Feminism: Confrontation or Cooperation?

ISLAMIC TRADITIONS AND THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT

CONFRONTATION OR COOPERATION?

by Dr. Lois Lamya' al Faruqi

Whether living in the Middle East or Africa, in Central Asia, in Pakistan, in Southeast Asia, or in Europe and the Americas, Muslim women tend to view the feminist movement with some apprehension. Although there are some features of the feminist cause with which we as Muslims would wish to join hands, other features generate our disappointment and even opposition. There is therefore no simple or "pat" answer to the question of the future cooperation or competition which feminism may meet in an Islamic environment.

There are however a number of social, psychological, and economic traditions which govern the thinking of most Muslims and which are particularly affective of woman's status and role in Islamic society. Understanding these can help us understand the issues which affect male and female status and roles, and how we should react to movements which seek to improve the situation of women in any of the countries where Muslims live.

THE FAMILY SYSTEM:

One of the Islamic traditions which will affect the way in which Muslim women respond to feminist ideas is the advocacy in Islamic culture of an extended rather than a nuclear family system. Some Muslim families are "residentially extended" - that is, their members live communally with three or more generations of relatives (grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts, and their offspring) in a single building or compound. Even when this residential version of the extended family is not possible or adhered to, family connections
reaching far beyond the nuclear unit are evident in strong psychological, social, economic, and even political ties. Mutual supports and responsibilities affecting these larger consanguine groups are not just considered desirable, but they are made legally incumbent on members of the society by Islamic law. The Holy Quran itself exhorts to extended family solidarity; in addition it specifies the extent of such responsibilities and contains prescriptive measures for inheritance, support, and other close interdependencies within the
extended family.[1]

Our Islamic traditions also prescribe a much stronger participation of the family in the contracting and preservation of marriages. While most Western feminists would decry family participation or arranged
marriage as a negative influence because of its apparent restriction of individualistic freedom and responsibility, as Muslims we would argue that such participation is advantageous for both individuals and
groups within the society. Not only does it ensure marriages based on sounder principles than physical attraction and sexual infatuation, but it provides other safeguards for successful marital continuity.

Members of the family provide diverse companionship as well as ready sources of advice and sympathy for the newly married as they adjust to each others' way. One party of the marriage cannot easily pursue an
eccentric course at the expense of the spouse since such behavior would rally opposition from the larger group. Quarrels are never so devastating to the marriage bond since other adult family members act as mediators and provide alternative sources of companionship and counsel following disagreements. The problems of parenting and generational incompatibility are also alleviated, and singles clubs and dating bureaus would be unnecessary props for social interaction. There is no need in the extended family for children of working parents to be unguarded, unattended, or inadequately loved and socialized because the extended family home is never empty. There is therefore no feeling of guilt which the working parent often feels in a nuclear or single-parent organization. Tragedy, even divorce, is not so debilitating to either adults or children since the larger social unit absorbs the residual numbers with much greater ease than a
nuclear family organization can ever provide.

The move away from the cohesiveness which the family formerly enjoyed in Western society, the rise of usually smaller alternative family styles, and the accompanying rise in individualism which many
feminists advocate or at least practice, are at odds with these deep-rooted Islamic customs and traditions. If feminism in the Muslim world chooses to espouse the Western family models, it should and would certainly be strongly challenged by Muslim women's groups and by Islamic society as a whole.

INDIVIDUALISM VS. THE LARGER ORGANIZATION:

The traditional support of the large and intricately interrelated family organization is correlative to another Islamic tradition which seems to run counter to recent Western trends and to feminist ideology. Islam and Muslim women generally advocate molding of individual goals and interests to accord with the welfare of the larger group and its members. Instead of holding the goals of the individual supreme, Islam instills in the adherent a sense of his or her place within the family and of a responsibility to that group. This is not perceived or experienced by Muslims as repression of the individual. Other traditions which will be discussed later guarantee his or her legal personality. Feminism, therefore, would not be espoused by Muslim women as a goal to be pursued without regard for the relation of the female to the other members of her family. The Muslim woman regards her goals as necessitating a balance with, or even subordination to, those of the family group. The rampant individualism often experienced in contemporary life, that which treats the goals of the individual in isolation from other factors, or as utterly supreme, runs against a deep Islamic commitment to social interdependence.

DIFFERENTIATION OF SEX ROLES:

A third Islamic tradition which affects the future of any feminist movement in an Islamic environment is that it specifies a differentiation of male and female roles and responsibilities in society. Feminism, as represented in Western society, has generally denied any such differentiation and has demanded a move toward a unisex society in order to achieve equal rights for women. By "unisex society," I mean one in which a single set of roles and concerns are given preference and esteem by both sexes and are pursued by all members of the society regardless of sex and age differentials. In the case of Western feminism, the preferred goals have been those traditionally fulfilled by the male members of society. The roles of providing financial support, of success in career, and of decision making have been given overwhelming respect and concern while those dealing with domestic matters, with child care, with aesthetic and psychological refreshment, with social interrelationships, were devalued and even despised. Both men and women have been forced into a single mold which is perhaps more restrictive, rigid and coercive than that which formerly assigned men to one type of role and women to another.

This is a new brand of male chauvenism with which Islamic traditions cannot conform. Islam instead maintains that both types of roles are equally deserving of pursuit and respect and that when accompanied by the equity demanded by the religion, a division of labor along sex lines is generally beneficial to all members of the society.

This might be regarded by the feminist as opening the door to discrimination, but as Muslims we regard Islamic traditions as standing clearly and unequivocally for the support of male-female equity. In the Quran, no difference whatever is made between the sexes in relation to God. "For men who submit [to God] and for women who submit [to God], for believing men and believing women, for devout men and devout women, for truthful men and truthful women, for steadfast men and steadfast women, for humble men and humble women, for charitable men and charitable women, for men who fast and women who fast, for men who guard their chastity and women who guard, for men who remember God much and for women who remember - for them God has prepared forgiveness and a mighty reward" (33:35). "Whoever performs good deeds, whether male or female and is a believer, We shall surely make him live a good life and We will certainly reward them for the best of what they did" (16:97).[2]

It is only in relation to each other and society that a difference is made - a difference of role or function. The rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of a man, but they are not necessarily identical with them. Equality and identity are two different things, Islamic traditions maintain - the former desirable, the latter not. Men and women should therefore be complementary to each other in a multi-function organization rather than competitive with each other in a uni-function society.

The equality demanded by Islamic traditions must, however, be seen in its larger context if it is to be understood properly. Since Muslims regard a differentiation of sexual roles to be natural and desirable in the majority of cases, the economic responsibilities of male and female members differ to provide a balance for the physical differences between men and women and for the greater responsibility which women carry in the reproductive and rearing activities so necessary to the well-being of the society. To maintain, therefore, that the men of the family are responsible for providing economically for the women or that women are not equally responsible, is not a dislocation or denial of sexual equity. It is instead a duty to be fulfilled by men as compensation for another responsibility which involves the special ability of women. Likewise the different inheritance rates for males and females, which is so often sited as an example of discrimination against women, must not be seen as an isolated prescription.[3] It is but one part of a comprehensive system in which women carry no legal responsibility to support other members of the family, but in which men are bound by law as well as custom to provide for all their female relatives.

Does this mean that Islamic traditions necessarily prescribe maintaining the status quo in the Islamic societies that exist today? The answer is a definite "No." Many thinking Muslims - both men and women - would agree that their societies do not fulfill the Islamic ideals and traditions laid down in the Quran and reinforced by the example and directives of the Prophet Muhammad, salallahu alehi wasallam. It is reported in the Quran and from history that women not only expressed their opinions freely in the Prophet's presence but also argued and participated in serious discussions with the Prophet himself and with other Muslim leaders of the time (58:1). Muslim women are known to have even stood in opposition to certain caliphs, who later accepted the sound arguments of those women. A specific example took place during the caliphate of 'Umar ibn al Khattab.[4] The Quran reproached those who believed woman to be inferior to men (16:57-59) and repeatedly gives expression to the need for treating men and women with equity (2:228, 231; 4:19, and so on). Therefore, if Muslim women experience discrimination in any place or time, they do not and should not lay the blame on Islam, but on the un-Islamic nature of their societies and the failure of Muslims to fulfill its directives.

