some corner of this man’s mind. He did not tolerate it and immediately began subduing his lower self before everyone. He did not consider for a moment that he was the supreme commander of an immense empire encompassing, besides the Arabian Peninsula, most of the Roman and Persian empires.

On another day, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib was seen shivering violently in the bitter cold. He had no suitable clothing to protect him from the cold. The Bayt al-Māl was in his hands, yet his conscientious awareness would not allow him to touch even a single coin.

Abū ʿUbayda (may Allah be pleased with him) had set up camp at ʿAmwās with his army. A devastating epidemic broke out at ʿAmwās. ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) became anxious lest any harm befall the “Trustee of the Community” (Abū ʿUbayda). He wrote to him, summoning him to his presence in order to protect him from the epidemic. In the letter he wrote:

“Peace be upon you. After this greeting, I need to speak with you face to face about an urgent matter. I insist that, after reading this letter, you set out for me before putting it away.” As soon as Abū ʿUbayda (may Allah be pleased with him) read the letter, he understood its real purpose. He realized that the caliph had devised a way to save him from the epidemic. He immediately exclaimed, “May Allah forgive the Commander of the Believers!” He then wrote the following reply to ʿUmar:

“I understand what you need me for. The entire Muslim army is with me at this time. I do not wish to separate from the Muslim young men. Until Allah completes what He has decreed for me and for them, I cannot leave them. Commander of the Believers, for these reasons I ask you not to compel me to carry out this order. Let me remain with my young men.”

ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) began to weep after reading the letter. Those present asked, “Has Abū ʿUbayda died?” He replied in a choked voice, “No.”

Indeed, these two causes—the steadfast belief in divine decree and the granting of every soldier in Allah’s path the same status as oneself—compelled Abū ʿUbayda (may Allah be pleased with him) to remain steadfast in the face of death.

Abū Ruwayḥa al-Khathʿamī, the Islamic brother of Bilāl ibn Rabāḥ, the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) muezzin, asked Bilāl to introduce him to some people from Yemen for the purpose of marriage. Bilāl said to those people, “I am Bilāl ibn Rabāḥ, and this is my brother Abū Ruwayḥa. His religion and character are both bad. If you wish, establish a family connection with him; if not, do not.”

He spoke with complete clarity. He did not deceive them by concealing his own brother’s faults.

The awareness that he was acting as an intermediary in a marriage proposal did not make him forget that he would be accountable before Allah. The Yemenis were so impressed by his truthfulness that they agreed to the match. The fact that such a truthful man had brought a marriage proposal for their daughter was honor enough for them.

Consider the character of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa: he sent some cloth to his business partner, Ḥafṣ ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, to sell. He instructed him to inform the buyer that one piece had a defect. Ḥafṣ sold the cloth but forgot to mention the defect. He received the full price for the defective cloth. The consignment was worth between thirty and thirty-five thousand dirhams. Abū Ḥanīfa (may Allah have mercy on him) asked his partner to locate the buyer, but despite much effort the buyer could not be found. He then separated from his partner and donated the entire value of the consignment in the path of Allah. He did not wish to mix it with his pure property.[Taken from the book Abū Ḥanīfa, the Champion of Freedom and Tolerance in Islam by ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm al-Jundī.]

It is related that the renowned Imam Yunus ibn Ubayd had cloth of various prices kept for sale. One kind of cloth cost four hundred dirhams per pair, while another kind cost two hundred dirhams per pair. He left his nephew at the shop and went to pray. At that time, a man came and asked for a pair costing four hundred dirhams. The boy showed him a pair costing two hundred dirhams. He liked it and bought it contentedly. On his way home with the cloth, he happened to meet Yunus. Recognizing the cloth, Yunus asked him how much he had paid for it. He replied, “Four hundred dirhams.” Yunus said, “This is cloth worth only two hundred dirhams. Go and return it.” The man replied, “This cloth is available in our country for five hundred dirhams. Therefore, I bought it gladly.” Yunus said, “You must return it, because nothing is better than sincerely wishing well for a fellow Muslim.” Saying this, he took him to the shop and returned two hundred dirhams to him. Then he rebuked his nephew, saying, “Were you not ashamed? Did the fear of God not arise in your heart? You made a hundred percent profit without considering the welfare of Muslims?” The boy swore that the customer had bought the cloth willingly. Yunus then said, “Why did you forget that you must wish for others what you wish for yourself?”

It is narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir that, in his absence, his servant sold cloth worth five dirhams to a man for ten dirhams. Upon learning this, he spent the entire day searching for the customer. At last he found him and said, “By mistake, my servant sold you cloth worth five dirhams for ten dirhams.” The man exclaimed in surprise, “But I paid that price gladly.” He replied, “You may be as pleased as you like, but I will wish for you what I wish for myself.” Saying this, he returned five dirhams to him. (Ar-Risalatul Khaledah, Abd al-Rahman Azzam)

The strongest key to unlocking the mystery of these three incidents is Yunus ibn Ubayd’s remark: “Were you not ashamed?” Without doubt, shame before one’s conscience and fear of Allah were the only forces active behind all these incidents. When a person’s conscience, nature, and mind accept the life-force of Islam, and that life-force permeates their very marrow, Islam creates such character within them with full strength.

Apart from these few examples, there are many more. Yet these examples are sufficient to guide us toward the supreme goal that Islam has set before it for the purification of the human conscience. Islam seeks to raise the human conscience above every material need, relationship, and attraction to wealth, life, position, and honor. It seeks to inspire people to fulfill all the responsibilities of life properly, with constant awareness, conscience, and intense feeling.

Examples of Equality

Islam came with a message of complete equality for humankind. It came to free people from the chains of every value system that had created obstacles to equality. Now we shall see how this doctrine was implemented in real life.

At that time, the slave class throughout the world existed as a separate and distinct class from free humanity. The Arabian Peninsula was in the same condition. When we consider the actions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in this regard, we find that he married his paternal cousin Zaynab, a woman of the Hashemite clan of Quraysh, to his freed slave Zayd. Marriage is an extremely delicate matter; in it, the equality of the two parties becomes more important than every other question.

No person other than the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), and no power other than Islam, could have accomplished such an extraordinary deed; even today, it is impossible anywhere outside the Muslim world. Slavery in the United States is illegal, but it is legally forbidden for a Black man to marry a white woman, however lowly she may be. Not only that, even today a Black man is forbidden to sit beside a white person on a bus or any other vehicle, in a restaurant, in a theater, or anywhere else.

In the early period after the Hijrah, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) established bonds of brotherhood between the Ansar and the Muhajirun. His freed slave Zayd and his uncle Hamzah were joined in brotherhood; Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) and Kharijah ibn Zayd were joined as brothers; and brotherhood was established between Khalid ibn Ruwaihah al-Khash’ani and Bilal ibn Abi Rabah. This brotherhood did not remain confined to words; rather, it took the form of a bond as firm and enduring as blood relationship. Kinship was established between them in all matters of life, wealth, and property.

Afterward, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) appointed Zayd commander and sent him to the Battle of Mu’tah. Then he appointed his son Usamah (RA) commander of an army sent to the Roman campaign, most of whose soldiers were Muhajirun and Ansar. Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA) were also in this army; they were the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) closest companions and ministers, and were later elected caliphs with complete agreement. Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, a close relative of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), was also in the army commanded by Usamah. He belonged to Banu Zuhrah, the clan of the Messenger’s maternal relatives. Moreover, he was one of the Quraysh who accepted Islam in the earliest days of prophethood. Allah granted him the opportunity to accept Islam when he was only seventeen. He was a very wealthy and honored man, an extremely experienced military strategist, and was also inspired by the spirit of jihad.

After the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), when Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) decided to send Usamah’s army back to war, he retained the commander appointed by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). When he went outside Madinah to bid farewell to the commander, Usamah was riding while the Caliph of the Muslims was walking on foot. Usamah felt extremely embarrassed by this. He could not naturally accept that he should ride while the elderly Caliph walked on foot. So Usamah said, “O Caliph of the Messenger! You too should mount a riding animal, or I will dismount.” The Caliph swore, “By God, do not dismount. By God, do not dismount. By God, I will not mount. Walking for a while in the path of Allah will do me no harm.” Then Hazrat Abu Bakr suddenly remembered that he might need Hazrat Umar. The difficulty was that Umar (RA) was a soldier in Usamah’s army. Since Usamah was the commander of that army, his permission was needed to retain Umar (RA). The Caliph said, “If you think it appropriate, please leave Umar with me to assist me.”

Here, history’s course comes to a halt in astonishment. “If you think it appropriate, please leave Umar (RA) with me to assist me.” We have no suitable words to explain the lofty position from which the Caliph could say this to his ordinary commander.

History advances further. We find that Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) appointed Ammar ibn Yasir (RA) governor of Kufa, although he too had emerged from the slave class. Our field of vision becomes even broader when we see Hazrat Umar call forward two former slaves, Suhayb (RA) and Bilal (RA), while Suhayl, son of Amr ibn Hisham, Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, and other Quraysh chiefs stood waiting. He did so because they were Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and soldiers of the Battle of Badr. At this preference, Abu Sufyan muttered angrily in the language of the Age of Ignorance: “I have never seen such a thing. They made us stand at the door while calling the slaves inside.”

One day Hazrat Umar (RA) was going somewhere in Makkah. He saw that the servants had not sat down to eat with their masters but were standing to one side. Angry, he addressed the masters, saying, “What is the matter? Why are your servants being treated so discriminatively?” He then called the servants and compelled them to sit down to the meal with their masters.

Hazrat Umar (RA) appointed Nafi ibn al-Harith governor of Makkah. When the Caliph met him at Usfan, he asked, “What news? Whom have you left as your deputy?” Nafi replied, “I left Ibn Abza as my deputy. He is one of our freed slaves.” Umar (RA) said, “What? You left a freed slave as your deputy over the people of Makkah?” The reply came, “He is well versed in the Qur’an, deeply learned in the Shariah, and just.” Hazrat Umar (RA) said, “Of course! Our Prophet (peace be upon him) said that through this Book Allah raises many people and lowers many others.”

————Arabic text——-

Needless to say, Hazrat Umar (RA) asked not to object, but to learn about Ibn Abza’s identity. Otherwise, this same Umar would not have said, while giving instructions to the six-member council appointed to choose his successor, “If Salim, the slave of Hudhayfah, were alive, I would appoint him Caliph.” This shows that he considered him superior to each of the six members of the council. These six were Uthman, Ali, Talhah, al-Zubayr, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, and Abdullah ibn Umar (RA).

Once, a freed slave expressed to a man of Quraysh his desire to marry the man’s sister and offered to give her a great deal of money. But the man rejected the proposal. When Umar (RA) learned of this, he asked him, “Why did you refuse to marry your sister to him? He is an excellent man and wanted to give your sister considerable wealth as well.” The man said, “We belong to a highly noble family, but he is not her equal in rank.” Umar (RA) said, “This man is noble in both this world and the Hereafter: noble in this world because he is very wealthy, and noble in the Hereafter because he fears God and does righteous deeds. If the girl agrees, marry her to this man.” The man asked his sister’s opinion and found that she consented. He then married his sister to him.

Slaves had unrestricted opportunities to rise to any position, however high they wished. Thus, Ikram, the slave of Abdullah ibn Umar; Nafi, the slave of Abdullah ibn Abbas; Ibn Sirin, the slave of Anas ibn Malik; and Ibn Hurmuz, the slave of Abu Hurayrah, became unforgettable and integral figures of history. Hasan al-Basri in Basra, and Mujahid ibn Jubayr, Ata ibn Abi Rabah, and Tawus ibn Kaysan in Makkah were renowned jurists, and all of them were of slave origin. Similarly, the Egyptian mufti of the time of Hazrat Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Yazid ibn Abi Dhib, had been the slave of a man named Dinkalar al-Aswad. (Abu Hanifah, Abd al-Halim Jundi)

The Muslims’ policy toward laborers was similar. Those who earned their livelihood through physical work held a highly honored position in Muslim society. Labor itself was held in very high esteem. Thus every worker, whatever his profession, received equal respect. No laborer’s occupation could prevent him from acquiring knowledge; nor did it obstruct his path to becoming a great scholar and teacher.

Imam Abu Hanifah was a cloth merchant, and many renowned scholars after him were merchants or craftsmen. Imam Ahmad ibn Amr was a shoemaker. His father was a companion of Imam Abu Hanifah and a disciple of Muhammad and Hasan. He earned his livelihood by making shoes, while also compiling Kitab al-Kharaj, or “Islamic Fiscal Policy,” for Caliph al-Muhtadi Billah. During this period, he also composed his valuable works on jurisprudence. The hands of al-Kaffal bore the marks of making locks; Ibn Qatandubaga worked as a tailor; and the renowned Imam Jassas was a maker of glassware. Likewise, the pages of history bring before us a seller of brass vessels (Saffar), a perfume seller (Saydalani), the son of a halwa seller (Halwari), a flour seller (Daqaq), a soap seller (Sajuni), a shoemaker (Nayali), a vegetable seller (Baqqali), and a seller of cooking pots (Quduri), among others.

What Muslims achieved at the dawn of Islamic civilization—in the first century—could not be achieved by the Western world despite centuries of effort: no profession is inherently low or noble; rather, it is people who either possess superior qualities or are deprived of them. (Abu Hanifah, Jundi)

Individual Freedom and Freedom of Speech

It is impossible to give a complete account of the lofty dignity of human equality until we are properly acquainted with the Islamic society’s policy toward people of high rank. True equality can be established only when the great stand in one row with the humble, and the sole basis of superiority and nobility is character—not lineage, status, or wealth. Merely honoring and respecting the humble cannot establish true equality.

Imam Abu Yusuf wrote in his Kitab al-Kharaj: “Once Hazrat Umar (RA) sent instructions for his officials to meet him during the Hajj. When they appeared at the appointed time, Hazrat Umar (RA) addressed them and the assembled people:

“Brothers! I appointed these officials only to supervise and serve you honestly. I did not appoint them to interfere with your lives, property, honor, or dignity. Therefore, if any of you has a complaint against any official, he should stand and state it.” That day, only one man stood and said, “Commander of the Believers! Such-and-such official of yours unjustly flogged me one hundred times.”

Hazrat Umar (RA) asked, “Do you also wish to strike him? Come, take retaliation.” Then Amr ibn al-As stood and said, “Commander of the Believers! If you begin treating officials in this way, it will be extremely difficult for them. It will become an established practice, and those who come after you will act accordingly.”

Hazrat Umar (RA) said, “Does that mean I should not allow this man to take retaliation, although I myself saw the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) accept retaliation against himself? Come, take retaliation.” Amr ibn al-As said, “Give us the opportunity to satisfy the man.”

Hazrat Umar (RA) gave permission. They then satisfied the man by giving him two hundred dinars—two dinars for each lash. Amr ibn al-As did remove the danger from the other official, but when his own son was accused of beating an Egyptian youth, Umar (RA) made him accept retaliation and did not allow Amr to raise any objection. While enforcing the retaliation, Hazrat Umar (RA) said, “Beat this son of a notable man.” Amr ibn al-As too was bound to suffer punishment, but the Egyptian forgave him and refrained from striking him.

Another day, Hazrat Umar (RA) was sitting and distributing some money among the Muslims. The crowd gathered there became very large. Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas moved forward and pushed past the other people to reach Hazrat Umar. This Companion was the son of a distinguished noble family. Hazrat Umar (RA) struck him once with his whip, saying, “You do not acknowledge the majesty of Allah’s rule over the earth, but I felt it necessary to show you that, in the sight of Allah’s government, your influence and status are not worth a farthing.”

Someone may say that he was the Caliph—who could be compared with him? For this reason, we shall now see how freely and fearlessly the subjects expressed their opinions and criticism before caliphs and kings. The true source of this freedom and fearlessness in expressing opinions was the freedom of conscience and wisdom granted by Islam, along with complete equality implemented in word and deed.

While delivering a speech as Caliph, Hazrat Umar (RA) said, “If you see any crookedness in me, straighten me.” One of the assembled Muslims called out, “If we see any crookedness in you, we will straighten you with a sharp sword.” Hearing this, Umar (RA) said, “A thousand thanks to Allah that He has created, during Umar’s caliphate, a person who can straighten him with a sharp sword.” Once the Muslims acquired several Yemeni cloaks as booty. Like all the Muslims, Hazrat Umar received one cloak, and he also gave one to his son Abdullah. Since the Caliph needed a shirt, Abdullah gave his portion to the Caliph so that the two pieces could be joined into one shirt. Wearing this shirt, Hazrat Umar (RA) rose to deliver a speech and said, “Listen to me and obey me.” Salman immediately stood up and said, “We will neither listen to you nor obey you.” Umar (RA) asked, “Why?” Salman said, “First answer us: how did you make this shirt? Surely you too received only one cloak, and you are a very tall man.” He said, “Do not make a hasty judgment.” Then he called Abdullah ibn Umar and said, “I ask you by God: tell me, is the cloak from which I made this shirt yours?” He replied, “Yes.” Salman then said, “Now tell us what you command. We will listen and obey.”

