ISLAM

THE MISUNDERSTOOD

RELEGION

MUHAMMED KUTUB

http://www.islambasics.com
 CONTENTS

1. Preface
2. Is Religion Antiquated?
3. Islam and Slavery
4. Islam and Feudalism
5. Islam and Capitalism
6. Islam and Private Ownership
7. Islam and The Class System
8. Islam and Alms
9. Islam and Woman
10. Islam and The Concept of Punishment
11. Islam and Civilization
12. Islam and Reactionarism
13. Islam and Sexual Repression
14. Islam and Freedom of Thought
15. Religion: The Opium of the People?
16. Islam and Non-Muslim! Communities
17. Islam and Idealism
18. Islam and Communism
19. What Next?
 PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION

As I wrote this book over the years I did not entertain the hope that it would elicit
such a warm reception and appreciation, And when it went to the press over and over
again I thanked God and felt grateful to the readers who took so much interest in the
contents of this book.
I was, however, beginning to feel that in the future this book need not be republished,
For, in my view, we had better no way some thing positive about Islam itself in the
context of the various fields of life it embraces, and the positivity and the supervisory
character that its law enjoys with regard to practical life, as I have attempted in the books
appearing after the present one, instead of limiting our efforts to defending it against the
various doubts given currency to by its enemies in order to confuse and throw us on the
defensive.
But when I read the orientalist Mr. Wilfred Cantwell smith’s book "Islam in Modern
History", and found that the author had in three places referred to this book of mine in
words so angry and disparaging that came very near to openly calling names. I decided
that the book that had roused the anger of a rancorous crusader to such an extent must
remain in circulation and be published over and over again.
All my thanks are due to Allah; His Grace alone brings succor.
MUHAMMAD QUTB
 PREFACE

The majority of the modern "educated" people are today faced with a religious crisis.
Is religion really a fact of life? It might have been one in the past, but does it still remain
so in the world of today when science has changed the whole course of life, and when
there is no place in it for anything save science and what scientific facts approve of? Does
religion represent a genuine need of humanity? Or is it something wholly dependent upon
the temperamental constitution of an individual so that one may not believe in it as there
is no difference between the two states of belief and unbelief '?
Talking about Islam they betray a similar state of intellectual crisis when the
missionaries of Islam tell them that Islam is not a mere creed, nor does it represent simply
an edification of souls, or a refinement and training of human virtues but is rather a
harmonious whole that also includes a just economic system, a well-balanced social
organization, codes of civil, criminal as well as international law, & philosophical
outlook upon life along with a system of physical instruction, all of these flowing from
the same fundamental creed of Islam and its moral and spiritual temperament. When they
hear all this, these "educated" people are greatly perplexed, for they supposed that Islam
had since long ceased to exist as it has become outmoded and had exhausted all its
usefulness. That is why they are surprised when they hear devout Muslims saying that
Islam does not belong to a remote past, it is not obsolete or antiquated but is a living and
flourishing system of life even at the present moment, as it holds within itself such
elements of life as no other system known to humanity does including socialism as well
as communism or any other system.
At this their surprise exceeds limits, they can no more contain themselves, so they
scream at these preachers of Gods words: Do you tell us all this about the religion that
approves of slavery, feudalism and capitalism-the system which holds that woman is only
a half-man and imprisons her within her household; which prescribes such punishments
as stoning to death, mutilation and whipping; which lets its people live on charity; which
splits them up into different classes, some exploiting the other; a system which provides
no security of decent living to the toiling people; and a system which is such and such,
how is it possible that such a system should even hold its own today, let alone its survival
in the future? Not to speak of its triumph and contending successfully, how can such a
system even hold out in the ruthless ideological struggle going on at present among
different modern socio-economic systems?
Before proceeding further let us, however, pause awhile and see as to who these
"educated" skeptics are? Whence does their skepticism originate? Is this attitude of mind
a result of their own free thinking or are they merely parroting the words of other, with-
out even so much as understanding them?
The fact is that the skepticism exhibited by these gentlemen is not at all a result of
their own independent thinking, nor did it originate in their own minds as such. For its
true source we win have to go back a little over the history of modern times.
The Middle Ages witnessed crusades between Europe and the world of Islam. Furious
battles were fought between the two after which followed a period that saw a suspension
of hostilities between the two camps but their hostility towards each other never ended as
is well borne out by what Lord Allenby said in clear terms on the occasion of the British
occupation of Jerusalem in World War I: "Now have the crusades come to an end!'
We must also keep in mind that during the last two centuries European imperialism
remained in conflict with the Islamic Orient.
The British stepped into Egypt in 1882 following Taufiq's treachery. They hatched a
plot with him for the military occupation of Egypt in order to thwart the popular
revolution under the leadership of Orabi. Thereafter the British policy of necessity
revolved around one basic aim: strengthening their hold more and more on the Islamic
world and safeguarding their interests from being swept away by the true Islamic spirit of
the Orient. We would in this respect like to refer to what the British Prime Minister of the
Victorian age, Mr. Gladstone said in the House of Commons. Holding up the Holy Qur'an
in his hands he told the members of the House: "So long as the Egyptians have got this
book with them, we will never be able to enjoy quiet or peace in that land".
Naturally the policy pursued by the British was one of deriding Islamic laws and
principles, of exiling the sense of their sanctity from Muslims' hearts, and of painting
Islam in the blackest of colors so as to make them look down upon it and in due course of
time to discard it totally. They did all this in order to tighten up their imperialistic grip on
this country.
The educational policy they adopted in Egypt was such as left the students quite
ignorant about the reality of Islam, except that it was a religion embracing worships,
prayers, praising and glorifying God, and pursuing mystic practices; that the Qur'an was a
book read in order to invoke God's blessings and that Islam was a theoretical invitation to
pursue the noblest and most generous of moral precepts. Students were never told
anything about Islam as a socio-economic system of government or as a constitution, or
as a basis of internal and external policy, or as a system of education, or as a way of life
and a watcher over life. What they were taught instead was the doubts cast against Islam
by the orientalists and other European crusaders in order to make the Muslims forsake
their religion and succumb easily to the evil machinations of imperialism.
They were taught; that the only genuine social system in existence was that which
Europe possessed, the only true economic system was one that was conceived by the
European philosophers, the right and most appropriate form of constitutional government
was what the Europeans, thanks to their various experiments, evolved. They were taught
that the rights of man were first taken cognizance of by the French Revolution, that
democracy was fostered and made popular by the English people, and that it was the
Roman Empire that provided any basis of civilization. In short, the British depicted
Europe as a rebellious but mighty giant with none to stand in its way or check its progress
whereas they presented the East as a dwarfish underling with no standing of its own save
that of subordination to Europe and complete dependence upon it for its social and
cultural outlook.
This political policy at last took effect. Among the Egyptians there sprang up
generations who were shorn of any thought of their individuality or independent cultural
existence. They were completely enthralled by Europe; they worshipped it most
devotedly; they could neither see with their own eyes nor were they any more left capable
of thinking for themselves; they would see just what the Europeans wanted them to see;
and they thought what they wished them to think.
The "educated" intelligentsia of today represents as such the culminating point of
what the imperialists with their political maneuvers achieved in-this country.
These poor people know nothing about Islam but doubt. About Islam they have no
information save what they received through their European masters. That is why they
are seen shouting like them advocating the separation of religion from the state and of
science from Islam.
But in their ignorance they pass by the fact that the religion that Europe shook off was
one quite different from what the advocates of Islamic ideology call upon people to
adopt; and that the particular circumstances that prevailed in Europe at the time and made
it turn its back upon religion were confined to that region of the world only. Nothing of
the sort ever happened in the Islamic orient; nor is there any likelihood of its ever
happening there. Thus when they call upon their countrymen to discard Islam or declare
that Islam should have no say in the management of social, political and economic affairs
of community and life, they are merely expressing and parroting the imported thoughts of
their masters.
Europe was the scene of a conflict between religion and science, because the church
there had arbitrarily embraced certain theories and dogmas (inheriting them from Greece)
and insisted that they were sacred and a gospel truth. So when the theoretical and the
empirical science demonstrated the error and fallacy of these theories, the people there
had no other course but to believe in science and disbelieve in the church as well as in the
religion these churchmen stood for. The war between religion and science gained in
intensity and the enthusiasm to get free from the dominance of these religious men
increased as the church in Europe conferred upon itself divine power and proceeded to
enforce it in a most tyrannical manner. Thus for the people there religion came to signify
an abominable ghoul that harassed them in their working no less than in their sleeping
hours. It exacted from men costly extortion and reduced them to an abject state of
subordination to the churchmen, besides calling upon them to swallow nonsense and
superstitions in the name of God. The torturing of scientists and burning them alive
because they said, for instance, that the earth was round, was the ugliest of crimes that
made it a sacred duty of every sensible, free-thinking and conscientious individual there
to come forward and help the forces that sought to destroy this abominable ghoul or at
least put it in chains so as not to let it ever again harass and oppress the people besides
harming the cause of religion by misrepresenting it and making others feel as if religion
contained nothing but falsehood and untruth.
But what about us, we who live in the Islamic East? Why should we separate science
from religion or hold that the two are at variance and war with each other? Is there even a
single scientific fact which has been found to contradict Islam and its basic creed? Were
scientists ever subjected to persecution in the domain of Islam? The whole history of
Islam is before us. It testifies that there have been great doctors, astronomers,
mathematicians, physicists as well as chemists but never were they persecuted for their
views. There is no trace of any conflict between science and their religious beliefs to be
found in the minds of these great Muslim scientists. Nor did there exist any hostilities
between them and the ruling authorities such as might have led to their suffering or
burning alive.
What is it then that makes these "educated" people plead for separation of religion
from science, for attacking Islam and finding faults with it without any understanding or
knowledge of it? Their feverish crying is nothing but a symptom of the poison that had
been administered to them by the imperialists, of course, without their knowing it.
This class of the "educated" elite was not at all in my mind when I wrote this book.
They would never return to what is right until their masters in the West also do turn
towards it after despairing of their Godless materialistic civilization and recognize that it
can bring them no salvation, and so return to a system of life that is at once spiritual as
well as practical-a system embracing belief no less than life at once and at the same time.
I had rather another class before me in writing this book-the sincere and enlightened
youth, who earnestly wish to find out the reality, the truth, but the doubts and lies spread
about Islam by the deceitful imperialistic powers leave them helpless to see the light, or
the answer to these lies, and so they are left groping about in darkness, for the slaves of
imperialism and the devils of communism would not let them march out to the right path-
the path to freedom, honor and sublimity. It is to this enlightened and sincere group of
young men that I present this book and hope that it may please God to help me dispel
doubts about Islam from their minds.
 IS RELIGION ANTIQUATED?

Dazzled by the achievements of science during the 18th and 19th centuries many
Westerners thought that religion had exhausted all its usefulness and surrendered to
science once for all. Almost all the eminent western psychologists and sociologists
expressed themselves in similar terms. Thus Freud the renowned psychologist, for
instance, showing the futility of any advocacy for what religion stood for in modem time
says that the human life passes through three distinct psychological phases: superstition,
religion and science. Now being the era of science all religion was out of date.
As we have already explained in the preface there were certain causes which led the
men of science in Europe to adopt a view of life antagonistic to religion, and based on its
hatred. It was due to the great controversy that raged there between men of science and
the Christian church which made them think-quite justifiably of course-that whatever the
church stood for was reactionary, retrogressive, backward and superstitious, and that
therefore it must of necessity vacate its seat for science so as to enable humanity to move
ahead on the path of civilization.
Without appreciating the difference between the peculiar conditions of life obtaining
in Europe at the time of this unhappy conflict and these in their own Islamic orient,
people opposed to their sacred traditions handed down to them from past generations
demanded their outright abolition. Then came the contagion of imitation which plagued
the dominated Islamic orient and led the naive among its people to fancy that the only
way to progress was that followed by the dominant nations of Europe, and they have to
discard their religion just as Europe had already done failing which they feared that they
would be trapped in an abyss of reactionarism, backwardness and humbug.
But such people overlooked the fact that even in the west not all the outstanding
scholars were antagonistic towards religion, nor do their works exhibit anything of this
sort. On the other hand, we find some intellectuals among them of great eminence, who,
freed of the materialism of the Godless Europe, were driven to the conclusion that
religion is a psychological as well as an intellectual necessity for mankind.
The most noted figure among them is the astronomer, James Jeans who started his
intellectual career as a Godless skeptic but was led finally by his scientific exploration to
the conclusion that the greatest problems of science could not be resolved without
believing ...God. The famous sociologist, Jeans Bridge went so far as to eulogize Islam
for achieving a successful amalgam of the temporal with the spiritual into a harmonious
system of thought blent with a practical code of life. The well-known English writer,
Somerset Maugham epitomized the whole attitude of modem Europe towards religion
when he remarked that Europe had in the present era discovered a new god-science,
discarding the older one.
The god of science has, however, turned out to be extremely fickle, ever changing
and constantly shifting positions, upholding today as a fact and reality what it rejected
yesterday as false and spurious and vice versa, with the result that we see its
"worshippers" doomed to a fate of perpetual restlessness and anxiety, for how can they
find rest and peace of mind under such a capricious god? That this constant restlessness
with which the modern west is afflicted is a fact, is borne out by the large number of
psychological and nervous disorders that are so common in the western community of
today.
A still another result of this deification of modern science is that the world we live in
is devoid of all meaning and purpose with no higher order or power to guide it, with a
persistent struggle ever going on between opposing forces. As a result, everything in this
world suffers change; economic and political systems change; relations between state and
individuals alter; even scientific "Facts" do change. What can man expect save misery
and perpetual restlessness in a world with such a somber setting where no Higher Power
exists whom he should turn to for support, strength and comfort in this ruthless struggle
of life.
It is religion and religion alone that can restore to the world of humanity peace and
tranquility. It instills in man love for goodness and courage to stand up to the forces of
evil and tyranny as a necessary condition of obtaining God's pleasure and to make His
will predominant on this earth awaiting with patience His reward in the Hereafter.
Doesn't mankind really need peace, tranquility, comfort, in a word, religion?
What will become of man but for faith and belief in an eternal life in the Hereafter? In
this context man's life upon earth assumes new dimensions opening far higher horizons of
progress before him in the absence of which he is inevitably oppressed by a torturous
sense of nothingness, as it means a virtual cutting short of man's total life-span, making
him a mere plaything in the hands of his whims and caprices which teach him nothing but
to derive the maximum possible amount of pleasure during this short sojourn upon earth.
Mutual rivalries, savage battles and conflicts over the possession of material gains follow,
as now there is no Higher Power to lay checks on men's desires. So, blinded by his greed
and lust, each one of them wants to gain whatever he can lay his hands on in the shortest
possible time.
Thus man is degraded to lower planes of feeling and thought. His imagination sinks
low and so do his ideals and the means to achieve them. They are all marked with
abjectness. Mankind is doomed to a perpetual life of hideous internecine wars that
scarcely permit it to soar to higher and nobler ends in life. In such a world there is no
room for love or sympathy as men are wholly obsessed with their carnal pleasures. They
are led by their blind passions. How can they in such a context have lofty aspirations or
even appreciate genuine human feelings?
Men in such a world no doubt gain some material profits. But of what use are these
when fellowmen are constantly wrangling over them, each ready to cut his brothers throat
should he find it opportune for his own material welfare. Materialism spoils life so much
that even man's material achievements are rendered useless and senseless. Men are
enslaved by greed, lust and avarice. Blind appetites alone govern them. They have no
control whatsoever over these vices. Nor can they ever hope to extricate themselves from
their trammels.
Similarly, the nations too, due to similar causes, get entangled in devastating wars
which spoil all harmony in life. And science with all its dreadful weapons is employed
for the extermination of the human race and its obliteration rather than make it serve man
and contribute towards his well-being.
Viewed in this context religion means broadening the mental horizon of mankind, for
life is not confined to this world alone but continues even beyond it-up to eternity. This
brightens hope in man's heart and encourages him to fight steadfastly against evil and
oppression. Religion teaches love, sympathy and universal brotherhood and is thus the
only way to peace, prosperity and progress which is in itself a sufficient reason for its
retention. It equips man in the best possible way for the hard struggle of life.
Furthermore, it is faith and faith alone that can inspire man to rise above his self and
suffer for noble and lofty ideals. Once it is taken away from him he is left with nothing
else to look up or pin his hopes to outside his own self. He changes into a brute
immediately. Many a man fell fighting in the noble cause of truth spending the whole of
their lives in the struggle yet achieving nothing in the materialistic sense of the word.
What inspired these noble souls to engage in a battle that brought them no material
rewards, hat caused them rather lose whatever little they happened to possess?
Undoubtedly, it was one of the many miracles of the Faith, for, so far as selfish motives
viz. avarice, greed, lust etc. are concerned, these can never make man achieve anything
really good, noble or of a permanent value. This is why the material triumphs won by
selfish avarice are so short-lived and temporary as the incentive for immediate gain
cannot equip man with character, nor can it give him the courage to stand fast suffering
patiently and for long for a truly noble and lofty cause.
There are in fact some so-called "reformers" who seek inspiration from hatred rather
than love. This is the headspring of their inspiration, which they say gives them the
courage to bear hardships for their cause with patience. The hatred they cherish may be
personal in character or it may spring among a class of people and be directed against
mankind in general or the generation they may have happened to be born in. Such rancor-
inspired people may realize some of their ends by way of "reformation”. Their rancor
coupled with their fiery and innate cruel natures may as well sustain them and boost their
"morale" to willingly suffer privation for the sake of the cause they stand for, but a
doctrine based on malevolence rather than love can never lead humanity to anything
good. They may remove certain evils and put an end to the existing state of injustice but
offer no sound remedy for these ailments of mankind. Based on hatred and malevolence,
such a philosophy of life is bound sooner or later to degenerate and create far more evil
and injustice than that it had originally professed and sought to cure.
On the other hand, a creed that does not aim at the immediate gains of this world, nor
derives inspiration from malevolence but fosters in men noble passions of love, fraternity
and a will to lay down their lives serving their fellowmen, can alone guarantee to
humanity a reward permanent and worth striving for, and pave the way to its future
progress and prosperity. The essence of such a creed is faith in God and love for Him
with a consequent virtuous mode of living that helps man get nearer unto his Creator. But
both of these remain lifeless so long as one does not believe in the Hereafter as well.
Belief in the Hereafter gives man a sense of security banishing from his heart fear of
extinction with his physical death and promising him an eternal life. This, in other words,
means that his efforts shall not be wasted away but shall be crowned with their fullest
reward in the life to come, if not in the life herein.
All this is, however, what follows as a natural corollary to a simple belief in God and
the Hereafter as such. But so far as Islam is concerned it does not stop short there, but
goes a long way ahead: it has a quite different and far more fascinating story to tell.
Those who may imagine that Islam has become outmoded and is no longer needed,
do not know as to what it stands for, nor do they in any wise seem to understand its real
mission in human life. As taught to them in the history books prescribed by the agents of
imperialism in early life they think that Islam was revealed merely to put an end to
idolatry and guide man to the worship of God alone, that the Arabs were torn into
antagonistic tribes, so Islam came and united them and made them a strong and unified
nation, that they were addicted to drinking and gambling and led depraved lives, so Islam
came and checked them from these depravities as it did abolish so many other evil
customs prevalent among them such as burying alive their daughters and wasting away
their strength in acts of revenge, and that Islam called upon Muslims to disseminate its
message which they did, this in turn leading to the battles that ultimately determined the
boundaries of the Islamic world as we know it today. This was then according to these
people the sole purpose of Islam in human life! "Being a historical mission it has long
since been fulfilled: there is no idol-worship in the Islamic world; the once antagonistic
tribes have been more or less subject to a process of absorption losing their identity in the
larger nationalities or communities. As far as gambling and drinking are concerned let us
bear in mind that human civilization has advanced to such an extent now that it is useless
to declare such pastimes unlawful as we see that despite all religious taboos they still
persist. It is no use insisting on their abolition. Thus they conclude that Islam has served
its purpose in this world; it has had its day but is now quite out of place and is, therefore,
no longer needed. We must, therefore, turn towards the modern doctrines of life as in
these alone lies our salvation".
Thus parroting the ideas of their western teachers these people betray their own
ignorance. They know nothing about Islam or its real mission in human life. Let us,
therefore, before proceeding further, see what Islam is, and what in fact it stands for.
Islam, in a word, means liberation from all sorts of slavery such as may inhibit the
progress of humanity or may not allow it to follow the path of virtue and goodness. It
means man's freedom from dictators who enslave him by force or fear, make him do what
is wrong and deprive him of his dignity, honor, property or even life. Islam liberates him
from such tyranny by telling him that all authority vests in God and God alone; He alone
is the Real Sovereign. All men are His born subjects and, as such, He alone controls their
destinies, none of them having the power to benefit aught or even avert any distress from
his own self contrary to or independent of His Divine Will. All men shall be presented
before Him on the Day of Judgment to account for their performance in this life. Thus
Islam brings to man freedom from fear or oppression inflicted on him by men like
himself who are in reality as helpless as he, and who are no less subject to the Dominant
Will of God Almighty than he himself is.
Not only this. Islam means freedom from lust as well, including even the lust for life,
as it is this very weakness of man which is exploited by tyrants and dictators intentionally
or otherwise in enslaving their fellowmen, But for it no man would silently accept slavery
to men like himself or sit idle to watch tyranny strut abroad and dare not challenge it, It is
a great blessing of Islam that it taught man to fight tyranny and oppression bravely rather
than cringe before them in abject servitude, Says the Holy Qur'an : “Say: If it be that your
fathers, your sons, your brother, your mates, or your kindred, the wealth that ye hale
gained, the commerce in which ye fear a decline, or the swellings in which ye delight-are
dearer to you than God, or His Apostle, or the striving in His cause,-then wait until God
brings about His Decision: and God guides not the rebellious" (ix: 24),
Contrasting the blind passions and appetites with the love of God, that represents in
life love, virtue and truth and striving hard in His way-in the way of all that is good and
lofty in life, Islam subjects the former to the latter, Unruly passions must be kept in check
by the love of God; it must be the dominant and real directing force in man's life as
without this no man can claim to be a true Muslim,
A man engrossed in sensual pleasures may form a mistaken out look upon life and
think that he enjoys life more than others do. But soon he realizes his mistake as not long
after this he is reduced to a mere slave to his blind passions, He is doomed to a perpetual
life of deprivation and restlessness, for animal desires once run rampant are never
satisfied: they are rather sharpened all the more and degrade man to lower levels of
animalism where all his efforts are focused on one object: how to derive the maximum
possible sensual pleasure in life? Such an attitude towards life is, however, not conducive
to progress, material or spiritual, as humanity cannot soar in higher realms unless it is
freed from the dominance of the blind animal appetites. Only then can it march ahead
freely in the fields of science, arts or religion,
It is for this very reason that Islam attaches so great an importance to the freeing of
man from his animal passions. For this purpose it neither favors monarchism, nor does it
forbid its followers to partake freely of the good things of this life. Rather it aims at the
attainment of a balance between these two extremes. Whatever things are here, are for
man. They are to serve him, not to dominate or rule over him. He should not, therefore,
allow himself to be made slave to them. He should rather use them as means to a higher
end i.e. his spiritual perfection by disseminating the word of God amongst his fellowmen.
Thus Islam has a twofold objective in this regard: in the individual life, it aims at making
a just and sufficient provision to each and every individual so as to enable him to lead a
decent, clean life; and in the collective sphere, it arranges things in such a way that all the
social forces of a community are directed towards the enhancement of progress and
civilization in accordance with its basic outlook Upon life that aims at striking a balance
between the units and the whole, between individuals an d the community.
Islam has also had the most liberalizing effect on human intellect as it is diametrically
opposed to all sorts of superstition. Humanity has been in the course of history found to
fall a prey to diverse absurdities of thought as well as practice, some of which were the
lively play of man's fancy and were acknowledged as such, whereas others were referred
to as originating with gods to whom human hands gave shape. Thus did the human
intellect grope about in the dark before the advent of Islam. With Islam it attained
maturity and freedom from this hotchpotch of nonsense, symbolized in these so-called
gods, the Jewish traditions, and the imbecilities of the Christian church, and was once
again brought back to the folds of True Faith and True God.
Islam uses a very simple terminology. Its teachings are very easy to understand,
perceive and believe in. It invites man to make use of the faculties given to him and try to
acquire the fullest possible understanding of life surrounding him. It does not as such
admit of any inborn hostility between reason and religion or, for that matter, between
science and religion. It does not force man to believe in silly stuff as a prior condition to
his belief in God. Nor does it compel him to renounce his God so as to be able to admit of
scientific facts. Not Content with this, Islam impresses upon man in clear and
unequivocal terms that it is God and God alone Who has in His immense mercy subjected
all the things on this earth to man, and that all the facts that are discovered by scientific
exploration or the material benefits that flow there from to man, are in fact a blessing of
God, for which man should other his thanks to God, and strive hard so as to become a
worthy slave of so Merciful and Beneficent a Master. Thus Islam holds knowledge and
science as a part of faith rather than regard these as an evil intrinsically opposed to
genuine belief in God.
None of the above-mentioned problems staring mankind in the face' have yet been
resolved: the higher real human objectives are yet to be realized. Mankind is still the
victim of various imbecilities, it still groans under tyrants and dictators and is yet far from
being free from the oppressive demands of anima1ism and sensual pleasures. Islam has
still a great and glorious part to play.
One half of the inhabitants of the world of today remain idol worshippers as ever. As
an instance we may refer to India, China and a great many other parts of the world that
are inhabited by such people. The remaining half or thereabout dotes on still another type
of deity that has exercised as great, nay a far worse, corrupting influence on men's
thoughts and feelings carrying them still further away from the right path. It is this very
deity that is styled Modern Science.
Science is a powerful instrument to help us increase our knowledge of the things
around us. As such it has an impressive record of achievements to its credit. All these
brilliant achievements were, however, vitiated by one fatal mistake of the westerners:
they installed science as supreme God declaring that it alone had the right to claim the
adoration and submission of man unto it. Thus they denied themselves all means of
acquiring knowledge save that recognized by empirical science which let humanity
wander farther away rather than bring it nearer to its real objective or destination.
Consequently the otherwise vastly immense range of human endeavor and progress was
shrunk small with the limitations such as all empirical sciences entail. For, in some cases
it is just possible that the scope of empirical science, concerned as it is with mere matter,
may be narrower as against the inherent capacities of man or it may not be able to soar
higher than man is otherwise capable of with wings not of intellect alone but with those
lent him by his spirit as well, bringing him nearer to his Creator and enabling him at the
same time to obtain a far sounder and more correct understanding of the ultimate reality.
The protagonists of science also claim that science alone can introduce man to the
secrets of this universe and life: hence, only that which is upheld by science is true; the
rest is all trash! But while making such a statement they overlook the fact that science
with all its brilliant and impressive record is still in its infancy and ever hesitant to
commit itself as regards the veracity or supposititiousness of many things for the simple
reason that it cannot penetrate deep into the heart of reality beyond effecting a mere
superfluous survey of it. But still its votaries clamor and tell us with a very authoritative
air that there is no such thing as human soul in existence. They deny that man, confined
as he is within the limitations of his sensory organs, can ever have any contact with the
Unknown -nor get even a glimpse of it through telepathy1 or dreams. They repudiate all
these not because they have proved them to be mere illusions but simply because the
experimental science with its inadequate instrument has not yet been able to fathom their
mystery, as it pleased God to reserve these as something above and beyond the field of
human perception. That it belongs to a higher order of things not subject to man's
observation was, however, sufficient to make these gentlemen turn their backs on it, some
of them hurrying forward to announce to the waiting world that there was no such thing
as human soul in existence.
Such then is the "enlightened ignorance" man suffers from today, which shows how
desperately he stands in need of Islam to blow away these "scientific" cobwebs of today
as well as the imbecilities inherited from a remote past. Idol-worship was the older form
wherein human folly found expression: the cult of science-worship is its latest version.
To liberate human reason and spirit, both of these needs must be shaken off. It is in this
perspective that Islam emerges as the only hope for humanity, for it alone can restore
peace between religion and science, bring back once more the tranquility and concord to
this distressed world of today that has lost them through the perverted attitude towards
life of the dominant West, forestalling an irreconcilable antagonism between man's
reason and intuition, between his desire for knowledge and a craving for God.
Historically the modem European civilization is the descendant of the ancient Grecian
civilization bequeathed to modern Europe by the Roman Empire. In this Grecian
civilization the relations of man to his gods were viewed as of mutual antagonism and
active antipathy. Thus the mysteries that human endeavor lays bare or the good things
that he happens to lay his hands on in this world were viewed as something he forcibly
wrenches from these jealous but ineffectual gods, who would ban and take back all these
if they could. Viewed in this light, the scientific achievements of man were just another
name for his conquests that he won against his gods with a vengeance as they did not
allow these willingly but only grudgingly.
It is this very pernicious spirit of the Grecian culture that still pervades the