SEPARATE LEGAL STATUS FOR WOMEN:

A fourth Islamic tradition affecting the future of feminism in Muslim societies is the separate legal status for women which is demanded by the Quran and the Shari'ah. Every Muslim individual, whether male of female, retains a separate identity from cradle to grave. This separate legal personality prescribes for every woman the right to contract, to conduct business, to earn and possess property independently. Marriage has no effect on her legal status, her property, her earnings - or even on her name. If she commits any civil offense, her penalty is no less or no more than a man's in a similar case (5:83; 24:2). If she is wronged or harmed, she is entitled to compensation just like a man (4:92-93; see also Mustafa al Siba'i 1976:38; Darwazah n.d.:78). The feminist demand for separate legal status for women is therefore one that is equally espoused by Islamic traditions.

POLYGYNY:

Although the taking of plural wives by a man is commonly called polygamy, the more correct sociological designation is polygyny. This institution is probably the Islamic tradition most misunderstood and vehemently condemned by non-Muslims. It is one which the Hollywood stereotypes "play upon" in their ridicule of Islamic society. The first image conjured up in the mind of the Westerner when the subject of Islam and marriage is approached is that of a religion which advocates the sexual indulgence of the male members of the society and the subjugation of its females through this institution.

Islamic tradition does indeed allow a man to marry more than one woman at a time. This leniency is even established by the Quran (4:3).[5] But the use and perception of that institution is far from the Hollywood stereotype. Polygyny is certainly not imposed by Islam; nor is it a universal practice. It is instead regarded as the exception to the norm of monogamy , and its exercise is strongly controlled by social pressures.[6] If utilized by Muslim men to facilitate or condone sexual promiscuity, it is not less Islamically condemnable than serial polygyny and adultery, and no less detrimental to the society. Muslims view polygyny as an institution which is to be called into use only under extraordinary circumstances. As such, it has not been generally regarded by Muslim women as a threat. Attempts by the feminist movement to focus on eradication of this institution in order to improve the status of women would therefore meet with little sympathy or support.

II. DIRECTIVES FOR THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT IN AN ISLAMIC ENVIRONMENT

What can be learned about the future compatibility or incongruity of feminism in a Muslim environment from these facts about Islamic traditions? Are there any general principles to be gained, any directives to be taken, by those who work for women's rights and human rights in the world?

INTERCULTURAL INCOMPATIBILITY OF WESTERN FEMINISM:

The first and foremost principle would seem to be that many of the goals of feminism as conceived in Western society are not necessarily relevant or exportable across cultural boundaries. Feminism as a Western movement originated in England during the 18th century and had as one of its main goals the eradication of legal disabilities imposed upon women by English common law. These laws were especially discriminatory of married women. They derived in part from Biblical sources (e.g., the idea of man and woman becoming "one flesh," and the attribution of an inferior and even evil nature to Eve and all her female descendants) and in part from feudal customs (e.g., the importance of carrying and supplying arms for battle and the concomitant devaluation of the female contributions to society). The Industrial Revolution and its need for women's contribution to the work force brought strength to the feminist movement and helped its advocates gradually break down most of those discriminatory laws.

Since the history and heritage of Muslim peoples have been radically different from that of Western Europe and America, the feminism which would appeal to Muslim women and to the society generally must be correspondingly different. Those legal rights which Western women sought in reform of English common law were already granted to Muslim women in the 7th century. Such a struggle therefore holds little interest for the Muslim woman. In addition, it would be useless to try to interest us in ideas or reforms that run in diametrical opposition to those traditions which form an important part of our cultural and religious heritage. There has been a good deal of opposition to any changes in Muslim personal status laws since these embody and reinforce the very traditions which we have been discussing. In other words, if feminism is to succeed in an Islamic environment, it must be an indigenous form of feminism, rather than one conceived and nurtured in an alien environment with different problems and different solutions and goals.

THE FORM OF AN ISLAMIC FEMINISM:

If the goals of Western feminism are not viable for Muslim women, what form should a feminist movement take to ensure success?

Above all, the movement must recognize that, whereas in the West, the mainstream of the women's movement has viewed religion as one of the chief enemies of its progress and well-being, Muslim women view the teachings of Islam as their best friend and supporter. The prescriptions that are found in the Quran and in the example of the Prophet Muhammad, salallahu alehi wasallam, are regarded as the ideal to which contemporary women wish to return. As far as Muslim women are concerned, the source of any difficulties experienced today is not Islam and its traditions, but certain alien ideological intrusions on our societies, ignorance, and distortion of the true Islam, or exploitation by individuals within the society. It is a lack of an
appreciation for this fact that caused such misunderstanding and mutual distress when women's movement representatives from the West visited Iran both before and after the Islamic Revolution.

Second, any feminism which is to succeed in an Islamic environment must be one which does not work chauvenistically for women's interest alone. Islamic traditions would dictate that women's progress be achieved in tandem with the wider struggle to benefit all members of the society. The good of the group or totality is always more crucial than the good of any one sector of the society. In fact, the society is seen as an organic whole in which the welfare of each member or organ is necessary for the health and well being of every other part. Disadventagous circumstances of women therefore should always be countered in conjunction with attempt to alleviate those factors which adversely affect men and other segments of the society.

Third, Islam is an ideology which influences much more than the ritual life of a people. It is equally affective of their social, political, economic, psychological, and aesthetic life. "Din," which is usually regarded as an equivalent for the English term "religion," is a concept which includes, in addition to those ideas and practices customarily associated in our minds with religion, a wide spectrum of practices and ideas which affect almost every aspect of the daily life of the Muslim individual. Islam and Islamic traditions therefore are seen today by many Muslims as the main source of cohesiveness for nurturing an identity and stability to confront intruding alien influences and the cooperation needed to solve their numerous contemporary problems. To fail to note this fact, or to fail to be fully appreciative of its importance for the average Muslim - whether male or female - would be to commit any movement advocating improvement of women's position in Islamic lands to certain failure. It is only through establishing that identity and stability that self-respect can be achieved and a more healthy climate for both Muslim men and Muslim women will emerge.



NOTES

[1]. For example, see Quran 2:177; 4:7,176; 8:41; 16:90; 17:26; 24:22.

[2]. See also Quran 2:195; 4:124,32; 9:71-72.

[3]. "God (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a proportion equal to that of two females..." (Quran 4:11).

[4]. Kamal 'Awn 1955:129.

[5]. "... Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."


[6]. It should be remembered that any woman who wants her marriage to remain monogamous can provide for this condition under Islamic law.



REFERENCES

Kamal Ahmad 'Awn, Al Mar'ah fi al Islam (Tanta: Sha'raw Press, 1955)

Muhammad 'Izzat Darwazah, Al Dastur al Quran fi Shu'un al Hayat (Cairo: 'Isa al Babi al Halabi, n.d.).

Mustafa al Siba'i, Al Mar'ah baynal Fiqh wal Qanun (Aleppo: Al Maktabah al 'Arabiyyah, first pub. 1962).

Acknowledgment: This page was downloaded from www.jannah.org and reformatted for www.islam101.com

Freedom of Speech is not Absolute

Islam’s view towards Freedom of Speech

http://www.caliphate.eu/2009/04/islams-view-towards-freedom-of-speech.html

Islam and Freedom of speech has become a contentious issue in recent times. The limits of what is, and what is not, acceptable speech is becoming a new battleground between Islam and the west. The issue came to a head in September 2005 a few days before Ramadan when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed insulting and blasphemous cartoons of our noble Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

The newspaper editor Flemming Rose, made the objective of printing the cartoons very clear. He said, “Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.”1

Geert Wilders, a Dutch Politician who has made a career out of his opposition to Islam has publicly called for a ban on the Holy Qu’ran, and produced a film last year called ‘Fitna’ in which he equates Islam with violence, communism and Nazism.

This month, the UN is hosting a World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in Geneva, Switzerland. The conflict over freedom of speech raised itself again in this conference because some Muslim countries campaigned for a declaration that would equate criticism of a religious faith with a violation of human rights.2 This is seen as a way of preventing future attacks on the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Islamic ‘aqeeda. Western countries, however, objected to such a declaration because they say it would limit freedom of speech.3 After a number of western countries including the US and EU threatened to boycott the conference this clause was eventually dropped, along with clauses criticising Israeli’s inhumane treatment of the Palestinians.4

Freedom of Speech is an emotive topic in the west since it is one of their fundamental values. As Muslims we need to understand the reality of freedom of speech and the Islamic viewpoint towards it.