Someone may say that this concerns Umar (RA). Who can be compared with him?

Take the example of Abu Ja’far al-Mansur. The state he established was based not on the Shariah, but, in our terminology, on social customs, conventions, and traditions. Sufyan al-Thawri went to him and said, “Commander of the Believers! You are spending the wealth of Allah and the Muslims without their will or consent. Tell me, what answer do you have for this?” Hazrat Umar (RA) once performed Hajj at public expense, and a total of sixteen dinars was spent on him and his companions. Even so, Umar (RA) said, “I feel that we have placed a tremendous burden on the Bayt al-Mal. Surely you know what Mansur ibn Ammar narrated to us as a hadith, for you were also present at that gathering and were the first to record it. It is narrated from Ibn Masud that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, ‘For whoever uses the wealth of Allah and His Messenger according to his own whim, the fire of Hell is inevitable.’” At this, a veteran flatterer of the king, a clerk named Abu Ubaydah, exclaimed, “What! Such a conversation with the Commander of the Believers?” Sufyan scolded him, saying, “Silence, wretch! Haman and Pharaoh destroyed one another through such flattery.” Saying this, he left the court.

However intense the tyranny of despotic rulers may be, they could not interfere with a person whose heart was illumined and who, rising above material needs, had completely surrendered to Allah’s command.

Wathiq was also a despotic ruler. Once, a Muslim philosopher came to him. He greeted Wathiq with salam, but Wathiq replied, “La sallamallahu alayka” (meaning, “May Allah not bestow peace upon you”). As soon as he heard this, the philosopher rebuked Wathiq, saying, “Your teachers have taught you extremely discourteous behavior.” Allah Most High has said:

“When you are greeted with a greeting, respond with a better one or return it equally.” Yet instead of returning an even better greeting, you did not even respond with an equal one. (Abu Hanifah—Jundi)

Judge Abu Yusuf was sitting in a court session. A man brought a case before him. He was in dispute with the Abbasid king al-Hadi over a garden. Abu Yusuf held that the garden rightfully belonged to that man. The difficulty was that the king had witnesses. He said, “The plaintiff claims that the king’s witnesses are truthful; therefore, the king must swear to that effect.” Al-Hadi considered taking an oath an insult to himself, so he refused and returned the garden to its owner. In another case, Abu Yusuf compelled Harun al-Rashid to make a sworn statement. When Fadl ibn al-Rabi came as a witness on behalf of Harun al-Rashid, he rejected his testimony. The Caliph, angered, asked, “Why was Fadl’s testimony rejected?” Abu Yusuf replied, “I heard him say, ‘I am your slave.’ If his statement is true, then a slave’s testimony is not admissible; and if he is lying, then a liar’s testimony cannot be accepted.” (Abu Hanifah—Jundi)

The lamp of individual freedom that Islam kindled in the human conscience remained unextinguished even during the darkest age of history. In every era of history, abundant examples can be found of this glorious freedom of conscience.

In Egypt, Ahmad ibn Tulun held the Hanafi judge Bakkar ibn Qutaybah in very high esteem. When Ahmad asked him to curse the Abbasid prince al-Muwaffaq, he paused briefly and said:

—-Arabic text—-

“Beware! A curse upon the oppressors.” At this, someone told Ahmad ibn Tulun that Bakkar had directed the curse at Ahmad himself. Consequently, Ibn Tulun asked for all the gifts he had given Bakkar to be returned. He received them back exactly as he had given them, sealed. Ibn Tulun then confined Bakkar in a rented house. Many people obtained permission from Ibn Tulun to visit him. Bakkar spoke with them through the window. Then Ibn Tulun fell seriously ill, so severely that all hope for his life was lost. He ordered Bakkar’s release. To the messenger who brought the news of his release, he said, “Tell Ibn Tulun that I have become very old, and he is ill. Soon we shall meet. Only Allah has placed a barrier between us.” When Ibn Tulun died, Bakkar would say, “Alas! The poor man has died!” (Abu Hanifah—Jundi)

Through the words, “Alas! The poor man has died!”, his feeling became evident: Ibn Tulun had indeed been powerful, but he was inferior and helpless compared with him.

During the Ayyubid rule, Ismail, the king of Egypt, assisted the English in the Crusades. Having received assurances that the English would help him against Sultan Najmuddin Ayyub, he transferred several areas, including Saida, to the English. But when Izzuddin ibn Abd al-Salam strongly protested, the king became angry and had him arrested. He then sent a messenger to intimidate and tempt Izzuddin. The messenger told him, “If you do not interfere in the king’s actions, you will be reinstated in your former position and promoted to an even higher post.” Izzuddin replied, “By God! Even if the king came and kissed my hand, I would not tolerate it. In reality, you belong to one world and I belong to another.” (Abu Hanifa—Abdul Halim Jundi)

During the reign of Zahir Baybars, Shaykh Muhyuddin Nawawi lived in Damascus. He frequently offered Zahir sound counsel, sometimes in writing and sometimes orally. Allama Jalaluddin Suyuti quoted many of his letters to the king in his renowned work ‘Hunsul Mahajara.’ Most of these letters mentioned the people’s economic hardship and demanded the remission of taxes. In one letter he wrote, “There has not been sufficient rain this year. Because of rising prices, an acute shortage of food, epidemics among livestock, and other causes, the people of Syria have fallen into a miserable condition. In such circumstances, you should show your kindness to the poor people. I say this for your welfare and that of the people, for wishing the welfare of others is the essence of Islam.”

The king not only rejected this advice, but also expressed deep displeasure at the scholars’ lack of cooperation with him, saying, “Where were these religious gentlemen when the Tatars were attacking and plundering the country?” Shaykh Muhyuddin gave a stern reply to this taunt. Reiterating his own view and his earlier counsel, he said, “The case of non-Muslim invaders cannot be equated with that of Muslim rulers of the country. When those rebellious unbelievers had not the slightest faith in our religion, what advice could we have given them, and what benefit would it have brought? I wish to make it clear that no one can prevent me from speaking the truth and offering sound counsel. For I firmly believe that this is an absolute duty for me and for others like me. And whatever danger one may face in fulfilling one’s duty will be a cause of great benefit and an aid to attaining honor before Allah. I am surrendering myself completely to Allah. Allah is fully aware of the condition of His servants. Allah’s Messenger advised us to continue speaking the truth under all circumstances and not to heed the reproach of any reproacher in this matter. We always love the king and wish him welfare in this world and the Hereafter.”

Moved by such goodwill, the Shaykh continued writing letters. But Zahir paid no heed to his advice and continued collecting taxes on the pretext of preparing for the impending war. The king had collected the scholars’ fatwas in support of his own opinion. These scholars had issued their fatwas according to his instructions. He summoned the Shaykh and asked him to sign the other scholars’ fatwas. The Shaykh took an extremely firm position. He said, “I know that you were once an enslaved prisoner. You were bankrupt. Then Allah favored you and raised you to the rank of king. I know that you possess a thousand slaves dressed in brocade garments and a hundred maidservants covered from head to toe in gold ornaments. If you spend the brocade garments of these slaves and the ornaments of the maidservants, I will issue a fatwa declaring it lawful for you to collect taxes from your subjects.”

Hearing this, Zahir erupted in furious anger and immediately expelled him from Damascus. The Shaykh continued living in a place in Syria called Nawa. Later, all the scholars and jurists told the king, “He is our universally respected and foremost scholar. Bring him back to Damascus.” The king then permitted him to return to Damascus, but the Shaykh refused, saying, “As long as Zahir remains there, I will not come.” One month later, Zahir fell gravely ill and died. (From ‘Ibn Taymiyyah’ by Professor Abu Zuhra)

Examples of such noble character are not rare even in recent history. I will mention only two incidents.

During Ismail’s reign, Sultan Abdul Aziz once came to Egypt. Ismail counted the days until his arrival, because the Sultan’s visit was extremely important for his obtaining the title of Khedive. Moreover, the Sultan’s visit offered many possibilities for Egypt to gain political advantages. At that time, a program was prepared for the Sultan to meet the scholars

The program was held. Many customs opposed to Islam were observed at this reception. One of them required visitors to kneel and touch their heads to the ground in the Turkish manner of bowing. The palace administrators were responsible for training the visiting scholars in these customs, lest they make a mistake before the Sultan.

Then the time for the reception drew near. The scholars entered one by one and, out of sheer greed for worldly interests, bowed before a creature like themselves. They then left by moving backward while facing the Sultan, following the method they had been taught. Only one scholar was spared this disgraceful act: Shaykh Hasan al-Adadi. He disdainfully ignored petty worldly interests and kept alive the feeling that all power lies in Allah’s hands. He entered with his head held high like a free man and, upon reaching the Sultan, greeted him according to Islamic custom by saying, “As-salamu alaykum.” Then, as a scholar should when meeting a ruler, he advised him to fear Allah and to treat people with justice and kindness. Having finished speaking, he again offered the greeting and left with his head held high, like a fearless free man.

At this, the palace administrators and the Khedive himself were almost overcome with shock. They thought the situation had gone beyond control and that the Sultan’s anger would probably know no bounds. Their carefully arranged training having failed, they collapsed in despair.

But the effect of the truth can never fail. It takes root in the hearts of others with the same strength and power with which it emerges from the heart. That is what happened here as well. The Sultan involuntarily said, “You have only this one scholar here.” The Sultan rewarded only him and deprived all the others.

The second incident took place between Khedive Tawfiq Pasha and Shaykh Hasan al-Nawawi at Darul Uloom.

Shaykh Hasan al-Nawawi was a professor at Darul Uloom. He wore an inexpensive, ordinary garment called a jalbab. One day, the principal of Darul Uloom learned that the Khedive would soon come to inspect the madrasa. He immediately began cleaning and decorating the madrasa. Shaykh Hasan al-Nawawi was asked to change his clothes and come wearing a kaftan and jubba, relatively elegant garments. The Shaykh implicitly agreed to this request.

On the appointed day, the Shaykh arrived wearing his old clothes. However, he held something wrapped like a bundle in a handkerchief. Seeing him in his old clothes, the principal’s face turned pale. In a somewhat angry tone he asked, “Shaykh, where are the jubba and kaftan?” He pointed toward the handkerchief to show that they were there. The principal thought that perhaps he would change his clothes when the guest’s arrival drew near.

After a while, the awaited guest arrived. A wave of joy swept through the entire madrasa. Immediately afterward, a remarkable incident took place. Shaykh Hasan al-Nawawi appeared before the Khedive with the bundle in his hand and said in complete composure, “People told me that I must come wearing a jubba and kaftan. If it is your jubba and kaftan that you want, here they are; and if it is your Hasan al-Nawawi that you want, here I am.”

Naturally, the Khedive replied that he wanted his Hasan al-Nawawi.

This is the true condition of the believers. They desire no honor other than the honor of Islam. Their minds and consciences attach no importance to petty, worthless values or fleeting interests. They understand the true essence of Islam and put it fully into practice in their lives. After acquiring Islam’s invincible vitality, they feel no need to please any human being. Indeed, this is true Islam.

Treatment of the Conquered Countries

We shall now examine how the inhabitants of conquered countries and the non-Muslim communities in Muslim lands were treated. This is closely related to equality, justice, and freedom of conscience. The equality and justice introduced by Islam extended beyond individuals, groups, and the bounds of Islam to encompass all humanity.

When discussing the conquered countries, the question of Islam’s real purpose, objective, and rationale in conquering lands naturally arises. This is a subject requiring a lengthy discussion. We shall discuss only what is essential and connected with Islam’s universal principles of social justice.

The Islamic call appeals to the human conscience, mind, and intellect. It leaves no room for force or compulsion. Even the psychological coercion practiced in earlier religions in the form of miraculous events was not encouraged by Islam. Islam is the only system that has shown full respect for human conscience, reason, awareness, and feelings. Instead of hypnotizing people through miracles or marvels and tempting them by psychological means, it confined itself to addressing them in plain language. It never adopted the method of forcing people to accept it by the power of the sword.

————Arabic text——

“There is no compulsion in the way of life.”

————Arabic text——

“Invite to the way of your Lord with sound advice and wisdom, and debate in the best manner.”

But from the very beginning the Quraysh created obstacles to this new way of life through material force. They inflicted inhuman torture on everyone whom Allah gave the opportunity to accept Islam. They separated some Muslims from their homes, wives, children, and families and expelled them from the country. They plotted to imprison them in mountain caves, subject them to a social boycott, and starve them to death. In short, they left no means of using material force to keep people away from Islam unused.

In such circumstances, there was no alternative but to protect the followers of Islam from oppression—

————Arabic text——

“Permission has been granted to take up arms to those against whom war has been imposed, because they have been wronged. Surely Allah is capable of helping them.”

————Arabic text——

“Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.”

Then, at one point, the entire Arabian Peninsula came under the shelter of Islam. The sequence of conquests extended beyond Arabia. The question arises: what was the purpose and objective of these conquests?

As I have already said, Islam presented an international ideology and a universal way of life. It cannot confine itself within the limits of any particular region. It wishes to carry its stream of welfare to every corner of the world and to all humanity. But the two vast empires of Rome and Persia stood in its way. They lay in wait to destroy it. These powers were not prepared to allow the standard-bearers of the Islamic movement to travel throughout the earth and convey Islam’s message to the people. In such circumstances, Islam had no alternative but to remove the state power that stood as an obstacle between the divine law and ordinary people. After removing this obstacle, it gave people the opportunity to obey Allah alone and be freed from obedience and servitude to human beings. This is the meaning of establishing the Islamic system in place of the false system. Through it, people gain unrestricted freedom of speech. After the obstacle of state power is removed and Allah’s law triumphs, obedience becomes reserved exclusively for Allah, and people are freed from servitude to one another. Thereafter, whoever wishes may accept Islam willingly, gladly, and with full rights, while whoever does not wish to need not accept it. For every individual has the full right to determine his or her own principles. This is the meaning of the Qur’an’s following declaration that religion, or obedience, is reserved solely for Allah—

————Arabic text——

“Struggle against these unbelievers until obedience becomes devoted entirely to Allah alone.” Here, the word din means obedience. The purpose is that people will be freed from human authority and sovereignty and come under Allah’s authority and sovereignty. Then, without any obstacle or coercion, they will choose their own creed and beliefs for themselves.

In light of this explanation, it becomes clear that Islam’s conquests were entirely different from the expansionist and imperialist wars waged against foreign peoples for the exploitation and oppression of weaker nations by power-drunk nations. The significance of these wars was simply that they were struggles to remove the state powers that obstructed the new creed and ideology brought by Islam from reaching other nations. For the nations, this was a moral and spiritual struggle; against the state powers that had mounted them like gods through material force, it was a material and armed struggle.

Islam regards itself as the system for all humanity and does not use material force to propagate and spread itself. In accordance with this principle, it placed three paths before all the nations of the world. Each nation had to choose one of them: accepting Islam, expressing cooperation and obedience by paying jizya, or war.

Its invitation to the people of the world to “accept Islam” is undoubtedly just. For this is the only path of guidance. It is the most modern and complete ideology concerning God, humanity, life, and the universe. It is the gateway through which, once an unbeliever enters, he becomes the brother of all Muslims, with the same rights and duties as Muslims. No other Muslim may claim superiority over this new Muslim on the basis of race, ancestry, wealth, status, or any other consideration.

The invitation to pay jizya is similar. Muslims must sacrifice even their lives to defend the country. They also pay zakat to safeguard society’s interests. A non-Muslim likewise enjoys complete peace and security under the Islamic state. In enjoying internal, foreign, and all other facilities and opportunities, he is an equal participant with everyone else in the Islamic state. In old age or incapacity, he can also benefit from the social security system. In such circumstances, justice and fairness demand that he too should contribute his own wealth to these activities. Since zakat has more the character of worship than of a financial tax, Islam does not compel them to perform this act of worship. For Islam respects the feelings and emotions of those who have not accepted it. Therefore, instead of zakat, it collects a tax from them in the form of jizya. In imposing jizya, it was kept in mind that, if the need arose to sacrifice their lives for the country, only Muslims did so. In addition, jizya is a sign of obedience and surrender. This shows that those who pay jizya will not obstruct Islam’s path by force, and no one will hinder Islam from reaching the people. This was Islam’s objective.