1
Telepathy is the Dame for the communication of one mind with another at a distance. The most notable example
of it is that incident wherein Caliph Omar called out to Sariah, a Muslim commander saying: "Sariah! To the mountain!
To the mountain!’ Sariah heard this warning coming from hundreds of miles away. So he led his contingent to the
mountain, escaped the enemy lying in ambush and won a victory over them. As such though telepathy is recognized as
a scientific fact yet the modern scientist is so biased that its having anything to do with "soul' is denied outright. It is
explained as a manifestation of a sixth but yet not fully explained faculty of the human mind.
subconscious of the modern West. It is manifest sometimes in its interpretation of facts.
True to its Greek spirit the modern West speaks of the victories of science over physical
phenomena as a coveted prize that man wrenched from the hands of a mysterious Higher
Power subjecting thereby nature to him gradually. It may also be perceived in the attitude
of the modem West towards God. The only thing that makes man prostrate himself before
God, it says, is his own sense of weakness. But each big stride that man takes forward in
the various fields of science raises him to a higher plane of being-brings him nearer to
godhood-till in the end he should be able to unravel all the mysteries of life, create life
itself an obsession of the modern scientist-and thus come on a par with that Being called
God! Then he will no longer feel compelled to prostrate himself before an unseen God,
for he shall then himself be raised to the position of one.
This is the most dangerous malady that the modern West suffers from at present. It
has poisoned all life. Humanity is torn and divided, one part set against the others. Peace.
harmony and tranquility have become rare phenomena. But still there is one last hope:
that is Islam. Let humanity turn towards this word of God, as this alone can save it from
the doom brought on it by the Godless West. Islam equips man with a sound outlook
upon life telling him that whatever knowledge he acquires or the material or spiritual
benefits he enjoys are in fact so many gifts to him of a Beneficent God. And that He is
pleased with man so long as he employs the knowledge thus acquired in the service of
mankind, and that God of Islam does never get angry with His creatures for their aspiring
after knowledge, nor does He have any fear whatsoever of them that they would
challenge His authority or vie with Him; and that He is provoked to anger only when man
abuses his knowledge of science and makes it a means to torment others or commits
aggression against his fellowmen.
Thus Islam establishes not only peace and harmony but also rids mankind of tyranny
and oppression. The contemporary world presents in this respect no better view than it
did thirteen hundred years ago, when Islam freed it from all false gods. Tyranny still
struts abroad in the guise of haughty kings, insolent demagogues and heartless capitalists
who are busy as ever in sucking up the blood of the working millions, subjugating them
and making capital out of their helplessness and miserable plight. There is still another
class of dictators who rule with fire and sword, usurp peoples' liberties and go about
chanting that they are merely instruments in enforcing the people's or the proletariat's
will.
The assertion that Islam helps humanity shake off all of these shackles may occasion
some readers to ask: why does not Islam then liberate its own followers from the
oppressive tyranny of some of their rulers who have usurped all their liberties and
exposed them to the most revolting forms of disgrace and dishonor in the very name of
Islam? To such readers we would like to point out that though these dictators exploit the
name of Islam yet Islam is far from being in power in their domains or exercising any
control or check over them. They belong to the class about which God Himself has
declared that:
..And those who do not rule in accordance with what is revealed by God, are
disbelievers" (v: 44).
 And that:
..But no! By your Lord! They do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of
that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any
straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission"
(iv: 65).
The Islam that we call upon our fellowmen to adopt as their guide in life is not one
and the same thing as that passed off under this name by some Muslim rulers of today's
East. They have no respect or regard for the Divine Law as they seldom hesitate in
breaking it at will. Thus when deciding their affairs they feel no need to be faithful to it
following sometimes a man-made law borrowed from some European country and
sometimes the Divine Law as may suit their needs or whims at the time. They are thus
guilty of injustice towards both, towards men as well as God, for they choose from either
side not what is right according to them but only that which might serve their personal
ambitions, greed or lust.
The Islam that we know of is rather that which jolts down the haughty kings and
insolent tyrants from above their proud seats of power. It makes them subject to the
Divine Law along with other men and women or does away with them once for all, for
"... .As for the scum, it passes away as a worthless thing, and as for that which profits the
people it tarries in the earth” (xiii: 17).
In the domain of this Islam and as a consequence thereof, there shall be no tyrants as
it countenances no tyranny, nor does it allow any man to subjugate others or impose upon
them his will, save that of God and His Apostle who command but that which is good and
just. The ruler in such a community shall, as a part of his obligations towards men and
God, be required to enforce Divine Law failing which he may no longer have any lawful
claim to his subjects' obedience. They may in such a situation quite lawfully disregard his
orders. This was explicitly stated by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with
him) when he said that "Obey me only so long as I obey God with respect to you; and if I
should happen to deviate from God's obedience, then in that case my obedience shall no
longer be incumbent upon you", As such the ruler in Islam has no more right to tamper
with the Public Exchequer or state legislation than the lowliest of his subjects, Moreover
none would in such a domain of Islam have any right to rule others except after his
election to a post of authority that the other members might have willingly devolved upon
him in a free, just and impartial election with no checks on voters save those of justice,
virtue and decency.
Such an Islamic State will not only liberate its citizens from all tyrants at home but
shall safeguard their freedom against any out side aggression as well, whether it be in the
form of imperialistic exploitation or a threat of it, This is so because Islam itself is a
religion of glory and power and as such it cannot tolerate that men should degrade
themselves by prostrating at the feet of the false god of imperialism, Islam prescribes a
very simple code of life for man. It exhorts him to strive hard to gain the pleasure of his
Creator, surrender his will to that of His, follow His commandments and come forward
with all the resources at his disposal to fight against the damned specter of imperialism
and tyranny.
 Let men, therefore, turn towards Islam for right now is the time that all should flock
together under its standard so as to sweep off from the face of the earth all the vestiges of
imperialism. Therein lies the solitary hope of humanity of freeing itself from the clutches
of this specter that still clouds the world scene. Here is the way to real freedom such as
allows of no serfdom, promises all men freedom of thought, action, property and religion
jealously safe guarding their integrity as well as honor. For only thus can we become
Muslims worthy of our God, the object of our adoration in Whose path we tread, the path
He chose for us: "This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor
on you and have chosen for you Islam as religion" (v: 3).
Such a radical reformation effected by Islam is by no means a parochial one confined
to the Muslim community alone, but is, on the other hand, by its very nature universal in
character. It is nothing Jess than a blessing for the world of today afflicted as it is with
internecine wars, with a still another and far molt: terrible third world war looming large
on the horizon.
Today's world is divided into two big power blocs-the capitalist and the communist
blocs, each set against the other in a deadly struggle for the capture of world-markets and
important strategical points on the globe, They, however, despite all their differences still
remain one and the same thing as both are imperialistic in outlook and are out to enslave
other peoples of the world. With this end in view they are both anxious to capture the
maximum possible resources, human as well as material. Other human beings are in their
eyes no better than so many chattels (man power they call it) or mere tools with which to
realize their nefarious designs. .
If the world of Islam should, as a whole, rise against the barbarous tyranny of the
modern imperialist Powers-as it is in fact on the way to it-it can effectively end all
international rivalries and bickerings that constitute so dangerous a threat for world
security as well as peace. The Muslim countries can by closing their ranks very easily
form a power bloc of their own. Thanks to its excellent geographical position, such a
power bloc of Muslim nations would hold the key to a balance of power in the comity of
world nations, situated as it would be midways between the old and the new world. They
will then be free to choose sides with this or that party in keeping with their own
collective interests rather than serve those of the Eastern or the Western imperialism.
Islam is the only future hope of humanity, and its victorious emergence out of the
present ideological warfare 'is the only guarantee of man's salvation. But important as the
triumph of Islam is for the future of mankind, its realization is also not a mere illusion.
For, it can be effected if the people who are already in its fold and profess loyalty to it
should right now pledge themselves for its glory and triumph. For this purpose they may
not stand in need of any help whatever from outside. Such a triumph of Islam would, for
the modern man, mean the abolition of the ever-menacing shadows of an approaching
worldwide conflagration; it would mean no nervous breakdowns, no physical or
psychological tensions, in fact a happy home and a happy, peaceful world.
There is, however, yet another aspect of the matter too. The Modern West has
achieved tremendous successes in the field of science, yet in the field of humanity it
remains as savage and backward as ever. Under its dominance science advanced but man
lagged far behind gradually losing all respect for the higher values in human life. Modern
civilization stressed matter more than spirit, attached more importance to sensuality
rather than spirituality with the result that the individuals have come to attach far more
importance to their personal pleasures and selfish interests than strive or suffer for the
common weal. That is why we find the modern man so engrossed in his sensual
pleasures. Such a state of affairs can hardly be termed as man's progress or humanity's
advancement, for it means not only material progress and scientific advancement but
man's freedom from the dominance of his oppressive animal appetites as well. It is here
that Islam steps in; it alone can make man progress and be really advanced.
Progress is not synonymous to having fast-moving planes, atom bombs, radios or
dazzling electric lamps as some misguided people seem to think. These things offer no
criterion to judge progress in human terms. The criterion of it would rather be: whether
man is dominated over by his animal appetites or he controls and keeps them in check?
Has he the capacity to rise above these blind passions or is he a mere plaything in the
hands of his unruly passions? If he is still no better than a mere slave to these then he is
far from having achieved any real progress or advancement. He may in such a case be
rightly called a miserable failure as a man, not withstanding his astounding conquests in
the field of science and knowledge.
This criterion, however, is not an authoritative one arbitrarily fabricated by religion or
morality. It is not a vision but a fact to the veracity of which history bears ample witness
as it is well grounded in the human nature and ultimate reality, for no people have ever
been able to retain their strength, glory and power and contribute towards the welfare and
advancement of human race once they fell a prey to the extravagances and luxuries of
this life. What was it that brought the proud Greece of ancient times low, and the Great
Roman Empire? How was it that the glory of ancient Persia and that of the Islamic world
towards the end of the Abasside period fadedout? And lastly, don't we still remember
how the corrupt French Republic with its people wholly engrossed in bodily pleasures
fared in the last World War? They surrendered to their enemies almost immediately.
They could not withstand even a single blow of their enemy as they cared more for their
personal pleasures than they were interested in the defense of their homeland, They were
more concerned with the safeguard of their overpopulated Paris with its elegant dancing
halls from the enemy shells than have any thought of redeeming the good name and
honor of their once proud and brave nation.
At times America is also referred to by some misinformed people in the East as an
example of a nation steeped in worldly pleasures, yet powerful and great with the highest
material output in the world. But these people forget that America is yet a young nation
in the spiritual as well as material sense of the word. And, as all know, youth is the period
when the effects of an insidious disease are hardly detected, for the body-politic is still
vigorous enough and fully capable of checking the outward manifestations of the disease.
But a penetrating eye may not be deceived by the apparent health and youthful vigor of
such a people, as it observes all the symptoms of the fatal malady distinctly and
unmistakably behind the thin veil of its resplendent exterior. That America is no
exception to the rule may be illustrated by the following two news items appearing in the
papers some time back. They also show that science, despite all its progress, is still as
ineffectual as ever so far as effecting any basic change in human nature is concerned, for
science is itself a part of God's Law-"the law wherein ye shall never witness a change".
The first news item describes that the State Department of America gave sack to
thirty-three of its employees as they were found of a loose moral character and guilty of
betraying state secrets to their enemies.
The second news item purports to the effect that one hundred and twenty thousand
American military men deserted the armed forces. This number is a fairly large one
considering the total strength of the American armed forces and the fact that they belong
to a nation still in its youth that also aspires for world leadership and domination.
This is just the beginning. The rest and the inevitable needs must follow if the
American nation persists in its present materialistic attitude towards life.
However this is just one aspect of the picture. The other side shows that
notwithstanding its highest material output, its relative youth and vast resources in men
and land, the American nation has proved singularly barren in the world of principles and
higher moral values due to the fact that it is, as a nation, wholly engrossed in physical
pleasures and in this respect has seldom been seen rising higher than the purely animal
level. The savage treatment meted out to the negroes in the United States represents a
nation spiritually unsound with a plane of humanity miserably low. Surely the world can
never progress by stooping low for the gratification of animal appetites-by worshipping
them.
This is indeed a very distressing picture of today's world but still there is one
redeeming factor that is Islam. It freed mankind from the tyranny of animal appetites
thirteen hundred years ago; now again it is the only hope for mankind to shake off the
shackles of lust and be free to direct all its faculties to reach a higher spiritual plane and
propagate virtue and goodness in life.
Let none dare say that the revival of Islam is an impossible and hopeless undertaking,
as the human race has in the past proved beyond any doubt that it is quite capable of
rising above a purely animal level. And surely what once was possible in the past needs
must still be possible in the present, for mankind has temperamentally not undergone any
change ever since. The world of humanity had sunk then, as now, to quite as low level
and was as much taken up with sensual pleasures as it at present seems to be. There is no
difference between its present and past save the outwardly visible forms of
voluptuousness or the names of the luxuries indulged in. Ancient Rome was no less
rotten morally than its modern Counterparts-Paris, London and the cities of America.
Similarly, in ancient Persia sexual anarchy was as rank as is at present associated with the
communist Countries. It was in this historical perspective that Islam was revealed to the
world. It brought about a complete change, lifted mankind from the abyss of moral
degradation, gave human life a lofty purpose, dynamism, movement, and infused into it a
spirit to strive hard in the way of truth and goodness. Humanity under Islam flourished,
prospered and there was set afoot a dynamic intellectual and spiritual movement that
encompassed the East as well as the West. No forces of evil and mischief dared check the
onward march of Islam with the result that the whole out look of human life was radically
transformed. Thus the world of Islam became the headspring of light, excellence and
progress in the world for a long time to com" During this long period of its dominance
never did the Islamic world find itself lagging behind materially, intellectually or
spiritually for the simple reason that it did not encourage moral corruption, sexual
anarchy or Godlessness. Its followers were looked upon as symbols of goodness and
excellence in all spheres of human activity till they ceased to reflect in their lives the
noble and exalted ideal of Islam and became mere slaves to their whims and animal
desires. It was then that all their glory and power came to an end in accordance with the
immutable law of God.
The modern Islamic movement that is still gathering force derives its strength from
the past and makes use of all the modern available resources with its gaze fixed on the
future. It has great potentialities and as such has a bright future ahead, for it is fully
capable of performing that great miracle which has once been already effected by Islam
making man look higher and beyond animal pleasures with his feet planted firmly on the
earth and with his gaze fixed beyond the heavens.
This does not, however, mean that Islam is a mere spiritual creed, or a plea for
morality, or just an intellectual research in the kingdom of heavens and earth. It is a
practical code of life that fully embraces worldly affairs. Nothing escapes its penetrating
eye. It takes notice of all the diverse patterns of relationships binding men together
irrespective of the fact that such relationships fall under the political, economical, or
social heads; regulates them by prescribing suitable laws and then enforces them in
human life, the most out standing characteristic of the performance being the
achievement of a unique harmony between the individual and society, between reason
and intuition, between practice and worship, between the earth and Heavens, between this
world and the Hereafter, all beautifully couched together in a single harmonious whole.
The space at our disposal in the present chapter is too limited to admit of any detailed
discussion of the political, economical and social system of Islam. The following chapters
will, however, throw some light on some of the salient features of this all comprehensive
system of Islam in the course of dealing with the misunderstandings spread against by the
Western scholars. The following facts we would, however, like to lay down here before
our readers:
Firstly, it must be well understood that Islam is not a mere ideological vision. It is, on
the other hand, a practical system of life that fully appreciates all the genuine needs of
mankind and tries to realize them.
Secondly, in trying to meet the genuine requirements of man
Islam effects a perfect balance so far as the limitations of human nature would allow.
It starts with the individual maintaining a balance between his requirements of body and
soul, reason and spirit, and in no case allows one side to predominate the other. It does
not suppress the animal instincts in order to make the soul ascend the higher planes, nor
does it, in hankering after the bodily desires, make man stoop to the low level of mere
animalism. On the other hand, it makes them both meet on a single higher plane doing
away with all the internal psychological conflicts that threaten the entity of human soul or
set a part of it against the other parts. Thence it proceeds to achieve an equilibrium
between the needs of the individual and those of the community. It allows not an
individual to transgress other individuals, or the community. Nor does it allow the
community to commit transgression against the individual. It also does not approve of
one class or people to enslave another class or people. Islam exercises a beneficent con-
straint on all these mutually opposed forces, prevents them from coming into collusion
with one another, calling upon them all to join hands and co-operate for the general good
of mankind as a whole.
Thus Islam strikes a balance between different factors of society, between spiritual
and temporal, economic and human factors. Unlike communism it does not believe that
economic factors i.e. the material aspect alone, dominate the human existence. -or does it
contribute to what the pure spiritualists or idealists say claiming that spiritual factors of
high ideals alone arc sufficient to organize human life. Islam rather holds that not one or
two but all these diverse elements put together form what is called human society; and
that the best code of life is that which takes note of all these, making full allowance for
body as well as reason and spirit and arranging them all in the framework of a
harmonious whole.
Third/y, it must always be kept in mind that Islam has an altogether independent
existence of its own as a social philosophy as well as an economic system. Some of its
outward manifestations may on the surface appear to resemble those of capitalism or
communism, but in fact it is far from being the one or the other. It retains all the good
characteristics of these systems yet is free from their shortcomings and perversions. It
extols not individualism to that loathful extent which is characteristic of the modern West
that holds the individual as the basis of social order and says that freedom of the
individual must in all circumstances be preserved and in no case interfered with by the
community. From this germ sprang up in the West the modern capitalism that is based on
the concept of the individual's freedom to exploit others including the community that up
brings and preserves him. Islam, while emphasizing the importance of society, docs not
go to the extreme such as is witnessed in the countries of Eastern Europe. They hold
society the basis of human life wherein the individual is no more than an insignificant
midget with no existence whatever of its own outside and independent of the herd.
Therefore, the community alone enjoys freedom as well as power; the individual has no
right to question its authority or demand of it, his rights. Thus did there originate
communism claiming that the state holds the absolute power to shape, howsoever it
should desire, the lives of the individuals.
Islam strikes a balance between these two extremes-communism and capitalism.
Recognizing the importance of both it so harmonizes the individual and the state that
individuals have the freedom necessary to develop their potentialities but not to
transgress against others of their fellowmen as also it gives to the community or the state
that represents the organized community, vast powers to regulate and control the socio-
economic relationships, so as ever to guard and maintain this harmony in human life. The
basis of this whole structure as envisaged by Islam is the reciprocity of love between
individuals and groups. It is not erected on the basis of malevolence and class conflict as
the communist societies.
 It may all so be pointed out her\: that this unique system of life, as envisaged by
Islam, did not originate as a result of any economic pressure, nor was it an outcome of
some mutually conflicting interests of antagonistic groups of people, No, not only this but
it was revealed to the world as the ordained system of life at a time when men attached no
particular importance to the economic factors, nor did they know anything about social
justice in the sense we know it in modern times. Both communism and capitalism are
much later growths. As far as reformation in the social and economic spheres of human
life is concerned, the basic needs of man-food, housing, and sexual satisfaction-with
which the name of Karl Marx is generally associated as being the first to hold that it was
the duty of the government to make provision for these basic needs of man. This is
claimed as a great revolution in the history of human thought. But long before Karl Marx-
thirteen hundred years ago-Islam had already proclaimed these very rights of the
individual before the world. Thus the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said that:
“Whosoever acts as a public officer for us (i.e. the Islamic State) and has no wife, he
shall hare a wife: if he has no house, he shall be given a house to live in; if he has no
servant, he shall have one; and if he has no animal (a conveyance), he shall be provided
with one". This historical announcement of the fundamental human rights not only
includes those voiced by Karl Marx, but it adds to them some more as well, without
however necessitating any inter-class hatred, bloody revolutions, and without, of course,
rejecting all those human elements in life that do not fall under the above three heads:
food, housing and sexual surfeit.
These are some of the salient features of the Islamic code of life. They are sufficient
to prove that a religion with such laws and principals and so comprehensive as to include
the whole of the human existence, emotions, thoughts, actions, worship, economic;
dealings, social relationships, instinctive urges and spiritual aspirations all arranged in
the framework of a single harmonious but unique system of life, an never lose its
usefulness for mankind. Nor can such a religion ever become obsolete as its objectives
are the same as those of life itself and, therefore, destined to live on so long as there is
life on this planet.
Considering the existing state of affairs in the contemporary world, mankind cannot
reasonably afford to turn its back upon Islam or reject its system of life, Mankind is still
afflicted with the most savage and odious forms of racial prejudices in even this so-called
enlightened twentieth century, America and South Africa may offer a case in point in this
respect, Surely the twentieth century world has yet a great deal to learn from Islam, Long
ago Islam freed humanity from all racial prejudices, It did not content itself with the
presentation of a beautiful vision of equality alone but in practice did also have an
unprecedented state of equality between all people black, white or red, declaring that
none enjoyed any priority over the others except by virtue of piety, It not only freed the
black from slavery but also fully recognized their rights to aspire even to the highest seat
of authority in the Islamic State, They could, like freemen, become the heads of the
Islamic State. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Listen and obey even if a
negro slave be appointed as your superior so long as he should enforce amongst you the
Law of God,"
 How can also the world of today ignore the message of Islam stricken as it is with the
evils of imperialism and tyranny with all their barbarous attributes, for Islam alone can
help mankind shake off their chains, It is opposed to imperialism and all forms of
exploitation, The treatment of Islam with the peoples of the countries it conquered with a
view to spreading the word of God, was so generous, lofty and sublime that the eyes of
the pygmies of the "Civilized" Europe can hardly penetrate those heights, We may in this
regard cite the famous decision of the Caliph. Omar bin Al-Khattab to whip the son of
Amr bin Al-Aas, the victorious general and honored governor of Egypt as he had beaten
an Egyptian Copt without any legal justification with the renowned father himself having
a very narrow escape from the whip of the Caliph, This shows how great civil liberty was
enjoyed by the subjects of the Islamic Slate. Then there is the evil of capitalism that has
poisoned all life its abolition and the need to rid human race of its evil consequences
again call for Islam. For, Islam prohibits usury and hoarding which taken together form
the mainstay of the capitalist economy. This, in other words, means that Islam alone can
effectively check the evils of capitalism as it did check them thirteen hundred years ago.
Similarly, the world dominated over by the materialistic, godless Communism cannot
help standing in need of Islam as it achieves and maintains social justice of the highest
order without recourse drying up the spiritual head-springs in human heart. Nor does it
confine man's world to the narrow world of the senses. Above all, it neither endeavors
nor aims at the imposition of its own creed on mankind forcibly with the iron rod of a
proletarian dictatorship for. "There is no compulsion in religion; indeed righteousness
has been differentiated from wickedness" (ii: 256).
Finally, the world with the shadows of war still hanging over it cannot but turn
towards Islam-the only way to establish and maintain real peace on this earth.
The era of Islam has in a way just started, not ended; it is not a spent force, but a
living dynamic force. Its future is as bright as its great historical past is glorious when it
illumined the face of the earth at a time when Europe was still groping its way in the dark
recesses of medievalism.
The Holy Qur'an states: “And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation),
write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the
wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you" (xxiv: 33),
 ISLAM AND SLAVERY