Origins of Freedom of Speech

Europe lived in the dark ages for hundreds of years ruled by tyrannical Kings on behalf of an oppressive Church. Book burning, inquisitions, torture and death were common place for those who dared to confront this tyranny. Scientists, thinkers and scholars were all subject to harassment and even imprisonment for their views. The famous scientist Galileo, for example, was convicted of heresy in 1633 and spent the rest of his life under house arrest for claiming that the earth moved around the sun.

After the reformation and the adoption of secularism in Western Europe and newly independent America, the shackles of the church were thrown off in public life. Fundamental to these new secular states was the adoption of freedom of the individual, ownership, expression and religion for all their citizens.

In the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,’ a fundamental document of the French revolution it states in article 11:

“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”
Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

The famous First Amendment to the US Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” December 15, 1791.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948 states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Therefore freedom of speech forms one of the cornerstones of the western way of life, and for them is considered a fundamental human right.

Absolute Freedom of Speech is a myth

Noam Chomsky, summed up the western concept of freedom of speech when he said: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of freedom of speech, that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”5

However, the reality is that every society including the west has limits on public speech and views they don’t like. The only difference is in who defines the limits of this speech and how restrictive these limits are. Racism, national security, holocaust denial, incitement, glorification of terrorism, racial hatred and libel among many others, are all limits imposed on freedom of speech by western nations.

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten could never have printed cartoons denying the holocaust in the name of free speech. Geert Wilders could never have produced a film likening Israeli’s treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of the Jews, without charges of anti-Semitism being brought against him.

It’s contradictions like these, on the limits of free speech where the clash of values between Islam and the west is currently taking place.

No freedom of speech for Muslims

The controversy over this month’s UN World Conference Against Racism is a stark example of this clash. The build up to the conference and agreement on a final draft resolution has highlighted this rift over the limits on freedom of speech.

Differences initially arose over wording in the draft declaration that criticised Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Israel, Canada, Italy and America announced that they would not participate in the conference unless this wording was removed.

A spokesman for Franco Frattini, Italy's foreign minister, said the declaration, which relates to the situation in the Palestinian territories, contains "unacceptable, aggressive and anti-Semitic phrases".

The EU was also unhappy with resolutions criticising Israel and sought to remove at least five paragraphs from the draft such as the phrase that, "in order to consolidate the Israeli occupation, [Palestinians] have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture.”6

The other contentious resolution that some western nations wanted dropped was, “to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols.” This was added by some Muslim countries as a means of preventing future attacks on the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Holy Qur’an which we have witnessed recently in Europe. Western countries were unhappy with this resolution because it limited their freedom of speech i.e. the freedom to attack Islam. This was dropped from the final draft and now the resolution simply states, “recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religions...”7

Therefore for the west it’s perfectly acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to account the brutal policies of another country in this instance Israel, but it’s not acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to insult and defame the character of the Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم.

There is no clearer example of this than in Geert Wilder’s campaign to ban the Holy Qur’an on the basis of freedom of speech. In fact Wilder’s was asked about this during a recent interview with the Boston Globe.

Q: An American defender of free speech would say "Mein Kampf" shouldn't be banned, the Koran shouldn't be banned; books shouldn't be banned. To publish ideas in a book, even if they're hateful ideas - the First Amendment says you have that freedom. Is that what you would like in Holland as well?
A: I would, with the exception of incitement of violence.

Q. Doesn't that contradict your defense of free speech?
A: ... I want us to have more freedom of speech. But there is one red line - incitement of violence.8

In other words, you only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas because Islamic ideas are an “incitement to violence”.

Europe is increasingly using limits on free speech such as glorification of terrorism, incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence as ways of clamping down on Islamic expression.

Peaceful Muslim demonstrations, Islamic political parties and Islamic literature are all in the firing line simply for expressing Islamic opinions contrary to the western way of life. Muslims expressing opinions the west doesn’t like are branded by the media as ‘preachers of hate’, militants and extremists.

Freedom of speech is a colonial tool

“You only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas” not only holds true for Muslims living in the west but also when it comes to western colonial interests in the Muslim world.

Many Muslims are attracted to the concept of freedom of speech since they see it as a means of accounting the oppressive dictatorships they currently live under. Yet when Islamic groups speak out against their rulers and are subsequently tortured and imprisoned by their regimes western governments remain silent. In fact Britain and America openly support these ‘western friendly’ regimes.

Egypt as an example has been under a state of emergency since 1967. Thousands of members of the Islamic opposition have been tortured and imprisoned by the Egyptian regime. Current estimates are that there are 30,000 political prisoners in Egypt. However, since 1979 Egypt has been the second largest recipient of US aid in the Middle East after Israel. The west turns a blind eye to this clampdown on political expression because it suits their colonial interests.

On the 50th anniversary of the uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet there was widespread media coverage and support for the Tibetan cause in the west. Compare this to the almost non-existent coverage on China’s daily oppression of Muslims in Xinxiang. At the same time as the 50th anniversary in Tibet was taking place the Chinese were clamping down heavily on Muslims involved in what they call "illegal religious activity”. A secretary with Hotan's Communist Party Propaganda Department confirmed that some illegal religious activity has been halted and illegal books, writings, computer discs and audio tapes had been confiscated.9 The only difference between Tibet and Xinxiang is that the opposition in Xinxiang is Islamic calling for Islamic ideas rather than western ideas.

Islamic view towards Freedom of Speech

The concept of ‘freedom of speech’ is derived from the Capitalist ideology that is based on the belief that God and religion should be separated from life’s affairs (secularism). Human beings define how to live their lives free of the constraints of religion which is why freedom of individual, ownership, religion and speech are essential cornerstones of Capitalism. The right to speak and what are the limits of speech are therefore all defined by human beings.

This view completely contradicts Islam. In Islam it is the Creator of human beings Allah سبحانه وتعالى who gave the right of speech to people and defined the limits on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, then let him speak good (khair) or remain silent.”10

Khair in this hadith means Islam or what Islam approves of.11

Every word a human being speaks is recorded by the two angels Kiraman Katibeen. Even the speaking of one ‘bad’ word may lead someone to the hellfire.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The person who utters a word which meets with Allah's favour may think it has not been heard, yet for this Allah will raise him to a higher level of Paradise. Conversely, the person who utters a word that stirs Allah to anger may give no thought to what he said, only to have Allah cast him in Hell for seventy years."12

This is why the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم emphasised the importance of controlling the tongue.

Mu'az ibn Jabal narrated: I was in company with the Prophet in a travel, and one day I was close to him while we were travelling. So I said: “O Messenger of Allah, tell me of an act which will take me into Paradise and will keep me away from Hell fire…shall I not tell you of the foundation of all of that?” I said: “Yes, O Messenger of Allah,” and he took hold of his tongue and said: “Restrain this.” I said: “O Prophet of Allah, will what we say be held against us?” He said: “May your mother be bereaved of you, Mu’az ! Is there anything that topples people on their faces - or he said on their noses into Hell-fire other than the jests of their tongues?”13

There are some situations where Islam has obliged Muslims to speak out against oppression and evil (munkar).

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whoever saw a Munkar, let him change it by his hand and if he cannot then by his tongue and if he cannot then with his heart and that is the weakest of Imaan."14

Many Muslims nowadays are attracted towards the concepts of human rights and freedom of speech due to the medieval oppression waged against them by the corrupt governments in the Muslim world.

In the majority of Muslim countries today speaking out against the munkar and oppression of the governments is made illegal by the rulers and their agents. They brutally suppress all political opposition and try to silence Muslims through torture and imprisonment. Even in the west they are also moving towards silencing Muslims who criticise foreign policy or hold what they deem ‘extreme’ political views under the guise of anti-terror policy.

Despite all these limits they are trying to impose on Muslims speaking out, the fact remains that it is Allah سبحانه وتعالى who defined what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. Therefore if He سبحانه وتعالى obliges Muslims to speak out against munkar and oppression then no government in the Muslim world or western world can take away this right.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The master of martyrs is Hamza bin Abdul-Muttalib and a man who stood to an oppressor ruler where he ordered him and forbade him so he (the ruler) killed him.”15

Muslims who account their governments or speak out against oppression are not doing it because of freedom of speech or because the west allows them to speak. Rather they are doing it as an obligation from Islam even if it leads to death.

Rights of speech in the Khilafah

The west propagates to the Muslim world that freedom and democracy is the only way forward if they want to progress and rid themselves of their oppressive dictatorships. However, as Muslims we look to Islam and Islam alone for our political solutions. The Qur’an and Sunnah have given us all the answers we need to establish an Islamic political system that will free us of the current corrupt systems ruling over us. This is the Khilafah Ruling System.