The final option is war. Rejecting both Islam and jizya means that the non-Muslim is determined to remain an obstacle between Islam and ordinary people. In such circumstances, it becomes unavoidable to eliminate this defiance, displayed through reliance on strength, by removing its power. For there is no other remedy.

In the conquered countries, Islam implemented its humanitarian and international program properly. If the inhabitants accepted Islam, it granted them equal rights with Muslims in every respect. Even when they paid jizya, it endowed them with all higher human rights. Even in wartime, it set a brilliant example of justice and humanity in its treatment of them.

When a ruler of a conquered country accepted Islam, Islam duly retained him as the ruler there. Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) retained Bazan, of Persian descent, as the ruler of Yemen. Similarly, he kept the Persian Firoz, the ruler of Sana’a, in his post. When Qays ibn Abd Yaghus, of Arab descent, expelled Firoz from there, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) assisted the Persian Muslim against the Arab Muslim and brought him back and reinstated him in his former position. Similarly, the Muslims retained subordinate officials and non-Muslim officials below the amir in their posts.

According to Islamic law, it is entirely lawful for the conqueror to seize all the wealth of rebels who neither accept Islam nor agree to pay jizya, but instead choose war. Nevertheless, when Persia was conquered during the time of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), he introduced another policy in response to the demands of Islam’s moral and humanitarian values. He recognized the landowners’ ownership of the land as before, but imposed land tax upon it. He took two interests into consideration at once. One was the interest of the conquered countries themselves: although they had fought against the Muslims, he did not wish to deprive them of their means of livelihood. The second was the interest of the later generations of Muslims. If all the land had been given to the present conquerors, future generations would have been deprived of its benefits. Therefore, he considered it better to collect land tax. In this way, the proceeds could always be spent for public welfare, and future generations would continue to receive a reasonable share of it.

It is a universally acknowledged truth that Islam always treated the conquered countries with the highest degree of humanity. It gave people a free and unconditional opportunity to benefit from its beauty, distinctive qualities, and beneficial virtues. Moreover, it invited everyone, regardless of race, ancestry, language, nation, or religion, to benefit from them. It gave everyone the opportunity to do whatever they could for the welfare of society. In one particular field of Islam—namely, the sciences of law and fiqh—the inhabitants of conquered countries and people from the slave class attained special expertise. Arabs held no exclusive authority in any important sphere of public life. Even to the positions of amir and governor, people were appointed who first spent the additional revenue of the respective country on that country’s welfare and deposited only the remainder in the central Bayt al-Mal. The conquered countries were not colonies, nor was there any opportunity for the conquerors to use the lives and property of the inhabitants for their own comfort and luxury. In precisely the same way, Islam granted the inhabitants of conquered countries unparalleled freedom to perform their religious observances. Islam itself undertook to protect their houses of worship, khanqahs, churches, scholars, and religious priests. It honored the treaties and promises made with them with such honesty and devotion that it is difficult to find any parallel in the history of international relations. Even today, the practice introduced by Islam remains in force in this regard.

When we compare Islam with the way modern Western civilization treats the unfortunate colonies, we see Islam shining and radiant throughout every era of its history as the most generous, noble, and sacred ideal. Today we see the colonial countries being deliberately deprived of the virtues and qualities of Western civilization in the fields of scientific learning and economic development and progress, so that they may be milked like cows for as long as possible. Moreover, abandoning human dignity and civilized norms at the individual and collective levels, deliberately spreading moral anarchy, creating and expanding group and factional hatred, and carrying out economic exploitation and oppression have become the bad habits of the imperialist powers.

Westerners today make grand speeches about religious freedom, but their earlier history is stained by the brutal punishments of Spain’s so-called tribunals and the atrocities of the Crusades in the East. Even today, religious freedom is merely a show. For example, although Christian missionaries enjoy every facility in South Sudan, Muslims are forbidden to enter. During the last Great War, when an English general named Allenby entered Bayt al-Muqaddas, he expressed the mentality of every person in Europe by declaring, “In reality, the Crusades have ended today.” After the revolution in Damascus in 1940, French General Catroux stood there and said, “We are descendants of the Crusaders. Those whom our government does not like may leave this place.” One of his like-minded associates said precisely the same kind of thing in Algeria in 1945.

The situation in the socialist world is even more terrible. There, a campaign to gradually wipe out Muslims is underway. In only a quarter of a century, the number of Muslims in Russia fell from forty-two million to twenty-six million. Nowadays Muslims are also being deprived of the ration cards without which it is impossible to obtain the means of subsistence there. They are told, “You are permitted to pray whenever you wish. But the government cannot provide you with food. Ask your God for food.” The same treatment is inflicted on them in Yugoslavia and other countries.

Islam has always established such an advanced example of comprehensive and universal social justice that European civilization has never come anywhere near it—and never will, because that is merely a materialistic and physicalist civilization. Its foundations are established upon murder, plunder, bloodshed, violence, and brutality.[For a detailed study of this subject, see the author’s “As-Salamul Alami al-Islam (World Peace and Islam)” and the chapter “The Nature and Significance of Islam’s Conquests of Countries” in “Dirasatun Islamia.”]

Mutual Cooperation and the Social Security System

I shall present several concrete examples from history concerning the qualities of mercy, sympathy, goodwill, and mutual cooperation that Islam desires among the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, the individual and society, the ruler and the ruled, and indeed among all human beings. The history of Islam is replete with examples of this kind.

At the time Abu Bakr (RA) accepted Islam, he possessed forty thousand dirhams earned from business profits. Even after accepting Islam, he continued trading and earned a great deal of money. But on the day he migrated to Medina with his noble friend, Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH), only five thousand dirhams remained of that vast capital. He spent all his remaining capital freeing persecuted and oppressed Muslim slaves, and from this wealth he supported the poor and dispossessed.

Hazrat Umar (RA) was extremely poor. At Khaybar, he acquired a piece of land. He came to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and said, “I have obtained some land at Khaybar. I have never acquired property so valuable. What is your instruction regarding it?” The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) told him, “If you wish, retain the land itself under your ownership and give its yield in charity.”

Hazrat Umar (RA) endowed it for the poor and distressed, needy relatives, the freeing of slaves, assistance to the weak and helpless, and public welfare activities. Thus, by giving his most beloved property in the way of Allah, he demonstrated the truth of this Quranic statement:

————Arabic text——

“You will never attain true goodness until you spend in the way of Allah from what you love.”

Before the caliphate, a trading caravan arrived from Syria for Hazrat Uthman. It consisted of one thousand camels carrying wheat, olive oil, and wine. At that time, Muslims were suffering severely because of famine. Many merchants came to him and said, “You know very well how intense the demand for food is in the country. Sell this stock of goods to us.” Hazrat Uthman (RA) said, “I can readily sell it, but tell me how much profit you will give me.” The merchants said, “We will pay twice the price.” Hazrat Uthman (RA) said, “I have been offered much more profit than that.” Astonished, they asked, “Your caravan has only just arrived, and as soon as it reached us all the merchants of Medina came here. No one else met you before us. Then who has offered you such a large profit?” Hazrat Uthman (RA) said, “Allah Most High has promised me tenfold profit. Can you give me more than that?” They said, “No.” Then Hazrat Uthman (RA), calling Allah to witness, announced, “I have given all the goods of this caravan in charity for the sake of Allah, for the poor and the needy.”

One day, Hazrat Ali’s (RA) family had only three barley loaves. He gave these loaves to an orphan, a needy person, and a prisoner. After feeding them to their satisfaction, he and his entire family went to sleep hungry.

The burden of debt on Hazrat Husayn had increased. The spring of Abu Naizar was under his ownership; if he wished, he could sell it and repay his debt. But poor Muslims carried out irrigation from it, so he did not sell it. Thus, although he was the son of the noble family of Banu Hashim, he continued to bear the burden of debt.

In Medina, the Ansar made the Muhajirun partners in their property, homes, and all their possessions. They accepted them as their own brothers. They paid diyah on their behalf (financial compensation for accidental killing or injury) and secured the release of their prisoners by paying ransom. In short, they made them completely their own. In the words of the Quran:

————Arabic text——

“They feel no hesitation or discomfort in their hearts concerning whatever they give to the Muhajirun. They give preference to others over themselves, even if they themselves have to remain hungry.”

In fact, as long as Muslim countries remain free from the influence of Western civilization, this vital force remains active in their social life. Mr. Abdur Rahman Azzam wrote in his book “Ar-Risalatul Khalida”:

“I saw the Tuareg tribe of North Africa living on the basis of mutual cooperation and security. Among them, no person lives only for himself; rather, each lives for the entire society. They take the greatest pride in whatever work they do for society. An extraordinary incident drew my attention to them. A townsman migrated from the French territory and settled among the Tuareg in ‘Fazan,’ living by their generosity. Later he set out in search of a livelihood. He was also determined to repay their gifts. He left his family in the care of that Muslim tribe. Unfortunately, however, he found no employment. He came to us at a place called ‘Misrata’ seeking assistance. We gave him enough help to enable him to return to his family. But after nearly a year he came back to us. We thought he had returned from his family. He contradicted our assumption, saying that he was now ready to go to his family. We asked, ‘How?’ He said, ‘I used the money I received at our last meeting in business. Now I can go to the Tuareg with the money I have saved.’ We asked, ‘Will you go to your own family or to the Tuareg?’ He said, ‘I will first go to the Tuareg, because they cared for my family in my absence. Now I will go and support the families of those among them who are absent from their own families, and distribute my earnings among my own children and the children of my neighbors.’ We asked, ‘Are relations among neighbors in your society really like this?’ He said, ‘Yes, we all share one another’s joys and sorrows. We feel extremely ashamed to return home from abroad empty-handed, because our neighbors also wait for us just as our families do.’”

After recounting this experience, the author offers a remarkably accurate explanation of the incident in his analysis:

“This remarkable system of social life is not confined only to the Tuareg tribe or to Bedouin nomads. Nor is it the result of their tribalism. This is the genuine Islamic system. This social order is found on a very broad scale among tribes that are far removed from modern materialistic and physicalist civilization. I have seen many cities and ports in the West and East imbued with the Islamic spirit, and I have seen this social system practiced among their inhabitants, regardless of whether they were white or black, Arab or non-Arab. In many places I have even today seen Muslims living extremely happy lives on the basis of mutual aid and cooperation. They are undoubtedly happier and more prosperous than the millions who worship Western materialistic civilization. Even today they remain very close to the social order established by Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH). Those who worship the West believe in giving priority to their personal interests even at the cost of immense harm and disaster to society. To satisfy their personal whims and the desires of their instincts, they do not hesitate, when necessary, to harm even the interests of their own families; concern for the interests of neighbors is entirely out of the question.”

The fact is that this system of mutual security is a creation of Islam’s vital force. But it was not left solely to the conscience, compassion, or mercy of individuals and society. The government also took measures to implement it. The monthly allowances established by Hazrat Umar (RA) from the Bayt al-Mal for weaned infants, the elderly, and the sick are an excellent example. It is noteworthy that these expenditure categories were entirely separate from the well-known categories of zakat expenditure. In terms of its nature and characteristics, this category may be called the ‘social security system.’ During famine, he suspended the punishment for theft, since severe hunger might have driven someone to steal. In Islam, penal punishment is waived when it is based on doubt. The following incident presents the clearest example of the implementation of the social security system and makes clear the true nature and limits of private ownership.

It is reported that some slaves belonging to Abdur Rahman ibn Hatib ibn Abi Balta‘ah stole a camel belonging to the Muzayna tribe. When they were caught and brought before Hazrat Umar (RA), they confessed to the theft. Hazrat Umar (RA) ordered Kathir ibn al-Salt to cut off their hands. When he went forward to carry out the order, Umar (RA) stopped him and said, “Listen, I have learned that you extract much labor from those slaves while keeping them hungry. Their hunger becomes so severe that even if they eat something unlawful, it becomes permissible for them. I swear by Allah, had I not learned this, I would have cut off their hands.” Then he addressed Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Hatib ibn Abi Balta‘ah and said, “It is true that I have not cut off their hands, but I shall impose such a fine upon you that you will feel it.” He asked the man of the Muzayna tribe, “What is the price of your camel?” He replied, “Four hundred dirhams.” Umar (RA) said to Ibn Hatib, “Go and give him eight hundred dirhams.” He forgave the slaves the punishment for theft, because their master had forced them to steal by keeping them hungry.

In the history of Islam, the social and economic security system is especially significant in another respect as well. That respect is its universality, because this system remains intact even beyond the boundaries of Islam.

Once Hazrat Umar (RA) saw a blind old man begging from door to door. On inquiry, he learned that the man was a Jew. He asked him, “Why are you begging?” He replied, “Jizya, poverty, and old age—these three together have forced me to beg.” Hazrat Umar (RA) took him by the hand to his home and gave him enough money to meet his immediate needs. Then he sent word to the administrator of the Bayt al-Mal: “Look for this man and others like him.” By Allah, it is not justice that we should benefit from the fruits of his labor in his youth and then drive him away contemptuously in his old age. Zakat is the due of the poor and dispossessed, and this man is one of the dispossessed among the People of the Book. He exempted him and others like him from jizya.

While traveling through Damascus, he passed near a village. He learned that several Christian lepers lived there. He ordered that they be given assistance from the zakat fund and that food be supplied to them as rations.

More than thirteen hundred years have passed. The vital force of Islam had raised Umar to that exalted level of humanity from which he granted social security the status of a universal human right. No particular religion or community was required to obtain this right; there was no need to examine which Shariah or creed a person followed.

This is that lofty level which humanity’s feet have grown weary of trying to reach, and from which it still remains very far away.

The Political System

History bears witness that Islam experienced a rare and exemplary era in terms of a well-organized political and economic system. It is deeply regrettable that this era of Islam could not last long. In what follows, we shall try to understand its true cause. Some people believe that this cause lay in the very nature of Islam’s political and economic system. But whether the cause actually lay within it or outside it, we shall discuss later. First, we shall discuss the political system, because the economic system is always subordinate to, and follows the nature of, the political system.

As the death of the Noble Prophet (PBUH) drew near, one day he instructed Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) to lead the prayer. Hazrat Aisha (RA) objected, arguing that Abu Bakr (RA) had an extremely tender heart. Therefore, if he led the prayer, people would not be able to hear his voice, and she requested that he reconsider the instruction. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) became angry at this and insisted that Abu Bakr (RA) be called to lead the prayer.

The question is: does this mean that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) appointed him as caliph? Did the Muslims clearly understand it in that way?

In our view, both of these are entirely unreasonable claims. If the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) had decided to appoint a caliph, and if Islam had prescribed the appointment of a caliph, then just as he proclaimed Islam’s other rules and principles in clear language, he would have done the same here. And if the Muslims had clearly understood that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) had appointed Abu Bakr as caliph, there would have been no question of the debate over the caliphate that took place between the Muhajirun and the Ansar at a place called Saqifah. The Ansar were never people who would object to the decision of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH).

In fact, the entire matter of the caliphate was left to mutual consultation among the Muslims. The intention was that the people would freely and consensually choose the most qualified person for the caliphate. If, after the discussion at Saqifah, it was decided that the caliph would be chosen from among the Muhajirun, that was not a specific rule of Islam; rather, it was a decision reached unanimously after mutual discussion among the Muslims. If the Ansar had opposed this decision, no one could have objected. But what actually happened was that the Ansar agreed to the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr, because he was more qualified than all the others. However, in Medina, the Aws and Khazraj tribes had tried to muddy the matter by inflaming regional hostility, but the Ansar foiled that conspiracy.

In this case, the decision that the caliph should be chosen from among the Muhajirun does not mean that the caliph had to come from the Quraysh. If that had been the case, Hazrat Umar (RA), when appointing the consultative council, would not have said, “If Salim, the freedman of Hudhayfah, were alive, I would appoint him caliph.” It is well known that Salim (RA) was not of Quraysh descent. Moreover, according to Islam’s fundamental principles, no Qurayshi can be called superior to other Muslims merely because he is Qurayshi and descended from the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). Hazrat the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) himself said:

——-Arabic text——

“The one whose deeds hold him back cannot be advanced by his lineage.”

Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) appointed Hazrat Umar (RA) as caliph. But this does not mean that he compelled the Muslims to accept him. They had the full right to reject this appointment. Hazrat Umar (RA) became caliph not because of Abu Bakr’s appointment, but as a result of the people’s choice. Similarly, Hazrat Umar (RA) formed a six-member consultative council and instructed it to select a caliph from among themselves. But the Muslims were not obliged to accept one of those six as caliph. They freely and spontaneously selected one from among them, because in fact those six were the most qualified people in the Muslim ummah of that time.

