|
| | On the causes of world disturbance |  |
| | | كاتب الموضوع | رسالة |
|---|
أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 52580
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: On the causes of world disturbance الخميس 02 يونيو 2022, 6:47 pm | |
| On the causes of world disturbance
Colonialism
We have considered international relations from the Islamic point of view, and we have touched upon many aspects of the problem. The purpose of such a brief presentation is to arouse an interest among both Muslim and non-Muslim readers in discussing fruitfully the tenets of the Message of Muhammad, with the anticipation that they will discover in its fundamentals and precepts a formula for salvation from the sufferings of modern civilization and from that turbulence which inflicted two world wars upon mankind within a quarter of a century.
As a result of the last world war and of its widespread evil products, the modern world finds itself in three camps, two of which have been maintaining a hostile struggle against each other while the third tries to remain neutral but knows no immunity from the aggressiveness of these rivals.
What are the three complaining about? Each of the two inimical factions is making demands to which the other cannot possibly acquiesce, and there is no point in discussing them here. Each claims that it has been wronged and at tacked while standing for the right and seeking to uphold the edifice of civilization. Let us leave these claimants the merits or falsehoods of their arguments.
As for the third, the uncommitted faction, it consists of neutrals whose sanctities have been violated and others who watch fearfully at night, fully armed lest they be overpowered.
If we take a general look at the causes of strife among nations during the past two centuries, we are struck by the fact that they have become more serious century after century, probably reaching an apex in the most recent world war, which engulfed all five continents. What provoked such excessive evils, and what are the aims of the belligerents, aims of such evident seriousness that they have persisted without being realized? Are these aims definable as a desire for territorial expansion or competition for control over the destinies and resources of weak nations?
Do they represent a striving to gain special interests and economic advantage, emanating from disputes and contention among classes?
Are they the expression, perhaps, of indulgence in national or racial friction-a yielding to excessive patriotism and racism leading to a denial of the rights of others, whether neighbors or citizens of countries in the farthest reaches of the world?
Or do they embody a materialistic tyranny and love of extravagance, resulting in a concentration on amassing wealth or on quick gain, which further intensifies the differences among the classes of a single nation and sets them against one another, thereby provoking internal and external strife? Are these evils the result of the defeat of spiritual forces before the onslaught of materialistic forces, from which in turn derive a confusion in moral character and beliefs, apathy toward the righteous law, a loss of human virtue and a concomitant decrease in brotherliness and an increasing disregard for pledges and pacts that has bred treachery and deception in international relations and fear in place of security, what with the constant presence of war preparations and the possibility of a sudden holocaust?
Or are they the result of other causes, greater or lesser, or, possibly, the sum of all these reasons?
Other possible causes and events may have a temporary effect; but if one looks searchingly into those I have mentioned, he is led to the belief that in them lie the roots of world corruption and the causes of calamities and grinding wars.
Does the Message of Muhammad offer any preventive measures and possible cures for such corruption? This is what we shall attempt to discover.
As regards the first definition given of the aims underlying world evils, it may be summed up in the single answer: modern colonialism. Nothing is more indicative of the corrupting influence and the strength of this ill than the fact that wars did not become universal until after it had appeared and spread; as it extended into the five continents and became the pretext for materialistic strife, wars attained the proportions of a universal calamity.
With the expansion of colonialism, more countries reached out for colonies, and all nations began to believe that colonialism was the road to wealth and power; they envied, hated, and vied with each other, and were not restrained by the fact that some nations had fallen prey to their own expansionist greed-some of colonialism's earliest knights, the Spaniards, Portuguese, and French, became its victims. In his The Wreck of Europe (L'Europa senza Pace, 1921), Francesco Saverio Nitti declares that the Italians spent fourteen billion lire to buy a track of sand. What was the total price paid by fascist Italy in Libya, Ethiopia, and other countries? Italy exhausted her wealth and blood and jeopardized her very existence for the sake of colonialism but achieved only destruction and ruin.
When these bloody wars, which have dealt civilization such crippling blows, are over with for all time, all nations will have come to realize that colonialism was but a mirage which they pursued and vied for, but which could not replace honest toil and the good life. Like an object thrown at a rock, it bounces back and strikes the thrower.