Perhaps this is the most odious form of doubt exploited by the communists in order to
shake the faith of the Muslim youth in his religion, Islam. If Islam were suited to every
period of human history, it would not, as it did, approve of slavery, which proves
conclusively that Islam was but meant for a limited period of history only. It has fulfilled
its mission and now stands outmoded and obsolete for it was not designed to be a religion
for all times and climes.
The sincere Muslim youth is also haunted by similar doubts. Why did Islam permit
slavery? This religion is no doubt revealed by God: there can be no doubt about that, and
that it was revealed for the good of the whole of mankind for all times to come, but how
is it that it allowed slavery? How did the religion based on the notion of perfect equality
among men, stressing the common origin of them all and then successfully translating its
concept of equality in its social life, recognize slavery as a part of its social system and as
such made laws for it'? Does God intend that human beings for ever should remain
divided as masters and slaves'? Does He want that the human race should continue to
have a group of people among them that is sold and bought as chattel as was the case
with the slaves, when He Himself said of hum all beings:" And surely We have dignified
the children of Adam,” and if God did not intend or like it, why did He not then explicitly
forbid it in His Book and abolish it outright as He did, for instance, abolish drinking,
gambling and usury etc., the practices which He abhors? In short the Muslim youth
knows that Islam is a true religion but like Abraham he is perplexed and seems to be in a
state of mind described in the Qur'anic verse:
“And when Abraham said, my Lord, show me how You give life to the dead, He said:
What! And do you not believe? He said: Yes, but that my heart may be at ease” (ii: 260).
As against this the youth, whose reason is impaired and beliefs confused by the
imperialistic machinations, does not wait for the truth to be made clear before him but is
swept away by his passions and, without any inclination to inquire into the reality, jumps
to the conclusion that Islam is antiquated and, hence, is no longer needed by man.
The communists, who hoodwink people by claiming to be scientific, trade in ideas
borrowed from their masters abroad which they arrogantly parade giving a false
impression of having discovered an unalterable and eternal truth, the genuineness of
which cannot be challenged, nor contradicted. The truth they claim to have discovered is
dialectical materialism-the theory which states that human life is divided into certain
definite economic phases such as can neither be avoided, nor passed by mankind viz. first
communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and the second communism (deemed to be
the last page in the book of history) and that all creeds, disciplines, and thoughts that
human history knows of were in fact a mere reflection of the various economic conditions
or economic systems that prevailed at different periods of human history. These past
creeds and beliefs were all right for those bygone ages, for they fully coordinated with the
economic structure and circumstances of those times but they can never be suitable for
the next higher stages of human development as these are always based on quite a new
and different pattern of economy. Hence, they conclude, there can be no single system of
life such as could be suitable for all times to come. Now as Islam came to the world at a
time when the stage of slavery was coming to an end and that of feudalism just
beginning, it brought with itself laws, creeds and a discipline of life all of which were in
concord with the prevalent circumstances of economic existence. That is why it approved
of slavery as well as permitted feudalism, for Islam could not anticipate the next stage of
economic development nor give any system to the world for which the economic
Conditions were not yet ripe for, as the blessed Lord Karl Marx said, it was absolutely
impossible.
We intend to discuss this problem of slavery in its historical, social as well as
Psychological Context with an open mind and without allowing ourselves to be
hoodwinked by the clamors of these tricksters and so-called scientific scholars.
__________________________________________________

When a modern man looks at the problem of slavery with his twentieth century
background and in the light of the hideous crimes perpetrated during the slave trade and
the abominably barbarous treatment that was meted out to slaves (especially in the
Roman Empire) he discovers it as a most shocking and horrid crime. He is at a loss and
finds it extremely difficult to understand as to how such a thing could be approved of by
a religion or a system of life. He wonders: how could Islam allow slavery when all its
other laws and principles point towards the freedom of man from all types and forms of
slavery? and then overwhelmed by a sense of shame he desires: would that Islam had set
our hearts and minds at ease by banning slavery in clear, explicit terms!
Let us pause here awhile and see as to what story the historical facts have got to tell
us. The fact is that the hideous crimes committed against the slaves in the Roman Empire
are quite foreign to Islamic history. We have got ample evidence with regard to the life
the slaves in the Roman world led which is quite sufficient to illustrate the great change
brought about by Islam in their fate.
The slave in the Roman world was considered a mere "commodity" and not a human
being. He had no rights what so ever although he was encumbered with cumbrous duties
and obligations. And whence did these slaves come? They were captured in wars, which
were not initiated by any noble principle or lofty ideals but were solely directed by a wish
to enslave other peoples and exploit them for self-aggrandizement. These wars were
waged in order to enable the Roman people indulge in licentious luxuries and live in
prosperity, enjoy cold and hot baths, costly costumes, delicious and tasty foods of every
kind, and revel in sensual pleasures-drinking bouts, whoredom, dancing as well as public
gatherings and festivals. In order to provide for these enjoyments they subjugated other
nations and exploited them most mercilessly. Egypt which was freed from the Roman
over lordship by Islam was treated no less cruelly. It constituted a granary of wheat for
the Roman Empire, besides furnishing various kinds of other material resources.
To satisfy this greedy lust of the Roman imperialists the slaves toiled for them in the
fields. As mentioned above, they enjoyed no rights. When working in the fields they were
fettered in heavy manacles so as to prevent their running away. They were never fed
properly but given provisions just sufficient to keep them alive and fit to do their work,
and this too not because they thought it was their right to be provided for with sustenance
as even the beasts and trees are. During the work they were whipped just for the savage
pleasure of it which was much relished by their sadist lord or his agent. At the end of the
day large groups of them-from ten to fifty men a group and still fettered in their
manacles-were herded together to sleep in dark, foul-smelling cells infested with mice
and insects. They were denied even the comfort of wide and spacious folds such as are
enjoyed by cattle in their enclosures.
But the worst and most revolting feature of the Roman attitude towards these slaves
was represented by what formed their best-loved diversion Which, by the way, also
brings into light the innate, barbarous and inhuman character of the Roman civilization-
the civilization which is in modern times represented by modern Europe and America
with all the means of imperialistic exploitation at their disposal. The slaves carrying
swords and lances were led out into the arenas with their masters and occasionally the
emperor himself seated around exalted seats in order to watch them fight, in dead earnest,
for their diversion. The slaves fell upon one another with their swords and spears,
recklessly hacking themselves to pieces. The climax was reached when someone of the
fighters killed a fellow-slave and threw him cold and lifeless on the ground. At this he
was lustily applauded with loud hurrahs, vigorous hand clapping and joyous, hearty
laughter.
This was how the slaves fared in the Roman world. We need not dwell upon their
legal position in this set-up: the absolute right of the master to kill, punish or exploit them
mercilessly without any right on their part, to complain even, and without expecting any
moral support whatever from any quarter, as it would add little to our knowledge after
going over all that we have in brief described above.
The slave was no better off than this in Persia, India and other countries. Despite all
their minor differences the fate of the slave remained the same among all these nations:
his life had no worth, is murder no retaliation, he was burdened with cumbersome
obligations carrying with them little or no rights in return. The systems prevalent in these
countries differed neither in intent nor ill Content with regard to the slaves: they differed
merely in the degree or intensity of their cruelty and hideousness which they betrayed in
their attitudes towards slaves.
Such were the conditions of life that obtained when Islam arrived on the scene. Its
advent heralded the restoration of human dignity to these slaves. It told the masters as to
their slaves:
“You are (sprung) the one from the other" (iv: 25). It proclaimed that: “He who kills
his slave, we shall kill him; who mutilates his nose, we shall cut his nose; and who gelds
our slave, We shall get him gelded ill return"1. It recognized a common, descent abode
as well as return for all men, master and slave alike, saying “You are all sons of Adam
and Adam was created from dust,2" and stressed that there was no superiority for a master
over his slave merely because of his being a master: whatever superiority there was, it

1
Al-Hadith, narrated by both Bukhari & Muslim besides Abu Daud Tirmidhi and Nasai.
2
Al.-Hadith-Muslim &. Abu Daud.
rested on piety: "There is no superiority for an Arab, nor for a black man over a red one,
nor for a red over a black man save due to piety”.1
Islam came and told the masters that they should be fair and good in their dealings
with the slaves: "And be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and
the needy neighbor of (your) kill and the alien neighbor and the companion in a journey
and the wayfarer and those whom your right hand possesses; surely Allah does not love
him who is proud, boastful" (iv: 36). It stressed the fact that the true relationship between
the master and his slave was not one of slavery and over-lordship, nor of subjection or
objection but that of kinship and brotherhood. Thus the masters were permitted to marry
the slave-girls they had in their possession: "……Let them marry from the believing
maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knoweth best (concerning) your faith. Ye
(proceed) one from another.. so wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them
their portions in kindness" (iv: 25).
Thus the masters were described as brothers to their slaves: “Your slaves are your
brothers..so he who has a brother under him should feed him and clothe him as he
himself feeds and dresses; do not ask them to do things which are beyond their power and
if you do ask them to do such things then help them".2
With a mark of deference to the feelings of the slaves the Holy Prophet added: “None
of you should say: this is my slave and this is my slave-girl: he should rather say: This is
my man and this is my maiden".3 It was on this authority that Abu Huraira, on seeing a
man riding a horse and his slave trudging along after him, said to the man: "Get him
seated on the horse behind you, for, surely he is your brother, and his soul is similar to
yours".
This was, however, not all that Islam did for the slaves, but before proceeding with
our inquiry, we would first like to sum up the great advance that, thanks to Islam, came
about in the position of the slave at this preliminary stage.
The slave was now no longer regarded just a commodity-a merchandize-but was
looked Upon as a human being with a soul similar to that of his master, whereas in the
past be was regarded as a being quite different from his master, and created to serve as a
slave in every way fit to suffer humiliation, It was because of this notion that their
conscience never twinged them when murdering, punishing, cauterizing, or making their
slaves perform loathsome and burdensome jobs.4 Islam them from this state of abject
slavery to the exalted status of brotherhood with free men. These achievements of Islam
were not mere professions but a fact to which history bears witness. Even the prejudiced
writers of Europe too admit that in the early period of Islam the slave was exalted to such