In the Khilafah it’s the constitutional right of all citizens (men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim) to express their opinions freely without fear of arrest or imprisonment within the limits of shar’a. The main areas where this right is exercised is the Majlis ul-Ummah (Council of the Ummah), media and political parties.

Majlis ul-Ummah
This is an elected house whose members are representatives of the citizens of the Khilafah. The members of this house can be men or women, Muslim or non-Muslim. It is not a legislature like a western parliament. The main powers of this council are related to accounting the Khilafah government and its policies. The Majlis Member’s main role is to study closely the activities of the Khaleefah, government officials and civil servants working in the State’s departments and offices and holding them all accountable. This would involve giving them advice, voicing opinions and presenting suggestions, entering into debates, together with objecting to all of the wrong actions performed by the State.16

Media
Media in the Khilafah is under the jurisdiction of the Information Department (Da'irat ul I'laam). No permission is required to establish media in the state. Rather, every citizen in the Islamic State is allowed to set up any media, whether readable, audible or visible. They only need to inform the Information Department about the establishment of their particular media whether a newspaper, TV channel or Radio Station. General news can be published without permission of the state. However, sensitive information related to national security or government policy needs permission from the Information Department before publishing as is the case with any media organisation in the world.

The owner of the media is responsible for any information he publishes, and will be accounted for any violation of the shar'a like any other citizen.17

Political Parties
The right of the Khilafah’s citizens to establish political parties is established from the Holy Qur’an. No permission is required for this since Islam made the establishment of at least one political party fard al-Kifiyah (obligation of sufficiency).

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

وَلْتَكُن مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“Let there arise from amongst you a group(s) which calls to al-Khair (Islam), enjoins al-ma’aruf (good) and forbids al-munkar (evil), and they are the successful ones.”18

This order in the Qur’an to establish a group is an order to establish political parties. This is because the verse has determined the duty of this group as the call to Islam, enjoining the Ma’aruf (good), and forbidding the Munkar (evil). The duty of enjoining Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar is general and not restricted. It therefore includes the rulers and this implies holding them accountable. The holding of the rulers accountable is a political task performed by political parties and it is the most important task of political parties. Thus the verse indicates the obligation of establishing political parties which would call to Islam, enjoin Ma’aruf and forbid Munkar, and would hold the rulers accountable for their actions and conduct.19

At the time of the Khulufaa Rashida (rightly guided Khaleefah’s) the sahaba fulfilled this role.

In the Khilafah of Umar bin al-Khattab, some cloth from the spoils of war was distributed to the people, out of which each companion had one piece of clothing cut. One day `Umar got up to speak and said: ‘Lower your voices so that I may hear you.’ He was wearing two pieces of that cloth. Salman al-Farisi said, ‘By Allah, we will not hear you, because you prefer yourself to your people.’ ‘How is that?’ asked Umar. He said: ‘You are wearing two pieces of cloth and everyone else is wearing only one.’ Umar called out: ‘O Abdullah!’ No one answered him. He said again, ‘O Abdullah ibn Umar! Abdullah, his son called out: ‘At your service!’ Umar said, ‘I ask you by Allah, don't you say that the second piece is yours?’ Abdullah said ‘Yes.’ Salman said: ‘Now we shall hear you.’20

Thousands of sincere Muslims are today following in the footsteps of the sahaba and accounting their rulers. They are standing up to oppression and speaking out against the munkar befalling this Ummah, fearing none but Allah سبحانه وتعالى.

Conclusion

Freedom of speech is a western concept that completely contradicts Islam. In reality there is no such thing as absolute free speech. What exists is speech within predefined limits that differ between nations.

Nowadays freedom of speech is used as a colonial tool in the Muslim world to support the propagation of western ideas and to suppress Islamic ideas. Increasingly this is happening within western societies also as anti-terror policies are used to clampdown on what are deemed as ‘extreme’ opinions.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Creator and NOT human beings decides the limits on speech. We will be accountable for every word spoken on the Day of Judgement. If Allah سبحانه وتعالى has ordered us to speak in certain circumstances such as accounting the rulers and speaking out against oppression then no government in the world can take away that right no matter how hard they try.

The Khilafah implements the law of Allah سبحانه وتعالى on earth and contains a detailed system for accounting the government and speaking out against oppression. This right of speaking out is enshrined mainly within the Majlis ul-Ummah, media and through forming political parties.

As Muslims we are in no need of any other system of life except the Islamic system, and no other source of legislation except the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. Therefore when we call for accountability in the Muslim world this should not be a call for introducing freedom of speech but a call for introducing the Islamic Shariah which enshrines the right to speech among many other rights.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "Whoever introduces into this affair of ours that which is not of it, then it is rejected." Al-Bukhari and Muslim related it, and in a narration of Muslim's there is, "Whoever does an act for which there is no command of ours then it is rejected."

References

1 Flemming Rose, 'Why I Published Those Cartoons,' Washington Post, 19 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

2 Al-Jazeera English, ‘Italy attacks 'anti-Semitic' summit,’ 6 March 2009, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/03/200936143343157839.html

3 Ibid

4 Associated Press, ‘Draft for racism meeting drops Israel criticism,’ 17 March 2009, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-NABlEjaGSsDBh_qdpdNmX7V6VwD9701NMO1

5 Noam Chomsky, 'Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media,' 1992

6 Al-Jazeera English, ‘Italy attacks 'anti-Semitic' summit,’ Op.cit.

7 http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Rolling text YB, 17-3-2009.pdf

8 Boston Globe, 'Islam and Freedom of Speech,' 8 March 2009, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/islam_and_freedom_of_speech/?page=3

9 Alexa Olesen, Associated Press Writer,'China cracks down in Muslim west,' 30 March 2009, http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=385&sid=1626138

10 Agreed upon. Narrated by Abu Hurayra.

11 Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘American Campaign to Suppress Islam,’ p. 23

12 At-Tirmidhi

13 Reported by Ahmad and at-Tirmidhi and declared hasan by the latter. Also reported by an-Nasaa`i and Ibn Maajah.

14 Sahih Muslim. Narrated by Abu Sa'eed al Khudree.

15 Abu Dawud

16 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p. 261

17 Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘Khilafah State Organisations,’ translation of Ajhizat dowlah ul-Khilafah, Dar ul-Ummah, Beirut, 2005, First Edition

18 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 3, Surah al-Imran, Verse 104

19 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ Op.cit., p. 297

20 Ibn Qutaibah, ‘Uyun al-Akhbar, 1/55 and also Anwar al-Awlaki, ‘Life of Umar bin al-Khattab’

---

See also: http://www.caliphate.eu/2007/10/caliphate-organisation-chart.html


Overview

Executive Assistants (Mu'awin ut-tanfeedh)

The Treasury (Bait ul-Mal)

Treasury Revenues Division

Treasury Expenditures Division

The Provinces (Wiliyat)

Judiciary (Qadaa')

Government Departments (Dawa'ir)

Department of Information (Da'irat ul I'laam)

Department of Military (Da'irat ul-Harbiyya)

Department of Industry (Da'irat us-sina'a)

Department of Internal Security (Da'irat ush-shu'oon id-dakhiliyya)

Department of Foreign Affairs (Da'irat ush-shu'oon il-kharijiyya)

Council of the Ummah (Majlis ul-Ummah)

---

During the Islamic Golden Age, there was an early emphasis on freedom of speech in the Islamic caliphate. This was first declared by the Caliph Umar in the 7th century.[58] Later during the Abbasid period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi, a cousin of caliph Al-Ma'mun (786–833), in the following letter to a religious opponent:[78]

"Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empery of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be with you and the blessings of God!" [78]

According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, "the idea of academic freedom" in universities was "modelled on Islamic custom" as practiced in the medieval Madrasah system from the 9th century.[79]

However, Qadi 'Iyad ibn Musa al-Yahsubi argues that Sharia does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of Muhammad and that such criticism is considered blasphemy against Muhammad. He writes:

"The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorized as an unbeliever. The Judgment of the unbeliever is that he is killed. [...] There is a difference between ... harming Allah and His Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder, incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgment against those who harm Allah and His Prophet is more severe – the death penalty." [106]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Max Weber’s Sociology of Islam: A Critique

By Syed Anwar Husain

Sociology is a rich, stimulating, innovative, and even fast-expanding discipline with multidimensional empirical ramifications. But in the field of religion its contributions still appear inadequate and leave a great deal to be desired; and this is so even with the pathbreaking leads by Marx (1867), Weber (1904) and Durkheim (1912). But the overall state of the discipline is poorer when it comes to the specific question of Islam. Even as late as 1974, therefore, the British Sociologist Bryan S. Turner[1] was found lamenting as well as fuming: “... sociologists are either not interested in Islam or have nothing to contribute to Islamic scholarship” (Turner, 1974: 1-2). Even when they did focus on Islam, western sociologists were often inconsistent and misleading. This is true of no less a sociologist than Max Weber. But Max Weber is not alone in being inconsistent. Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) points out inadequacies and preconceived tunnel visions that mark the vast majority of western scholarly output when it comes to the question of non-western cultures in general, and Islam and Muslims in particular. Max Weber, in particular, was not interested in Islam as a religion as such; his focus was on the Islam, that was antithetical to capitalism.