Colonialism has been the cause of most of the wars of the past two centuries and has left its imprint on all of them. An investigation of the causes of each war must lead back to colonialism somewhere on earth, either in the heritage of a weak nation or in the form of an object of modern worship petroleum, gold, coal, cotton, minerals, and other fruits of the earth.
In its modern guise, European colonialism is obviously an evil for both the victor and the vanquished, the colonizer and the colonized .On the one hand, the conquering nations gradually are led to a life of reliance upon others, becoming inflicted with a deadly habit of ease; they fall into disputation with those who envy them or seek revenge upon them, thus exposing their previously powerful existence to extinction. And what has happened to certain nations in the past still has its effects on them today .On the other hand, the maintenance of colonies for material exploitation lowers the standard of living of their inhabitants and limits their ability to consume goods. In addition, it stifles their spirit of inventiveness, their initiative and productiveness, and their dignity, placing a significant segment of the world's population in a desperate position; thus they become a problem for mankind.
Stratagems and wars waged by the envious and greedy hasten the decline, even the ruin, of civilization.
Were not the Napoleonic Wars-a blight on the world, not only on France-the outgrowth of hatred and envy resulting from a desire to dominate the weak and acquire their possessions? So were the wars of Russia, Turkey, and Austria, Were not these wars undertaken for self-enrichment at the expense of the weak? The Russo-Japanese War during the early part of this century (1905) would not have taken place, because of the distance that separated these nations, had the two rivals not clashed in their expansionist aims.
Whatever the reasons one might give for the First and Second World Wars, the hatred buried deep in the hearts of those who were defeated and the desire for expansion and for acquisition of the raw materials and properties of the weak were among the fundamental causes of contention among strong, overpowering nations, And because the large nations felt strongly about the evils of colonialism, after the First World War they tried to find a remedy in the theories of the mandate system and the principle of free access to raw materials.
The evils of colonialism will continue to prevail until people discover by trial and sacrifice a solution equally acceptable to the strong and the weak, In the past, wars were limited to neighboring states, but when colonialism became worldwide, so did wars. Therefore, a need exists for common principles that will set straight the problems of the world, The sacrifice of colonialism is necessary for the salvation of prsent-day civilization. Already the Great Powers are searching for a way through the Atlantic Pact, and like declarations resorted to by other factions indicate that they too realize the evil colonialism has wrought on both victor and victim.
As long as force is the only criterion in the conduct of nations, hardship will persist. One of the virtues of the Message of Muhammad is its denunciation of colonialism and of the use of force for worldly purposes. It does not sanction war for the expansion of dominion, for securing raw materials, for cornering markets, or for allegedly civilizing people. Nor does it sanction one nation's exalting itself over another, or one monarch over another, or one race over an other. "O ye who believe! When ye go forth [to fight] in the way of Allah, make investigation, and say not unto one who offereth you [the salutation of] peace: `Thou art not a believer,' seeking the chance profits of this life [so that ye may despoil him]. With Allah there are plenteous gains."
The focus of the Islamic view in international relations is clear, for people are as equal as the teeth of a comb, as the Prophet says, with no preference for one race, class, or nation over another except in their piety and love for peace; and as I have said again and again, Islam recognizes no dispute that does not aim at making the word of God supreme and insuring the freedoms of all.
Certain people might say that the history of the Muslims does not conform with what they preach. We preach the Book of God and His religion, not an apology for the actions of certain Muslim states or rulers, which may resemble, more or less, what the Europeans have done. The Muslims have been punished for these actions even as modern nations have been.
There is no doubt that the Message of Muhammad rejects colonialism in all its forms. The wisdom of its lofty and sublime views now has been affirmed as a result of the impact of colonialism on people in past centuries as well as in recent times; for when the evils of colonialism expanded, its perils took hold, and its plague became universal, it dragged the world through successive global wars.
We pray that people will awaken to guidance, that they will discover in Islamic principles the means for establishing international relations on a basis other than that of colonialism, and that this new attitude will rest on the Islamic spirit of brotherhood, which does not recognize boundaries of race, class, or narrow nationalism, does not measure rights according to knowledge and ignorance or progress and regression, and considers men Only as brethren; for they are all descendants of Adam, and Adam is of dust.