1
Bukhari.
2
Al-Hadith.
3
Hadith narrated by Abu Huraira.
4
The Hindus (India) believed that the slaves (the Sudras) had sprung from the feet of the God and hence they assumed
that they were innately mean and low, a fate they could never contend or change. Therefore the only way open before
them was that they should suffer this humiliation and chastisement patiently in the hope that their souls may after their
death transmigrate into a better creation. Thus their oppressors, not content with reducing them to the wretched state of
physical slavery, proceeded further to deprive them even of the will to rise in revolt against the unjust social order that
subjected them to humiliation and misery.
a noble state of humanity as was never before witnessed in any other part of the world,
They won so dignified a status within the Muslim community as made the freed slaves
abhor betraying their erstwhile masters although now they stood in no need or fear of
them and were now as free as they, The reason for this lay in the fact that they considered
themselves to be members of the family of their previous masters and linked to them with
ties akin to those of blood.
Also the slave now came to be regarded as a human being whose personal safety was
guaranteed by law not permitting the commission of any transgression against him
through word or act. As to the word, the Prophet forbade the Muslims to talk of their
slaves as such and instead commanded them to address them in a manner that should
make them think of themselves as members of their family, and blot out from their
persons the stigma of slavery. With this in view he said: “Sure/y God has made you their
masters: and if He had willed He could have likewise given you in their possession as
slaves".1 This means that it was the particular conditions and circumstances that had
made them slaves, otherwise they were as good as their masters. In this way Islam
deflated a little the swollen pride of the masters along with raising the status of slaves so
as to connect them all in a purely human relationship. It brought them closer and fostered
love among them telling them that love and nothing else should form the basis of all their
mutual relationships. In the case of physical harm or injury, for both of them a kindred
punishment was explicitly laid down. “He who Slavs his slave we shall put him to death,"
is a principle very clear in its vast implications, all of which go to show that a state of
perfect equality prevailed between the slave and his master as between one man and
another, besides guaranteeing to both of them the right to live as human beings. Thus
Islam made it clear that the present situation slavery-did not preclude them from their
rights as human beings, These guarantees were not only quite sufficient to grant a slave
his safety and security of life but were also so generous and noble that no other parallel in
the whole history of slave laws exists at all either before or after the advent of Islam. In
this respect Islam went to such an extent that it forbade the master to even slap his slave,
except for the purpose of correction (which has its own prescribed limits that may neither
be passed by nor overlooked under any circumstances, the punishment given being,
however, similar to the punishment the master may award his own children on their
mischief). This also provided a legal justification for setting the slaves at liberty. And
with this we pass on to the next stage-the stage of actual enfranchisement.
In the first stage Islam gave spiritual enfranchisement to slaves. It gave them back
their humanity and taught that from the stand point of a common origin they enjoyed a
status similar to that of their masters and that it was the external circumstances alone that
had deprived them of their freedom, preventing them thereby from participating directly
in the social life of the community. But for this only point of different, there was no other
difference between slaves and masters as far as their rights as human beings were con-
cerned.
But Islam did not stop short there as the great fundamental principle of it is the

1
For reference please see Ghazali’s 'lhya-Uloom-i-Din chapter on Rights of Slaves
achievement of perfect equality among all men making everyone of them equally free.
Therefore it proceeded to bring about the actual freedom of the slaves by two important
means: (1) voluntary emancipation by the masters (Al Itq) and (2) writing of their
freedom (Mukatabah),
(1) As to the first of these (i.e. Al Itq) it was a voluntary act on the part of the master
to set a slave at liberty. The practice was greatly encouraged by Islam and the Holy
Prophet himself in this regard too provided the best example for-his followers. He freed
all the slaves he had. His companions followed his example, Abu Bakr in Particular,
spending large sums of money on buying off slaves from the idolatrous chiefs of Quraish
to set them free later on. Besides this the slaves were also bought out of the Public
Exchequer whenever there was some money to spare for this purpose so as to set them
free. Yahya bin Saeed says: "Umar bin Abdul Aziz sent me to collect alms from Africa. I
collected the alms and then looked for the poor to distribute the alms among them but I
found none, nor I found anyone who might have accepted these from me, for Umar bin
Abdul Aziz had enriched the people. So I bought a slave with the money and then set him
free". The Holy Prophet used to free a slave who would teach reading and writing to ten
Muslims or render any other kindred service to the Muslim Community. The Qur'an
enjoined that atonement for some of the sins consisted in freeing of slaves as also the
Holy Prophet encouraged it for the reparation of any other sin one might commit. This
contributed more than anything to bring liberty to the greatest number of slaves, for no
man could hope to be wholly free from sin as the Holy Prophet said: “All sons of Adam
are sinners". It may be well to point out here one of the atonements prescribed by Islam
for sins, as it in particular illustrates the stand point of Islam with regard to slavery. Islam
prescribed that redemption for the killing of a believer by mistake was the freeing of a
believing slave and paying blood money to his people: “And whoever kills a believer by
mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood money should be paid to his people”
(iv : 92). The murdered man killed by mistake was a human being of whose services his
people as well as the community were deprived without any legal justification, for which
reason Islam prescribed that a compensation should be made to both parties his people
and the society: his people getting a just blood money and the society another man to
serve it in his place i.e., the newly freed believing slave. Thus the freeing of a slave
meant bringing back to life a human being as a compensation for the one who was lost
due to his being killed by mistake. As is clear from this, Islam views slavery as death or a
state very much similar to it notwithstanding all those securities that it did provide for a
slave. That is why it eagerly snatched every opportunity to resuscitate this wretched class
of human beings by restoring to them their liberty.
History tells us that such large numbers of slaves achieved their freedom through this
voluntary emancipation (Al Itq) in Islam as have no other parallel in the history of any
other nation, before or after Islam till modern times, besides the fact that the factors that
contributed towards this emancipation were purely humane springing up from Muslims'
sincerest wish to win their God's pleasure by freeing the slaves they possessed.
(2) The second means whereby Islam brought freedom to slaves was that of
Mukatabah i.e. the writing of freedom to a slave on his asking for it by the master in
return for a certain amount of money agreed upon by both of them. The master could in
such a case neither refuse nor delay the freeing of a slave ready to ransom his freedom:
he needs must set him at liberty on the receipt of the ransom. Otherwise the slave could
move the court to decree his enfranchisement.
By this institution of Mukatabah, Islam paved the way for the freedom of all those
slaves who happened to desire their freedom and not passively wait for their masters'
good will or piety to set them at liberty at their own convenience.
From the moment a slave offered to ransom his freedom, not only his master could
not turn down the offer, but there was also no need for him to fear any repercussions, for
the Islamic Government guaranteed that he would henceforth work for his master in
return for a fixed payment, or it would make arrangements for him to work outside for
anyone else on hire till the time he is able to collect the money needed for the winning
back of his freedom.
This was what happened in Europe afterwards in the fourteenth century, that is Some
seven centuries after Islam had already enforced it in its domain, The great distinguishing
feature of Islam that can hardly be looked for anywhere else, was the financial aid the
Islamic Government advanced to slaves such as would demand the writing of their
freedom out of the Public Exchequer. This was a clear manifestation of the great interest
Islam had in the voluntary emancipation of slaves without expecting any material gains in
return, merely with a view to securing God's pleasure and fulfilling one's obligations as a
slave towards Him, The Qur'anic verse describing the uses of poor-rate (Az-Zakat) says:
“Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them….,and
the (ransoming of) captives" (ix : 60). Thus the Qur'an laid it down that the poor-rate
(Az-Zakat) should be spent for purchasing the freedom of such slaves as were unable to
work out their own liberty with the help of their personal earnings.
These two institutions in Islam signified a great practical advancement achieved by
Islam in the history of slavery, It forestalled the normal historical advancement of
mankind by at least seven centuries besides featuring Some quite new ingredients of
advancement such as security afforded by the state to the slave-something rare in the
history of mankind till modern times-and others which mankind is far from having yet
realized i.e. the noble and generous treatment of slaves, or freeing them of one's own free
will without any external pressure of economic or political developments such as at last
forced the peoples of Europe to grant freedom to slaves.
These two things are sufficient to confute the false assertions of the communists, who
claim that all systems including Islam represent but a particular stage in the economic
development of mankind. Faithful to the law of dialectical materialism thus Islam too
with all its beliefs and views came at a time best suited for it, reflecting the economic and
material conditions of the period, for a system may, according to them only reflect the
economic life but can by no means anticipate a future economic stage. They insist that
this theory cannot be false as it has been testified by the Reason of the One who "can
neither be influenced with falsehood from above nor from below"-the Reason of Karl
Marx, the most Exalted and Blessed one! But the bottom is knocked out of this falsehood
by Islam- standing refutation of all this Marxist humbug, for it did not work up its way in
the manner Marx prescribed, inside the Arabian peninsula, nor outside it all the world
over, And this is true not only with regard to the life of slaves under Islam but is equally
tenable in its manner of distributing wealth, in determining the mutual relationship of the
ruler and the ruled, and of a master's to his hireling.1 On the other hand, Islam raised its
whole social and economic superstructure on voluntary obedience of such a style as in
many ways still remains unsurpassed and unmatched in the history of social systems.
Here a very perplexing question may haunt some persons: Why is it that Islam-so
great a champion of slave emancipation and taking such radical steps towards that end
voluntarily and without any outside pressure or coercion before all the world did not also
take the final and decisive step, and abolish it once for all, as it might have in that way
immensely benefited mankind besides proving thereby that it was really a system most
perfect and in effect revealed by God, Who dignified the sons of Adam over many of His
creations?
For an answer to this question we need must inquire into the allied social,
psychological and political problems of slavery-the reasons due to which Islam delayed
its much expected and outright abolition. We must also during this inquiry bear in mind
that actually the abolition of slavery was rather delayed more than Islam would have
desired or allowed it if it had continued functioning properly in its pristine purity,
unadulterated by extraneous ingredients of deviation.
In the first place then it must be recorded that when Islam came, slavery was
prevalent throughout the world as an acknowledged fact of socio-economic existence,
There was hardly a man to be met with who was repelled by it, or who felt any need for a
change. As such the changing or the total discarding of it required a gradual process
stretched over a long period of time. Thus we see that prohibition of liquor was effected
not immediately but after years of preparation although it before all other things
constituted a mere individual habit, not withstanding the fact that it carried so many
social implications as well and that some of the Arabs practiced abstinence even in the
days of ignorance believing it a vice degrading for a truly noble man. But slavery was
looked upon by them as something quite different. It was deep-rooted in the social
structure of the time as well as the psychology of the individuals, it entailed individual as
well as social and economical implications and, as we observed above, nobody regarded
its existence as something undesirable, That is why its abolition required a period of time
far longer than the life of the Holy Prophet, the period which coincided with the period of
Divine revelation through him. God, the Best Knower of all that He created, knew that
the total prohibition of wine would be achieved after a few years by a mere com-
mandment. So He did command its prohibition when such time came. Similarly, if the
conditions of life had been such as a mere direction were to suffice to suppress the evil of
slavery, God Almighty would have expressly forbidden it once for all without any further
delay.
When we say that Islam is a religion for all mankind and for all times, and that it
embraces in itself all the healthy elements necessary for the existence and continuance of

1
Please also see the next chapter.
good life, we do not at all mean that it has once for all laid down all the detailed rules for
all times and climes. No, that is not so, for it has given such detailed directions only with
regard to those basic human problems that remain unaltered through all the different
vicissitudes of history, for the roots of these problems lie deep in the unchangeable, in-
stinctive headsprings of human nature. As to the ever-changing conditions of life, Islam
is content with laying down some general principles for them so as to outline their future
course of development. This is precisely what it did with respect to the problem of
slavery. It laid down a sound basis for the freeing of slaves through voluntary
enfranchisement or by the ransoming of their freedom besides pointing out the course to a
permanent resolution of this old and complicated problem in future.
Islam did not mean to change human nature. It rather sought to civilize it making due
allowance for its inevitable limitations so as to help it ascend the highest possible planes
of perfection without any recourse to suppression or repression. It recorded a miraculous
success in transforming some individuals. As regards human society as a whole its
success was no less glorious: it bears no analogy to anything else ever achieved in the
domain of human history. But despite all this it did not aim at transmuting human beings
to a degree of perfection both rare as well as impossible in the practical life of human
beings with all their present human limitations. For, if God had intended that, He would
have from the very first created men like angels and as such ordered them to bear burdens
that can be borne by angels only, of whom it is said that: "They do not disobey God in all
that He orders them: and they do what they are commanded to” (Ixvi : 6). God did not
intend to transmute men into angels such as these. He rather made them men and as such
He knows their potentialities and the time necessary for their flourishing so as to enable
them to follow and successfully execute an order. However it is quite sufficient for Islam
to be the first to initiate the emancipation movement which took the world some seven
centuries to adopt and enforce. The fact nonetheless is that Islam had before long
practically put an end to slavery in the Arabian peninsula and but for the presence of a
new headspring of slavery due to which slavery lingered on everywhere in the world, it
was quite capable of undertaking in earnest its similar effacement in the whole world of
Islam. In the presence of this new cause of servitude it was not possible for Islam to
abolish it outright, for it concerned not only the Muslims but their opponents as well on
whom Islam exercised no control or power. The source that thus prevented the total
effacement of slavery was war, the most fruitful source of slavery at the time. We would
discuss it shortly in some detail.
In treating slaves well and restoring their human status Islam has left behind some
most wonderful and admirable examples. Of these we have already referred to some of
the Qur'anic verses and traditions of the Holy Prophet, Here we would in brief take some
more examples from practical life in the early period. When in Madina, the Holy Prophet
established brotherhood between some Arab chiefs and some freed slaves. Thus he joined
as brothers Bilal son of Rabah and Khalid son of Ru-waihata Al-Khas'ami; Zaid, the treed
slave of the Prophet, and Hamza, the uncle of the Prophet; and Kharijah son of Zaid and
Abu Bakr. This relationship of brotherhood was a real bond akin to blood-relationship, so
much so that the two persons thus made brothers inherited from each other just as only
the blood relations now do.
But Islam did not stop at that. It went a step farther. Thus the Prophet married away
his cousin Zainab, daughter of Jahsh, to his ex-slave Zaid. But marriage touches a very
delicate aspect of a person's life especially in that of a woman. Therefore, although
Zainab accepted a man far below her in social status, she could not reconcile herself to be
the wife of one who did not come of a noble family like her, nor possessed wealth, But
the Holy Prophet did by this act set an example to show that a slave could attain to the
highest level of a Qureishite chief from out of the abyss of ignominy into which he was
hurled by his cruel fellow human beings. But still this did not satisfy Islam.
Slaves were exalted to the position of military commanders and leaders. Thus when
the Holy Prophet sent out an army which consisted of the closest of the Companions-
Emigrants and the Helpers, the acknowledged leaders of the Arabs-he entrusted Zaid, the
slave, with the generalship of the army. After the death of Zaid the Holy Prophet
appointed his son, Osma as the commander of the army consisting of such illustrious men
as Abu Bakr and Omar, his two principal ministers and afterwards successors. Thus
slaves were given not only a status equal and similar to others but were at the same time
raised to the exalted positions of heading the armies of free men. In this regard the Holy
Prophet went to such a great length that he is reported to have commanded the believers:
"Hear and obey (the orders of your leaders) although the man appointed above you as
your leader be a negro slave with a raisin-like head so long as he continues to enforce
among you God's law".1 Thus even a slave could aspire to the highest office in the
Islamic state. When faced with the problem of appointing his successor, Omar said: "Had
Salim, the slave of Abi Huzaifa been alive, I would have appointed him caliph". This was
just a continuation of the tradition founded by the Holy Prophet.
Omar's life affords yet another admirable instance bearing upon the respect enjoyed
by slaves in the Muslim society. When he was vehemently opposed by Bilal, son of
Rabah, an ex-slave, concerning the problem of Fay (conquered lands) Omar despairing of
all other means of silencing his opposition prayed to God: "My God! Requite me with
Bilal and his comrades!" What a reaction for a caliph in the face of opposition by one of
ex-slaves from among his subjects.
The great superiority of Islam with regard to slavery is manifest in various aspects. It
aimed at freeing slaves externally as well as internally but to achieve that end it did not
merely rely upon the pious wishes as Abraham Lincoln had done by issuing an order
without preparing slaves mentally. This demonstrates Islam's deep understanding of the
human nature and how it employed all possible means to achieve its objective. It not only
liberally restored these people's liberty but also trained them so as to safeguard it and bear
responsibilities flowing from it. It infused a spirit of love and cooperation throughout the
society. It did not wait till conflicts should break out within the society over these rights
as had happened in Europe leaving behind them an odious legacy of bitter malice and
hatred and sapping all the spiritual headsprings in human heart. In the end, let us now
take up the main basis on which Islam worked out the final emancipation after a due

1
Bukhari.
process of spiritual elevation of slaves.
We have already pointed out that Islam successfully put an end to all those old
sources whence slavery sprang up save one, which it was virtually impossible for it to do
away with, and that was war, the only effective source of this evil left behind after the
crusade of Islam against it. We propose to deal with it at some length.
The principal practice that dated back to the remotest past and was prevalent at the
time was that prisoners of war were either enslaved or put to death.1 It was a practice
such as had with the passage of time come to stay as a necessary condition of human
existence in those past ages.
It was against this social background that Islam was revealed to mankind. Many
battles took place between the forces of Islam and its opponents. The Muslims taken
prisoners in these wars were made slaves by their captors. Their liberties were forfeited.
Men were exposed to oppression and all those miseries that were commonly the lot of a
slave at the time, The honor of woman was violated in a most flagrant manner; several
men-fathers, sons and friends-all jointly shared a single captive woman with no regard
whatever to any rule or law, or respect for her womanhood, or any consideration
whatever about her being a virgin maid or a married Woman. Besides this, the children, if
captured, were brought up in a most odious and abject servitude.
As the conditions stood, it was not possible for Islam to forth with set at liberty all the
prisoners falling in its hands from the camp, for it would have not only been a piece of
bad policy but would have also implied a virtual encouragement to its enemies especially
as the Muslims as well as their dear and near ones captured in war were being made
slaves by the enemies and exposed to all sorts of tortures, atrocities and humiliations. In
such circumstances, the best and the only course left Open to Islam was to treat them as
captives as they treated the Muslims, The enslaving of the prisoners of war could not be
abolished unilaterally by Islam when the enemies insisted on its continuance. So the
practice was tolerated just so long as there did exist no alternative to it and till the time
the peoples all the world over should agree among themselves Upon a basis other than
that of slavery in dealing with their prisoners of war. We must not also overlook the great
difference between Islam and other religions in their wars or the treatment of the
prisoners captured in these wars.
Wars have been aud still are a melee of treachery, surprise, violence; and the
enslavement of one nation to another due to its expansionist designs and the lust for
exploitation in order to advance its own selfish ends. Such wars are and have been the
outcome of personal ambition, pride, vanity or a wish for vengeance of a king or a
military commander. Motivated as these wars were by low earthly designs, the people
captured therein were made slaves not because of their creed or ideal, nor because they

1
On page 2273 of the Historical Encyclopedia called, "Universal History of the World" We are told that in the
year 599 A,D" the Roman emperor, Marius, motivated by his love for economy, refused to ransom a few of the
millions of those prisoners that had been captured by his forces in Wars. He instead put them all without a single
exception to sword.
were inferior in their physical, psychological or Intellectual equipment to that of their
captors, but simply because they had lost the battle and belonged to the vanquished party.
Moreover, there was nothing that could in the event of war, prevent a victorious party to
subject the conquered people to humiliation and disgrace, violate their honor, raze
peaceful cities to the ground and put women, children as well as old men to sword,-a
logical sequence to lack of a lofty ideal, principle or creed to guide them.
With the advent of Islam all these practices were abolished. It prohibited all wars save
the one fought in the way of God; to avert cruelty and injustice to Muslims; crush a
tyrannous oppressor resorting to force and violence to prevent people from embracing
true religion; or to remove a powerful but iniquitous impostor interposing between men
and their God incapacitating them to see or hear and follow the truth independently. Thus
the Holy Qur'an declared: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you,
but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors" (ii: 190) and, "Fight them until
persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah" (viii: 39).
The message of Islam thus becomes a message of peace, which none can dare ignore:
"There is no compulsion in religion. The right (direction) is henceforth distinct from
error" (ii : 256). That there are even today Christians and Jews in the Muslim world who
follow their respective religions unchecked bears testimony to the irrefutable fact that
Islam does not approve of using force in converting men to its own viewpoint.1
If people accept this message of Islam and agree to follow the truth, the hostilities
between them and the Muslims cease forthwith. They become part of the Muslim
community and are not to be put to subjection or humiliation. They enjoy rights similar to
those enjoyed by other Muslims, for no distinction is permissible between one Muslim
and the other, nor had any Arab any superiority over a non-Arab except due to his piety.
In the case of a people who refused to adopt Islam as their religion but were desirous to
live under its protection with their own religion, Islam did not compel them to adopt its
creed but gladly undertook to protect them in return for a special tax (Jizyah) with the
understanding that all such taxes would be paid back to them in the event of Muslims
proving unable to defend them against outside aggression.2 And that despite the belief of
Islam that its was a creed far superior to and better than the one it had undertaken to
protect. But if a people their superiority in material wealth and arms. Only then and
against these people it is that war is declared. But even such a war is not plunged in
without a formal ultimatum or declaration as a last effort to prevent bloodshed if possible
and spread peace the world over: “ And if they incline to peace incline thou also to it, and