Max Weber did not produce full-blown research outputs on Islam; and his notes on Islam seem to be a sort of sociological companion for his analysis of the ‘Protestant Ethic’. He left his work on Islam incomplete. Nevertheless, Islam appears to be intrinsically important to his total endeavour vis-à-vis the sociology of religion. Whatever study he made of Islam drew entirely upon the research of Carl Heinrich Becker who had himself emphasized the differences between European and Muslim feudalism (Turner, 1974: 16).

The present exercise is concerned with understanding and analysing the Weberian construct of Islam and critiquing the same. Divided into three main sections the opening one draws attention to the basic postulates of Weber. The second section seeks to offer a critical appreciation. The third section situates the Weberian construct of Islam vis-à-vis contemporary Islam. This is, however, not a full discussion of all that Weber had to say on Islam; its thrust is on Islam and capitalism interrelationship.

Main Postulates of Weberian Islam

In Max Weber’s view the character of a society’s religion and religious institutions is historically one of the most important factors in determining its political outlook, in particular whether it develops a liberal tradition or not (Beetham, 1974: 185-86). In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1930) he extends the same argument into the economic realm by suggesting a causal nexus between the ‘Protestant Ethic’, especially of the Calvinistic variant, and rational capitalism. In Weber’s view asceticism is a necessary and sufficient condition of rational capitalism, but asceticism has to be placed alongside a number of variables. These variables are identified by him in his General Economic History “as characteristics and pre-requisites of capitalistic enterprise the following: appropriation of the physical means of production by the entrepreneur, freedom of the market, rational technology, rational law, free labour and finally the commercialization of economic life” (cited in Turner, 1974: 12). It is argued that, given these necessary conditions, a rational this – worldly ascetic ethic is crucial in the emergence of modern capitalism. To test this thesis Weber went about an experimental cross-cultural comparison of civilizations to discover whether these factors were present and whether a causally dominant ethic was absent. From this exercise he emerged with the finding that, in India, China and the Islamic lands of the Middle East many of the prerequisites of capitalism were absent. In the specific case of Islam the focus was on the political military and economic nature of Islamic society as a patrimonial form of domination with prebendal feudalism as its core. In attitudinal terms Islam appeared to Weber in a purely hedonistic spirit, especially towards women, luxuries and property.[2] Consequently, he reached the ineluctable conclusion that Islam represented a polar opposite to Puritanism.

A description of the Weberian construct of Islam may be attempted from two broad perspectives: Islamic ethic; and patrimonialism of later Islam.

II

Islamic Ethic

Weber shows that rational law, autonomous cities, an independent burgher class and political stability were totally absent in Islam. But, as it is, he does not seem to link the absence of capitalism in Islam to the nonexistence of the prerequisites identified by him. On the contrary, he lists at least two factors responsible for preventing Islam from evolving naturally. The monotheistic Islam of Makkah failed to develop into an ascetic this-worldly religion because its main carrier was a warrior group. The content of the religious message was transformed into a set of values compatible with the mundane needs of this warrior group. The spiritual element of Islam as a belief system with emphasis on salvation was transformed into the secular quest for mundane gains. The result was that Islam became a religion of accommodation rather than of transformation. Second, the original message of monotheism was subjected to change under the impact of Sufism which catered for the emotional and orgiastic needs of the masses. In consequence, Islam was pulled in two opposite directions by these two groups. The warrior group pulled Islam in the direction of a militaristic ethic; and the Sufis in that of mystical flight. Both the directions of Islam, representing, as it were, a bifurcated Islamic ethic failed to produce, as Weber will have us believe, the prerequisites congruent with the rise of rational capitalism.

III

Patrimonialism of Later Islam

The second perspective of the Weberian construct of Islam is gained by observing the emphasis put on the political and economic structure of such later dynasties as the Abbasid, Mamluk and Ottoman, and this structure falls under Weber’s general consideration of patrimonial bureaucracies. This type of financial and political structure depended on the conquest of new lands which were then exploited to maintain central bureaucracy. The political structure hinged on a complex balance of social forces represented by the Sultan, the military, the ulama and the mass. Frequent dynastic coups rendered political balance precarious, but surprisingly the basic structure of society was left intact. The central political contradiction of the political structure of ‘Sultanism’ in Weber’s view was the sultan’s total dependence on the military which all too frequently proved unreliable. The sultan used to hold on the power and retain his monopoly of power by curbing the growth of autonomous institutions and groups within the patrimonial society. On the other hand, potentially independent social groups were co-opted or assimilated into the military. The lawyers, the ulama generally, the merchants, the were all state officials and emerged out of the imperial household. Thus a society structured and organised as such failed to develop the autonomous institutions which Weber saw in Europe facilitating the growth of capitalism.

Weber also noted that this political structure failed to develop a rational and formal law because the ideal sacred law was subservient to the state and to political expediency. Similarly, city in Islamic society never developed beyond a military camp and a place of government business. This city also did not provide an environment suitable for the development of independent burghers and merchants. On the whole, the political system stressed such values as immitation and rejection of innovation. Thus it was not attitude or ethic of Islam that militated against the creation of prerequisites for capitalism; the inhibiting factor was the political position of the merchant class vis-à-vis the dominant military-bureaucratic classes in Islamic societies (Zubaida, 1972: P. 324).

IV

Weberian Islam: A Critique

The first point for critiquing the Weberian construct of Islam is that he did not make any real attempt to show the intermesticity between these two perspectives. The Islamic ethic is constructed from a study of seventh-century Islam in Makkah and Madina. The analysis of patrimonialism was linked with the emergence of a military bureaucracy under the Umayyads and its perfection under the Ottomans. One plausible explanation for the failure to connect these two individually strong perspectives is that, as Turner suggests, “... Weber thought that a religion was indelibly stamped by its early history, particularly by its original carriers” (Turner, 1914: 176). But evidentially this is a fallacy. All religions of the world underwent changes as carrier and time changed.

Second, the construct of Islamic ethic is factually wrong on two counts. In the first place, for reasons of his perfunctory approach Weber glossed over urban and commercial aspects of the early as well as later Islamic society. As Professor Montgomery Watt has shown Islam emerged in an essentially commercial and urban environment of Makkah and flourished in the oasis settlement of Madina (Watt, 1962). Much of the theological basis of the teachings of Islam is taken up with the problems of commercialism and the very terminology of the Quran is rich with commercial concepts. Most Islamicists would agree with G. E. Von Grunebaum’s judgment that the prophet’s “piety is entirely tailored to urban life” (Grunebaum, 1970:33).
An overview of Islamic economy suggests at least three objectives: respect for private property, promotion of a free market of exchange of goods and services, and minimizing the rich-poor gap. There appears to be three strategies for progressively achieving these objectives. First, Islam emphasizes the work ethic, dedication to one’s calling and enjoying the fruits of one’s labour. Like Weber’s ‘Protestant ethic’ (1904) Islam calls for hard work in order to earn a living and take care of one’s family, rather than forsaking the world or surviving on handouts, donations and charity. But unlike the Protestant ethic, Islam does not necessarily take material success in this world as a sign of God’s approval of what one is doing. Moreover, much as Islam emphasizes hard work, it is averse to materialism, opportunistic profiteering and seemingly unending pursuit of wealth and an obsession with this – worldly pleasures. As is called upon in the Quran, “Ye prefer the life of this world” (87:16). Second, while favouring acquisition of property and free market economy Islam prohibits the process of ‘making a fast buck’ or excessive accumulation such as gambling, hoarding and dealing in interest. Islamic banks deal in profit and loss sharing rather than interest, something thought to be quite feasible (Andersen et. al., 1990), and in which there is an growing interest among Muslim and non-Muslim economists alike. Third, inasmuch as sources of excessive accumulation of wealth are denied by Quranic prohibition, dispersion of wealth is facilitated by Islamic folkways (such as voluntary acts of charity, generosity and hospitality), as well as through explicit Quranic commandments of inheritance (4:7, 11) and the poor tax or jakat (Benthal, 2002: 149-166; and Ilyas Ba-Yunus, 2002: 101-102). Thus juxtaposed against relevant facts of Islamic economic life it appears that the Islamic society clearly fulfilled at least one of the Weberian prerequisites, that is, “commercialization of economic life”.