Class struggle
Class struggle is a by-product of European civilization. Its disease has spread, and its calamities have become universal.
From the beginning of time, people have met with varying fortunes in this world; there have been the poor and the wealthy, the rulers and the ruled, the weak and the strong, the sick and the healthy, living in reasonable cooperation and understanding with each other within the jurisdiction of the tribe, town, city, metropolis, or nation. Through instinct and experience, their natural disposition has been to associate and cooperate.
The early human groupings were like beehives cooperating to produce an order acceptable to all; if they did not accept it as a matter of personal preference, they would consent to it voluntarily or by law and tradition (`urf). Such an order would be subjected at times to disturbances. Disorder would arise from aggression by other groups or from internal corruption in the form of exceptional cases of oppression caused by the deviation of a strong group or a strong individual who would undertake acts of tyranny and commit excesses. These troubles would usually subside, however; and the course of affairs would return to normalcy, and cooperation would be resumed through the interplay of natural instinct and custom.
In earlier times, people were not conscious of class conflict as an element of disturbance as it is today-a bitter, constant struggle between the poor and the wealthy, workers or craftsmen and proprietors or managers-though in the annals of mankind, we might find extremist ideologies, such as that of the Mazdakites in pre-islamic Persia, advocating complete equality in living. History witnessed in the wake of the Roman Empire the struggle between the masses and the privileged or, in other words, between the slaves and the free. In the early days of Islam, there is the example of such as Abu-Dharr, a Companion of the Prophet's, who migrated from Syria complaining of opulence and objecting to land ownership.
We also learn of the Khawarij, who unsheathed their swords and plunged bravely into social anarchy with the more exalted among them declaring, "There is no rule but Allah's." They denied the necessity of government, claiming that it is corrupt by nature and that to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong through motivations of religion and conscience suffices to regulate the affairs of the people and the social order. They rejected the ruler's right to rule, while the more moderate among them refused the monarch the right of inheritance. The head of state was elected with no regard for his family or tribe; even if he had been a slave, he possessed an equal right to rule. They would abstain from worldly pursuits and call on people to do the same until the means of subsistence were equally shared, although they did not forbid the possession of property.
These ideologies were regarded as deviant, however. Few in history have followed them, and they never reached the level attained by socialism and communism in modern times, either in magnitude or in pretension. For example, Islam did not even advocate equal distribution of property, nor did the Muslims preach class struggle, as between workers and owners; unlike modern times, earlier periods witnessed no bloody conflicts between classes. The communism and socialism that have organized workers today are undoubtedly new, and are a direct result of modern capitalism. Acting through instinctive simplicity, the Muslim people understood each other. The wealthy neighbor was the friend of his poor neighbor; he knew him and his children personally. Everyone was united by a communal spirit of brotherhood and by ties of blood or protection. No matter how comfortable his living conditions might be or how extensive his power, the chieftain of the tribe or village was the chieftain of the poor and the wealthy alike, having a feeling of close attachment to all. His wealth and possessions were not held selfishly or directed toward ostentation and opulence: he prided himself on his generosity and glorified in giving. His children, despite the comfort they enjoyed, were like all children of the tribe or the village, playing the same games, eating similar food, and wearing the same kind of clothes as other children.
Sentiments of envy and jealousy were not aroused by the wealth and luxury enjoyed by the important and well-to-do. Moreover, fortunes were limited, and most of the people lived on the same modest scale.
In the modern world, with the advent of steam and electricity, fortunes expanded, and so did the influence of the wealthy, whose numbers increased. Machines replaced manual labor, communications advanced and speed increased, trade expanded; the gap between poverty and wealth widened. The world smiled on landowners, traders, and those who controlled the means of transportation. And so the new capitalistic order thrived with all of its accompanying lack of human relations; consequently, people drifted farther and farther apart in their thinking and their ways of life, and grew to be antagonistic toward one another.
It was inevitable that the deprived class, which fell into a kind of servitude to the machine and its owner, should seek a way to freedom, for it felt that despite its numbers it hardly possessed a corresponding power. It deplored existing laws and saw in them the implementation of decisions ostensibly merciful but subtly torturous, enabling the wealthy to have their own way and to use the police to their advantage. The controlling few thus triumphed over the deprived multitudes, who then turned to revolution, fostered by dreamers and frustrated leaders and parties, thus creating one of the fundamental causes of world disturbance.