Disagreement arose at the time of the election of Hazrat Ali (RA). As a result of this disagreement, war took place among the Muslims for the first time. Its consequences led, one after another, to such heartbreaking events that Islam’s vital force, its political and economic principles, and the ideas it introduced in other spheres of life were gravely damaged.

This brief account makes Islam’s true ideology concerning its system of government clear to us. It is that no person can attain the status of ruler except on the basis of the free and impartial election of the Muslims. Hazrat Ali (RA) was the cousin, son-in-law, and close relative of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). Despite knowing all this, the Muslims placed him on the caliphate’s seat only after a considerable delay. Perhaps delaying Hazrat Ali in this way, especially after Hazrat Umar, amounted to infringing upon his right. But it is undeniable that this delay enabled the most perfect evaluation of Islam’s system of government. It brought about the greater benefit that the concept of hereditary succession could not even approach the seat of the caliphate. For this concept is furthest removed from Islam’s essence and fundamental principles. Although Hazrat Ali may have suffered some personal injustice, there is no doubt that the practical realization of this ideal was more important than that.

Then came the era of Banu Umayyah. They not only confined the Islamic caliphate within the lineage of Banu Umayyah, but also transformed it into an authoritarian monarchical system. This was not the result of Islam’s teachings; rather, it was the influence of “Jahiliyyah.” This influence of Jahiliyyah had silenced Islam’s vital force.

The matter will become clear if we present a few reports concerning how Yazid’s appointment and the bay‘ah were carried out.

After the bay‘ah was taken in Syria for Yazid (bay‘ah means the people’s allegiance, support, and consent to a proposed or nominated caliph), Muawiyah assigned Sa‘id ibn al-‘As the task of securing the support of the people of the Hijaz by whatever means possible. But Sa‘id failed. Thereafter, Muawiyah himself went to Mecca with a large army and, gathering the leading Muslims, addressed them:

“Look, you are well aware of how I have treated you and how I have honored your kinship and relationships. Yazid is your brother—the son of your uncle. My wish is that you accept Yazid as caliph in name only. You yourselves will handle all matters such as appointments and dismissals, the collection and distribution of revenue, and so forth.”

Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr replied, “You should follow one of two courses: either do as the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) did when he designated a person outside his own lineage, or else form an impartial council of the kind Hazrat Umar (RA) formed, consisting of six people who were not close relatives.”

Muawiyah (RA) seemed to blaze with anger. He asked, “Do you have no third course?” Ibn al-Zubayr said, “No.” Muawiyah turned to the others and said, “What is your opinion?” All of them said together, “Our position is the same as what Ibn al-Zubayr has said.” Then Muawiyah (RA) threatened them, saying, “When a warning is given before adopting an extreme course, there is no room for objection afterward. I addressed you, and immediately one of you stood up and contradicted me before everyone. I tolerated it and forgave it.”

“But now I have stood up to say a final word. I warn you: if any of you says even a single word in reply, before another word can reach the ear, the sword will sever his head from his body. Now each of you should think about saving his own life.”

Afterward, Muawiyah stationed two men with drawn swords over the head of each leading figure of the Hijaz who opposed Yazid’s nomination, and instructed the commander of his bodyguard force that if any of them uttered even a single word either in support of or in protest against his proclamation, both men should strike with their swords at the same time.

After making these arrangements, Muawiya ascended the pulpit and said, “These men are the leaders of the Muslims and the best among them; nothing should be done without their opinion. They have pledged allegiance after agreeing to Yazid’s caliphate. You too should pledge allegiance in the name of Allah.” Immediately, the people pledged allegiance.[Ibn al-Amir, Hawadith, AH 56. We do not wish to insist too strongly on accepting this report as true. But, in order to protect the fundamental principles of Islam from distortion, we must say this much: if this narration is true, then such an act was completely contrary to the true nature of Islam. No argument, excuse, or objection can prove this act to be correct. —The Author]

This was the foundation of Yazid’s government. Islam can never accept this foundation. And what kind of person was Yazid himself? The account of Hazrat Abdullah ibn Hanzala (RA) concerning him is noteworthy.

“By God! We began our movement against Yazid when we feared that a rain of stones would fall upon us from the sky. This man marries his mother, his daughter, and several sisters at the same time; he drinks wine and abandons prayer. By God! Even if no one else had been my companion, I alone would have sacrificed myself in the way of Allah.”

Perhaps this was an exaggerated statement by one of Yazid’s enemies. But the vile acts Yazid later committed—such as the atrocious murder of Hazrat Husayn (RA), the siege of the Kaaba and the hurling of stones at it—testify that Yazid’s enemies did not exaggerate at all. Whatever the actual situation may have been, no one can have the audacity to claim that Yazid was the most deserving person for the caliphate despite the presence among the Muslims of the Companions (RA) and the Tabi‘in. In reality, the aim of all this was to restrict the government to the Umayyad family alone and transform it into a monarchical system. This tendency was tantamount to stabbing Islam and Islamic law in the heart.

The real purpose of presenting these facts is not to condemn any individual, but to make it clear that the monarchical system initiated in Islam without any Shariah-sanctioned authority has no connection whatsoever with Islam’s vitality and fundamental principles. We have undertaken this discussion in order to free Islam and the Islamic political system from corruption and reveal their true nature.

Some Examples of Governance

To help in properly understanding this truth, we shall try to present some practical examples of governance from the different periods of the Rightly Guided Caliphate—namely, the periods of Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar, Hazrat Uthman and Marwan, and thereafter Hazrat Ali—as well as from the Abbasid and Umayyad periods.

When the Muslims enthroned Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) as caliph, he saw no task before him other than implementing Allah’s religion and Shariah among the Muslims. The thought could not even approach him that acts which had previously been forbidden to him as an ordinary citizen would now become lawful for him because of this position. Nor did he think that he was acquiring any new rights that he had not possessed before, or that he was being freed from the responsibilities and duties he had previously borne.

When his accession was completed at Saqifah, he delivered the following speech: “If I fulfill my responsibilities properly, you will assist and support me. If I begin to follow a crooked path, you will set me straight. Truthfulness is trustworthiness, and falsehood is treachery. The weakest among you shall be the strongest in my view until I restore his right to him; and the strongest among you shall be the weakest in my eyes until I take the state’s right from him. Remember that whenever a nation retreats from jihad, Allah humiliates and disgraces it. Whenever a nation becomes filled with obscenity, Allah the Exalted sends down a general punishment upon all. As long as I obey Allah and His Messenger, obey my commands. But if I deviate from obedience to Allah and His Messenger, you are no longer obliged to obey my commands.”

Hazrat Abu Bakr’s house was located at Sanh, near Medina. It was a small, ordinary house. Even after becoming caliph, he did not have it repaired. Every morning and afternoon, he traveled on foot from that house to Medina and back. Sometimes he used a horse, but it did not belong to the public treasury; it was his personal property. Later, when his workload increased, he moved to Medina.

He earned his livelihood through trade. On the day after being elected caliph, when he set out for business, the Muslims stopped him and said, “The duties of the caliphate cannot be performed alongside trade and commerce.” He asked, “How will I manage when I know no other way of earning a livelihood?” They considered his situation and, in return for his being unable to conduct business and his devoting himself full-time to the duties of the caliphate, fixed an adequate salary from the Bayt al-Mal for the maintenance of his family.

Even so, at the time of his death he made a bequest that whatever he had taken from the Bayt al-Mal should be calculated, taken from his land and other property, and deposited back into the Bayt al-Mal.

Inspired by the consciousness and sense of responsibility that Islam awakens in the conscience and minds of rulers and subjects, Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) considered himself personally responsible for relieving the needs and complaints of every subject. While living at Sanh, he milked the goats of his weak and helpless neighbors every day. When he became caliph, a little girl from among his neighbors said to him, “Now you will no longer milk our goats, will you?” Abu Bakr (RA) replied, “Why not? Of course I will.” He truly continued to milk them. Sometimes he would ask the girl who owned the goats, “Shall I only milk them, or shall I also make butter?” Sometimes she would say, “Make butter.” At other times she would say, “Just leave the milk.” In short, he did whatever she asked.

During Hazrat Abu Bakr’s caliphate, Hazrat Umar (RA) used to look after a blind woman in Medina. After a few days, he noticed that someone came and completed the woman’s work before he arrived. This happened every day. One day he secretly hid and waited. He saw Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) come and complete all the woman’s tasks. The caliphate and its enormous responsibilities could not prevent him from doing this. As soon as Hazrat Umar (RA) saw him, he cried out, “It is certainly you. By God, it is you who does this every day.”

These are a few ordinary examples of Hazrat Abu Bakr’s principles of governance! When Hazrat Umar succeeded him, this principle remained intact. Umar (RA) never regarded the caliphate as an additional privilege for himself. He certainly regarded it as an additional responsibility. Needless to say, that responsibility consisted of nothing other than enforcing Allah’s law.

In the speech he delivered at the pledge of allegiance, he said, “Brothers! I am one of you. I am nothing more than that. If it had been proper to reject the request of the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (Hazrat Abu Bakr), I would never have accepted this responsibility from you.”

In another speech he said, “I shall mention some responsibilities entrusted to me concerning you. You must always hold me accountable regarding them. It is my responsibility to collect your land taxes and other taxes. I shall distribute wealth among you honestly, shall not throw you into danger, shall not keep you on the frontiers for too long, and shall look after your families while you are abroad for war.”

He used to say, “I regard Allah’s wealth, so far as I am concerned, as equivalent to an orphan’s wealth. I will not touch it unless necessary, and when necessary I will take from it honestly.”

Once he was asked, “How much do you consider it lawful for yourself to take from Allah’s wealth?” He replied, “Two garments for winter and summer, a riding animal for Hajj and Umrah, and food for my family equivalent to that of an average Quraysh family. Beyond that, I am simply a Muslim like any ordinary Muslim. Whatever they receive, I shall receive as well.”

He generally lived in this manner. But at times he imposed extraordinary strictness even regarding what he had declared lawful for himself. One day he fell ill. He was advised to use honey as a treatment.

There was plenty of honey in the Bayt al-Mal. He ascended the pulpit and said, “If you permit me, I may use honey; otherwise it is forbidden to me.” Everyone present immediately gave permission.

Seeing Hazrat Umar’s austerity, the Muslims went to his daughter, the Mother of the Believers, Hazrat Hafsa (RA), and said, “Umar (RA) has exceeded all limits of austerity regarding himself. Allah the Exalted has granted prosperity in the present age. He should take from the spoils of war according to his wishes and needs. He has the Muslims’ full permission to do so.” When Hazrat Hafsa (RA) conveyed this to Hazrat Umar (RA), he replied, “Hafsa, you have shown partiality toward your people and behaved disloyally toward your father. My family members have rights over my person and property, but they have no right over my religion and trustworthiness.”

He placed the utmost importance on equality between himself and his subjects. When the famous Year of Ashes famine occurred, Hazrat Umar (RA) swore that he would not touch clarified butter or meat until normal conditions returned. He fulfilled this pledge to the letter. As a result, his skin dried up and became dark from eating oil. Some days later, milk and clarified butter were seen for sale in two containers in the market. One of Hazrat Umar’s servants bought them for forty dirhams and brought them to him. He said, “Allah has now fulfilled your pledge. Milk and clarified butter have appeared in the market for sale, and I have bought them.” But when Umar learned their price, he said, “You bought both at a very high price. Give them both in charity. I do not like eating extravagantly.” He lowered his head and thought for a while. Then he said, “If I do not suffer the same hardship as the people, how can I understand the seriousness of their problems?”

Umar (RA) believed that he should be deprived of whatever deprived his subjects. As he himself said, there was not even a corner of his mind in which the notion existed that, having been enthroned as caliph, he had acquired any special privileges. He believed that unless he upheld equality and justice in this matter, he had no right to expect the people’s obedience. From this we learn an important principle of Islamic politics and government: even if a ruler implements Allah’s law and acknowledges Allah’s sovereignty, he cannot be worthy of obedience if he fails to uphold fairness and justice in his own judgments and decisions. This Islamic principle was deeply rooted in Hazrat Umar’s (RA) mind, and his awareness of it remained constantly alert.

Once he negotiated with a man to buy a horse. He then mounted it and rode it around for testing. Meanwhile, the horse stumbled, fell, and was injured. He wanted to return the horse, but its owner refused to accept it back. Finally, they both went to Judge Shurayh’s court with the case. After hearing both sides, Shurayh said, “Commander of the Believers! Keep what you bought. Otherwise, return it in the condition in which you received it.” Umar exclaimed involuntarily, “This is what justice means.” He was pleased with Shurayh’s justice and thereafter appointed him judge of Kufa.

When Hazrat Umar’s policy was so strict even regarding himself, there could be no question of discriminatory treatment toward the caliph’s relatives or other citizens. For example, when his son Abd al-Rahman drank wine, it became necessary to enforce the Islamic penalty upon him. The details of this incident are widely known. Similarly, when a son of Amr ibn al-As mistreated an Egyptian boy, he was punished according to the penal code of the Shariah.

His policy regarding officials was that they had to account for any additional wealth found in their possession after assuming office. A thorough investigation was conducted to determine whether that wealth had been accumulated by harming Muslims or abusing authority. “How was the wealth acquired?” was a fundamental question, and whenever he suspected corruption in an official, he demanded an explanation. Half of the property of Amr ibn al-As, the governor of Egypt, was confiscated on this basis and deposited in the Bayt al-Mal. He applied the same policy to Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas, his representative in Kufa. Likewise, he confiscated the property of Hazrat Abu Hurayra, the governor of Bahrain.

The essence of Hazrat Umar’s political system was that the subjects would obey the government and wish it well while remaining within the bounds of Islam, and the government would uphold justice and comprehensive public welfare. That is why he accepted the statement of one of his ordinary subjects: “If we see deviation in you, we will straighten you with the sword.” In other words, he acknowledged that subjects have the right to criticize and correct the ruler. One day, while delivering a speech, he said, “I did not appoint officials to interfere unjustly with your lives, property, honor, and dignity. I appointed them to teach you the practical lessons of the Quran and Sunnah. If any official oppresses or abuses anyone, I will never tolerate it. The person concerned should bring a complaint against him to me.” Thus he defined the limits of the officials’ authority and forbade them to transgress those limits.

Because of this immense responsibility of a ruler, he did not wish a second caliph to be elected from among the descendants of al-Khattab. He expressly forbade the election of Abdullah as caliph. He did, however, include him in the consultative council. The statement he made at that time accurately represents his conception of the caliphate. He said,

“We have no desire whatsoever to exercise authority over you. I myself have not been happy doing so. Therefore, I do not want anyone else among my descendants to undertake this responsibility. If it has truly been carried out properly, then we have all received our rightful share. Otherwise, it is sufficient that Umar alone among the entire family be held accountable.”

Hazrat Uthman’s System of Governance

There is no doubt that this conception of governance underwent some change during the period of Hazrat Uthman (RA). Despite this change, however, it remained broadly within the bounds of Islam.

Hazrat Uthman (RA) was over eighty years old when the responsibility of the caliphate was entrusted to him. Marwan took advantage of his old age and adopted policies contrary to Islam in many matters. On the other hand, Hazrat Uthman’s tender-heartedness and his unusual affection and love for his relatives led to the adoption of certain measures that seemed especially objectionable to the Companions. These measures produced extremely adverse reactions. The terrible turmoil and disorder that resulted seriously harmed Islam.

On the day of his son-in-law Harith ibn al-Hakam’s wedding, Hazrat Uthman (RA) gave him two hundred thousand dirhams from the Bayt al-Mal. The following morning, Zayd ibn Arqam (RA), the treasurer of the Bayt al-Mal, came to the caliph with a sorrowful face and tearful eyes and requested to be relieved of his responsibility. When Uthman asked him the reason, he learned that he wished to resign because the caliph had given his son-in-law money from the Muslims’ treasury. Hazrat Uthman (RA) said in astonishment, “Ibn Arqam, are you crying because I have treated my relatives kindly?” The reply given by that man, who possessed an intense awareness of Islam’s vital spirit, was: “No, Commander of the Believers! That is not the issue. I am crying because I fear that you have accepted this money as compensation for the vast sums you used to give the Muslims during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). By God, even if you had given him one hundred dirhams, it would have been too much.” Hazrat Uthman became angry with the man whose conscience did not consider even one hundred dirhams spent on the caliph’s relatives reasonable and said, “Ibn Arqam! Leave the key. I will certainly find someone else.”