In the second place, Weber’s argument that the warrior ethic had a negative transformative impact on the character of Islam is minimally tenable, and at the same time, factually an exaggeration. In fact, the warrior group was one of the segments of the converts to Islam; and, as H. A. R. Gibb identifies and distinguishes three such social groups in terms of their commitment of Islam (Gibb, 1962:5). The first is the genuine converts who accepted totally the spirit of Islam and who demonstrated pure duty to the Prophet. The second group comprised the merchants of Makkah for whom Islam did not curtail their economic freedom; and they showed commitment to the utilitarian objectives of Islam. The third group was represented by the bedouin warriors whose adherence to Islam was brought about either by the promise of booty or by military threat.

The second aspect of the Weberian construct of Islam is, as Professor Turner points out, open to criticism on a number of grounds (Turner, 1974:173). Weber failed to make allowance for the persistent conflict between the pious and their rulers. There was also deep resentment between the legal scholars and law officials. Weber was also unable to recognize the social solidarity of Islamic cities which focussed on the law schools and criminal groups.

But such criticisms on matters of detail aside the core of the Weberian thesis that patrimonialism stunted the development of Islam along capitalist lines holds an unassailable ground, and which is also attested by contemporary research.

V

Is Weberian Sociology of Islam Relevant in the Contemporary Context?

The essence of Weberian sociology is to suggest a linkage between modern economy and its associated beliefs and culture. The modern economy is a process that is claimed to be ‘rational’. It is orderly, cost-effective, much given to the division of labour and the use of a free market. This process is run and managed by people who are work-oriented, disciplined and not given to economic ally irrelevant pursuits. If these are indeed what a modern economy demands, then Islam in its true sense along with its modernised version (Husain, 2003) would, as Ernest Gellner rightly suggests, “be custom-made for the needs of the hour” (Gellner, 1992:21-22). But in the Muslim countries the ground-reality is otherwise. The economics of these countries are not catastrophic, but they are not satisfactory either. Moreover, there is also the distorting effect of oil wealth in the oil-rich Muslim countries. Given the intrinsic qualities of Islam this reality is somekind of a puzzle. Though long endowed with resources, commercial bourgeoisie and significant urbanization the Muslim world has so far failed to engender industrialism. But available evidence indicates that at least some of the better-off Muslim countries are capable of running modernizing economy, reasonably permeated by appropriate technology.

But this has not happened, and there is little sign of happening either. To answer this puzzle the Weberian construct of Islam may not be of any assistance. A more comprehensive paradigm is needed for the purpose. Throughout the twentieth century both Islam and the Muslim world have undergone changes of many types with spillover impact on society, economy and polity of Muslims. Consequently, the Muslim world as it appears today is set off the one that Weber studied. But kept to its time and space specifities the Weberian construct has cogent reasons to hold ground insofar as patrimonialism is concerned.

Concluding Observations

This short discussion shows that Weberian sociology of Islam has five outstanding parameters. First, Weber’s argument is not in terms of ‘the religion of individuals’. Religion in Weberian construct is the determining factor, for society polity and economy. Second, it reflects all the ideological prejudices of the nineteenth century, and earlier. Third, there are factual problems in Weber’s emphasis on the warrior group in Islam. Fourth, by ignoring the Quaranic and other Muslim accounts of early Islam Weber in effect ignored some basic principles of his own sociological approach. Fifth, on the whole, the Weberian thesis of Patrimonialism stands to empiric reason, albeit in the specific time and space context.


References

R. R. Andersen, R. F. Seibert and J. G. Wagner, Politics and Change in the Middle East, New York, 1990.
David Benthall, Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics, London, 1974.
John Benthall, “Organized Charity in Arab-Islamic World: A View from the NGOs” in Hastings Donnan (ed.), Interpreting Islam, New Delhi, 2002, pp. 150-66.
Ernest Gellner, Postmodernism, Reason and Religion, London and New York, 1992.
H. A. R. Gibb, Studies on the Civilization of Islam, London, 1962.
G. E. Von Grunebaum, Classical Islam, London, 1970.
Syed Anwar Husain, “Modernism, Secularism and Islam : A Discourse on Mutuality and Compatibility”, The New Age (Dhaka daily), 7 June 2003.
Bryan S. Turner, Weber and Islam, London, Henley and Boston, 1974.
W. Montgomery Walt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford, 1962.
___________________, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford, 1962.
M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, New York, 1930.
Ilyas Ba- Yunus, “Muslims in North America: Mate selection as an Indicatory of change” in E. H. Waugh, S. Abu-Labon and R. Qureshi (eds.), Muslim Families in North America), Edmonton, 1990.
Sami Zubaida, “Economic and Political Activism in Islam”, Economy and Society, vol. I, 1972.




* Professor of History, University of Dhaka. email: nislamphd@gononet.com

[1] In the absence of alternative source-materials this paper draws overwhelmingly on the pioneering work in this field by Professor Bryan S. Turner
[2] This attitudinal characterization of Islam is superficial and misleading. Moreover, there has been a world of difference between what in correct interpretation Islam enjoins and what is practised by Muslims in general. In such a context the phrase ‘Islamic society’ may even sound like a misnomer, and the correct one would be Muslim society. The explanation is that people could be Muslims even without following Islamic way of life and values. But any reference to this debate is avoided in the discussion as the scope of the paper does not permit it. But it is suggested that a good deal could be made out of this difference by way of academic exercise.

Shared Responsibily and Islamic Socialism

Al-Takaful Al-Ijtimai (Shared Responsibility) and Islamic Socialism

The Muslim World, vol: 59, issue: 3-4, 1969, pages: 275-286.

- By Sami A. Hanna


The real prelude for the concept of al-takaful al-ijtimai, which is nowadays one of the common themes among the revolutionary regimes in Egypt, Syria and Iraq, may be traced back to the days of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself and his successors. This concept was expressed one way or another by the single call for social justice among the Muslims. But perhaps the most overt call came from Abu Dharr al-Ghifari who knew the Prophet and witnessed the remarkable social changes which took place in the new Muslim empire, especially during Uthman's reign when Abu Dharr issued his warning against the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few whom the Caliph had appointed to rule the conquered regions.

Since then the conditions of the Arab Middle East have constantly invited not only the cries of social and religious reformers, but also a variety of solutions. In modern times, some have been and are advocating a quick and effective social reform. Others-not all of them secular voices -are pleading for socialism as a solution. Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, the Muslim theologian, philosopher and political leader, has examined Western socialism and suggested that Islamic socialism (ishtirakiyya) - is far better. Khalid Muhammad Khalid, in his book From Here We Start -written two years before the July 1952 revolution in Egypt-perceived the road of socialism as the one most likely 'to lead to a social system which would concentrate on lifting the Egyptian masses out of the morass of poverty, ignorance, disease and dependence.

The problem has been to find ways to interpret the new ideology to the Muslims not only of Egypt but of the entire Arab world. It scans to have been decided that by no other way can socialism be understood and accepted by the Muslim masses but through Islam itself and Islamic teaching by authoritative Muslim theologians. This firm conviction has released an astonishing creative output not only from laymen but, more impressively, from the ulama (scholars) of al-Azhar University, the great bastion of Islam and Islamic teaching.

What seems to be more impressive, in addition to this steady flood of books on Islamic socialism, is the emergence of a new concept in Islamic thought, namely al-takaful al-ijtimai (mutual social responsibility), which is not exactly an alternate terminology for ishtirakiyya, socialism, but a notion to introduce the masses to a fuller understanding of what Islamic socialism means. Many works have already-appeared concerning this concept, and it is the purpose of this paper to bring it to the attention of interested Western readers and orientalists and to show how it is related to Islam and to socialism as well. Among the many writers who have written directly or indirectly on this subject, three were chosen for this article because they represent the theological as well as the secular points of view.