World War I had hardly ended before ungovernable revolutions and bloody riots began. Their victims reached tens of millions in the Russian civil war, the flames of which raged for years. Nor were the remaining European and American regions secure from bloody riots, and the ideology that arose, communism, still impels the poor to vent their anger against the rich, the class of artisans, workers, and peasants against proprietors, thus preparing the ground for new and more dangerous outbursts everywhere.
Governments and people have undertaken a search for a remedy and have wandered off in many directions. Some have extirpated the propertied class, as happened in Russia; some have liquidated the spokesmen of workers and communism, as happened in Spain; and some have resorted to force and oppression in order to establish security and equilibrium, suppressing personal freedom, as happened in Italy and Germany, where dictatorial leadership removed all power of decision from the people.
It is very difficult in a rapid exposition such as this to enter into a discussion of what is called the capitalist system, its assets and liabilities, as it is likewise difficult to outline the social problem and the solutions proposed by Europeans and Americans and the ills they suffer from a system that is based on usury and selfishness. We trust to the reader's knowledge of the intricate question of class struggle, its causes and effects. |
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 52580
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: On the causes of world disturbance الخميس 02 يونيو 2022, 6:49 pm | |
| Let us examine the precepts provided by the Message of Muhammad to see whether we can discover a remedy for the social problem of this age. Poverty is the first problem of society and the primary cause of class strife. Islam has a flexible system of its own which embraces the general welfare of its classless society in curing poverty. The Shari'ah advocated two methods to accomplish this end.
First, it gave the deprived a fixed right to a share of the wealth of all people. I say all because every able-bodied worker is subject to the poor tax on wealth, property, and productive assets; payment of a poor tax on al-Fitr, for example, is expected of any Muslim who himself possesses what exceeds his need for a day. In other words, the poor man is taxed to help those even poorer.
The legal taxes on the possessions of people of all classes, levied to resist and eliminate poverty and other social ills, have varied. The proceeds are specially allocated by decrees of the Koran to the needy, and the head of state may not spend them for any purpose other than that stipulated. Those entitled to charity are listed in the Koran, as in this verse: "The alms are only for the poor and the needy,... and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives [slaves] and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and for the cause of Allah, and [for] the wayfarers; a duty imposed by Allah. And Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom."
The Koran does not state in detail the types of possessions that fall within the jurisdiction of the poor tax or the amount that must be paid, but these questions are answered in Islamic tradition (sunnah) by a letter the Prophet wrote to those whom he placed in charge of distributing all the funds set aside for the poor.
The Koran laid down the principle, then, and the Prophet implemented it; the Koran designated the poor tax (zakah) and considered it the duty of the head of state to allocate the funds collected according to need. In our day, he might discover that little if any money was needed for the liberation of slaves or for "those whose hearts are to be reconciled" or for the wayfarer; in that case, he could increase the share for the poor or assign funds to a social security program,for he could find in the way of Allah many gates to that beneficence which is directed to the common welfare in every age according to the circumstances besetting its inhabitants.
The Shari'ah was not content with simply stating this known right of the needy to help from those capable of payment. As a second means of doing away with poverty, it also charged the state with the duty of establishing and maintaining social equilibrium. The head of state is responsible for this equilibrium, which he regulates by use of the poor tax; if it does not suffice, he is entitled to make appropriations from the possessions of the people in the interest of the general welfare, as it is his duty to measure out justice in an equitable balance. Wherever this justice exists, it conforms to the decrees and religion of God. If this justice should demand a decision not previously decreed and which cannot be found in Muslim law, then the head of state, after consultation, is entitled to exercise ijtihad-that is, independent reasoning.
Let us consider two cases of ijtihad by the great Imams Abu-Bakr and `Umar (may God be pleased with them). Abu-Bakr used to divide the incomes from state revenue among his officials, pensioners, soldiers, and others equally, showing no preference for one over the other. He was once asked, "You have divided this wealth equally among people, but of them are there not those who are entitled to more because of their worth, good precedence, and seniority?" He replied, "Truly, I have not been informed of what you have mentioned of good precedence, seniority, and worth; that is something for Allah to reward. This equating is a means of subsistence, and equality in it is better than preference."