Many examples of this kind can be found in Hazrat Uthman’s conduct. Once he gave six hundred thousand to Zubayr, two hundred thousand to Talha, and one-fifth of Africa to Marwan ibn al-Hakam. When a group of Companions led by Hazrat Ali strongly objected, the caliph replied, “I have many relatives, and I should treat them kindly.” The people found this reply even more objectionable and asked, “Did Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar have no relatives?” Hazrat Uthman (RA) replied, “Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA) deprived their relatives while hoping for a better reward from Allah, whereas I wish to earn merit by giving to them.” They became angry and left, saying, “By God! If that is so, then the policies of those two are dearer to us than your policy.”

Apart from wealth, offices and appointments were showered like rain upon Uthman’s (RA) relatives. One of the foremost among them was Hazrat Muawiya. Uthman (RA) expanded the boundaries of Muawiya’s province to include Palestine and Hims. He made him commander-in-chief of the entire army and opened the way for him to become so powerful through financial and military strength that he could challenge Hazrat Ali and claim the caliphate. Among these relatives who benefited from official appointments were al-Hakam ibn Abi al-As, rejected by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), his son Marwan ibn al-Hakam, and his foster brother Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. He appointed Marwan to the position of his chief minister.

Reflecting on the inevitable and terrible consequences of these actions, the Companions repeatedly hurried to Medina and tried to protect Islamic principles from distortion and the Caliph of the Muslims from danger. But the caliph’s situation was such that, because of his old age and weakness, he had no control over Marwan. It is true that there is no room to doubt the presence of Islamic thought in Hazrat Uthman (RA) or to bring any accusation against him. At the same time, it is difficult to declare him entirely free of error. In our view, the cause of his mistakes was nothing other than Marwan’s vizierate and Hazrat Uthman’s age-related mental abnormality.

Once, the people gathered and sent Hazrat Ali to discuss matters with Hazrat Uthman. He went and said:

“I have come as the people’s representative. They have told me various things about you, but I do not understand what I can say to you. What I know is not unknown to you, nor am I capable of explaining anything to you, for you understand everything yourself. None of us possesses more knowledge than you. Before you, we acquired no knowledge of Islam. There is no information known only to us that needs to be conveyed to you now. We were not taught anything while concealing it from you. You saw the Messenger (PBUH), heard his words, lived in his company, and entered into a family relationship with him. Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA) were no closer to goodness than you. In terms of blood relationship as well as the relationship of father-in-law and son-in-law, you were closer to the Messenger of Allah than both of them. Neither of them preceded you in this respect. Therefore, fear Allah concerning yourself. You do not need to be brought from darkness into light or from ignorance into knowledge. The right path is completely bright and clear. The signs of Islam still remain intact. Uthman! Know that the best person in the sight of Allah is the just ruler who remains rightly guided himself, guides others, establishes the Sunnah, and abolishes innovation. By God! Everything is clear. Allah’s way is still established and His banner still flies high. The most wretched person in Allah’s sight is the one who abolishes the Sunnah and introduces innovation. I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) say that on the Day of Resurrection, an unjust ruler will be brought in a state of extreme helplessness. His excuses will not be heard, and he will be cast into Hell.” (Tabari)

Hazrat Uthman (RA) replied, “I know that people say what you have said. Listen! By God, if I were in your place, I would neither condemn nor criticize you, nor would I leave you helpless in the face of criticism. I would not object, saying: Why did you show kindness to your relatives? Why did you help the poor and needy? Why did you appoint to office those whom Umar (RA) used to appoint as governors? Ali! I ask you by God, do you not know that al-Mughira ibn Shu‘ba is appointed to that position?”

He said, “Yes, I know.”

Uthman: “Do you know that Hazrat Umar (RA) appointed him governor?”

Ali: “Yes.”

Uthman: Then if I appointed Ibn Amir governor because of kinship, why do you criticize me for it?

Ali: “I will tell you the real matter. When Umar appointed someone governor, Umar’s shoe remained over his head. Even if he heard the slightest word against him, he would immediately summon him and would not rest until he had settled the matter. You do not do this. You yourself have become weak and have begun treating your relatives gently.”

Uthman: “I do the same with your relatives too.”

Ali: “There is no doubt that I have close ties of kinship with them, but other people are better than they are.”

Uthman: “You surely know that Umar kept Muawiya in the position of governor throughout his entire caliphate. I too have kept him as governor.”

Ali: “I ask you by God, do you not know that Muawiya feared Umar even more than the slave Yarfa feared him?”

Uthman: “Yes.”

Ali: “But the situation now is that Muawiya continues making decisions without consulting your opinion, while you do not even keep track of him. He passes off his own orders among the people as Uthman’s orders. These matters reach you, but you do not object to Muawiya’s statements.”

At last, a terrible uprising began against Uthman. Causes of both truth and falsehood, good and evil, were mixed within it. Yet, viewing the matter as a whole from an Islamic perspective, there is no way to deny that this uprising was, broadly speaking, a mass explosion of Islamic sentiment. Of course, in expressing this view, we are not ignoring the fact that the accursed Jewish terrorist leader Ibn Saba also had a hidden hand in this explosion.

As an excuse for Uthman, we would like to submit that the responsibility of the caliphate was placed upon him late in life. He was an octogenarian, and members of the Umayyad clan surrounded him. Ali gave the most accurate description of his condition. He said, “If I remain at home, he (Uthman) will say that you have forgotten me and ignored my rights and relationship. And if I discuss matters with him, he still acts according to his own whims. Marwan makes him do whatever he wishes. Despite having enjoyed the companionship of the Messenger of Allah, he has, because of old age, fallen completely into their clutches. They lead him wherever they wish.”

In fact, when this dynamic system of life fell into the grasp of the Umayyad circle during the old age of the third caliph, it suffered irreparable damage. For it was no longer possible to prolong the effort to keep its practical methods established upon its ideological foundation.

During his long caliphate, the influence, prestige, and power of the Umayyad circle became extremely strong and firmly established. They gained the opportunity to consolidate their power in Syria and other lands. Moreover, as a natural consequence of Uthman’s policies, the concentration of wealth increased excessively. Thus, the popular uprising against him weakened the foundations of the Muslim ummah at the very beginning of Islam.

The history of this era bears witness, on the one hand, to some rare qualities of the true faith. On the other hand, alongside these, it also bears the marks of a powerful intellectual revolution concerning society, the state, and the rights of rulers and ruled. Of course, the dangerous and far-reaching effects of the turmoil that arose were no less serious.

Hazrat Uthman’s After

When Hazrat Uthman died, Umayyad rule had in effect already been established. The caliph himself provided them with this opportunity. They succeeded in establishing their power throughout the country, especially in Syria. They seized the spoils of war and all other forms of wealth for themselves. They began to neglect brotherhood, giving priority to the interests of others, and the provision of social and economic security, among other duties. All this continued to grow and flourish under the protection of Hazrat Uthman’s caliphate. As a result, Islam’s vital force and spirit became extremely weak and dim within the Muslim nation.

As a reaction to some of the caliph’s actions, an intense and bitter emotional response arose in the people—sometimes naturally and sometimes irrationally. Muslims became vocal in their complaints that the caliph treated his relatives preferentially and gave them gifts worth millions of dirhams. He removed his beloved Companions in order to appoint enemies of the Messenger of Allah as governors, and persecuted a Companion of such noble character as Abu Dharr merely because he opposed the concentration of wealth and the excesses of luxury and amusement among the upper classes. Abu Dharr called for the practice of generosity and spending in the right cause, and for the creation of an atmosphere of decency and purity.

All these activities distressed and disturbed the Muslims. When such tendencies spread widely, rebellion began to raise its head among some people, while feelings of inferiority arose among others. Those whose hearts were firmly rooted in Islamic ideals began to regard remaining silent in the face of these activities as a sin. This sentiment arising in their hearts continued to urge them to express their rebellion. As for those who used Islam merely as a label, their worldly greed and desire kept them self-centered; those who constantly changed their aims with every change in the direction of the wind became unruly and corrupt in character. It was this situation that brought Hazrat Uthman’s caliphate to an end.

When Hazrat Ali came to sit upon the caliphate’s throne, bringing the situation under control was not easy. Those who had been involved in illicit profiteering during Uthman’s era, especially the Banu Umayya, understood perfectly well that Hazrat Ali would not remain silent about them. Thinking of this, they turned toward Muawiya for the sake of their own interests.

Hazrat Ali came to power with the aim of reestablishing the people and the government upon Islam’s true political ideal. His wife would grind wheat with her own hands, and that was what he ate. Once, he was marking a sack of his own wheat with the government seal in order to deposit it in the Bayt al-Mal. He said, “I want to put into my stomach only that whose being lawful I am certain of.” At times, circumstances even forced him to sell his own sword to buy food and clothing. In Kufa he lived in the White Palace; Ibn Mansur’s account of the kind of life he led there is noteworthy. He says:

“I went to Hazrat Ali and saw sour, foul-smelling milk and dry bread before him. I asked, ‘Commander of the Believers! Do you eat these things?’ He replied, ‘The Messenger of Allah ate drier bread than this and wore coarse clothing. If I do not follow his example, I fear that I may not be able to be his companion.’”

Similarly, Harun ibn Antara related: I went to meet Hazrat Ali at a place called Khawarnaq. It was winter. Hazrat Ali was wearing a torn, old cloak and was trembling violently. I said, “Commander of the Believers! Allah has assigned a share in this wealth for you and your family, yet you are being so strict with yourself.” Ali replied, “By God, I will not deprive you of your rights. This is the same cloak I brought from Medina.”

Of course, when Hazrat Ali adopted such a policy regarding himself and his family, he certainly knew that Islam permitted him to take much more than this. Islam does not compel anyone to deprive himself of every comfort and live like a complete ascetic. He knew that, even as an ordinary citizen, he was taking far less from the wealth of the Bayt al-Mal than was due to him. Moreover, as a ruler constantly occupied with the people’s affairs, he was entitled to more. Had he wished, he could at least have accepted the salary that Hazrat Umar set for governors of various lands. Hazrat Umar fixed a monthly salary of six hundred dirhams for Ammar ibn Yasir, the governor of Kufa, and his assistants. The shares of charity they received like ordinary people were separate from this. In addition, they received half a goat and half a sack of flour daily. Similarly, he appointed Abdullah ibn Masud to teach the people of Kufa Islam and supervise the Bayt al-Mal, setting for him a monthly allowance of one hundred dirhams and one-quarter of a goat daily. For Uthman ibn Hanif, he fixed an annual stipend of five thousand dirhams, one-quarter of a goat daily, and a monthly salary of one hundred and fifty dirhams.

Hazrat Ali did not adopt the difficult course for himself without knowing these matters. The viewpoint behind his policy was that a ruler must always serve as an example for the common people and remains especially open to suspicion. Since the state treasury is under his control, suspicion of embezzlement may also arise. He thus becomes an example of honesty and restraint for the people and for the state officials under him. For this reason, he made himself a follower of the principles of restraint practiced by Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar. For those who had succeeded the Messenger of Allah in matters concerning Allah’s faith, this high standard was the most appropriate.

Hazrat Ali made every effort to bring the entire system of government into conformity with the example of the Prophet and the two caliphs who followed him.

Once, he found his armor in the possession of a Christian, took him along, went before the judge Shurayh, and filed a case against him like an ordinary citizen. He claimed that the armor belonged to him. Shurayh asked the Christian what he had to say about the Commander of the Believers’ claim. The Christian said, ‘The armor certainly belongs to me, but I do not wish to call the Commander of the Believers a liar.’ Shurayh said, ‘Commander of the Believers, do you have any evidence?’ Hazrat Ali smiled and said, ‘I have no evidence.’ Shurayh ruled that the armor must be given to the Christian. The man set off with the armor, while the Commander of the Believers gazed helplessly after him. After going a few paces, he turned back and said, ‘I testify that the religion whose caliph himself brings me before a judge, and whose judge rules against him, is undoubtedly the true religion.’ Saying this, he recited the testimony of faith and declared that he had accepted Islam. Then he said, ‘Commander of the Believers! By God, this armor is yours. When you set out toward Siffin, I was following behind the army. This armor fell from your brown camel.’ Hazrat Ali said, ‘Since you have embraced faith, I give it to you as a gift.’(Abqaria Imam– Ustadh Abbas Mahmud al- Aqqad)

He outlined the system of governance he would follow in the speech he delivered at his accession:

“Brothers! I am a human being just like you. Whatever rights you have, I have as well. Whatever responsibilities are placed upon you are placed upon me too. I will govern you according to the example of your Prophet and implement his law. Listen! Whatever lands and whatever wealth from Allah’s treasury Uthman gave to anyone will be returned to the Bayt al-Mal. For nothing can alter reality. Even if I find that this public wealth has been spent on marriage or the purchase of slave women, or has been distributed abroad, I will still reclaim it. For whoever finds justice burdensome will find oppression and tyranny even more burdensome.”

“Brothers! Be warned! When I deprive those over whom worldly interests had gained dominance some time ago—those who had acquired grand buildings, camels, horses, male and female slaves, and servants—and restore them to the scope of their rightful entitlement, let them not begin saying that the son of Abu Talib has deprived us of our rights. Know that if any Companion of the Messenger of Allah, whether among the Emigrants or the Helpers, thinks that his closeness to and companionship with the Messenger of Allah entitles him to precedence and superiority over others, he should know that recognition of this superiority and precedence will be obtained only from Allah, and its proper reward will be found there. Know that whoever responds to the call of God and the Messenger, accepts our national identity, enters our true faith, and faces our qiblah, will receive all the rights granted by Islam and will be obliged to perform the duties assigned to him. You are all servants of Allah, and this wealth belongs to Allah. It will be distributed equally among you. No one will be given precedence over another in this matter. With Allah is the finest reward for the God-fearing.”

The profiteering, discriminatory, self-seeking, and opportunistic groups could not accept Hazrat Ali’s policy of equal distribution, and it was only natural that they could not. Thus, this group eventually joined the rebellious Umayyad camp. There they abandoned justice and equity and became intent on safeguarding their petty interests to the end.

Those who see Muawiya as more cunning, perceptive, cautious, and capable than Hazrat Ali, and who therefore believe that Muawiya ultimately became victorious, misjudge the circumstances and fail to form a correct opinion regarding Hazrat Ali’s true worth and the fulfillment of his real duty. Hazrat Ali’s first and last duty was to restore the Islamic tradition to its true strength and breathe renewed vitality into the nearly lifeless body of the true faith. One of Hazrat Ali’s missions was to free it from the stain and ugliness with which the Umayyad schemers had polluted Islam’s vital force by taking advantage of Hazrat Uthman’s weakness and old age.

If, in the struggle to accomplish this mission, he had adopted a course of action like Muawiya’s, his mission itself would have failed. This would have meant that he had struggled to attain the caliphate only for personal interest. In that case, his struggle would have had no value at all. Ali had to remain ‘Ali’; otherwise, he was resolved that he would have no objection even if the caliphate, and his life along with it, were snatched away from him. This resolve never wavered in his heart for a moment. According to one report—if it is true—Hazrat Ali said, “By God, Muawiya is not more cunning than I am, but he is a deceiver. He openly disobeys. If I favored deceit and treachery, I would be the most cunning of all.”

After Hazrat Ali’s death, the era of the Banu Umayya began. Hazrat Uthman’s faith, God-consciousness, and tenderness of heart had stood as an obstacle before the Umayyads. But that obstacle had already been removed. Now, with Hazrat Ali’s death, the final barrier was also gone, and the path to unruliness lay open.

Islam continued to spread throughout the world even afterward. But there can be no doubt that Islam’s vital force had been gravely constricted. If a powerful force had not been hidden in Islam’s very nature, and if its spiritual power had not possessed the capacity for dynamism, the Umayyad era alone would have been enough to divert it from its true path. But its vital force continued to struggle and gain strength. Even today, a hidden power of struggle and victory remains within it.

From the Umayyad era onward, the Muslim treasury became excessively open-handed and turned into plunder for kings, their flatterers, and their sycophants. The foundation of Islamic justice and equity collapsed. The rulers became privileged beneficiaries, and their flatterers became recipients of gifts. In short, the caliphate was transformed into monarchy, and that too into the worst kind of despotic monarchy. It was this despotism that the Messenger of Allah had foretold. The result was that we had to hear many accounts of singers, poets, and flatterers being rewarded. An Umayyad king gave the poet Mabad twelve thousand dinars, while the Abbasid king Harun al-Rashid gave the singer Ismail ibn Jami four thousand dinars for a single song, along with a beautiful, ornate, delightful house. The current of history continued in this way. At times it paused briefly, then rushed forward again at full speed.