Let us begin with Mustafa al-Sibai whose book Ishtirakiyyat al-Islam could be considered the most widely acclaimed by Egyptian authorities. The most relevant part of the introduction has been published in an earlier article in The Muslim World, a passage which contrasted Europe in the middle ages with the Muslim world of that time, "enjoying a high standard of living, the very embodiment of goodness, cooperation and al-takaful al-ijtimai." In order to explain the concept of al-takaful al-ijtimai, al-Sibai, devoted an entire chapter not only to explain what Islam means by the term, but also to list what he calls the 'laws' from the Quran and the Hadith which govern such concepts. He makes the following statement on the definition of al-takaful:

People, in the society in which they live, need each other in all phases of life. As a whole, they make up a coherent force which comes to perfection or completion only through the strength of each individual and his happiness, just as an army's strength is not completely fulfilled unless each individual in it is strong physically and morally. A society is strong only in as far as the individual is strong, and is happy only in as far as each individual is happy.

The world in modern times has become aware of this fact and has begun to call for al-takaful al-ijtimai among the individuals of the society but it has limited the concept to fulfilling the demands of deprived groups in terms of food, clothing, housing and the like. But Islam recognized this fact fourteen centuries ago.

After granting each citizen the Five Rights (the right to live, the right of freedom, the right of education, the right of ownership, the right of dignity), without which human dignity and happiness could not be fulfilled, Islam looked at those whose circumstances prevented their enjoyment of the Five Rights, and held society responsible for making them possible. It is from this that the concept of al-takaful al-ijtimai arose in Islamic socialism,


When Islam in its socialism calls for al-takaful al-ijtimai, it does not simply mean food, housing or clothing needs, but rather it broadens the concept to include the Five Rights... Thus, its idea of al-takaful al-ijtimai has come to include all material and moral aspects of life.

He quotes from the Quran: "The believers are brethren" (S. 49: IO), and continues:
To declare brotherhood among the individuals of any society necessitates al-takaful among them, not only in eating, drinking and bodily needs but also in every other necessity of life. The acknowledgment of brotherhood between two persons is an acknowledgment of al-takaful and al-tadamun (solidarity) between them in sentiments and feelings, in demands and needs, and in status and dignity. This is the truth of al-takaful al-ijtimai in Islamic socialism.

The author then discusses two qualities spoken of in the Quran which he considers the components of cooperation-righteousness and piety-and explains their relationship to al-takaful. He sums up his observations on righteousness as follows:

Righteousness has the meaning of a group of psychological, dogmatic and moral virtues. Concerning this the Almighty said, "It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards East or West, but it is righteousness to believe in God and the last day.. and to spend of your substance... for your kin, for the orphan, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves..." (S. 2: 177).

As for piety, he gives twelve definitions, each of which he attempts to correlate with al-takaful. From the Hadith he also draws example to support his argument. Perhaps the most definitive statement in the Hadith regarding the establishment of the bases of al-takaful al-ijtimai is the Prophet's saying, "None of you can be a believer unless he would love for his brother what he loves for himself." "Does man love only 'bread, meat, clothing and shoes for himself? Does he not also love life, dignity, freedom, education and whatever brings happiness in life?"

The author presents ten types of al-takaful al-ijtimai ranging from mutual responsibility with respect to social manners, to education and living, al-takaful al-maashi. The latter is equated with al-takaful al-ijtimai because it is concerned with the responsibility of the society for providing a life suitable to the dignity of man.

al-Sibai also lists what he calls qawanin al-takaful al-ijtimai (The Laws of mutual social responsibility). These laws are divided into two classes, the first dealing with the laws which are found in Islamic socialism that specify the kinds of people deserving al-takaful and the second dealing with the laws which specify financial sources to assist in the realization of al-takaful for these people. Under the first category he lists laws based on the Quran and the Hadith covering a wide range of mutual social responsibilities such as hospitality, aid. sharing things (al-musharaka}, as well as acts of kindness (al-maun), help in personal and national emergency situations, etc. For the financial sources of al-takaful, he lists twelve laws : al-zakat, al-nafaqat (adequate support), al-waqf (endowment), wills, booty, buried treasure of the earth, al-nudhur (vows), al-kaffarat (expiation), al-adahl (blood sacrifice), almsgiving of Ramadan, public treasury and al-kifaya (charity above and beyond al-zakat). al-Sibai concludes his chapter on al-takaful as follows :

Hence, there are twenty-nine laws for the realization of al-takaful al-maashi, which enable a human being to receive that care which makes him feel secure in his present and future, as well as that of his family and children. We have seen that twelve of these laws are designated to finance al-takaful al-maashi in such a way that the execution of its laws is guaranteed, something we have not seen exemplified in the laws and canons of any other nation of the world.

Comparing the Islamic concept of al-takaful with its European counterpart, al-Sibai says:
When the Western nations thought of al-takaful al-ijtimai, and when the communists thought of solving the problem at its roots, this happened as a result of the pressure of industrial development and the spread of unrest among the working class and the masses. In fact, Europe did not consider protecting the workers against unemployment until the economic crises of 1929 occurred from which all Europe suffered, whereas Islam declared its inclusive system of al-takaful al-ijtimai thirteen centuries ago. In the Arab environment in which Islam arose, there were no economic factors which could have forced Islam to declare such a system, al-takaful was not declared out of any class 'hatred nor did it come as a result of the vengeful desire to control the wealth of the rich. It was rather a deep human motive... and a complete and accurate system. We mentioned already a Sibai reference and there is emphasis laid upon the takaful of the family in the following passage:

One of the most obvious phenomena in Muslim society today is the family solidarity and the domination of the spirit of cooperation over all its aspects. The son still supports his father and mother; he lets them live in his house with his wife and children. He serves them until they die. In doing so, he considers it as a religious duty and a kind of work which brings him closer to God. We also see cases in which an older brother supports his younger brothers, helping to rear them, educate them, and marry them off. He knows that they have the right to receive all this and that it is not an act of charity on his part. He also fulfills his obligations towards his relatives by sparing them from the evil of deprivation and beggary if they are poor or disabled. This is an eye-catching phenomenon compared with what we see in western civilization in the way of family disintegration, the father's disinclination to support his son or daughter and the disinclination of the children to support their parents when they grow old or become disabled. We seldom see a western man and his family living with his parents. There is no doubt that this phenomenon, which characterizes the Muslim society, is one of the traces of Islamic socialism.

II
A more recent book, written by a professor in al-Azhar's College of Law, is totally devoted to the same concept. First he explains what is meant by al-takaful al-ijtimai; then he discusses matters such as the material society versus the moral society, the influence of religion on society, the influence of Islamic worship on the society, good public opinion, social relationships and their origin in Islam, the family and the relationships between its members, societies and the relationships between their members, the relationship between the ruler and the ruled, human relationships in Islam and public and individual rights. What concerns us here is his discussion of al-takaful al-ijtimai. He states that this term and al-tadamun al-ijtimai (social solidarity) are two different expressions which denote an identical or similar meaning, "and goes on to say:

The similarity in the meaning of these phrases leads to the definition of al-takaful al-ijtimai as the mutual and reciprocal solidarity between the individuals of the society and their faith in their responsibility toward each other, materially as well as morally. They [the members of the society] must also believe that each of them bears his brother's shortcomings and that his shortcomings are borne by his brother. As a group, they form a cohesive force which attains its fullness only through the strength and happiness of each of its individuals.

What Islam means by al-takaful a!-ijtimai is that individuals should be under the kafala (care) of the group, that all human forces in the society should converge in order to protect the spiritual and material interests of the individuals, and establish the social structure on sound foundations. Thus, all the members of the society must agree among themselves on the necessary measures that they must take for the preservation of the strength of the individual, so that they will be able to march in the dynamic caravan of society.

al-takaful al-ijtimai has passed through various phases of human legislation. The whole world, especially the West, used to consider help to the poor to be limited to the voluntary charity of the rich. Furthermore, the function of religious leaders and social reformers was to stimulate the rich to be kind to the poor. This attitude continued to prevail until the nineteenth century when the West began to consider the idea that the poor have their rights in society, too. But the reformers felt that such rights were the function of welfare societies and local organizations which undertook the task of feeding the poor. At the end of the nineteenth century, social reformers became aware of the fact that social and welfare organizations were not enough, nor did they furnish the poor with all their needs. Consequently, al-takaful al-ijtimai began to be looked at as a necessary function of the state.