1
The famous English writer, Mr. Arnold has upheld this claim of Islam in his book "The Preaching of Islam."

2
History is full of instances such as bear upon this point. but we would mention just two out of Mr. T. W. Arnold's
book "The Preaching of Islam". (Ashraf's edition 1965). On page 61 of the book he says: “Again in the treaty made by
Khalid with some towns in the neighborhood of Hirah ", he writes {Tabari, the historian) : "If we protect you, then
Jizyah is due to us; but if we do not, then it is not due". He goes on to say that "The Arab general, Abu Ubaydah,
accordingly wrote to the governors of the conquered cities of Syria, ordering them to pay back all the Jizyah that had
been collected from the cities, and wrote to the people saying, "We give you back the money that we took: from you, as
we have received news that a strong force is advancing against us. The agreement between us was that we should
protect you, and since this is not now in our power, we return you all that we took. But if we are victorious we shall
consider ourselves bound to you by the old terms of our agreement".
trust in Allah" (viii: 61).
Such then is the story of the wars of Islam which sprang out of its wish to direct
mankind to the right path if all peaceful means towards that end should prove ineffective.
They were not motivated by any ambition to exploit or vanquish a people by any military
commander, for they were, in a word, wars waged in the way of God. Not only this but
clear injunctions and rules were also laid down for the conduct of these wars. The Holy
Prophet admonishing the Muslims said: "Go in the name of God to fight in the way of
God; kill him who rejects God; fight but do not commit a perfidy, nor mutilate, nor kill a
child".1 Also no man except he who carried arms against the Muslim army was to be
killed. Nothing was to be destroyed or ruined, nor anybody's honor violated. No mischief
or evil was to be encouraged, for “Surely God does not love the mischief-makers".
History bears witness that the Muslims upheld all these noble traditions in their wars
against their enemies, including even those they had to fight against their treacherous
opponents, the Crusaders. The Christians when in possession of Jerusalem committed all
sorts of iniquity and transgression against the Muslims living in the city. They violated
their honor and recklessly put them to sword. Even the great mosque there did not escape
from their transgression. But when the Muslims captured the city, they did not try to seek
revenge against them although they were permitted by God to pay the transgressors back
in their own coins: “And one who attacked you, attack him in like manner, as he attacked
you" (ii: 94). Instead, they chose a course such as to this day remains unsurpassed in
generosity and nobility.
This constituted the great fundamental distinguishing mark as to their war-aims and
traditions between the Muslims and non Muslims. Islam could very easily adopt the view
that all those who insisted on their despicable idol-worship and actively fought against
Truth and Light were half-human and thus fit for being held in bondage only, for how
could a people not defective in their intellectual or human make-up refuse Light and
Truth? And that, therefore, they neither deserved respect, nor the freedom which is the
privilege of human beings only.
But Islam did not adopt this course. It did not allow taking prisoners of war in
servitude on the plea that they were sub-humans. They were taken slaves just because
their people too treated the captured Muslims as their slaves, The problem of slavery was
thus left by Islam undecided till all the belligerents should agree to a principle other than
that of slavery in dealing with their prisoners of war, for, as the conditions stood, this was
the only guarantee against the non-Muslims' ill-treatment of their Muslim prisoners or
Subjecting them to misery and humiliation without any fear of retaliation.
At this price it must also be mentioned in passing that the only Qur'anic verse
touching upon the fate of prisoners of war says that: "And afterwards either set them free
as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war lays down its weapons” (xlvii:
4), It does not mention the enslaving of prisoners, which would have enforced it as a
permanent rule of war, What it explicitly laid down is rather the ransoming or setting
them free as a favor, for it is these two that the Qur'an prescribed as a permanent law of

1
Muslim, Abu Daud and Tirmizi.
war, Thus if the Muslims held the prisoners of war in slavery it was purely an act of
policy dictated by the force of circumstances. It does not form intrinsic principle of the
Islamic law.
But despite this the practice generally followed in Islam did not insist on taking
prisoners of war as slaves. If peace was restored, they were never made slaves. The Holy
Prophet set at liberty some of the Meccan prisoners captured in the battle of Badr, in
return for a redemption, while he freed the others as a mark of favor. Similarly, he
accepted Jizyah from the Christian deputation of Najran and returned their prisoners over
to them. All these noble deeds were meant to serve as precedents for mankind when once
it should be able to shake off the odious legacy of its past and be ready to treat the
prisoners of war as human beings.
We may also add that the prisoners fallen in the hands of Muslims in wars were never
ill-treated, tortured or subjected to the humiliation such as described above, They, on the,
other hand, found that if they chose the way to freedom lay open before them provided
also that they were ready to bear the responsibilities that go with freedom, If they fulfilled
these conditions they were set free, although most of them were bondsmen before falling
into the hands of the Muslims, and comprised to those slaves who were seized by
Persians and Romans, and packed off to fight against the Muslims.
As far as the women were concerned, Islam respected them even in their captivity
even if they were taken prisoners from foreign enemy lands. No one was allowed to
violate their honor or treat them merely as a part of booty captured in war. They were no
longer to be treated as a common property of all with every man having free access to
them to gratify his animal passions. They were hence forth to belong to their masters
alone. None else could establish sexual relations with them. Moreover, they were, like
men, granted the right to work out their freedom through Mukatabah, besides providing
that a slave-maid would be free the moment she gave birth to a child by her master.
Besides the mother, the child would also be deemed free. The treatment given them by
Islam on the whole during their captivity was equally noble and generous.
Such is the story of slavery in Islam-a story which constitutes one of the brightest
pages of human history. Islam never approved of slavery in principle as it strove hard
with all the different means at its disposal to eliminate slavery once for all. It tolerated its
existence for the time being just because it had no other alternative for it concerned not
only Muslims but those people as well who were not under its direct control. They held
the Muslims in servitude making them suffer the worst possible forms of humiliation and
miseries which drove the Muslims to adopt with respect to these people a Course of like
treatment, at least in treating their prisoners of war as slaves though not in their actual
transactions with these slaves afterwards.
Islam could not effect the abolition of slavery so long as the world did not agree to
put an end to the only source of slavery enslavement of prisoners of war. So when that
concord was achieved Islam welcomed it as it formed the unalterable fundamental
principle of its polity: liberty for all, equality for all.
As to the instances of slavery, slave-traffic, seizure and sale of Muslims met with in
some latter periods of Islamic history without any regular religious Wars having taken
place, they have no relation whatsoever to Islam. They can with no more justification and
truth be imputed to Islam than the vicious crimes and guilt that are perpetrated by some
Muslim rulers in the name of Islam at the present times.
In this respect we would do well to bear the following in mind:-
(1) The governments in the latter stages of history encouraged and tolerated slavery in
several ways without any genuine need. They were motivated by their lust for power and
conquest, one nation or class of people holding another nation or class of people in
subjection. The other forms of slavery sprang up from causes such as poverty, birth into a
certain class held as inferior and the fact that a man worked as a tenant on a Particular
tract of land. Islam stood for the abolition of all these forms of slavery except that one
and the only form of it, which, due to the unfavorable circumstances, it could not
effectively check. Slavery was tolerated till such time as the circumstances should grow
ripe and favor its abolition.
(2) Despite the fact that in Europe slavery prevailed in so many forms without any
genuine need, the Europeans in fact did never abolish it even when they at last
condescended to ban it. European writers themselves confess that in fact slavery in
Europe came to an end only when due to their economic difficulties, lack of will to exert
themselves and their incapacity to work, the slaves became more of an economic liability
than an asset to their masters. The master had to spend far larger amounts of money on
the sustenance and supervision of their slaves than the profits they got back as a result of
their exertion. It was thus a Purely economic factor just a matter of profit and loss-that
helped in bringing about the liberation of these European slaves and as such it bears no
analogy to the lofty ideal that respected every man for his humanity and which inspired
by that lofty concept of humanity restored to the slave his freedom. The freedom thus
Won by the slave in Europe sinks into insignificance when viewed in the context of
those successive revolutions that broke out there as a result of the restlessness among
slaves and which in the end made it impossible for their masters to hold them any longer
in subjection.
All these series of revolutions could not, however, help the slaves in winning back
their liberty. They were rather as a result of these revolutions bound all the more
securely, for henceforth they were held in serf hood bound to the soil they tilled and
changed masters on the sale pr transfer of land. The slave could not leave the soil which,
if he did, he was declared a fugitive by law, bound in chains, cauterized with fire and
returned to his master, This form of slavery continued to exist in Europe till it was finally
swept away by the French Revolution in the eighteenth century that is, some eleven
hundred years after Islam had already enunciated the principle of emancipation.
We should not be taken in by beautiful names. The French Revolution in Europe and
Lincoln in America abolished slavery along with the understanding among the peoples
the world over to suppress it in all its forms hut all these were mere names, beautiful
ones, of course, for, has slavery been abolished in reality? Isn't tyranny still strutting all
the world over in different guises? What is called that which the French did in Algeria? In
what other terms can we describe the black crimes of the Americans towards the negroes
there, and the felonies of the English against the colored people of South Africa?
 Is not slavery in effect the subjection of a nation to another and the deprivation of a
class of people of the rights enjoyed by other men like themselves? It means just that and
nothing else. Why should we not then call a spade a spade? Why misname these different
forms of slavery as liberty, fraternity, and equality? For, surely the surface decoration is
of little value where the crimes perpetrated underneath are of the most monstrous and
hideous nature yet witnessed by mankind during their long career on the earth.
Islam was very frank and explicit on what it stood for and advocated. It told the
people in a straightforward manner, in clear and unequivocal terms as to what it thought
of slavery, that such and such was the real cause of it, this is the way out of it to freedom;
and that this is the way to its outright abolition...the way that was for the time being not
checked due to the disagreement among the peoples of the world as to the treatment of
their prisoners of war.
But the meretricious civilization of modern times is neither so frank nor
straightforward with regard to its real aims and methods. It excels in one thing only: in
painting its exterior in the brightest of colors, elegant outwardly but dark and gloomy
from within. It killed hundreds of thousands of people in Tunis, Algeria and Morocco just
because they demanded their freedom and human dignity; freedom to live in their
respective homelands without any intrusion from abroad; the freedom to speak their own
tongue, to follow their creed and religion, and to have a free homeland and a direct share
in determining their political and economic relations with the rest of the world. They
killed these innocent people, hauled them into loathsome dungeons without food or
water, violated their honor, raped their womenfolk....killed them and ripped up their
bellies wagering if the child they carried was a male or a female. These monstrous crimes
are committed, but the twentieth century hypocritical civilization describes them as the
propagation of the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality, whereas Islam's
voluntary, ideal, respectful and generous treatment of slaves thirteen centuries ago, and
its declaration that slavery was not a permanent condition of life but only a temporary
one, are called backwardness, reactionarism and barbarism!
Similarly, this hypocritical civilization finds nothing shocking if the Americans put
on their hotels and public places the notices announcing' "For the Whites only"; "The
Black and Dogs not allowed"; and when a crowd of "civilized" white Americans
mercilessly lynch a colored man throwing him on the ground and kicking him round with
their boots till he is dead, for he despite being colored had dared succumb to the
temptation of having relations with a white American girl, with the initiative, however,
coming from her and not from him, while during all this the policemen stand around
passively and do nothing to stop them or save one of their compatriots united to them
through common bonds of language, religion as well as humanity. They perpetrate all
these monstrous crimes and still they remain as "civilized" as ever, and their nation is
looked upon as a pinnacle of modern civilization and progress!!
As against this we see that when a Parsee slave threatened Omar with assassination,
refused Islam as well as denied to pay the Jizyah to the Islamic state, they were treated as
real antagonists obstinately continuing their hostilities against Islam and turning down its
offer for a peaceful agreement. They were the people who took upon themselves to arrest
the spread of Truth and Light ruthlessly employing all Omar did not say anything to the
slave although he understood what the threat implied. The slave was neither imprisoned,
nor banished from the country, nor did Omar order his execution on the plea that he
belonged to a sub-human species who out of sheer prejudice and insolence insisted on
worshipping falsehood even after he had with his own eyes seen the truth and the light.
How vulgar of him and how contemptuous his attitude towards the slave as a man when
he on hearing the threat said instead: "The slave has threatened me", and then went his
way without in any way curtailing his freedom. He was charged with the assassination of
the Caliph only after he did actually commit the heinous crime.
On the other hand, we see that the colored people of Africa are oppressed, killed or,
as the English papers put it, are hunted down; and their human rights withheld from them
as they have dared realize their human dignity and so demand of the English people their
freedom. This is the English justice at its highest and the human civilization at its best!!
And these precisely arc the "sublime" and "glorious" moral principles on the basis of
which Europe claims precedence and dominance over the whole of the world. But so far
as Islam is concerned it is extremely barbarous and frivolous, for adopting the course of a
like-treatment towards its enemies, it allowed the enslaving of prisoners of war
temporarily without, however, approving of slavery in principle. It is also very backward,
for it never allowed 'man-hunting,' nor did it indulge in the killing of men because of their
having a black skin. Far from that, its reactionarism advanced to such an extent that it
declared: "Hear and obey even if the one appointed over you be a negro slave with a
raisin-like head".
As far as women-slaves were concerned, they constituted a quite different problem.
Islam made it lawful for a master to have a number of slave-women captured in wars
and enjoined that he alone may have sexual relations with them and that he might, if he
wished, marry anyone of them. Europe abhors this law but at the same time gladly allows
that most odious form of animalism according to which a man may have illicit relations
with any girl coming across him on his way to gratify his animal passions without any
consideration whatsoever to any law or human dignity. The guilt of Islam in reality is that
it did not countenance adultery. That is why the Europeans seem so wroth with it.
The women captured in wars were among other nations forced to lead a shameful and
vile life of prostitution, for they had none to take care of or look after them and as their
masters' sense of honor was seldom injured by their pursuing such a wicked course of
life. Far from it, the masters would often rather force them to it for their own material
gains. But Islam, "the reactionary and backward Islam", never countenanced adultery; it
rather made efforts to keep society clean of this hideous moral taint. Therefore, it
enjoined that these slave women would belong to their masters only; they were to provide
for their maintenance, feed and safeguard them from falling a prey to such a depravation,
gratifying their sexual needs along with satisfying their own in a clean, respectable
manner.
But the "conscientious" Europe cannot bring itself to countenance this animalism.
That is why it approves of adultery extending it all possible support and protection of law
and then, not content with that, spreads its cult throughout the world wherever its
imperialistic designs would lead it. The names have changed but the reality behind them
remains unchanged: the woman is as slave to the lust of men as ever she was, for is a
modern prostitute, despite all her much publicized freedom, really free to reject her
customers the customers who have no interest in her save as a means to achieve the
gratification of their own animal urge? Is she really a free woman? There is nothing
common between this filthy, abominable trade of human bodies and that clean and
spiritual bond that ties a maid to her master in Islam.
As against Islam, modern civilization lacks definiteness and clarity of vision. It does,
for instance, recognize that prostitution is an institution of slavery, but still insists on its
continuance on the plea that it is a "social necessity".
And why do Europeans consider prostitution a "social necessity"?
Prostitution has come to stay as a social necessity in European civilization because a
"civilized" European does not want to burden himself by supporting anyone, a wife or
children. He wants to have pleasure without the responsibilities that it generally carries
with it. Therefore what he seeks is a woman, no matter who she is, or what she thinks of
him or he of her, for the gratification of his sexual instinct. He wants her body and
nothing else. As such he is far from being attached to any particular woman, for he may
satisfy his animal passion with any woman walking in the street.
This is the social necessity on the basis of which slavery of women in the modern
epoch is justified. However, it is no more than a mere bluff, for it ceases to exist the
moment the European man should get rid of his vanity and animal passions and agree to
ascend to a higher plane of humanity.
It may also be mentioned here that the civilized western governments, which at last
prohibited prostitution, did not act so out of any respect for the human status of a
prostitute as such, nor did they in any way manifest their moral, psychological and
spiritual elevation rendering them immune to this crime. It rather sprang out of the fact
that these prostitutes had lost all their usefulness, their place having been taken by the
common sybaritic society girls. The crime was no longer regarded as a crime. And the
governments just did not feel any need to interfere with the freedom of its citizens.
But still the Europeans have the audacity to blame Islam for its solution of the
problem of captive women thirteen hundred years ago declaring that it was just a
temporary arrangement and was not meant to perpetuate for ever and notwithstanding the
fact that the system Islam stood for was far more superior and cleaner to that represented
by their twentieth century modern civilization, the natural and the most perfect one,
according to them that none may dare disown or even think of changing, it being the
pinnacle of human civilization and as such destined to last for ever.
We must not be taken in by the ostensible freedom with which these sybaritic modern
society girls surrender themselves to others and think that they are free, for we know that
there has always been a group of slaves who were glad to surrender their freedom and
willingly prefer servitude to freedom. That is what European civilization has, in fact,
accomplished. It encourages adultery and moral corruption be it in the form of traditional
prostitution or the presence of the sybarite society girls who willingly surrender
themselves to men.
 This, in short, is the story of slavery in Europe right up to this twentieth century:
slavery of men, women, of whole nations and classes. It was a slavery that sprang up
from various new sources and causes; a slavery that was sustained without any real and
genuine social need such as thirteen hundred years ago forced Islam to tolerate one and
an inevitable form of it. It was founded in the vileness of European civilization and its
innate inhuman character.
We may add a word about slavery under which the peoples of the communist
countries are groaning. The government is the only master in these countries, all the other
people being just slaves to it ever ready to obey orders. Men and Women do not even
have the freedom to choose their job or the place they would like to work in. They are not
more than slaves. A similar situation prevails in the capitalist countries of the West where
big capitalists are the virtual masters who wield real power. The working classes are
helpless and completely dependent upon them.
The reader may come across the votaries and supporters of one or the other of these
systems but he should never be taken in by their loud professions if he would but keep in
mind all that we have briefly sketched above. From this he can easily judge for himself if
both these systems-capitalism and communism-are anything more than the continuance
of all those centuries-old forms of slavery that have been imposed on the people in the
name of civilization and social development. He can also see whether mankind during the
last fourteen centuries has continually moved ahead on the path of progress and glory by
ignoring the guidance of Islam or has it in stead been steadily sinking low going down
and down showing there by how desperately it stands in need of the guidance of Islam to
help it get out of the darkness it has long since been plunged in willingly accept their
former state of servitude. But such readiness on the part of certain slavish individuals to
forego their free human status is no justification to perpetuate their servitude according to
Islam as well as any other religion or philosophy of life. This phenomenon is, however, a
very sad reflection on the system of life that creates economic, social, political,
philosophical and spiritual conditions under which people
 ISLAM AND FEUDALISM

Recently when I heard that a student wrote a thesis wherein he "proved" that Islam
was a feudalistic system and received his Master's Degree, I was deeply surprised. The
performance of both the student as well as the professors awarding him the degree was
equally mystifying. But the student might well be excused on the plea that he was either
ignorant of what he was writing about or did so out of ill-will towards Islam, but what
about the learned teachers? How are we to account for their conduct, their knowledge of
the socio-economic system of Islam, and their understanding of history?
But I no longer wondered as I remembered who these learned teachers were. Weren't
they the members of a community enticed by the foreign exploiters and fashioned after an
intellectual pattern serviceable to them? Aren't they the people in whom Mr. Dunlop1 was
particularly interested? They were sent abroad ostensibly to acquire knowledge, but, in
fact, it was just a part of a conspiracy to turn them into complete strangers to their own
culture and civilization; to make them look down upon their religion, their own selves,
their history, their faith, and, instead, follow in the footsteps of their western teachers. No
wonder then that they allowed such a monstrous perversion of history and truth!
Let us, however, see what the word feudalism means in fact and what are its
characteristics. For this purpose we reproduce below extracts of a book, "Communism"
by Dr. Rashid-al-Barawy, that has recently been published in Europe. Speaking about
feudalism, the author says: "Feudalism is a way of production, the distinguishing mark of
it being the existence of a perpetual system of serfdom. It is a system wherein the
landlord or his representative is entitled to receive a fixed share of production and enjoys
certain specific economic rights, carrying with them the privilege to make their tenants
serve them or, instead thereof, receive payments from them in cash or kind. As an
explanation of this, we may say that the feudal society is divided into two classes of
people: (I) the owners of feudal lands, and (2) the tenants, who may again vary in their
grades, farmers, agricultural workers, and slaves, the number of some of them dwindling
off more rapidly than that of others. It is the farmers, the direct producers, however, who
enjoy the right to possess land and have a share in the produce that is so necessary for
them to support their families and themselves, besides the right to build farm-houses on
the tillage. Against these benefits, they are required to serve the landlord every week by
rendering free services in his fields working with their own cattle and instruments, along
with performing for him a number of other services at the time of harvesting and reaping,
and offering him on the occasion of festivals whatever gifts and presents they can. They
are also expected to get their food-grains and grapes milled and pressed in his flour mills
and pressing machines.