Umar ibn Abd al- Aziz

It is now necessary to mention the era of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. This era was a continuation of the Rashidun Caliphate. It was a brilliant flash of light that illuminated the entire path. He inaugurated his caliphate by returning the unlawfully usurped authority of government to its rightful owner, the Muslim nation. For, in the view of Islam, the only lawful method of establishing a government is that the Muslim nation should freely choose its ruler—not through military force or inheritance. Standing on the minbar, he said:

“Brothers! This difficult responsibility has been imposed upon me without my own consent or that of the nation. I myself cast off the burden of your allegiance to me. You yourselves should choose someone.”

The people cried out, “Commander of the Believers! We choose you. We have complete confidence in your leadership.”

In this way he revived the proper method of choosing a ruler. For no one may be appointed ruler without the consent and consultation of the nation.

Then he addressed the people, saying,

“Friends! A number of rulers passed before me. They were oppressors. You supported them only to protect yourselves from their oppression. Remember: no obedience to a created being is possible through disobedience to the Creator. It is obligatory to obey anyone who himself acknowledges obedience to Allah. But one who disobeys Allah should not be obeyed. As long as I obey Allah in my dealings with you, you too must follow my orders. But if I disobey Allah, it is not incumbent upon you to obey my orders.”

After assuming power, he first began returning property that had been unlawfully usurped and confiscated. He began this work with his own property. Investigating the sources of income of all his immovable property, he found that it had all been acquired unlawfully. He immediately returned it all. He even had a ring on his hand. Looking at it once, he said, “Walid unlawfully gave me this from the treasury of money collected from the western region.” He immediately deposited it in the Bayt al-Mal. He returned all the iqtaʿs he possessed. Several iqtaʿs in Imama, Muqaddis in Yemen, Jabal al-Arus, and Fadak had belonged to him; he relinquished every one of them and returned them to the Muslims, retaining for himself only a spring at a place called Suwayda. He had excavated it with his own money. Its profits came to him each year and amounted to approximately one hundred and fifty dinars.

When he decided to return to the Muslims everything in his possession, he ordered the people to be summoned with the announcement that all rights wrongfully appropriated must be restored. Standing on the minbar, he addressed the assembled people:

“Citizens had given us many things that we should neither have accepted nor given to anyone else. All this property had come into my hands. No one but Allah could have called me to account for it. Hear this: I have decided to return all wealth of this kind. However, I am beginning with my personal property.

Muhajim! Begin reading.”

Earlier, the relevant documents had been brought in a bag. Muhajim began reading the documents one by one. As each was finished, Umar would take it; he had a pair of scissors in his hand, with which he cut up the documents. In the end, not a single document escaped his scissors. He then took up the case of his wife, Fatimah bint Abd al-Malik. He said to her, “Deposit your jewelry in the Bayt al-Mal, or give me permission to separate from you. Choose one of the two. I cannot live in the house with those things.” Fatimah said, “Commander of the Believers! I choose you. What is the value of a single diamond? Even if it were a thousand times more valuable, I would still choose you over it.” Thereafter, on his orders, it was deposited in the Bayt al-Mal. When Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz died and Yazid ibn Abd al-Malik ascended the throne, he told his sister Fatimah that, if she wished, her diamond could be returned to her. She replied, “I gave it with great joy during Umar’s lifetime; now that he has died, I will not accept it under any circumstances.”

Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz did not content himself merely with returning unlawful property. According to historians, he did not take anything from the Bayt al-Mal for himself either. He did not spend a single penny of the spoils of war on his personal affairs. Yet Umar al-Faruq had allotted himself two dirhams a day from the property acquired as fay. When Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz was urged to regard himself as equal to Umar al-Faruq, he replied, “Umar ibn al-Khattab had no personal property at all; whereas what personal property I possess is enough for my needs.”

He persuaded the descendants of Marwan to return half their property to its rightful owners. It is reported that a non-Muslim from Hims came and said, “Commander of the Believers! Settle my request according to Allah’s law.” He asked, “Regarding what?” The man replied, “Abbas ibn Walid ibn Abd al-Malik has seized my land.” Abbas was sitting there. He asked him, “Abbas, what do you say?” Abbas replied, “Walid ibn Abd al-Malik, my father, gave it to me. He also gave me a written deed concerning it.” He said to the visitor, “What do you say now?” The man replied, “Commander of the Believers! Judge between us according to the Book of Allah.” Umar said, “Yes, Allah’s command is more important than Walid ibn Abd al-Malik’s deed. Return his land.” He immediately returned the man’s land.

Walid had a son named Rawh. Because he had been raised in the countryside from childhood, he looked entirely rustic. Several people brought a case before Umar concerning some shops in Hims. In fact, the shops belonged to the claimants, but Walid had registered them in Rawh’s name. Umar summoned Rawh and ordered him to return the shops. Rawh replied that the shops belonged to him according to Walid’s written deed. He answered, “Walid’s deed is of no use to you. Evidence has been found that the shops belong to them. Return them.” Rawh and a man from Hims then rose and began leaving the court. On the way, Rawh threatened the man from Hims. The man returned to Umar and informed him of Rawh’s threat. Umar ordered Kaʿb ibn Hamid, commander of his bodyguard, “Go to Rawh and tell him to return the shops to their owners. If he returns them, well and good; otherwise bring me his severed head.” Hearing this, one of Rawh’s well-wishers came out of the court and conveyed the Commander of the Believers’ order. Rawh nearly lost consciousness. Kaʿb approached him with a half-drawn sword in his hand. As soon as Kaʿb spoke, Rawh went and vacated the shops.

The people continued to come before his court without respite, bringing complaints of oppression, coercion, and harassment. Every case involving property unlawfully seized was brought before him, and he transferred it all to the rightful owners, whether it was in his possession or someone else’s. He also recovered property seized by force from the Banu Marwan and returned it to its original owners. He remedied such oppression even without conclusive evidence, considering the slightest indication sufficient. Whenever it appeared to him that someone had been wronged regarding property, he immediately decided to restore ownership of it. For he knew that earlier rulers had dealt unjustly with the people. It is reported that, as he returned wealth acquired through oppression, he emptied the Bayt al-Mal of Iraq. As a result, it became necessary to transfer wealth there from Syria.

Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik gave Amr ibn Saʿid ibn al-As, a descendant of the Umayyads, a gift of twenty thousand dinars. After passing through various government offices, the order reached the seal office, and Sulayman died when only the receipt of the money remained. Amr was a friend of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. At dawn he set out to discuss the gift with Umar. When he arrived, he found members of the Banu Umayya standing at Umar’s door. They too were seeking an audience to discuss their own affairs. Seeing Amr, they thought they would first observe how he was treated before beginning their own discussions. Amr went to him and said, “Commander of the Believers! Sulayman issued an order granting me twenty thousand dinars. The order had reached the seal office, and only receiving it remained. Then he died. I believe you will complete this generous act, since my relationship with you is closer than it was with Sulayman.” Umar asked, “How much money?” He replied, “Twenty thousand dinars.” Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz said, “Twenty thousand dinars would suffice for four thousand Muslim families. How can I give so much money to one person? I certainly cannot do so.” Amr said, “On hearing this, I threw away the document on which the amount was written.” Umar said, “You may keep the document yourself, because after me someone may come to power who will be bolder than I regarding public money and may give you the amount written in this document.” Hearing this, I picked up the document and went outside and told the members of the Banu Umayya all about the caliph’s treatment of me. They exclaimed, “We have no hope left after this. Go and ask the caliph to permit us to settle in another region.” I went to him again and said, “Commander of the Believers! The members of your family are standing at your door, requesting that the stipends formerly granted to them continue.” Umar replied, “By God! This money is not mine, and I see no grounds for making such gifts.” I said, “Commander of the Believers! Then they ask permission to go to another region and seek their fortune.” He said, “They have my permission to do whatever they wish.” I also said, “I want to go too.” He said, “Yes, I permit you as well. But in my view, it is better for you to remain here. You have sufficient capital. Meanwhile, I shall sell Sulayman’s abandoned property. Perhaps you can buy something from it whose profits will compensate you for this loss.” Amr says, “I waited there, bought goods worth one hundred thousand dinars from Sulayman’s abandoned property, took them to Iraq, and sold them for two hundred thousand dinars. I also kept the document. After Umar’s death, I went to Yazid ibn Abd al-Malik with the document, and he gave me the twenty thousand dinars.”

Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz summoned the descendants of Marwan and said, “Allah has bestowed abundant wealth and riches upon you. In my view, you have appropriated half, or perhaps two-thirds, of the entire wealth of the Ummah. Therefore, return to the people whatever of their due is in your possession. Do not force me to use force.” But no one answered him. He said, “Answer me.” One of them exclaimed, “We cannot abandon our ancestral property. We cannot thus reduce our children to poverty and show ingratitude toward our forefathers, even if it means that our heads will be cut off.” Umar said, “By God! If I did not fear that you would incite against me the very people whose rights I am striving to secure, I would bring you under control in a short time. But I fear disorder. If Allah keeps me alive a few more days, I will not rest until I have given every citizen his rightful due.” (Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Ahmad, Zaki, Safwat).(Umar ibn Abd al- Aziz, Ahmad, Zaki, Safwat)।

But he did not live long enough, as he wished, to restore everyone’s rights. His successors followed the path of the Umayyads instead of the path he had shown. Then the Abbasids also came as kings. When they came, disorder and confusion had spread throughout the country, and its people had drifted away from Islam. For the Umayyad rulers had kept them away from the Islamic way of life for a long time. In reality, Abbasid rule was no better than Umayyad rule. It too was the same kind of despotic monarchical rule.

Monarchy

Since here we wish to discuss not the Islamic state and system of government, but rather the history of Islamic vitality in matters of governance, we shall be content to present three speeches from the period of monarchical rule in order to analyze the various stages through which that vitality was distorted and touched by impurity. Comparing these three with the three speeches previously mentioned from the era of the Rashidun Caliphate makes the enormous difference between them readily apparent.

After the treaty, Muawiya addressed the people in Kufa, saying, “People of Kufa! Did you think that I fought you over prayer, zakat, and Hajj? I know very well that you regularly perform prayer, pay zakat, and perform Hajj. In reality, I fought to establish my rule over your necks. Despite your opposition, Allah has fulfilled my ambition. Know that whatever lives and property have been lost in this turmoil will not be compensated. And whatever promises I may have made, I have now crushed them all beneath my feet.” In the same way, when addressing the people of Medina, he said:

“By God! As far as I know, I did not gain power as a result of your affection and love. I also know that you were not pleased with it. I fought with this sword. Regarding you, I wished to follow the policies of Abu Bakr and Umar, but I could not bring myself to do so. Therefore, I decided to guide myself along a path that would benefit both me and you. Everyone must eat and drink together in harmony. Even if you do not regard me as the best person to rule you, I am nevertheless the best ruler for you.”

Al-Mansur the Abbasid carried the Umayyad tradition of rule toward extreme distortion and created in the public mind the notion that kingship and monarchy were divine and right, a truth ordained by God. Yet this notion is entirely foreign to Islam. After perpetrating this disgrace, al-Mansur delivered the following speech:

“People of the country! I am Allah’s successor on His earth. With His help and support I shall rule over you. I am appointed by Him as guardian over His wealth. According to His will and permission, I spend it or give it to whomever I wish. Allah has made me the lock of the national treasury. If He wishes me to open it, He opens it for distributing food or gifts among you; and if He wishes it closed, He closes it.”

After that, the system of government was cast completely outside the sphere of Islam and its principles.

Economic System

In the Golden Age, the economic system was subordinate to the political system. The rulers’ economies reflected their conception of governance and their ideas regarding the rights of rulers and subjects. During the eras of Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Ali, the Islamic ideal was active: the prevailing principle was that all public funds and property belonged to the nation and the people. A ruler could take from it only after establishing his own or his relatives’ right to it. Similarly, a ruler was obliged to give each person only what he truly deserved, no more and no less, since in this matter the ruler and everyone else were equal. A slight distortion of this principle appeared during the era of Uthman, though the people still received their full rights. It seems, however, that because of the abundance of wealth, a great deal remained even after people had received their prescribed stipends and other allocations. The caliph believed that he had the full right to give gifts to his relatives and to others according to his wishes. Then, when power passed into the hands of despotic rulers, all restrictions disappeared, and rulers began indiscriminately giving to or depriving the people. The wealth of the Muslims was opened to unrestricted enjoyment by the rulers, their children and descendants, their lackeys, and their flatterers. In this regard, they continued to transgress all the limits of Islam.

This is a general description of the situation. We shall now present a detailed account through several historical examples.

The sources of revenue for the Bayt al-Mal that had existed since the time of the Messenger of Allah were as follows:

First: Zakat–—this is levied on various kinds of property belonging to Muslims, such as gold, silver, agricultural produce, fruits, livestock, commercial goods, minerals, buried treasure, and the like. Generally, the average rate of zakat is one-fortieth. It is spent in eight well-known categories.

Secondly: Jizya–This is a special tax paid to the state by non-Muslims residing in an Islamic state. It is equivalent to the zakat and physical sacrifice required of Muslims.

Thirdly: ‘fay’’-This is the wealth obtained from the polytheists without war or any exertion at all. According to the clear injunctions of the Holy Qur’an, all of this wealth belongs to Allah, His Messenger, relatives, orphans, the needy, and travelers.

Fourthly:the spoils of war or war booty–Four-fifths of it belongs to the warriors, while the remainder is like fay’ and will be spent in the same categories.

Or, instead of war booty, kharaj—the special tax imposed on lands belonging to the polytheists that came into Muslim possession as a result of war, as Umar had done regarding the lands of Persia.

During the time of the Messenger of Allah, the revenues of the Bayt al-Mal were not sufficient. The Muhajirun had left their homes and come to Madinah, and the Ansar had welcomed them, made them partners in their property, and taken them as brothers. At that time, the number of Muslims was limited. Before the wars, the Muslims’ only source of income was voluntary charity.

When military expeditions began successively and zakat became obligatory in the second year after the Hijrah, another source—the spoils of war—was added to the primary source of income, namely zakat. One-fifth of it was given to the warriors. The Messenger of Allah gave the infantryman one share and the cavalryman two shares; according to another narration, three shares. Thus he established the principle that each person’s share should correspond to his sacrifice and service. He gave the unmarried man one share and the married man two shares. In this way he established a second principle: each person’s share should correspond to his need. The categories for spending the remaining one-fifth of the booty have already been mentioned.

Then something new happened. Fay’ was obtained for the first time during the expedition against Banu Nadir. The Messenger of Allah allotted it to the Muhajirun. Only two poor men from among the Ansar were given a share of it. Thereafter, a verse of the Qur’an proclaimed this principle:

“so that it may not merely circulate among the wealthy among you.”

As countries were conquered at an unstoppable pace and the Islamic empire expanded, the revenues of the Bayt al-Mal continued to increase. Through prosperity and abundance, the Muslims gradually became self-sufficient. For, according to the shares prescribed by Islam, they were all equal partners in the wealth of the Bayt al-Mal.

When the Messenger of Allah died and some people renounced Islam and refused to pay zakat, the role assumed by Abu Bakr remained unforgettable in history. He declared in a thunderous voice:

“By God! If they refuse to give even a single rope used to tether the camels and other livestock owed as zakat, I will fight them.” On this matter he decided against the opinion of Umar ibn al-Khattab. Later, Umar also supported Abu Bakr’s opinion and accepted it wholeheartedly. At first, however, his view was that they should not be fought because they acknowledged “la ilaha illallah” (there is no deity but Allah). His disagreement was so intense that he said in a somewhat raised voice, “How can we take up arms against them,” when the Messenger of Allah had said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no deity but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Whoever says this will have his property and life protected from me, except where interference with them is required by Islamic law. In that case, judgment concerning their intentions rests entirely with Allah.” Abu Bakr replied with complete firmness: “By God! I will fight anyone who separates prayer from zakat, for zakat is a prescribed right upon wealth.” Immediately Umar exclaimed: “By God! I have realized that Allah has opened Abu Bakr’s heart to fighting. Now I too understand that this is the correct course.”

By taking this great, epoch-making decision, he demonstrated in history the implementation of a fundamental principle of Islam. He proved that fighting to collect the rights which Allah has prescribed for society in wealth, at the rate and according to the rules He has determined, is also justifiable.

Abu Bakr continued to follow the example of the Messenger of Allah in spending the funds of zakat, booty, fay’, and the like in their designated categories. He accepted for himself the modest stipend fixed for the Muslim public, which amounted to only two dirhams a day. He then paid the people their prescribed stipends. After that, he spent the remaining funds on military purposes.