Under `Umar, the caliph after Abu-Bakr, the conquests of Syria and Iraq took place. `Umar decided upon varied wages and declared, "I will not equate between him who fought the Prophet and him who fought with him," and on that premise he organized the bureau (diwan) of the army. `Umar, who did not follow the view that equality in subsistence is better than preference, nevertheless had his own interpretation of the Koranic verse concerning spoils (ghana'im); he replied to those who wanted to divide the land among its conquerors and retain only the khums for the general welfare, "How will it be with those Muslims who are to follow when they discover that the land, together with its `uluj, has been divided and inherited for generations? This is not a fair law." `Abd-al-Rahman ibn-'Awf, a respected Companion of the Prophet, then said to him, "What is the just procedure? The land and its `uluj are but what Allah has bestowed upon the Muslims." `Umar replied, "There is truth in what you say, but I do not see it [this way]. By Allah, no conquest will take place hereafter in which such great gains are to be had, and future conquests may even be a liability on all Muslims. Now, if the land of Iraq and the land of Syria should be divided together with their `uluj, then what will be left to guard the thughur? What will become of the progenies and widows of the people of Iraq and Syria in this and other towns?" Yet they kept pressing `Umar, saying, "Will you grant to a people that neither was present at nor witnessed battle and to the sons of a people and the sons of their sons who were not present what Allah has bestowed upon us by our swords?" But `Umar would not add to his words, and said only, "This is my view.
`Umar was then asked to seek counsel, and he consulted the early Immigrants (Muhajirun), but they differed. As for `Abd-al-Rahman ibn-'Awf, he suggested that their rights be divided among them; the opinions of `Uthman, `Ali, Talhah, and the son of `Umar were identical with `Umar's. `Umar then sent for ten of the elders and notables of the Ansar, five from the Aws and five from the Khazraj; once they had convened, he addressed them, saying, "I have disturbed you only that you may share in this trust over your affairs which I have been made to shoulder. I am like one of you, and today you will affirm the right. Disagree with me, whoever will, and agree with me, whoever will. And I do not desire that you follow what I desire. You have from Allah a Book which bespeaks the truth. By Allah, if I have stated something I desire, I desire not but the right."
The Ansar then said, "Speak and we shall listen, O Commander of the Believers." He then described to them the nature of the dispute, and they confirmed his view, whereupon he decided to keep the land in the hands of its owners but to place on it the land tax (kharaj); and the dissenters were silent out of respect for the dominant view.
This is an example of the conduct of a disciple and successor of the Prophet in a matter which ended in the issuance of a major decree, which `Umar steadfastly upheld. `Umar made the view prevail which was demanded for the general welfare and upon which he and the majority of the sages and men of counsel (ahl al-shura) of Islam agreed.
The Islamic Shari'ah does not stand as an obstacle once the general welfare becomes known, for the Shari'ah will not controvert the aims of welfare and justice. The establishment of a social balance to insure that the burden of privation is lifted from the needy and that justice and social security prevail is one of the most important duties of the Islamic state. The responsibility of the imam and ahl al-shura in this matter is clear.
The propagator of the Message and his followers did not hesitate to set up the balance of social justice on the basis of the general welfare, for the Message permits of no contention among its adherents over worldly sectarian interests. It recognizes that the general welfare is indivisible, and that sects and classes are nonexistent when all are the servants of God and thus equal; in sum, the welfare of all is above the welfare of any class.
It could be ascertained that most differences are based on the claim that each represents the general welfare. Preponderant support for the general welfare, as preached in the Message of Muhammad, is not sufficient to prevent dissension; the word justice does not convey the same meaning to all people so that a fixed measure exists. It would constitute a justified objection if this welfare were left free and uncontrolled and if this justice were abandoned to untested opinion. The Message of Muhammad does not cater to irresponsible desires.