1
Dunlop was the British official entrusted by British colonialist authorities to plan and supervise educational
policy in Egypt.
 "The landlord also exercises full executive and judicial powers over his tenants living
within the bounds of his feudal lands.
"The real producer in feudalism did not enjoy freedom in the sense we know at
present; he did not own the land, nor could he sell, inherit or give it as a free gift to
others. He was compelled to a forced labor in the lands of his master even at the expense
of his own material gains or considerations thereof. Moreover, as a mark of his obedience
to the master he had to pay him taxes that were unlimited in amount as well as extent.
With the land he too changed masters passing from one to the other, for he did not have
the right to shift of his own free will from one fief to another in search of work or even
join the service of still another master. As such, the feudal villain forms the connecting
link between the slaves of olden times and the free tenants of the modern times.
"It was the master who fixed the extent of the land to be given by him to the peasant.
He also decided about the services that he expected his tenants to render him without
being under any obligation to have a consideration for the rights of the other landowners
or the needs of the peasants while making such momentous decisions"
The writer goes on to say: "In the thirteenth century there ensued the great illegal
migration movement that finally ended with the emergence of agricultural workers. This
movement known as "the running away of peasants" caused the landowners to claim back
their fugitive tenants, they among themselves agreed that every landowner would be fully
authorized to capture all the workers happening to transgress into his feudal domain. But
as the phenomenon-the running away of the peasants-was fast becoming a common
feature of the times the landowners were forced to depend on and consequently engage
more and more of hired labor for the tilling of their lands, Their mutual agreements gra-
dually lost all significance which meant a steady decrease in their co-operation. From this
proceeded still another inevitable result: wages to the workers were paid in cash in place
of exacting forced labor out of them without any payment.
"Many of the peasants gradually prospered as against the needs of the nobility and
landowners that were greatly multiplied and hence became a great burden on them
economically. The circumstances favored the peasants and they bought off their freedom.
This continued till the fourteenth century when the freedom of the agricultural workers
was at last recognized as such by all. However, the important change that came over the
times was that the basis on which the whole feudal structure rested was beginning to give
way; the following centuries witnessed its complete abolition".1
These are the characteristics of feudalism, we have reproduced these extracts above in
detail as we want that we should become clear-headed about feudalism and its
characteristics and not confuse them with other seemingly similar manifestations.
Bearing all these characteristics of a feudalistic society in mind, may we ask: when and
where was such feudalism ever witnessed in the history of Islam?
Perhaps the outward semblance that has proved a stumbling block for many a
research worker or has given the opportunists an excuse to cast aspersions on Islam, is the
fact that in the beginning, the Islamic society for the time being consisted of two classes

1
An-Nizam-ul-Ishliraki "Communism"-pp, 22-23.
of people: the landowners and the peasants who worked in their lands. But this was
nothing more than a mere .outward semblance. It in no wise justifies the confusion of
Islam with feudalism. In order to facilitate a comparison between Islam and feudalism we
may sum up the basic characteristics of feudalism as follows:
(l) A perpetual serfdom.
(2) The duties which the peasant discharged towards his master consisted of:
(a) a whole day's free and forced labor in the lands of his feudal lord once a week;
(b) free and forced services rendered by him to his master in special seasons of
harvesting, etc.;
(c) presenting gifts on religious and other similar occasions of festivities,
notwithstanding his poverty or the opulence of the recipient rich landlord;
(d) an obligation to get his food-grains milled in the mills of the landlord. (We pass
over his obligation to get his grapes pressed for his feudal lord as wine is prohibited in
Islam).
(3) The right of the landlord to decide as his whims or desires might dictate as to the
extent of the land to be held by the peasant, the services required of him and the taxes to
be paid by him.
(4) The exercise of all judicial-cum-executive powers by the landlord not in
accordance with a fixed law of the land but according to his own whims and desires;
(5) The obligation of the peasants to buy off their freedom with cash payments when
in the end feudalism gave way and a process of its degeneration set in.
Let the readers first look at these and then glance over the whole history of Islam to
find similar characteristics therein. They will surely be disappointed, for Islam has
nothing to do with them.
There is no serfdom in Islam as it recognizes no other form of servitude save that of
slavery, the causes and conditions whereof and the means or freedom from which we
have already dealt with in the preceding chapter. Islam admits of no bondage arising out
or a tenant's being bound to the soil. The only slaves that we know of in Islam were those
captured in wars which are quite sufficient to prove that in the early Islamic society the
number of slaves was far less in comparison with the total numbers of its free citizens.
They worked on the soil of their masters till they were freed voluntarily or they
themselves took the initiative and demanded as writing of (Mukatabah) their freedom of
their masters. But there exists no such parallel in the history of the European feudalism as
it primarily aimed at the subjection of the peasants as well as the agricultural workers
rather than encourage them to demand freedom. That is why the peasants in Europe were
looked upon as serfs bound to and transferable with the land from one master to another.
As such, they could neither leave the soil they worked on, nor free themselves from the
obligation devolving upon them towards their landlords.
Islam is not at all familiar with this type of serfdom or villains as it is in principle
opposed to all forms of servitude save that rendered by man unto his God, the Creator of
all life. There is no provision in it for the subjection of some creatures to other creatures
like them. Whenever such an abnormal state-subjection of some men to others is found
due to certain external causes without any initiative from Islam, it always is a temporary
or a transitional phenomenon, which it strives to do away with, with all the possible
resources at its disposal, encouraging the slaves to earn their freedom besides holding the
state responsible to render to them all possible help towards that end.
In economics too Islam does not recognize any bondage of man to other men like
him. The system of slavery to which we have alluded above is an exception as there was
no other economical alternative before Islam at that time. Islam tolerated it till the slaves
were freed spiritually and till the time they were able to shoulder their responsibilities as
free members of the community, whereupon Islam actively helped them in winning back
their lost freedom.
Islam bases its economic structure on freedom of action coupled with a relationship
of a complete co-operation and exchange of mutual services among all individuals. The
Islamic government as such acts as a guardian and custodian of all such people as happen
to lag behind in the struggle of life for some reason and are denied all amenities of a
decent living. Thus with all the resources of the state at his backing in an Islamic
community no man needs let himself become a bondsman to the landowners. Islam pro-
vides for all his basic needs without degrading him or making him lose his independence,
self-respect or honor.
Thus both spiritually and economically Islam is opposed to feudalism. It brought to
men freedom from feudalism even before they were caught up in the shackles of serfdom.
So far as the obligations of the peasant towards his feudal lord are concerned there is
no evidence whatever of their existence in the whole range of Islamic history.
It is quite free of such nonsense. In this respect, Islam stands quite unique. In case a
peasant is found guilty of some crime, it allows the owner of the land to discard him and
give away the land to another one. But this is not to encourage oppression; it is rather a
step towards the eradication of serfdom. Islam aims at the establishment of a free
relationship between the landlord and the tenant.
The only relationship that Islam recognizes as lawful between the peasant and the
landlord is either that of contract or that based on tenancy. In the former case, the peasant
is required to pay to the landlord a fixed amount as the rent of the land proportionate to
its produce and after that he remains quite free in his cultivation and expenditure as well
as in the acquiring of all the produce of the land for his own personal consumption. If he
happens to be a tenant he will share the produce of the land at the end of every year with
the landlord. In such a case all the expenses are borne by the landlord; the peasant
provides the labor only. In both of these cases there is no place for forced labor,
dictatorial privileges or any other obligation incumbent on the peasant to serve his master
without getting anything in return. Both parties rather enjoy full equality in freedom, in
their rights as well as duties with a reciprocity of mutual give-and-take relationship. The
peasant is, in the first place, quite free to choose the land he would like to hire or the
landlord he would prefer to work with as a tenant. Secondly, he is on a par with the
landlord and enjoys as much freedom to decide or agree to the amount for the contract to
be paid by him to the landlord. If he does not find the bargain profitable he is free to back
out of it and not agree to the contract, the landlord having no power or right to take him
to task for that. As a tenant the peasant enjoys as much legal privileges as his landlord.
They divide the profit thereof equally between themselves.
Besides this, we also find that contrary to what happened in the history of European
feudalism, the practice commonly prevalent in Islam was quite different. It was the rich
landlord and not the poor peasant who gave presents and bestowed bountiful gifts upon
his tenants on the occasions of Eid and other festivals. This is specially true about the
months of Ramadhan, a month of great importance and religious significance in Islam.
During this month, friends and relations paid visits to each other and were entertained
with feasts along with bestowing bountiful gifts upon the poor and needy ones of their
community. It means, in other words, that the rich and well-to-do people were wont to
spend their riches on others rather than exact costly gifts from the poor people as was the
custom in "civilized" Europe.
From this it is clear that the duties that the peasants were encumbered with in
feudalism and which degenerated into forced labor have no place in the Islamic system of
life. It established rather a free relationship between the landowner and the peasant with a
reciprocal respect and perfect equality. As regards the duties discharged by the feudal
lords in Europe towards their tenants as a recompense for their unjustifiable forced labor
and abject slavery to them in the form of defending them from others and safe guarding
their rights, in Islamic society the rich people discharged voluntarily similar duties with
regard to their tenants without expecting anything from them in return. In rendering these
services to their fellowmen they sought nothing save God's pleasure. This is what
distinguishes a system of life based on a lofty creed and the one devoid of it. In the one
the social services rendered by a man towards others assume the character of a worship
whereby he is brought closer to his God, whereas in the other they are nothing more than
a commercial enterprise, each party striving hard to get hold of the lion's share and
anxious to yield to the other nothing but that which is beyond its power to hold longer,
with the result that in the end the most powerful party rather than the one rightfully
deserving emerges victorious and gets away with all the profits.
The third characteristic of feudalism, that is, the right of the feudal lord to decide as to
the extent of the land to be given to the tenant and prescribe the duties to be discharged
by and expected of him, is a thing peculiar to the European concept of lordship and
serfdom only. Such concept had never existed in the history of Islam which does not
recognize the over-lordship of the feudal lord or the serf-hood of the peasant to him. The
only factor which does restrict the choice of a peasant with regard to his acquiring a lease
of land in Islam is his own free will and financial potentiality. The lesser enjoys no
privileges against this save that of claiming the agreed upon rent of the land from the
peasant. Similarly in tenancy the extent of the land to be farmed by a tenant is determined
by his own physical ability or the number of the helping hands (consisting of his sons
generally) he can get hold of. The duties imposed on him in tenancy are no more than
what the rehabilitation of the land acquired by him may necessitate. The land in such a
case is considered as a common property of the peasant and the landowner till it brings
forth its produce. As to the land of the landlord other than that held by the tenant in
tenancy, the tenant is not supposed to have anything to do with that, nor is he under any
obligation to work therein whatever the form or nature of such a work or service might
be.
The most striking point of difference between Islam and feudalism, however, is the
judicial-cum-executive prerogative enjoyed by the landlord in feudalism. He alone in
feudalism controls and regulates all social and political life within the bounds of his fiefs.
Islam is diametrically opposed to such a prerogative as it aims at the abolition, rather than
its retention, in the world of human relationships.
The European nations did not possess any law of the land in the real sense of the
word with regard to the above-mentioned landlord-tenant relationship. The Roman Law,
which later on formed the basis of all subsequent European legislation, conferred upon
the feudal lords the right to become virtual dictators in their respective areas, make laws
for the people, hold judicial powers among them, and enforce their decisions as they
might think fit. Thus they held in their persons legislative, judicial and executive powers
all in one and at the same time. Each one of them formed a government within a
government. The government did not interfere with the internal affairs of the feudal
monarchies so long as they continued to carry out their financial and military obligations
towards it at the hour of need.
Nothing of the sort is to be found in Islam, It had its own central government with its
own law of the land which it strove to enforce in the lives of all those living within its
boundaries, Judges were appointed to enforce the law of the land in all parts of the
country. All were made equal before law, None enjoyed any priority over others. The
individual was called to account only when he committed a mistake or acted wrongly.
Later on when contrary to the teachings of Islam, the government degenerated into a
hereditary monarchy it still retained some Islamic characteristics. Thus, for instance, the
government continued exercising a supervisory authority over all the different peoples
and individuals that lived within its sphere of influence. The law of the land was one and
the same for all people living within its vast territories. The only exception appears to be
differences of the jurists among themselves on certain legal points, which is no more than
what is met with in almost all the systems of law found on the face of the earth. It was
this rule of the law that provided a safeguard for the peasants against the oppression of
the feudal lords as well as their greed, lust or whim. They were ruled in accordance with
the divine law rather than the whims and wishes of the feudal lords. It held not only the
landlords and the tenants as equals as both of them were now made free men but also
treated all men alike and in the same manner.
Of course there are found certain unfortunate Incidents in the history of Muslims as
well, wherein we see that judges gave judgments contrary to their own conscience as well
as in contravention of the spirit of the law in order to win favor with the feudal lords or
the rulers, but these incidents were no more then certain stray instances. They are merely
exceptions as is shown by the historical facts to the veracity of which even the European
scholars bear witness. As against these few stray case of injustice there are a great many
instances in Islamic history which show that judges gave judgments in favor of extremely
poor men against not only landlords, governors or ministers but even against the caliph
himself-the caliph who wielded absolute authority and power. But, in Spite of this,
neither any judge was dismissed from his post, nor did the ruler seek any revenge against
him.
Similarly, there is not any escape movement of the peasants met with in the Islamic
history as was witnessed in Europe. This was so because the peasants enjoyed not only
the rights to move freely from one farm to the other but also from one country to another
within the boundaries of the vast Islamic Empire. Nothing prevented them from shifting
from place to place except their own fondness for or attachment to a particular tract of
land as was, for instance, the case with the Egyptian farmers. The peasants in other parts
of the Islamic world, however, fully availed themselves of this freedom of movement as
they did not happen to be so attached to their particular areas as their Egyptian
counterparts were and as no obstacles were hurled in their way to prevent their movement
such as blocked the way in the case of the European peasants in the form of serfdom and
the various obligations they were encumbered with.
The peasants in the history of the European feudalism towards its final phase had to
buy off their freedom. This too has no parallel in the history of the Islamic peoples for the
simple reason that among them peasants enjoyed as much freedom as any other section of
the community did. They as such had no need to buy off the freedom they already
possessed,
Moreover, it may also be added that in the Islamic world a large number of small
states existed throughout its history. These states provided livelihood to their possessors,
helped them carry out various kinds of sea or land trade and support the various industrial
crafts. But in Europe all of these were completely swept away by the upsurge of
feudalism. It was then that a dark night of spiritual ignorance and intellectual darkness
settled on Europe. It was shown light by Islam, first when it came into contact with the
Islamic world during the crusades, and again, when the two encountered each other in
Spain. These encounters set Europe onto the path of the Renaissance and so Europe
gradually climbed out of that dark night of intellectual and spiritual stagnation.
Thus we find that feudalism as such did never exist in the world of Islam so long as
Islam remained dominant in the Muslim lands because its spiritual and economic system
as well as its basic creed, principles and laws are all opposed to feudalism. Not only this
but it also does away with all the causes conducive to its growth. Whatever semblance of
feudalism was witnessed during the Ommayad and Abbaside periods was limited in its
sphere, besides the fact that it never flourished so as to become a common feature of the
social life of the Muslims.
Of Course we do find feudalism in the Islamic countries in the modern history
towards the end of the Ottoman Empire when headsprings of Islamic faith had dried up in
the hearts of Muslims and the political power had passed into the hands of those who
knew nothing as regards Islam save its name. The picture became all the more dark when
the Godless, materialistic and aggressive European civilization marched in triumph
against the Islamic world. It staged military occupations, destroyed all spiritual values
and put an end to the spirit of co-operation, replacing these with the most hideous forms
of capitalistic exploitation and a life-long misery to the poor. This feudalistic system
imported as it was from Europe still continues to linger in some of the Muslim lands with
all those features that characterized its parent-the European feudalism. It is quite clear
that Islam owes no apology for the presence of it in the contemporary Islamic world, nor
is it in any way responsible for its emergence or existence. It could be held responsible
only if it were a ruling power in the Muslim lands. Some Muslim rulers are at present
ruling their peoples in accordance with the constitutions and laws imported from various
European countries rather than according to the Islamic laws. They remain the most
faithful followers of their western masters that were ever witnessed on the face of the
earth.
From the above discussion certain facts stand out clearly that have become a centre of
the ideological conflict raging in the modern World. Of these the following facts may be
pointed out:
(1) It is not the factor of ownership as such that inexorably paves the way for the
growth of feudalism with human will having no part in its enhancement. It is rather the
manner of possessing and the nature of relationship between the owners of the land and
those who have no land in their possession that favor its growth. That is why ownership
was there in the Islamic world and yet feudalism did not exist because the ideology of
Islam as well as its various applications to practical life establish between the individuals
such relationships as do not favor the growth of feudalism.
(2) If Europe was condemned to feudalism it was not because feudalism is an
essential stage of evolution on the path of evolution that can never be bypassed by
mankind even if it should so desire. Europe suffered from it rather because of the fact that
it did not possess any system or creed such as might have regulated human relationships
and offered a sound intellectual guidance. Had there been present such a creed and
ideology as was the case with the world of Islam, to guide and organize their socio-
economic relationships, no feudalism could ever have sprung up or flourished in Europe.
(3) The different stages of economic evolution-first communist society, slavery,
feudalism, capitalism and then the final communist society-which the dialectical
materialists describe as a common phenomenon in the history of mankind, really have no
existence whatsoever outside the European history. These stages were never passed
through by any people outside Europe. The world of Islam never in its whole history
passed through the stage of feudalism; it has never also as such till now come to the stage
of communism, nor will it ever reach that stage.
 ISLAM AND CAPITALISM

Capitalism did not originate in the Islamic world as it came into being only after the
invention of the machine which took place by chance in Europe.
Capitalism was imported into the Islamic world at a time when it was under European
domination. Together with the wave of development, it spread into the Islamic world
which suffered from poverty, ignorance, illness and backwardness. This made some
people think that Islam approves of capitalism, with both its evils and merits. They also
claim that there are no provisions in the Islamic law or regulations such as might be in
conflict with capitalism. They argue that as Islam permitted individual ownership it must
likewise permit capitalism.
In answer to this accusation it might suffice to point out that capitalism cannot
prosper or grow without usury and monopoly both of which were prohibited by Islam
about one thousand years before the existence of capitalism.
But let us tackle the question at some greater length. If the invention of the machine
had taken place in the Islamic world, how would Islam have faced the economic
development resulting from such invention? How would Islamic legislations and laws
have organized work and production?
There is consensus of opinion among economists-including those who are opposed to
capitalism (e.g., Karl Marx-that capitalism at the start brought about great progress and
rendered considerable services to humanity. production was increased, means of
communication were improved and national resources were exploited on a larger scale.
The standard of living among the working classes became higher than when they were
mostly or completely dependent on agriculture.
But such a glorious picture did not last long because the natural development of
capitalism, as they say, led to the amassing of wealth in the hand. If capitalist owners and
to a relative diminution of the properties owned by the working classes. This enabled the
capitalist owners to use workmen-the real producers in communist eyes-in considerably
stepping up the production of various commodities but the wages paid to workmen were
too low to ensure decent lire because the employers took all the profits and spent them
leading a life of luxury and corruption.
Besides this the scanty wages paid to workmen did not enable them to consume all
the production or capitalist countries. This led to the accumulation or surplus production.
As a result of this the capitalist countries began to look for new markets for their surplus
production, which in turn gave rise to colonialism with all its incessant conflicts among
different nations over markets and raw material resources. Destructive wars were the
inevitable outcome or all this.
Moreover, the capitalist system is always exposed to periodic crises resulting from
depression caused by low wages and the scantiness of world consumption in relation to
increasing production.
Some propagandists of materialism refer all the problems of the capitalist system to
the nature of capital itself rather than to any ill-will or desire for exploitation on the part
of the capitalists. Such naive and strange reasoning means that man with all his emotions
and thoughts is but a helpless creature in the face or the power of economy.
There is no doubt that Islam would have encouraged the good and progressive
achievements that were brought about by capitalism in its early stage. But Islam would
not have left capitalism without legislation to organize it and to preclude any exploitation
which might result from ill-will on the part of the employers or from the very nature of
capital. The Islamic principle which was laid in this respect entitles the workmen to share
the profit with their employers. Some Maliki jurisprudents went so far as to give to the
employee an equal share in the profit. The employer provides all capital and the workman
does the work; the two efforts are equal and accordingly they are entitled to an equal
share in the profit.
The above-mentioned principle illustrates Islam's great concern with the
establishment of justice. Such concern for the establishment of justice was voluntarily
introduced by Islam. It was not forced thereon by any economic exigency nor was it the
result of the struggle among classes which is regarded by the propagandists of certain
economic doctrines as the sole effective factor in the development of economic relations.
In the beginning, industry consisted of simple manual work involving a small number
of workmen who worked in simple workshop" The above-mentioned principle would
have organized the relation between work and capital on an equitable basis such as
Europe had never had.
Economists say that the development of capitalism from its early benevolent phase to
its present morbidly evil phase was accompanied by its increasing dependence on
national loan. This led to the creation of banks which carried on financial operations, and
advanced loans in return for some interest. Without that such loans as well as the majority
of banking operations are based on usury which is expressly prohibited by Islam.
On the other hand, tough competition, which is another feature of capitalism, leads to
the destruction of minor companies or to their merger into major ones. This encourages
monopoly which is also prohibited by Islam, as is borne out by some sayings of the
Prophet. He said: “He that monopolizes is a wrong-doer" Because Islam prohibited
usury and monopoly it would have been impossible for capitalism to develop under Islam
into its present evil stage which involves exploitation, colonialism and war.