During Abu Bakr’s era, he also differed with Umar on another matter. Abu Bakr held that, in distributing wealth, equal shares should be given to those who accepted Islam first and those who accepted it later, to free people and slaves, and to men and women alike. Umar and a group of the Companions, however, favored recognizing those who had first advanced toward Islam as having successive degrees of precedence. Addressing them, Abu Bakr said: “I am fully aware of the superiority and precedence of which you speak. But that is a matter whose reward Allah Most High will grant in the Hereafter. This, on the other hand, is an economic matter. Here the principle of equality is better than that of precedence.”

In fact, this principle of equality continued to be followed, and as revenues steadily increased, it continued to advance the Muslims equally toward prosperity and well-being. Eventually the era of Umar ibn al-Khattab arrived. He still held the same opinion. He would say: “I cannot place one who fought against the Messenger of Allah on an equal footing with one who fought on the side of the Messenger of Allah.”

One day Abu Hurayrah, the governor of Bahrain, came to the Caliph’s court with a large amount of wealth. In his words: “I met Umar in the evening with five hundred thousand dirhams. I said, ‘Commander of the Believers! Here is the money.’ He asked, ‘How much money?’ I said, ‘Five hundred thousand dirhams.’ He said, ‘Do you know how much five hundred thousand is?’ I said, ‘Yes, five hundred thousand.’ But he did not want to believe it. He said, ‘It seems that your mind is not well. Go and rest tonight. Come in the morning.’ I rested all night and returned at dawn, saying, ‘Commander of the Believers! Take the money.’ He again asked, ‘Was this money acquired lawfully?’ I said, ‘As far as I know, it was acquired lawfully.’ Then Umar addressed those present: ‘Brothers! A great deal of wealth has come to us. Measure it or weigh it and distribute it among yourselves as you wish.’ One man stood and said, ‘Commander of the Believers, prepare the registers as usual and distribute it among the people according to those records.’ Umar liked this proposal. He fixed an annual stipend of five thousand dirhams per head for the Muhajirun, three thousand per head for the Ansar, and twelve thousand dirhams per head for the wives of the Prophet.

We have cited this report here so that Umar’s policy concerning precedence may become clear. It also provides an accurate idea of the abundance of that time. Half a million dirhams then seemed like such a dream that no sane person could imagine anyone saying such a thing. In later times, however, the situation changed completely as a result of great conquests.

Imam Abu Yusuf writes in his Kitab al-Kharaj: “Umar said, ‘By God! Every citizen has a right to this wealth—the wealth of the Bayt al-Mal. No one’s right in it is greater than another’s. In such matters I am just like one of you. Our differences in rank, however, will be determined in light of the Book of Allah and according to our companionship with the Messenger of Allah. The amount of hardship and sacrifice each person endured for Islam, and how early each person accepted Islam, must be taken into account. Their prosperity or poverty while they are Muslims must also be considered. By God! If I remain alive, even the shepherd grazing sheep on the mountains of Sana’a will be able to receive his rightful share of wealth while sitting in his place, without exertion.’”

“He fixed an annual stipend of five thousand dirhams for each participant in the Battle of Badr, four thousand dirhams annually for each participant in the Battle of Uhud and each emigrant to Abyssinia, and two thousand dirhams per head for the children of the warriors of Badr. He fixed an annual stipend of five thousand dirhams for Hasan and Husayn. He fixed three thousand dirhams annually for each person who emigrated before the conquest of Makkah, two thousand dirhams per head for those who embraced faith after the conquest of Makkah, and similar stipends for the young sons of the Ansar and Muhajirun. In fixing stipends for ordinary Muslims, he used their social standing, knowledge of the Qur’an, and jihad in the path of Islam as criteria. He placed all the rest in one rank. Any Muslim who came to Madinah and settled there was assigned a stipend of twenty-five dinars. Like the people of Syria and Iraq, the people of Yemen were also assigned stipends of two thousand, one thousand, nine hundred, five hundred, and three hundred dirhams. No one received less than three hundred. He used to say, ‘If the wealth increases further, I will assign four thousand dirhams to each person: one thousand for his journey, one thousand for weapons, one thousand to leave for the maintenance of his family, and one thousand for his horse and mule.’” (Al-Faruq Umar, volume two; Dr. Muhammad Husayn Haykal)

Umar did not consider it necessary to follow the policy he had established for fixing stipends in the case of certain individuals. He gave these people larger stipends than others of the same rank.

He fixed four thousand dirhams for Umar ibn Abi Salamah, the son of Umm al-Mu’minin Umm Salamah. Muhammad ibn Abdallah ibn Jahsh objected and said to the Commander of the Believers: “On what basis are you giving Umar precedence over us? Like his father, our fathers also emigrated and participated in the Battle of Badr.” The Commander of the Believers replied: “I am giving him precedence because of his rank with the Messenger of Allah. Whoever objects to me on this matter should bring a mother like Umm Salamah, and I will accept his argument.” He fixed four thousand dirhams for Usamah ibn Zayd. Abdullah ibn Umar then said: “You fixed three thousand for me and four thousand for Usamah, although I participated in many battles in which Usamah did not participate?” Umar replied: “I gave him more because he was dearer to the Messenger of Allah than you were. His father was also dearer to the Messenger of Allah than your father was.” He fixed one thousand dirhams for Asma bint Umays, the wife of Abu Bakr, one thousand dirhams for Umm Kulthum bint Uqbah, and one thousand dirhams for the mother of Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud. He gave these women more than other women of the same rank because the men whose wives or mothers they were had precedence over other men.”(Al-Faruq Umar, volume two, Haykal)

Here we see two different opinions of Abu Bakr and Umar regarding the distribution of wealth. Umar’s opinion was based on this: “I cannot regard those who took up arms against the Messenger of Allah as equal to those who fought on his side.” Islam also has a basis for using the endurance of hardship and sacrifice in the path of Islam as a criterion. That basis is the principle of equality between labor and the wages of labor. Similarly, Abu Bakr’s opinion also had a basis: “People accepted Islam for the pleasure of Allah, and their reward rests with Him. He will grant them its full reward on the Day of Judgment. In this world, no one has a right to more than the fulfillment of his basic needs.”

But without any hesitation, we will give precedence to Abu Bakr’s opinion, because it is most conducive to establishing equality among Muslims. It is well known that equality is one of the most important fundamental principles of Islam. This principle is also more effective in protecting against the disastrous consequences that resulted from adopting the policy of inequality. The wealth of one class of people had increased and continued to grow year after year through profits. From the standpoint of the science of wealth, it is a universally recognized fact that when wealth increases through profit, it increases far more than in proportion to the growth of the capital. Seeing the disastrous consequences of the policy he had followed, Umar, toward the end of his life, vowed that if he lived until the following year, he would equalize everyone’s stipends. At that time, this statement of his became very famous:

“If I had the opportunity to reconsider the decisions I made earlier, I would take the surplus wealth of the rich and distribute it among the poor.”

But sadly, time passed and the situation went beyond his control. The harmful effects of the discriminatory distribution policy disrupted the balance of the entire Islamic society. Then, when Marwan’s arbitrary activities began and Uthman continued to tolerate them, society fell into severe crisis.

After seeing the harmful effects of distributing wealth according to differences in rank, Umar abandoned his own opinion and adopted Abu Bakr’s. Ali’s opinion was also like that of the first Caliph.

It should be mentioned here that we regard Ali’s caliphate as the natural continuation of the caliphates of the first two Caliphs. We regard Uthman’s era as a void that drew a wall of division between Ali and the two earlier Caliphs. For Marwan was the actual administrator of government at that time. Therefore, we shall now discuss Ali, and then discuss the era of Uthman.

Ali adopted the principle of equality in distributing stipends. In his very first speech he clearly said:

“Listen! Whoever among the Ansar or Muhajirun, the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, thinks that his companionship with the Messenger of Allah gives him precedence and superiority over others should know that he will receive this precedence from Allah on the Day of Judgment and receive its reward there. Understand this well! Whoever responds to the call of Allah and His Messenger, acknowledges our national identity, accepts our way of life, and faces our qiblah—upon him fall all the rights and duties of Islam. You are all servants of Allah, and all this wealth belongs to Allah. It will be distributed equally among all. No one will receive precedence over another in this matter. As for the God-fearing, Allah has the best reward with Him.”

This is the true Islamic ruling, fully consistent with Islam’s ideal of equality. It guarantees the preservation of balance in Islamic society, while allowing wealth to increase only through hard work and effort. This principle leaves no room for giving anyone greater opportunities and advantages by supplying more money than others for profitable work.

Toward the end of his life, Umar wanted to act according to this principle, but he had no time. Because of his sudden martyrdom, he could not fulfill either of his two wishes. One was to take surplus wealth from the rich and distribute it among the poor, since this surplus wealth had accumulated solely as a result of the unequal distribution of public funds. His second wish was to introduce the principle of equal rights in the distribution of wealth.

When Uthman became Caliph, he did not consider it necessary to implement either of these two decisions. He left the surplus wealth in the hands of its owners and maintained inequality in the distribution of stipends. Moreover, he continued to give them further gifts with a free hand. As a result, the rich became richer and the poor poorer. Of course, the poor also sometimes enjoyed prosperity. He gave large sums of money even to those who had no shortage of wealth. He gave the Quraysh unrestricted opportunities to conduct trade throughout the world. He also allowed the great wealthy men to purchase buildings and land in the Sawad region or abroad. As a result, toward the end of his caliphate, enormous inequality arose in the distribution of wealth throughout Muslim society. May Allah have mercy on him.

Abu Bakr, and after him Umar, strictly enforced the policy of requiring a significant group of Quraysh leaders to reside permanently in Madinah. Thus Abu Bakr and Umar did not allow them to move about freely in the conquered lands. For, because of their closeness to the Messenger of Allah, their sacrifices for Islam, and their precedence in jihad, the people might become especially devoted and attached to them, and these individuals might then develop a desire for wealth, influence, and office. This cannot, of course, be called a violation of Islam’s principle concerning individual freedom, because in Islam individual freedom is linked to the conditions of the broader welfare of society. When Uthman’s era arrived, however, he granted them freedom to move about without restriction everywhere. Moreover, he encouraged them to purchase homes and land in the conquered countries. He did this after giving them hundreds of thousands of dirhams.

Undoubtedly, all this was done as an expression of generosity and kindness toward Muslims, especially Muslim leaders. But this policy produced extremely harmful consequences. Those consequences were not hidden from Abu Bakr and Umar. As a result, enormous economic and social inequality arose in Muslim society. It also created an idle and inactive class in society. Despite their extreme inactivity, their wealth had no limit. Sitting without effort, they lived lives of complete comfort.

Thus luxury once again raised its head. Yet Islam had continually declared war against this luxury through both its laws and its principles. The two Caliphs preceding Uthman also struggled against it and tried to ensure that it could never raise its head. When the situation reached this stage, Islamic vitality exploded among some people. The most notable among them was Abu Dharr. He was the most outspoken and revolutionary.

Sadly, by labeling Abu Dharr’s policy erroneous, Dar al-Ifta of Egypt recently issued a fatwa attempting to boast that it understood Islam better than Abu Dharr. The religion of God seems to have become a commercial commodity to them.

Abu Dharr vigorously challenged the luxury of the upper classes of Muslim society, because it was utterly contrary to Islam. He criticized Banu Umayyah and Muawiyah for patronizing this luxury, since their policy was causing only the wealth of the rich and the extravagance of the luxurious to increase.

Abu Dharr learned that Uthman had given Marwan one-fifth of the revenue of Africa, two hundred thousand dirhams to Harith, and one hundred thousand dirhams to Zayd ibn Thabit. This was unbearable to his conscience. He vehemently protested and delivered the following speech at a public gathering:

“Nowadays, such things are being done as are beyond my comprehension. By God! Nowhere in the Qur’an of Allah or in the Hadith of the Messenger is there any basis for these actions. By God! I clearly see that truth is being trampled underfoot, falsehood is being revived, truthful people are being proved liars, and people are being given preference without piety or fear of God. O wealthy people! Treat the poor with goodwill. Tell those who hoard money and do not spend in the way of Allah that their foreheads, backs, and sides will be branded with fire. O capitalists! Know that wealth has three partners: First: fate.।At any moment, through destruction or death, it can seize wealth from you without your permission. Second: the heir.।He is always waiting for your eyes to close so that he may take possession of your wealth. Third: your right.।If you do not wish to be the weakest partner among these three, then you must strive for that. Allah the Exalted says:”

“You will never attain true goodness until you spend in the way of Allah from what you love most.” Friends! You have now begun using silk curtains and velvet cushions. Nowadays, sleeping on mattresses from Azerbaijan has become difficult for you. Yet the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) slept only on a mat. Today you eat a variety of foods, whereas the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) could not even obtain barley bread to eat his fill.”

Malik ibn Abdullah ibn Ziyad relates that once Abu Dharr (RA) expressed his desire to meet Hazrat Uthman. When he summoned him for the meeting, Abu Dharr (RA) appeared at the court carrying a staff. At that time, Hazrat Uthman (RA) was asking a Companion named Ka‘b, “Ka‘b, Abd al-Rahman has died. He has left behind a great deal of money. What is your opinion concerning it?” Ka‘b replied, “If he had paid Allah’s due from it, then no further intervention can be made regarding it.” As soon as Abu Dharr (RA) heard this, he raised his staff and struck Ka‘b with it. He said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) say:”

“If I possessed gold equal to this mountain and spent it in the way of Allah, and He continued to accept it, I would not wish to leave behind even six uqiyyahs of gold.” After narrating this Hadith, he asked Hazrat Uthman three times, making him swear by God each time, “Have you heard this Hadith?” He replied, “Yes!” (Hadith no. 453—Musnad Ahmad)

Marwan and Muawiya (RA) could not tolerate such appeals. Therefore, they continually incited Hazrat Uthman against him. Ultimately, Abu Dharr had to go into exile and leave for Rabadhah, without having committed any suitable offense recognized by the Shariah.

This lofty appeal came from an awakened conscience that greed for wealth had been unable to overcome, despite the country’s boundless abundance of wealth. At that time, the concentration of wealth became so pronounced that Islamic society was divided into different classes, and the principal foundations of Islam were on the verge of disappearing. We present several examples of the financial prosperity of that period, as related by Mas‘udi. He relates:

“During the caliphate of Uthman (RA), the Companions acquired immense wealth. On the day Uthman (RA) was martyred, his treasurer held one hundred and fifty thousand dinars and one million dirhams in cash. His landed properties in Wadi al-Qura, Hunayn, and other places were worth one hundred thousand dinars. In addition, he left behind numerous horses and camels. After al-Zubayr (RA) died, one of his landed properties alone was valued at fifty thousand dinars. Besides that, he left one thousand horses and one thousand slave women. Talhah (RA) earned one thousand dinars daily from Iraq and even more from Sarat. Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf had one thousand horses in his stable, as well as one thousand camels and ten thousand goats and sheep. After his death, one quarter of his property was valued at eighty-four thousand dirhams. Zayd ibn Thabit left so much gold and silver that it had to be cut with an axe. This was separate from the movable and immovable properties he left behind. Al-Zubayr built a palace each in Basra, Egypt, Kufa, and Alexandria. Likewise, Talhah (RA) built a magnificent palace in Kufa. In Medina, he also built a huge mansion with teakwood and plaster. Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas built a lofty palace with a dome and a spacious courtyard at ‘Aqiq. Al-Miqdad built a beautifully ornamented palace inside and outside Medina. Ya‘la ibn Munabbah left fifty thousand dinars in cash and landed properties worth three hundred thousand dirhams.” (Uthman—Ustadh Sadiq Urjun)

This imbalanced abundance of wealth arose during the caliphate of Umar (RA) as the inevitable result of differentiating people’s shares according to status in the distribution of wealth. Hazrat Umar (RA) was determined to end this policy and its consequences. He would certainly have brought it to an end had a dagger not pierced his chest. After his martyrdom, this abundance continued to grow. Hazrat Uthman (RA) maintained that policy, and as a result the situation became even more complicated. In addition to unequal distribution, the gifts, presents, and fiefs granted by Hazrat Uthman (RA) also helped increase the pro-wealth tendencies in Muslim society. Subsequently, several causes and conditions emerged that led to the abnormal expansion of this imbalanced abundance of wealth. In particular, the consolidation of various scattered movable and immovable properties and the concentration of the means and instruments of profitable business in the hands of a small number of people caused capitalist tendencies to spread widely in Muslim society. The opposition to and disregard for the profound and sincere appeal that arose from Abu Dharr’s heart also caused the situation to go beyond control. Had his appeal succeeded and had he been able to persuade the head of state to adopt his view, he had the capacity to bring the situation under control. This would have fulfilled Hazrat Umar’s final resolve to take surplus wealth from the rich and distribute it among the poor. For the head of state to do this in order to save the nation from the curse of capitalism was not merely entirely lawful; it was also an obligatory duty for the sake of the greater social welfare.