The Islamic Shari'ah draws its instructions from belief in the Lord of all peoples, Who knows what deceives the eye and what hearts conceal, and from the right-doing (ihsan) that cannot be questioned and through which the blessings of Allah are sought. Believers cannot depend on their private wishes, therefore; to them, the general welfare is of singular importance and thrives on deeds satisfactory to the Creator, namely, deeds sanctioned by His Islamic Law. Believers also enjoy a discipline in the exercise of their pure and guileless conscience. The general welfare is adjudged in terms of the brotherhood that religion has decreed and has made a condition for the perfection of faith: "Truly, none of you believes if he does not desire for his brother what he desires for himself." And "You are all of Adam, and Adam is of dust," says the Prophet. For this reason, discrimination of any sort is nullified in belief, and in belief lies the greatest guarantee of the public good.
The general welfare likewise is not entrusted to chance be cause there is an account for deeds that is adjudicated by a God Who has the knowledge of this world and the next. He will punish the nations that squander and indulge in excesses in this world and will award men their just due for their deeds on the Day of Judgment. Justice consists of dealing equitably and rightly, with actions weighed in terms of brotherhood and equality. That which disagrees with brother hood and equality does not constitute justice.
Accordingly, the Islamic state, in which the imam guarantees a social balance based on the words of the Almighty, "And weigh with a right balance," and in which the view of `Umar, accepted under a specific set of circumstances, formed the basis of a decree enunciated in the interests of the general welfare and within the spirit as well as the meaning of the law, permits no room or access for class struggle.
It might be said that this understanding would apply as long as fear of and obedience to God are basic to the consideration of the general welfare; but what can be said when faith is lost and conscience becomes corrupt? The answer lies in the fact that this tragedy, which has come to pass, has upset the world and imposed calamities on European civilization and, of course, on Muslims and Orientals as well. Because of its broad horizon and careful evaluation, the Islamic Shari'ah also takes into account the possibility of this condition of corruption. It provides for reprimand and compulsion as means of leading people back to the right path, and it even sanctions combat to assist the oppressed, entrusting the head of state with the power to establish the right by force if necessary. When upon the death of the Prophet some Arabs apostatized and refused to render to the poor their rights, Abu-Bakr declared, "May Allah be my witness, if they should withhold from me even the tether of a camel which they used to render to the Prophet, I would fight them for it!" He did not relegate the question of the poor to the conscience of men but took up arms instead.
Because the Islamic Shari'ah, following the decree of the Koran, stipulated the levy of the alms tax (sadaqah) to in- sure social security against diverse needs, the community did not have to depend on the conscience of the imam or the nation. In addition, it empowered the imam to levy taxes in the amount considered necessary to insure against needs, and placed unavoidable obligations on him toward every inflicted segment of society referred to in the Koran. Through analogical deduction (qiyas), which is the fourth source of Muslim law, one might add to the list in the Koran of the categories of those in need; for example, the imam is responsible for providing medication to the destitute patient, nourishment to a child whose mother cannot provide it, a home to the homeless, and food and the opportunity to work to the man who is capable of working but unemployed.
To sum up, the sadaqah is an instrument for resisting poverty and consequently a cure for social ills. The imam has the right to sponsor legislation and to further interpret the law upon consultation with wise, learned jurists and distinguished men of judgment (ahl al-ra'y). It is his duty to act in behalf of the general welfare and to intercede in disputes among classes and sects, seeking to prevent dissension, envy, and hatred.
The Message places a great deal of stress on conscience and makes Paradise the reward of right-doers. One discovers that the expenditure of resources for those who need them is urged in the verses of the Koran upon every suitable occasion as well as in the sayings of the Prophet. This is no place to recite dozens of Koranic verses and hadith; it suffices to relate Allah's saying: "Tell My bondsmen who believe to establish worship and spend of that which We have given them, secretly and publicly, before a day cometh wherein there will be neither traffic nor befriending."
The Muslim ethic is based on social cooperation and makes beneficence the goal of work and life. "Lo! Allah enjoineth justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk" Every person who is properly brought up is thoroughly prepared for social service; this preparation is the most effective method for resisting social ills and for bringing people together and preventing strife.