What would have been the fate of industry if it had originated under Islamic
rule?

Surely Islam would not have restricted industry to minor workshops whose profit is
shared by the employer and the workman. Production would have rather grown but the
relationship between the employer arid workmen would have developed on different lines
from those outlining the development of the employer-employee relations in Europe in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It would have developed in accordance with the
basic principles of Islam such as the above-mentioned principle which provides for an
equal division of profit between the workmen and their employer.
By so doing Islam would have avoided resorting to usury or monopoly and would
have precluded the injustice to which workmen are subjected under capitalism where they
are exploited and left to suffer poverty and humiliation.
It would be foolish to suggest that Islam could not have established such justice
without first passing through hard ordeals, class conflicts and economic pressures which
would ultimately lead to the amendment of its legislations. It is proved beyond all doubt
that Islam had been ahead of all nations in dealing with the questions of slavery,
feudalism and early capitalism. In so doing Islam was not acting under any outside
pressure whatsoever. It was rather acting voluntarily and in accordance with its own
conception of eternal equity and justice scoffed at by communist writers. On the other
hand, it is a fact that Russia, a model communist state, itself passed directly from
feudalism to communism without passing through the intermediary stage of capitalism. In
this way Russia which adopted the doctrine of Karl Marx-practically gives the lie to
Marx's theory regarding the phases of development which, he says, every state has to
experience.
As to colonialism, wars and exploitation of peoples, it should be pointed out that
Islam is firmly opposed to all these as well as to all the other universal evils engendered
by capitalism. It is not one of the principles of Islam to colonize other peoples or to wage
any war against others for the purposes of exploitation. The only war approved by Islam
is that which is waged against aggression or is meant to spread the Word of God where
its peaceful dissemination is rendered impossible.
The communists and their like allege that colonialism is an inevitable phase in human
development. They add that colonialism could not have been averted by any doctrine or
moral principle since it was essentially an economic phenomenon resulting from a
surplus is the production of industrialized countries and the need for foreign outlets for
marketing such surplus.
Needless to say, Islam does not recognize such nonsense about the inevitability of
colonialism. Besides, the communists themselves say or profess that Russia will solve the
problem of surplus production by reducing both working hours and workmen's role in
production. The solution which communism professes to have found may be used by
other systems as well.
History bears witness that colonialism has been an ancient human propensity. It did
not originate with capitalism although capitalism with its modern weapons of destruction
rendered it more ferocious. As to the exploitation of the vanquished, Roman colonialists
were more ruthless and monstrous than their modern counterparts.
History furnishes us with the best evidence to the effect that Islam has been the
cleanest of all systems as far as war is concerned. Islamic wars have always been free
from exploitation as well as subjection of others. Therefore, if the industrial revolution
had taken place in Islamic countries, Islam would have solved the problem of surplus
production without resorting to war or colonization. Besides, it may be said that the
problem of surplus production is an outcome of the capitalist system in its present form
only. In other words, if the basic principles of capitalism are changed, the problem would
not exist.
As against this, the ruler in the Islamic state shall not remain helplessly indifferent
towards the problem of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few people while the
majority are suffering from poverty and deprivation. Such amassing of wealth is contrary
to the principles of Islam which expressly prescribed that wealth should- be fairly
distributed among all the people lest it should be confined to the rich only. The ruler in
Islam is charged with the enforcement of Sharia (Islamic law) by all means at his
command without any injustice or harm to anyone. In this respect, the ruler is invested
with full and unlimited powers within the bounds set by God's law-the law that precludes
the accumulation of wealth. We might refer in this respect to the law of inheritance which
ensures that wealth left by each generation is properly distributed. Reference should also
be made to Az-Zakat which prescribes that 2 1/2% of the capital and profit should be
annually earmarked for the poor. In addition, Islam explicitly prohibits the hoarding of
wealth. It likewise prohibits usury which is the basic factor in the accumulation of capital.
Moreover, the relationships among the members of Islamic society are based on
reciprocal responsibility rather than exploitation.
It should also be added that the Holy Prophet (peace be on him) ensured for officials
of the state certain rights including the basic necessities of life: "If a person who if
charged with work for us (i.e. the state) has no wife, he shall have one; if he has no
dwelling place, he shall have one; if he has no servant, he shall have one; if he has no
animal, he shall have one".
Such guarantees are not to be confined to officials of the state only. They are the
basic necessities required by every person. They can be obtained in return for work done
in the service of the state or through any profession or occupation from which society
may benefit. If the state ensures the basic necessities for its officials it must also ensure
the same for every working individual in the state.
This is evident from the fact that the Public Treasury is responsible for supporting
those who are unable to work owing to old age, illness, or childhood. The Public
Treasury is also responsible for providing basic necessities to persons who cannot obtain
them owing to the insufficiency of means.
All the above-mentioned facts emphasize the responsibility of the state to ensure by
all means the basic necessities for workers. It is of no great importance as to by what
means should such necessities be provided to the workers; what really matters is the
principle which guarantees that profit and loss shall be equally shared by all members of
the nation. By providing such necessities for workers Islam protects them against
exploitation, besides ensuring a decent life for all.
Islam would not have allowed capitalism to grow into the monstrous forms which are
presently prevalent in the “civilized" West. The Islamic legislations-whether originally
prescribed by Sharia or newly adopted to face new developments within the frame work
of Sharia-would not have allowed the capitalists to exploit the working people or suck
their blood. Islam would have precluded all the evils of capitalism including colonization,
war and the enslaving of people.
Islam, as usual, is not content with the mere enactment of economic rules and laws, In
addition to law, Islam also makes use of moral and spiritual incentives which are satirized
by the communists because they see that such values have no practical significance in
Europe, But in Islam moral and spiritual values are not separated from practical
considerations, Islam has a unique manner of combining and harmonizing both the
purification of the spirit and the organization of the community. The individual is never
left to wonder how to reconcile the ideal with the practical, Islam formulates its
legislations on a moral basis so that the moral values are always in harmony with the
legislations, In this way, each side supplements the other without any fear of conflict or
divorcement, Islamic morality prohibits and discourages all forms of luxury and
sensuality which are the inevitable results of the amassing of wealth in the hands of a few
people, Along with this, Islam also prohibits being unjust to employees or underpaying
them. As the amassing of wealth is an outcome of in justice to employees, it invariably
means that it must also be discouraged. Islam calls on the people to spend their money in
the way of God-even if that should lead to disposing of all ones property. It is because the
rich people spend their money on themselves rather than in the way of God that the
majority of the people live in poverty and deprivation.
The spiritual elevation of men brought about by Islam brings them closer to God and
makes them renounce all worldly pleasures and profits in striving to attain God's pleasure
and in expectation of His recompense in the other world. There is no doubt that a man
who keeps his peace with God and has faith in the other world, in heaven and hell, will
not rush madly for the amassing of wealth or resort to exploitation or injustice for the
realization of his selfish ends.
In this way the moral and spiritual edification will pave the way for economic
legislations which aim at curbing the evils of capitalism. Consequently, when such
legislations are made they are sure to be complied with not because of fear of punishment
but rather because people would be acting according to the dictates of their conscience.
In conclusion, it should be made clear that the monstrous capitalism which is
currently prevalent in the Islamic world is not a pan of Islam and consequently Islam
cannot be held responsible for its evils.
 ISLAM AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

Is private ownership a natural propensity?

Communists and their likes insist that it is not. They claim that there was no private
property in the earliest societies where the "first communism" prevailed. All things, they
say, were public property shared by all people who were guided by a spirit of affection,
co-operation and brotherhood. They sadly regret that such “an angelic era" did not last
because the discovery of agriculture involved disputes over the cultivated land and the
means of production. This inevitably led to war. The Communists allege that humanity
can put an end to this dreadful evil only by returning more to “the first Communism"
where no one had a property or one's own and all production was equally shared by all
people. They believe that this is the only way to restore peace, affection and harmony to
the world.
On the other hand, psychologists and sociologists do not agree upon a clear
distinction between natural and acquired human emotions, concepts and manners.
Likewise they differ regarding private ownership. Some psychologists and sociologists
maintain that private ownership is a natural propensity born with man regardless of the
conditions of his environment. Others believe that it is acquired through man's
environment. A child, they say, refuses to part with any of his toys either because they
are too few or because he fears that another child may take them. When there is just one
toy for ten children, quarrel is sure to break out, but, they say, where there are ten toys for
ten children everyone will have a toy of his own and there will be no conflict.
Our answer to the arguments put forward by communists and other psychologists and
sociologists is as follows:-
1. No scientist has been able to prove beyond all doubt that private ownership is not
the outcome of a natural instinct. All that the leftists could say in this regard is that there
is no conclusive evidence available that it is the outcome of a natural instinct. But that is
another question.
2. The example-about children and their toys-which the communists give in support
of their stand cannot lead to the conclusions they aim at. That quarrels do not break out
when ten children are given ten toys does not rule out the existence of a natural desire for
ownership. It means that the desire for ownership may, in healthy cases, be satisfied by
absolute equality. The aforesaid example does not rule out the existence of such desire
but it may help to define its nature. Besides, no one can deny that many children would
not hesitate to usurp the toys of their friends unless they are prevented from doing so for
reasons beyond their control.
3. As to "the angelic era" which the communists suppose to have accompanied the
earliest societies, it may be said that there is no real evidence that such an era did really
exist. Even if there had been such an era, there could have been no means of production
at the time. How could disputes arise over something that did not exist? At that time
people got their food easily and directly from trees. When they went hunting they had to
go in groups for fear of wild animals. It was impossible to store slain animals for they
would soon go bad. So they had to be eaten up as soon as possible. The absence of
conflict in that case does not rule out the existence of a natural desire for ownership. As a
matter of fact, absence of conflict is due to absence of anything worth the strife. This is
why the discovery of agriculture brought about conflict. The said discovery stimulated a
hitherto dormant tendency which till then lacked the incentive for action.
4. No one could firmly deny that at such an early era a conflict could have existed
among a number of men for the possession of a particular woman. In spite of the
existence of sexual communism in that era no one can say for sure that it was prevalent
throughout society or that its existence prevented men from fighting each other for
possessing a woman whom they considered very attractive.
This leads to an important conclusion: where all things are equal and similar the
possibility of a conflict may be ruled out. But as long as things are different, conflict and
struggle are bound to break out even in the imaginary "angelic society" upon which
communists build their future prospects.
5. Finally, no one could rule out the fact that some men who lived in that early era
desired to achieve personal distinction either by showing their bravery and physical
strength or by any other means. Some primitive tribes-examples of the so-called "first
communist society"-do still refuse to give their daughters in marriage except to those men
who would endure a hundred lashes without showing any signs of weariness or pain.
There is no doubt that the only reason that invites young men to set out for such a painful
ordeal is their desire to achieve personal distinction.
If it is true that all things follow a state of absolute equality, we must then search for a
reason that leads some people to assert that they are not equal to but even better than
others. This leads us to the conclusion that if private ownership is not the outcome of a
natural tendency it must be closely connected with another natural tendency namely the
desire to achieve personal distinction present in man from time immemorial.
The communists allege that private ownership has been coupled throughout the ages
with injustice and, therefore, if humanity wants to maintain peace and rid itself of bitter
conflicts it must abolish private ownership.
But communists seem to forget two important facts: that individual efforts
contributed to the progress of humanity and that do progress had been achieved during
the so-called "angelic era" of "the first communism". It can be said that humanity started
to make any progress only after the existence of conflict over ownership. This means that
such conflict is not after all an absolute evil. On the contrary its existence, within
reasonable limits, is a psychological, social and economic necessity.
In addition to this, it should also be borne in mind that Islam does not take it for
granted that private ownership underlies all the injustice which afflicted humanity. The
serious injustice that accompanied, private ownership in Europe and other non-Islamic
countries in general was due to the fact that the propertied classes in those countries were
themselves the legislators as well as the rulers. It was only natural that such a class
should make the legislations that safeguarded its interests at the expense of the other
classes. Islam does not recognize the existence of a ruling class. In Islam laws are not
made by a specially privileged class; these had been made by God who created all
classes. It is beyond imagination that God should favor some individuals or classes at the
expense of others. What reasons could He have for such favoritism? According to Islam,
the ruler is freely elected by all the Muslims. He is not nominated to office by virtue of
any class consideration. After assuming the duties of his office, the ruler must follow a
law which he did not make, a law that was revealed by God Himself. In this connection
we may quote a saying by Abu Bakr, the first Caliph: "Obey me as long as I obey God in
my rule over you but where I disobey God you shall not obey me". A ruler in Islam has
no legal power authorizing him to confer upon himself or others any legislative
privileges. He has no power to prefer one class to another or to act in response to the
political influence of the propertied class by enacting legislations which safeguard its
interests while oppressing other classes.
It should be pointed out that when we talk about Islamic rule we refer to that period in
Islamic history wherein the principles and instructions of Islam were fully applied in their
true sense. We do not refer to the periods when corruption changed the system of rule
into a monarchy. Islam does not recognize such governments nor can it be held
responsible for such rule.
That Islamic rule with all its justice and idealism remained in force only for a brief
era should not mean that it is an imaginary system unfit for practical application. After
all, what was successfully applied once may be applied again, and it is the duty of all
people to work hard for the restoration of such an era. The present time, however, is more
propitious than ever for the re-establishment of Islamic rule.
Under Islamic rule, the propertied classes will not be given the chance to make laws
which serve their interests only. Islam prescribes that all people must be treated according
to the same laws without any discrimination regarding human rights or dignity. In case of
any differences as to the interpretation of some provisions of law-which happens with
respect to every law on earth-the jurisprudents will have the last word. It is to be recorded
with pride that the great Muslim jurisprudents did never interpret any law in a manner
which might serve the interests of the propertied classes at the expense of the poorer
ones. On the contrary, they have always been especially inclined to satisfy the basic
demands of the working classes and to give them their full due. In fact, some Muslim
jurisprudents went so far as to regard the workman or the peasant to be in partnership (as
far as profits are concerned) with his employer.
On the other hand, Islam does not rate human nature so low as to take it for granted
that ownership will always inevitably lead to injustice and oppression. In the field of
refining and educating human nature, Islam achieved an unmatched success. Some
Muslims owned property yet "they entertained no desire in their hearts for that which
hath been given them but give preference to others over themselves though poverty
become their lot" (Iix: 7). So they willingly shared their own property with others without
expecting any return save forgiveness and recompense from God.
We should always try to remember such noble and lofty examples-rare as they may
be. They should be regarded as a ray of light that guides our future steps and unfolds to
us the noble achievements which humanity may aspire to realize in future.
It should be understood that Islam never wants us to live in a world of dreams nor
does it make the public interests wholly dependent on uncertain "good intentions".
Despite its excessive care for the purification and refinement of souls, Islam never forgets
practical considerations. Islamic legislation ensures a fair distribution of wealth. By not
only concentrating on the purification of the soul but also enacting just legislation, Islam
lays the proper foundations for a healthy society. Perhaps this was what Othman Ibn
Affan, the third Caliph, had in mind when he said: "God restrains by power what He does
not restrain by the Quran."
To return to the question of ownership, it can be said that ownership existed in certain
ages without leading to injustice. Islam permitted ownership of land but never allowed it
to lead to feudalism as it did in Europe. Islam took the necessary precautions by enacting
economic and social legislations which precluded feudalism and ensured a respectful
standard of living even for those who did not own any land. It was such a guarantee that
protected the poor class from exploitation by the propertied one.
On the other hand, granting that capitalism might have existed in Islam, it must be
understood that Islam would have permitted only such type of capitalism as would serve
the public interest. By purifying and refining human nature and at the same time making
the necessary legislations, Islam would not have allowed capitalism to grow into an
oppressive and exploiting force. By so doing Islam would have relieved the world from
the evils which plague the present western world. Besides, the permission of private
ownership under Islam was subject to certain restrictions. It was prescribed, for example,
that public resources are public property. Where principles of justice required it, Islam
prohibited private ownership and permitted it only when satisfactory guarantees had been
made against injustice and oppression.
In order to make this point clear, we may borrow an example from non-Muslim
countries i.e., the Scandinavian states. The English, the Americans and the French-
staunch advocates of racial and national discrimination-admit that the Scandinavian
peoples are the most civilized and affectionate peoples on earth. It is to be pointed out
that such countries have not abolished private ownership but made necessary guarantees
for a fair distribution of wealth. Such guarantees bridge the gap between the classes and
at the same time prescribe that wages should be proportionate to work. It can be said that
the Scandinavian states have in this connection come closer than any other state in the
world-to a realization of some aspects of Islam.
It is impossible to separate any economic system from the social and intellectual
philosophies underlying it. If we review the three doctrines that are currently propagated-
capitalism, communism and Islam-we shall realize how the economic system and the
theory of ownership in each doctrine are closely related to their social background. As
previously mentioned, capitalism is based on the assumption that the individual is an
inviolable being whose freedom must not be subjected to any social restrictions. It
follows that capitalism tends to permit unrestricted private ownership.
On the other hand, communism is based on the belief that the Community is the base
and that the individual has no separate existence of his own. Therefore, communism
renders unto the state (as representative of the community) the ownership of all
properties, thus depriving all individuals of such a right.
Islam holds a different social concept and, therefore, it adopts a different economic
system. With respect to the individual-community relationship, Islam maintains that an
individual has two simultaneous capacities: his capacity as an independent individual and
his capacity as a member of the community. His response to either capacity may at times
be greater than his response to the other one but he will finally combine and harmonize
both.
The social concept based on such a belief does not separate the individual from his
community nor does it regard them as two conflicting forces trying to overcome one
another. Since an individual has an independent existence and is at the same time a
member of the community, it is required of legislation to establish harmony between
individual and communal propensities as well as between the interests of each individual
and those of others. But such harmony must be achieved without sacrificing either
interest for the good of the other. Legislation should not aim at the crushing of
individuals for the sake of society nor should it allow society to disintegrate for 'the sake
of one or more individuals.
The economic system of Islam is based on the above-mentioned concept of harmony
which is some sort of a happy medium between capitalism and communism. It combines
the merits of both systems without making the mistakes or deviations of either. It permits
private ownership in principle but subjects it to such restrictions as would render it quite
harmless. Islam authorizes the community and the ruler in his capacity as the
representative of the community to enact the necessary legislation organizing ownership
and to change such legislation whenever he deems that the public interest requires it.
Islam approves of private ownership since it has ti1e power to eliminate by various
means any evils that may result from it. It will be remembered that permission of private
ownership in principle while vesting the community with the power to organize and
restrict it is a much better arrangement than outright abolition of ownership on the
uncertain assumption that it is neither a natural propensity nor a human necessity. The
fact that Soviet Russia has had to permit a certain (small) degree of private ownership is
clear evidence that satisfying the propensities of human nature is the best thing for both
the individual and public interest.
Why shall we abolish private ownership? For what ends shall we call upon Islam to
do so?
Communism alleges that the abolition of private ownership is the only means to
establish equality among people and to suppress the inherent desire for domination and
power. Russia abolished ownership of the means of production but has it realized the
objectives it hoped to achieve by such abolition? It will be remembered that Russia under
Stalin had to introduce a voluntary overtime work shift for those who had the energy to
do it in return for extra wages. By so doing Russia was creating differences in the wages
paid to workers.
Do all people in Russia receive the same wages? Is it possible that doctors and nurses
draw the same salaries? Communist propagandists often tell us that engineers get the
highest wages in Russia and that artists collect the biggest income. By saying this they
unwittingly admit the existence of differences in wages among the various classes in
Russia. Such, differences are noticeable not only among members of the various classes
but also among members of the same class.
Has communist Russia managed to wipe out the instinct of domination or the desire
to achieve personal distinction? If so, how are trade union leaders, factory managers,
senior administrators and commissars selected? How do they sort out active members of
the ruling Communist Party?
Apart from the question of the abolition or approval of private ownership, should we
not admit that the desire for domination and personal distinction is inherent in human
nature?
Since the abolition of ownership could not rescue humanity from what communism
regards as a great evil, why should we follow its example by taking a course that conflicts
with human nature and thus attempt to realize an impossible end?
If the communists say that the differences among the classes and the individuals in
Russia are too small to lead to luxury or deprivation we may say that-thirteen centuries
before communism came into existence-Islam included among its principles the necessity
of bridging the gaps among people, prohibiting luxury and wiping out deprivation.
 ISLAM AND THE CLASS SYSTEM