On the one hand, wealth was becoming concentrated. A flood of abundance had swept through the lives of members of a few aristocratic families. On the other hand, hunger, poverty, and misery were striking the lives of ordinary people with equal intensity and force. Naturally, resentment and anger began to rise. All these causes continued to accumulate, ultimately initiating a terrifying violent uprising. This uprising benefited only the enemies of Islam and resulted in the killing of Hazrat Uthman. At the same time, the peace and security of the Muslim ummah were gravely damaged, and it was cast into the deepest whirlpool of disorder and agitation. The fire of this disorder was not extinguished until Islam’s own life-force had been enveloped in its smoke and the ummah had been seized by the savage claws of authoritarian rule.

After Uthman (RA), the policy of equality and justice adopted by Ali (RA) enraged the capitalist circles and those who had benefited greatly from the unequal distribution of wealth; this was by no means unexpected. They advised Hazrat Ali to abandon this policy and expressed the fear that a rebellion might arise against him because of it. In accordance with the Islamic light kindled in his awakened conscience, it was natural for him to reply: “Are you advising me to oppress my countrymen and seek the help of someone else? Even if this wealth belonged to me, I would observe equality in its distribution. Since it is Allah’s wealth, how can I act unjustly? Know that giving wealth to anyone unjustly falls within the realm of wastefulness. There is no doubt that such a policy may give the giver some prestige in this world, but in the Hereafter it will certainly bring him humiliation.”

The Banu Umayyah followed a different policy regarding financial administration. At last, when the era of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz arrived, he adopted a strict policy of returning wealth acquired unjustly and preventing wasteful expenditure. We have already discussed this. At that time, the people of Banu Umayyah received equal rights with other subjects regarding the wealth of the Bayt al-Mal. Flatterers, laudatory poets, and singers no longer had any share in it. He severed all relations with the poets and abolished the policy of rewarding them from the Bayt al-Mal.

Once, the poet Jarir recited a poem in his praise. Hazrat Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz said to him, “Jarir! Are you the child of the Muhajirs, so that I should give you what I give them? Are you the child of the Ansar, so that I should give you what I give them? Or are you a poor person, so that I should order something to be given to you from your people’s sadaqah and zakat funds?”

He replied, “Amir al-Mu’minin! I am none of these. Rather, I am the son of the most prosperous family. The former rulers used to give me four thousand dirhams as a reward for this, along with valuable clothes and a riding animal. I have become accustomed to accepting these things, so I ask you for that reward.”

Umar replied, “Everyone will receive the recompense for his own deeds from Allah. But as far as I know, you have no claim upon Allah’s wealth (the state treasury). However, wait until I receive my personal allowance. I will calculate how much is needed throughout the year for the maintenance of my family. I will retain what is needed and, if anything remains, give it to you.” Jarir said, “No, I do not need it. I pray that Allah may grant Amir al-Mu’minin even more and that he may be praised even more. I am departing completely satisfied.” He said, “This is the course I prefer most.” When Jarir left, Umar thought that he might criticize him again. This should be prevented. Thinking this, he ordered that Jarir be called back. When Jarir came, he said, “I have forty dinars and two pairs of clothes. I wash one pair and wear the other. I can give you half of these things. Of course, Allah is witness that Umar needs these things more than you do.” Jarir said, “Amir al-Mu’minin! May Allah grant you more. By God! I am leaving content. I have no need of these things.” He said, “Very well! Since you have sworn to this, I want to tell you that your relieving us of the burden you would have imposed by accepting this request and reward has impressed me more than your poetry and praise. Now become my friend.”

the Muslims’ wealth was preserved in this way and delivered to its rightful claimants, there is nothing surprising in the narrators’ report that during the era of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz people became so prosperous that no one could be found to accept zakat, because, having received their rightful due instead of what was unjustly withheld from them, they had become free of need with regard to zakat।

Yahya ibn Sa‘d relates: “Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz sent me to Africa to collect zakat and sadaqah. I collected the zakat and sadaqah there and searched for poor people to distribute it among them. But I found no poor person there. No one agreed to accept the money, because Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz had made them all wealthy. Finally, I used that money to purchase slaves and set them free.”

The real fact is that poverty and deprivation are created solely by the concentration of wealth. In every age, the poor have been victims of the oppression, persecution, and exploitation of the great capitalists; and these great capitalists emerge through large donations, gifts, rewards, fiefs, exploitation, oppression, and profiteering.

During the Umayyad and the subsequent Abbasid periods, the public treasury had become as “lawful” for the kings as their own property. During this period, two separate treasuries were established: one public treasury and the other a private treasury. The prevailing notion concerning the latter was that its revenues and expenditures were reserved for the king. Yet it was often seen that money from a public category was deposited into the private treasury, while a private expense was paid from the public treasury.

Professor Adam Mez says in his book Islamic Civilization in the Fourth Century:

Money was taken from the public treasury for allowances and expenses associated with the capital. We possess a historical document from the early part of the fourth century in which the revenue categories of the private treasury are described in detail:

1. Property left by fathers for their children: It is said that Harun al-Rashid left behind the greatest amount of wealth, namely forty-eight million dinars. During his reign, al-Mu‘tadid (AH 279–289) saved one million dinars every year from the special revenue categories after all expenses and allocations had been paid. In this way, ninety million dinars accumulated with him. He hoped that when it reached one hundred million dinars, he would melt it into a large ingot. He also decided to hang the ingot in the public court in order to create the impression that, since he possessed one hundred million dirhams, he had no further greed for money. He vowed that once one hundred million dirhams had accumulated, he would remit one-third of the people’s taxes for one year. But he died before this desire could be fulfilled.

After al-Mu‘tadid came the era of al-Muktafi (289–295). He increased the treasury’s revenues to fourteen million.

2. Taxes and revenues from government property obtained from Persia and Kirman: On an annual average, from AH 299 to 320, these amounted to twenty-three million dinars after deducting the expenditure categories. Four million were deposited in the public treasury and the remaining nineteen million in the private treasury. Of course, it was considered necessary to deduct from this the amounts spent on the urgent needs of those countries. For example, in AH 303 (915 CE), he spent more than seven million to conquer those countries.

3. Revenue obtained from Egypt and Syria: For example, the jizya collected from non-Muslims was deposited in the caliph’s treasury instead of being deposited in the public treasury, because, in principle, it was considered his rightful property by virtue of his being Amir al-Mu’minin.

4. Money earned by dismissed viziers, secretaries, and government officials, and their confiscated property: In addition, the caliph became the owner of the earnings of his own childless servants and the childless slaves of the royal household. Since they were generally high-ranking and highly paid officials, this method brought vast sums into the caliph’s treasury.

5. Revenue obtained from Sawad, Ahwaz, and other eastern and western regions from government property: This too was deposited in the private treasury.

6. Money saved by the caliphs: For example, the last two caliphs of the third Hijri century, al-Mu‘tadid and al-Muktafi, saved one million dinars annually. Al-Muqtadir likewise saved a similar amount. Thus, over fifteen years, the accumulated sum reached fifteen million—nearly half the wealth of Caliph Harun al-Rashid.

This account makes clear how these kings, who bore the title “caliph,” interfered with the wealth of the Muslim people, and how greatly the structure of financial administration had diverged from Islamic principles.

On the one hand, the abundance of wealth, love of comfort, and luxury had reached an extreme; on the other hand, scenes of deprivation, hunger, and poverty were terribly severe. Islamic society had reached the lowest level of decline because it had moved away from Islamic customs and practices and deviated from Islamic principles.

Some Fundamental Principles

Yet, despite all this, Islam’s practical course established several fundamental principles concerning financial administration. It is an immense misfortune for humanity that, because of the Umayyad rulers, Islam had to face distortion and upheaval in its very first age. Nevertheless, Islamic history demonstrated the practical application of many of Islam’s ideals.

Actual history has established definitively that:

1. In Islam, the poor have a greater right to the funds of the Bayt al-Mal than those who were early supporters। It is narrated in Musnad Ahmad that “Adi ibn Hatim said: I went to Hazrat Umar ibn al-Khattab with some people of my tribe. He was assigning an allowance of two thousand each to several men of that tribe. Adi said: I stood before him again, but he paid no attention to me. I stood before him again, yet he still ignored me. I said, ‘Amir al-Mu’minin! Do you recognize me?’ Hazrat Umar (RA) burst into laughter. Then he said, ‘By God! I know you very well. When everyone else remained steadfast in unbelief, you believed. When others were retreating, you advanced. When many were deceiving, you showed sincere loyalty. I remember well that the first zakat money at the sight of which the faces of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and the Companions (RA) shone with joy was the zakat money of that tribe. I myself brought that money to the court of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH).’ Then Hazrat Umar (RA) began to offer the excuse that, from this money, I have assigned allowances only to those people who suffer from hunger because they cannot provide food for their dependents, since they are the leading men of the tribe.”

This statement from Umar (RA)—who favored giving priority to those who had advanced in the cause of Islam—is highly meaningful and proves much. In an Islamic society, “need” is in fact the foremost basis of entitlement. This principle shows how great an enemy Islam is to poverty and deprivation, and how much greater importance it gives to efforts to eliminate them than to all other efforts.

2. Islam is in no way prepared to tolerate a situation in which one class of society floats along in the wild current of limitless abundance while another remains deprived, destitute, and dispossessed। In such circumstances, Islam grants the government full authority to take measures according to the situation for the purpose of reform. This is a principle historically established by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). He distributed the entire wealth of fay collected from Banu Nadir exclusively among the poor Muhajirun, so that some balance might be established in Islamic society at the earliest opportunity. He included only two poor Ansar among them. Then the Qur’an came forward to support this historic precedent:

“So that wealth may not merely circulate among the rich of you.”

This precedent is highly meaningful and important. In its light, a Muslim government ruling according to Allah’s law always has the authority to provide the needy and poor with an appropriate amount of assistance from the Bayt al-Mal in order to establish economic balance in Muslim society. It is the government’s essential duty to take suitable measures so that disparities that disrupt the general balance do not prevail among people at different levels of society.

3. It is essential to vary the tax rate according to capacity and incapacity। When jizya was imposed on non-Muslims, taxes were levied on people of different classes at the following rates:

a. Affluent class — 48 dirhams annually per head.

b. Middle class — 24 dirhams annually per head.

c. Poor laborers — 12 dirhams annually per head.

Jizya was waived for the completely destitute, bankrupt, physically exhausted by labor, and physically or mentally disabled. Only free, mentally sound men were required to pay jizya. Women and children were not required to pay jizya.

In the year of famine, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did not send officials to collect zakat; rather, he suspended the collection of zakat until the famine had ended. After the famine, he sent collectors and demanded double zakat from those who were able to pay. One portion was for the year of famine and the second for the current year. He excused those who were unable to pay. He then instructed the collectors to give one half of the double amount they collected to those incapacitated people and bring the remaining half to the capital.

4. It was forbidden to use force or to collect taxes by depriving anyone of the money necessary for life। Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) instructed one of his officials: “When you go to them, do not sell their summer or winter clothing, food, goods, or riding animals in order to collect taxes; do not strike anyone even once with a whip, and do not make anyone stand on one foot, no matter how much land tax or other tax remains unpaid. For we have only been instructed to collect the surplus beyond the people’s needs.

5. Alongside the principle “to each person in proportion to his sacrifice,” it is also essential to implement the principle “to each person in proportion to his needs”। The Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) allotted one share from the spoils to the unmarried and two shares to the married. This proves that, when determining allowances, attention must be paid to need as well as effort. Otherwise, it is obvious that married and unmarried people must exert equal effort in jihad. The married person was given double the allowance only because his needs were double. This also proves that “need” alone can be a separate means of acquiring ownership in Islam. This principle is extremely important with regard to “social security.”

6. Provision of social security for every incapacitated and needy person। Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) fixed a stipend of one hundred dirhams for every newborn. When the child grew somewhat older, two hundred dirhams were given, and after reaching maturity, even more was provided. One hundred dirhams was allotted for an abandoned child, with an additional allowance for the person raising the child. The child’s nursing and other expenses were covered from the Bayt al-Mal, and when the child grew up, he received an allowance equal to that of other boys.

Umar’s generosity was in fact a direct outcome of Islam’s generosity, for a child abandoned on the road is completely innocent in himself. He is not in the slightest degree responsible for the sins of his guilty parents. We have already mentioned that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) allocated assistance from the Bayt al-Mal for blind Jews and Christian lepers. Umar’s generosity by nature extended to all people, not Muslims alone. This was a system of social security against need, incapacity, and deprivation.

7. Resolving the fundamental question, “Where was the wealth acquired from?” is extremely important। The Muslim community has the right to ask whether the wealth possessed by a ruler is actually the nation’s wealth or his own; he has no way to escape being called to account by the people in this matter. Once this principle of accountability was established, the national treasury became considerably safer from interference by administrators. Before doing anything of this kind, the ruler had to think more than once. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) dealt in this manner with all his governors. Ali, too, adopted this principle in some cases.

8. The zakat system was not suspended even during the darkest age in history although that age had been cast far away from Islam’s vital spirit. After the wars against the apostates at the beginning of the era of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), not a single person thereafter denied zakat, either verbally or in practice. It was only in our age, when Western civilization took its seat as the victor, that, as a consequence, zakat—the last of the Islamic principles—disappeared from the practical life of Muslim society.

9. General social security system: Under this system, the people of every locality are held responsible for anyone who dies there of starvation. This responsibility falls upon them under the penal code. For a person who dies in this way, all the inhabitants of the relevant locality must collectively pay a fine, namely diyah. This is because the entire society is deemed the killer of the person who, belonging to their midst, slowly perished from starvation.

This ruling is also supported by another ruling of the Shariah. It is that if a person afflicted by hunger and thirst fears that he will die from hunger and thirst, he is permitted, as a last resort, to fight a person possessing food or drink; and if he kills such a person, he will incur neither punishment nor a fine in this world, nor suffer torment in the Hereafter.

10. The principle of abolishing interest and extending the period for repayment of debts in conditions of poverty: Until modern civilization declared interest lawful, interest remained duly prohibited in Muslim society. French law imposed this curse upon us and turned it into one of the pillars of our daily economic life. Yet there was no necessity for it. It became prevalent only because the influence of moral values had vanished from our practical life and the spirit of honesty and mutual cooperation had disappeared from people’s hearts. Islam, however, adopts this spirit as the foundation of society and of mutual dealings.

In addition to these matters, there are many principles and values of mutual sympathy and social security that cannot be implemented by the force of law. Our recent past itself bears witness to the existence of the influence of Islamic values upon Muslim society. It was not our grandfathers but our fathers who witnessed this age with their own eyes in Muslim-populated rural areas. Despite the complete dominance of Western materialistic civilization over the Muslim world, this influence remains largely unspoiled even today. There was no need there at all for law or force to implement these values. Among the departments of today’s governments, the waqf departments that are seen—now being used against their true purpose and seized by various exploitative classes under various names and in various groups—actually bear witness to the sacred spirit of compassion, sympathy, virtue, social security, and mutual cooperation that existed in the hearts of Muslims in the distant and recent past. The brutality, dead consciousness, and stagnant materialistic civilization of the West have not been able to corrupt their inner souls.

In our golden age, the spirit of providing social security to the weak became so strong that not only people but even animals benefited from it. In many places, certain areas were made waqf as shelters for weak animals, so that they could come there and be freed from hunger and distress.

Despite the far-reaching harm caused by some distortion in the system of governance and economic practice at the initial stage, this is the true Islam.

This is Islam’s role on the real stage of history, as it has become clear through various events. Regarding its general principles, it may be said that it possesses, has possessed, and will possess forever the full capacity to meet the demands of new circumstances and solve new problems. In the society that will one day be established on the foundation of Islam, where Islamic Shariah will be granted the status of state law, Islam will be able to fulfill all the demands and needs of that society with great comprehensiveness and balance. As today’s human society, through the clashes among ideologies and human experiments, is continually driven from one extreme to another and battered by these clashes, while humanity is sacrificing many of its most valuable possessions in them, Islam will forever protect and safeguard it from this irreparable loss and damage. [See the chapter “Iztirab wa Intemar” (“Anxiety and Confusion”) in the author’s work Al-Islam wa Mushkilat al-Hadarah (Islam and the Crisis of Modern Civilization).]

…….. End ……..