If we consider the methods discussed for combating social problems as positive factors in preventing class warfare, then taken in the same context, the negative factors are of no less significance. It can be seen that the Islamic state, led by the imam and guided by a consultative body, which acts like a board of directors, is the greatest institution for insuring social security; it can also be seen that this state acts to raise the standard of living of the deprived class. At the same time, the Message of Muhammad resists extravagance with the weapons of piety, faith, and religion in order to reduce false pride and luxury to a level where they will not excite envy and malice. It also conveys a death message to those who are given to extravagance and lustful indulgence, warning them that they will meet an ill journey's end, suffer the tortures of Allah, be barred from entrance into the next and better world.
The Message, moreover, warns the whole of society of catastrophes for not admonishing and restraining its prodigals and those given to profligacy:
"And guard yourselves against a chastisement [in this world] which cannot fall exclusively on those of you who are wrong doers... and eat and drink, but be not prodigal. Lo! He loveth not the prodigals"
"And how many a community have We destroyed that was thankless for its means of livelihood! And yonder are their dwellings, which have not been inhabited after them save a little. And We, even We, were the inheritors."
At the root of social ruin is abundance in a nation softened by ease: "And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease [in luxury], and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word [of doom] hath effect for it, and We annihilate it with complete annihilation."
The Message permitted enjoyment of the niceties of property and life, but prohibited men from wearing silk and gold as a sign of its disapproval of luxury and false ornament; it permitted women to wear ornaments (silk, gold, jewels, and so forth), but curtailed their tendencies to excess by granting authority in such questions to their husbands and by prohibiting them from appearing in public dressed or acting in a provocative manner.
The Shari'ah placed further limitations on extravagance, ease, and the display of pride, and people came to think that there was no way for the wealthy to enter the Kingdom of Heaven without parting with their wealth. Austerity thus became the symbol of piety. The Apostle of Allah himself, despite the authority he was given, was one of the greatest ascetics.
Says Ibn-Mas’ud:
I entered upon the Apostle of Allah while he lay on a mat that had left its marks on his side, and I said to him: "O Messenger of Allah, what would you say if we secured a carpet for you and placed it between you and the mat, protecting you from it?" And the Prophet answered: "What need I of this world! I am to the world but a rider who rests in the shade of a tree, then departs and leaves it."
Ibn-Hisham, citing Zayd ibn-Aslam, relates:
When the Prophet made `Attab ibn-Asid governor of Mecca, he granted him a dirham every day. Ibn-Asid stood up and ad dressed the gathering: "O people, Allah starves a belly that hungers for a dirham! The Prophet of Allah has bestowed upon me a dirham each day, and I am therefore in need of no one."
It has been told that Muhammad came upon his daughter Fatimah holding in her hand a golden chain which she had been displaying to a woman in her company, saying, "This was presented to me by Abu-al-Hasan"-meaning `Ali, her husband. The Prophet thereupon said, "O Fatimah, will it please you if people say the daughter of the Prophet displays a chain of fire!" He then went out depressed. Fatimah disposed of the chain by having it sold and purchased with its price a slave, whom she then freed. When the Prophet learned about it, he declared, "Praise be to Allah Who has saved Fatimah from fire."
The Prophet's invocation was, "O Allah, grant the family of Muhammad what suffices it," that is, what does not exceed its needs.
The Message of Muhammad has resisted poverty and luxury, hatred and envy, and with it class struggle has become impossible. It has debased pride in wealth and ancestry and elevated the worth of piety and contentment, and it has redeemed many of the worldly belongings of people with spiritual ones. There is no doubt that Fatimah, having sold the chain and freed the slave, experienced a greater feeling of happiness and joy every time she remembered what she had done than if she had kept possession of the golden chain. And was `Umar, in his patched garment, the conqueror of the Khosraus and the Caesars, of lesser possessions with his contented self than the mighty ones who were given to ease in the palaces of the Caesars and Khosraus?
The Message of Muhammad achieved greater success in remedying social problems with methods based on self-denial and on conscience than with its positive methods utilizing sadaqah and state guarantees for the needy. And the Message was capable of bringing together law and conscience in order that both might rule at the same time and follow one course toward one objective. The call to struggle against the ills of society will endure throughout the ages. |
| | | | | | On the causes of world disturbance | |
|
مواضيع مماثلة | |
|
| | صلاحيات هذا المنتدى: | لاتستطيع الرد على المواضيع في هذا المنتدى
| |
| |
| |