Before we discuss Islam's attitude regarding the concept of classes it may be useful to
try to understand what is generally meant by a "class system".
In medieval Europe, for instance, there were three distinct classes: the nobility, the
clergy and the common people.
The clergy had their own distinctive clothes. In those ages the power of the church
was equal and at times opposed to that of kings and emperors. The Pope claimed that it
was he who conferred power on kings but they strove to get rid of his influence in order
to rule independently. Owing to the property donated by the religious people and the
exactions imposed on them, the church became so rich that at times it could have armies
of its own. On the other hand, the nobility inherited nobleness from their forefathers and
passed it on to their descendants. A man belonged to the nobility by birth and remained
as such until his death regardless of whatever noble or mean actions he might have done
in his lifetime.
In the feudal age the nobility exercised absolute powers over the common people who
lived in their estates. All the legislative, judicial and executive powers were in their
hands. Their whims and fancies were the laws by which they ruled over the people. Since
representative councils were composed of members belonging to this class, it was only
natural that the legislations they made would aim at protecting themselves, safeguarding
their own privileges and interests which they surrounded by an air of inviolability.
As for the common people, they had no privileges or rights. They inherited poverty,
slavery and humiliation and passed them on to their descendants.
The significant economic development which took place afterwards led to the
emergence of the bourgeoisie: the new class which aspired to displace the nobility and to
assume their privileges and prestige. It was under the leadership of this emerging class
that the common people launched the French Revolution which seemingly abolished the
class system and declared in theory, the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality.
In modern times, the capitalist classes have replaced the old nobility. It will be
noticed that such replacement took place in a disguised manner and was accompanied by
certain changes necessitated by economic development. But the basic principle has never
changed. The fact is that the capitalist class still has the property, the power and the
ability to steer the government's machinery into the direction they desire. Despite the
appearances of freedom manifested in democratic elections, capitalism knows how to
sneak into parliaments and government offices in order to achieve its shady ends by
crooked means and under various names.
It is to be remembered that a country like Britain-the patron or democracy as we are
often told-still has a House of Lords or the Upper House as they call it. Moreover, Britain
still applies an ancient feudal law by virtue of which all the property of a dead man
passes to his eldest son alone. It is quite clear that such a law aims at keeping estates and
properties in the hands of a limited number of people. In this way families' fortunes will
not be distributed and such families will retain the old prestige and influence which the
feudal classes had in the Middle Ages.
 The class system is based on the wrong assumption that property means power and
that the class which owns property has the power as well. Such a class will exercise an
influence over the legislative power. Consequently such a class will, by direct or indirect
means, make legislations which protect it and subject the common people to its own
authority, thus depriving them of their legal rights.
In the light of the above-mentioned definition of classes, it may be truly said that
there has never been a class system in Islam. This can be clearly seen from the
following facts:
There are no laws in Islam which aim at keeping the property in the hands of
particular persons. The Holy Qur'an plainly says: ''In order that if may not merely make a
circuit between the wealthy among you" (Iix: 7). Therefore, Islam made laws that ensured
continual fragmentation and redistribution of wealth. According to the Islamic law of
inheritance, inherited property should be distributed among a large number of persons.
An inheritance is never passed on to a single person except in the very rare case
where such a person has no brothers, sisters or any other kindred. Even in such rare cases,
Islam took the necessary precautions by prescribing that a portion of the inheritance
should go to the deprived people who are not related to the dead man. This provision may
be regarded as a predecessor of modern inheritance tax. The Holy Qur'an prescribed that
"if at the time of division (of inheritance) other relatives or orphans or poor are present,
feed them out of the (property) and speak to them words of kindness and justice" (iv : 8).
It was in this way that Islam solved the problem resulting from the accumulation of
property. Property goes to individuals as such and not as members of a particular class,
because when they die the property will be redistributed according to new proportions.
History bears witness that property in the Islamic society was constantly changing hands
without being confined to a particular faction of the nation.
This leads to an important conclusion: Legislation in Islam is not the prerogative of a
particular class. In the Islamic state no one is allowed to make the legislations he desires
because all people are treated according to the same Islamic laws which were revealed by
God and which hold no distinctions among people.
It follows that the Islamic society is a classless society. It will be understood that
existence of classes is closely connected with the existence of a legislative prerogative.
Where such a privilege is non-existent, and no one can make legislations which safeguard
his own interests at the expense of others, there will be no classes.
Now let us explain how two relevant verses which, if read carelessly might lead to
some doubts.
"God has bestowed his gifts of sustenance more free/y on some of you than on others"
(xvi: 71).
“We raised some of them above others in ranks" (xliii: 32).
Do such verses mean that Islam recognizes the class system?
These two verses merely describe what is actually taking place on earth, be it under
Islamic rule or otherwise. They state that people differ in rank and livelihood. Let us take
Russia for example. Do all people get the same wages or are some people more
privileged than others in livelihood? Are all the conscripted people made officers or
soldiers or are some of them raised above others in rank? The existence of differences
among the people is an inevitable fact. The two verses do not give a Particular reason for
such differences. They do not even state that such preference is based on capitalist,
communist or even Islamic considerations. They do not say that such preference may be
just or unjust by our standards. The two verses merely say that such preference exists
everywhere on earth. But, of course, all that takes place on earth falls within the sphere of
God's will.
It must have become clear by now that the Islamic society is a society without classes
or legislative privileges. It will be noticed that the existence of differences in wealth and
property should not be confused with the question of classes unless such property and
wealth conferred upon their owners any legislative and individual privileges. Differences
in wealth will not lead to the emergence of classes so long as all people are-actually, not
in the theory only-equal before the law.
It should be pointed out that the ownership of land under Islam did not confer upon
landowners any special privileges or rights by which they might enslave or exploit others.
The same thing would have happened if capitalism had existed in a truly Islamic society,
especially because the ruler does not derive his power from the propertied class but he is
elected by the nation and is carrying out the law of God.
In addition to the above-mentioned, there can be no community wherein wealth can
be equally distributed among all individuals; surely not in the communist society which,
truly or not, claims to have abolished the class system though in fact it has left one ruling
class which suppresses all other classes.
 ISLAM AND ALMS

The communists as well as some of those whose souls and thoughts were enthralled
by colonialism try to accuse Islam of letting the common people lead a life of dependence
on the alms given by the rich. This false accusation is derived from the mistaken belief
that Az-Zakat is an alms obligingly donated by the wealthy people,
In refuting such accusations we should distinguish between Az-Zakat and alms.
Charity is voluntary. It cannot be imposed by law or by order of the ruler. Az-Zakat, on
the other hand, is an ordinance prescribed by law; the government must fight those who
refuse to pay Az-Zakat and may even kill them if they persist in such refusal, because
they would then be considered apostates. It is needless to say that nothing of the sort will
happen with respect to charity which is completely left to our own conscience.
From the financial point of view, Az-Zakat was the first regular tax ever imposed in
the world. Before that, taxes were imposed according to the whims of rulers. The
exaction of such taxes was affected by the ruler's need for money to achieve personal
ambitions. The burden of taxation used to fall on the poor rather than on the rich and very
often the taxes were collected from the common people alone. Islam organized the
collection of taxes and prescribed a maximum percentage which may not be exceeded in
ordinary circumstances. Taxes were imposed on the rich and middle classes but the poor
were exempted.
It should be borne in mind that Islam prescribes that the proceeds of Az-Zakat should
be distributed among the poor by the state and not by the rich people. In this sense, Az-
Zakat is a tax collected and distributed by the state. The Public Treasury under Islam is
the counterpart of the modern Ministry of Finance which collects public revenues and
distributes these among the various public utilities. The state supports and looks after
those who become needy-through inability to earn their living or due to the insufficiency
of their means-but it cannot be said that the state does that out of charity or that such help
is humiliating to the recipients. No one can say that retired officials who receive pensions
from the State or that workmen who benefit from social security schemes feel like
begging from the rich. The same thing can be said of helpless children and aged people
who cannot earn their living. No one can say that the pride of such people is hurt when
the state supports and extends aid to them. The state is bound to do such things by virtue
of its human obligations.
Social security by the state is a modem system which humanity managed to adopt
after bitter experiences and a long history of social injustice. One of the glories of Islam
is that it prescribed the said system at a time when Europe lived in social darkness. Yet
some people who are charmed by systems which are imported from the West or East,
accuse the same systems of regression and backwardness if they had been adopted by
Islam.
It should be pointed out that if the circumstances of life in the early years of Islam
necessitated or tolerated that the poor may personally receive Az-Zakat in cash or in kind,
nothing in the provisions of Islam Prescribes that the aforesaid method is the only way
for the distribution of Az-Zakat. Therefore, nothing in Islam prevents the use of Az-Zakat
funds in building hospitals and schools from which people may benefit or in the
establishment of co-operative societies which can make life easier for the poorer people
or in the Construction of factories which provide permanent employment for many
people. In other words, the proceeds of Az-Zakat may be given in the form of social
services. Only those who are incapacitated through illness, old age or childhood, are
entitled to receive Az-Zakat in cash but others may receive it in the form of employment
or social services.
Besides, the Islamic society is not supposed to comprise any poor people who might
live in complete dependence on Az-Zakat.
It is good to remember that the Islamic society reached an ideal stage during the age
of Omar bin Abdel Aziz. Az-Zakat was collected, yet the Collectors could not find
anyone who would accept it or any poor people among whom they might distribute it. Let
us listen to what was said by Yehia bin Said, a Zakat Collector under Omar bin Abdel
Aziz: "Omar bin Abdel Aziz sent me to collect alms from Africa. I collected the alms and
then looked for the poor to distribute the alms among them but I found none, nor did I
find anyone who might have accepted these from me for Omar bin Abdel Aziz had
enriched the people".
There is no doubt that every community is likely to include poor and needy people.
Therefore necessary legislation should be made to face such a problem. It should be
borne in mind that Islam constantly attached to itself new communities with different
degrees of richness. It was only natural that legislation should be made which would help
to lead gradually to the ideal stage which existed under the rule of Omar bin Abdel Aziz.

ALMS:

Alms are the properties which the rich voluntarily give for the sake of charity. Islam
approved and encouraged almsgiving. Alms were supposed to be given in various ways:
by supporting parents and relatives, and helping the needy in general. It may also take the
form of good deeds or kind words.
No one can say that being generous to our relatives hurts their feeling or insults their
pride. Such generosity to our relatives is the outcome of affection, sympathy and
compassion. When you present a gift to your brother or give a dinner in honor of your
relatives you will not be humiliating them or arousing their malignance or hatred.
As for the gifts in kind which are given to the needy, they are subject to the same
prescriptions which governed Az-Zakat in the early days of Islam. Circumstances of life
at the time tolerated the donation of gifts in kind, and Islam regarded such gifts as honest
means to help the needy and those in trouble. Nothing in Islam prescribed that alms
should be given in one form only. Alms may be given in the form of donations to
societies and organizations which provide social services. Az-Zakat may be given as an
aid to any Islamic state which needs funds for the execution of its schemes and
enterprises. Islam maintains that as long as there are poor people, the state should try by
all possible means to make their life more comfortable. Besides, the Islamic society is not
supposed to comprise only poor people. When the Islamic state reaches the above-
mentioned ideal stage, many people may not be in need of alms just as they at one time
did not need Az-Zakat. In such a case, both Az-Zakat and alms will be allocated for
services that are of great importance to every community i.e., looking after people who
are unable to work for any reason whatsoever.
It win be noticed that Islam has never called upon Muslims to lead a life of
dependence on charity. The Islamic state is required to secure honorable life for those
who are unable to earn their living, it being understood that such obligation is not the
outcome of charity or condescension.
On the other hand, the Islamic state is required to provide work for every person who
is able to work. The state's obligation to find work for every Muslim is emphasized by the
following tradition:
“A man came to the Prophet (peace and prayer of God be upon him) begging for
anything to live on. The Prophet gave him an axe and a rope and ordered him to collect
some wood and sell it and live by its price. He further told the man to come back and
report what would happen to him".
Now, some misguided people may be inclined to say that the above-mentioned
tradition is just an individual example of no significance in the twentieth century. They
would also say that the said example involved an axe, a rope and one man whereas
modern life involves great factories, millions of unemployed workers and organized
governments whose functions are carried out by various competent departments.
Such logic is surely a naive one. The Prophet was not required to talk about factories
or lay down the necessary legislation a thousand years before the existence of any
factories. If he had done so no one would have understood him.
It was quite sufficient that he laid down the basic principles of legislation leaving for
each generation the task of devising their suitable method of application within the
framework of the basic principles.
The above-mentioned tradition contains the following basic principles:
1. Sense of responsibility of the Prophet (i.e. head of the state) for finding work for
the man.
2. The Prophet ensured work for that man (according to the circumstances existing at
that time).
3. The Prophet emphasized his sense of responsibility by ordering the man to come
back and report what would happen to him.
This sense of responsibility which Islam prescribed thirteen centuries ago is
completely supported by the most modern economic and political theories. But where the
state is unable to find work for the unemployed, the Public Treasury will support them
until their circumstances improve. There is nothing wrong in this, for Muslims are
generous to themselves, to the state and to others.
 ISLAM AND WOMAN

The East today is simmering with a furor over the- rights of woman and a demand
in her behalf for perfect equality with man. The most noteworthy among the feverous
champions of women's rights are those men and women who in the name of Islam rave
most foolishly, some mischievously alleging that Islam has in all respects maintained
perfect equality between the sexes, while others, thanks to their ignorance of Islam or
negligence thereof, claim that Islam is an enemy of woman, for it degrades her and
lowers her status holding her intellectually deficient and assigning her a position very
much akin to that of animals. She is reduced to no more than a mere means of sensual
gratification for man and a machine for the propagation of the human species which is
sufficient to show how subservient to man she is in the sight of Islam with the result that
man dominates her and enjoys an all-round superiority over her.
Both of these classes of people are equally ignorant of Islam or they intentionally
confuse the right with the wrong in order to deceive others and sow the seeds of discord
and mischief in society so as to further their own nefarious designs and facilitate the foul
game they are out to play.
Before embarking upon a detailed discussion of the position of woman in Islam, we
propose first to touch in brief upon the history of the movement for women's
emancipation in Europe, for it is this very source of mischief whence all the defecting
trends in the modern East Bow.
The woman in Europe and all over the world was looked upon as a mere nonentity.
She formed the theme of many a discourse of the learned "scholars" and "philosophers"
who wrangled among themselves over questions such as these: Has woman got a soul or
not? If yes, then what precisely is the nature of her soul, is it human or animal?
Supposing she does possess a human soul then what social and human position should
she occupy in relation to man? Is she born as a slave to man or does she hold a position
slightly superior to that of a slave?
This situation remained unchanged even through those relatively short spans of
history when woman appears to have occupied a central position in the social set-up of
the time e.g., in Greece and the Roman Empire. But all this exaltation did not mean the
exaltation of woman u such; it was rather an exaltation of a few outstanding women
inhabiting the capital cities because of some of their personal qualities which made them
the life and soul of social parties. They were no more than means of diversion and
entertainment for the licentious rich who applauded their appearances in public out of
sheer vanity and self-conceit. But this did not signify any respect towards woman as a
human being and apart from the pleasure she brought to men.
This position of woman in Europe remained unaltered during the periods of serfdom
and feudalism. She in her ignorance was blandished sometimes by luxury and license and
at times was content to live as animals-eating, drinking, bearing children, giving birth to
others, and working day and night.
When the industrial revolution took place in Europe it brought in its wake the worst
possible sufferings for woman yet experienced by her throughout the history of mankind.
 Europe has throughout the ages exhibited such a rigidity and avarice of nature as lack
both generosity and liberality. It made men undergo hardships without a promise of any
immediate or remote material gains in return. However, the economic conditions of life
during the periods of slavery and feudalism along with the prevalent agricultural milieu
were such as made man responsible for the support of woman. It was quite natural and in
complete harmony with the spirit of the age. The woman nonetheless at that time worked
in some simple cottage industries such as are found in any agricultural society. In this
way she paid back the price to men for supporting her.
But with the industrial revolution the whole of the social scene underwent a radical
change in the country no less than in cities. The family life was completely ruined, and
the ties holding together its members were torn asunder when women and children were,
thanks to the industrial revolution, forced to go out and work in factories. The working
classes slowly and gradually left the country life, a life based on the principles of mutual
responsibility and co-operation, and came over to cities wherever everybody lived a
solitary life and where nobody was interested in his neighbors nor was anyone in a mood
to Support others but worked and earned to support his own-self. Here, there were no
more any rules of morality observed or cared for. Men and women no longer bothered
about moral scruples if they but once found an opportunity to gratify their sexual urge. As
a result thereof the will to marry and support a family suffered decline among these
people or if it still persisted in some hearts the trend was to postpone it at least for some
years longer.1
We do not intend in these pages to dwell on the history of Europe. We are merely
concerned with the factors that influenced the career of woman in European history. As
we said above, the industrial revolution overburdened women and children with work.
This weakened the family ties, which in turn lead to a complete disintegration of family
life. But it was the woman who had to pay dearly. She worked harder than ever before,
and lost her honor, but was still far from being satisfied psychologically and materially.
Man not only shrank back from taking upon himself the responsibility of supporting her-
be she his wife or mother but also charged her to provide for her own-self. In the
factories, she was exploited most ruthlessly by the factory owners; she worked there for
long hours but was paid far less than the men doing a kindred job in that very factory.
It is needless to ask why all this happened as we know that Europe has been for ever

1
It is on the basis of such evidence that the proponents of Materialism and Marxism claim that the economic
conditions alone engender the social conditions of life and that only the economic circumstances determine the mutual
relations of men, We do not deny the importance of the economic factor in human life, but it is wrong to say that it is
the economic factor alone which determines the thoughts, feelings and behavior of men. The fact that the economic
factor exercised such a dominating influence over European life was due to the absence of any lofty ideal such as might
have-as it did in the Islamic World-elevated Europe spiritua1ly. Thus enabling Europeans to base their economic
relationship on a purely human basis. In this way it would have not only realized its economic requirements but the
people all over the world would have also been spared the trouble it made them suffer due to its lust for exploitation.
known for its miserliness, rigidity and ingratitude. It has never been known to respect
men as men, nor, to render a voluntary act of goodness while it could with impunity
infect others with evils as its record of the past as well as of the present testifies; and it
might as well remain unchanged in the years to come except if God Almighty should lead
it to the right path and elevate it spiritually. However, weak and helpless they were,
women and children suffered a mos. ruthless exploitation.
There were, however, some conscientious men who could not silently bear the
perpetration of these vile iniquities against the weaker section of the population. They
struggled to put an end to this cruelty towards the children (please note, the children, not
women!). The social reformers denounced the employing of children as workers in
factories at an early age, burdening them with work that retarded their natural growth
besides paying them scanty and inadequate wages for the burdensome and rough work
they did. The protests against social injustice did not, however, go unnoticed. They bore
fruit; the age of employment was gradually raised; the wages were increased, and the
working hours were cut down.
But women still remained without anyone to champion or advance their cause, as it
required an intellectual refinement such as Europe did not possess. As a result thereof
woman pressed on her way through this ordeal overworking herself in a desperate effort
to support herself but receiving in return wages far less than those given to her male
counterpart-for a similar work.
In the first great war tens of millions of European and American young men were
killed leaving behind them millions of widowed women. These poor women suffered the
worst tribulations and trials of labor. They had none to support or look after them, for the
bread-winners of most of these families were either killed in war or crippled for life, or
had suffered such a nervous breakdown because of fear, nervous tension or poisonous
gases as had left them incapacitated for work, or they had just been released from a
prison house after serving a four years' term-and now would enjoy themselves to regain
their nervous self-composure. All such people had lost the will to get married and support
a whole family, thus putting themselves to physical as well as material inconvenience.
The war had caused so great a shortage of men that the survivors could hardly supply
their place. The factories could not restart their production nor could the war damages be
repaired due to the shortage of working hands. Thus it fell upon women to go out and
take the place of men, for if they did not, they as well as their dependents-old Women
and small children-were threatened by hunger. To go and work in the factories, however,
required that woman should ignore her moral temperament as well as her feminine nature
which bad now become a positive hurdle in earning her living. Moreover, factory-owners
did not want working hands merely; they wanted to satisfy their lust as well. The
helplessness of woman now promised them an excellent opportunity of which they fully
availed themselves. The woman thus had to discharge a two-fold duty: work in the
factories, and try her level best to please her employer. The woman was not plagued by
hunger alone; sex too claimed its share and gratification. As the number of men had
fallen too low due to the war, not all the women could achieve that gratification through
marriage. But the creed and religion prevalent in Europe did not allow polygamy-as Islam