The first Western country which began regulating this takaful [system] was Germany which issued the first law in 1883. But this law did not regulate al-takaful so that all the deprived groups were included. Rather, it was completed in stages. The first law, issued in 1883, was directed against the injuries which occurred to factory workers on the job. An insurance law against sickness and old age for workers in industry, commerce and agriculture was enacted in 1889, and was followed in 1911 by a law insuring employees against disability, old age and death. In 1923 Germany also enacted a law insuring mine workers against disability and old age. At first, Britain, as well as other countries, was opposed to compulsory takaful, but has since 1908 accepted it. It was not until 1933 that the principle of al-takaful al-ijtimai became a right of all classes in most countries... However, many of these countries made the provision that those who are covered by the laws of al-takaful must contribute part of their weekly or monthly income. In 1935 the United States legislature enacted the Social Security Act which originally was directed against factors which were a constant source of worry in the life of the individual, particularly in the event of unemployment and old age.

Then in 1942, Sir William Beveridge in England defined al-takaful al-ijtimai as insuring that the individual will receive a specific income instead of his regular earnings when such earnings cease due to unemployment, sickness, and injury, as well as a pension in old age and support in the event of the death of his supporter.

In 1945 the French Government defined al-takaful al-ijtimai as the guarantee given to each citizen that in all circumstances he will be able to secure the means of livelihood for himself and his family at a proper and respectable level.

In 1948 the U.N. General Assembly approved the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Article 25 of the said Declaration clearly defined the meaning of al-takaful al-ijtimai by providing that each individual has the right to a reasonable standard of living.

Finally, there was Otto Schmidt of the Permanent Committee on Exchange of Benefits and the Chairman of Health Insurance in Switzerland, who defined al-takaful as the "freedom from want..."

These are the statements of certain men in their attempt to clarify the true meaning of al-takaful or al-daman al-ijtimai. All of these statements are focused on the fact that al-daman al-ijtimai ('social security) is the sum of the systems which offer help and assistance to the needy and which secure the livelihood of each person and his family. This shows that the world in modern times has become aware of the need for establishing certain systems of al-takaful al-ijtimai.

This does not mean that social security systems were invented by social reformers. In fact, the roots of these systems go back to Islamic teachings, and Islam recognized them fourteen centuries ago when it established for each individual certain rights by which 'his dignity as a human being is preserved, as well as his happiness as a member of the overall structure of his nation. It is religion which considers society responsible for the realization of these rights.

Salim compares the meaning of al-takaful al-ijtimai in civil legislation with its meaning in Islamic civilization, using an argument very similar to al-Sibai's. This shows the common ground of their thinking as men who are attempting to reinterpret Islam to broader groups of fellow Muslims.

First: The way that Western and Communist countries think of the principle of al-takaful al-ijtimai came as a result of the pressure of industrial developments and the spread of discontent among the working class and the masses. Europe, therefore, took the step to insure the workers, against unemployment only after the 1929 economic crisis from which all of Europe suffered. Meanwhile, Islam established its complete system of al-takaful al-ijtimai as early as fourteen centuries ago without being urged to do so by certain economic conditions which would necessitate it in the Arab environment. Nor was this takaful realized as a result of the hatred of one class against the other, nor was there any desire to confiscate wealth in revenge against the rich and the wealthy. Islamic takaful is nothing but a human tendency which had a deep and far-reaching influence even before the conscience of the world became aware of it.

Second : Civil laws are limited to guarantee food, clothing, housing and living needs. But in Islam, these laws are more, inclusive; they guarantee all the material and moral needs of life because the sharia has given each citizen certain rights-the right to live, of freedom, of education and of ownership.

The author's discussion on al-zakat is summarized as follows: al-zakat is the portion given by the rich from their own wealth, whether cash or otherwise. Through this obligation, the meaning of al-tadamun (solidarity) and al-takaful al-maddi (mutual material responsibility) demanded by Islam becomes quite clear. This is a social organization legislated by Islam in order to establish perpetual cooperation between the haves and the have-nots, and to sow the seeds of loyalty and charity between the supporters and the supported.

Islam does not allow wide differences between classes nor does it allow one class to live luxuriously while another class starves. Islam calls societies with such a disparity faithless.

The zakat, as designated by Islam, protects society from destruction and extravagance. It protects it from capitalism with its absolute individualism and exploitation, and from communism which denies religion, destroys the individual and enslaves him for the welfare of the state.

The author then discusses two major kinds of solidarity-moral solidarity and material solidarity. The interaction between the two 'strengthens the spirit of cooperation and focuses attention around one core which unifies varied directions and prevails over all interests. In the case of material solidarity, Islam insists that it is the duty of the rich to help poor and disabled relatives, that the people in one district must live together supporting and cooperating with each other and that the state treasury must contribute to the support of those who need help. In other words, the author continues to say, al-takaful al-ijtimai in Islam is moral as well as material cooperation which functions on three socio-cultural levels of integration-the small family level, the district or village level, and the national level.

In another section, the author presents a discussion in which he compares the materialistic and moralistic societies. He distinguishes the moralistic society as that which is based on sufism and sufist behavior-that is, denial of material desires and living a spiritual life. The moralistic society is that "whose experiences do not submit to any logical measurement or proof. Rather, it submits to spiritual perceptions and divine upwellings of the heart, which are the main source of calm and security."

As for the materialistic society, it is the society which rushes to and is proud of material things. Such a society can be capitalist or communist, Islam sees capitalism as a "tremendous progressive step because it encouraged the increase of production, improved the means of communications, and exploited natural resources on a large scale. But such a bright picture did not last long because the capitalists disregarded heavenly religions and because they- (the capitalists) are the slaves of personal benefits." Islam, on the other hand, "has prohibited monopoly, and Muslim, Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi have claimed that the Prophet said, 'He who exploits is a sinner.'

With regard to communism, Islam sees it the same way as it sees capitalism. The author believes that the gap 'between Islam and communism is much wider and much deeper simply because the teachings of communism are completely the opposite of Islamic teaching. Communism is based on a materialistic philosophy, and its economy is based on the assumption that society is everything, contrary to Islamic teaching which gives much attention to the individual who in turn is expected to carry out his obligation toward the society. Furthermore, while communism conceives that the economic factor is the thing that makes society function and regulates its relationships, Islam does not believe that life is nothing but economics, nor is economics the only tool for solving social problems. Islam emphasizes spiritual and moral values. Moreover, while communism does not believe in individual ownership, Islam does not deny it and it established all legitimate means to acquire it as long as it is useful for both the individual and society.

From all this, the author comes to the conclusion that the Muslim society is both a materialistic and moralistic society. Because Islam is related to a divine belief, it is an interwoven unit which aims at moral goals as well as general human interest. Accordingly, Islam has established its reform principles on human reality: body and soul.

Having presented the 'religious' point of view on the concept of al-takaful al-ijtimai, one example of a secular interpretation of the, same concept must follow. A little book by Ismail Mazhar approaches the concept al-takaful from a purely scientific angle. Mazhar starts his first chapter with a definition of al-takaful as the transition from the stage of human inability to the stage of ability.


In elaborating this, he uses the term 'symbiosis' as equivalent to the Arabic takaful. In organic life, al-takaful is "an example of coexistence in which the life of one creature depends on the life of another to the extent that both lives are coexistently related to one another, and interests are shared among them.

After a brief review of the development of capitalism and communism, Mazhar reaches the conclusion that both systems are destructive to an important aspect of social life, namely the individual. The individual is important to the society because his freedom protects group development; the group is necessary for the individual, but its authority over him must not deprive the society of the influence of the individual. Thus, there must exist a social system on the basis of al-takaful between the individual and society, integrating both together without the supremacy of one over the other.

He then raises the question of whether or not a social system can be established which is formed on the basis of a mutual feeling of responsibility in which all segments of society feel that they are supporter; as well as supported, a system which makes mutual support among the segments of the society a matter of supporting the very structure of the society itself, leading to its survival as a complete unit.

In his review of the history of great civilizations, it is interesting to notice that Mazhar comes to the conclusion that the developmental steps with which man stepped forward indicate that he is moving with his culture in the direction of a system of al-takaful al-ijtimai, "The cultures which flourished in ancient times were due mostly to the prevalence of the spirit of al-takaful and their disintegration was due to its weakness." This leads him to the definition of nationalism. To Mazhar, nationalism is "a feeling of al-takaful al-ijtimai which give the individual the feeling that he is more honored and has a better place 'in his society than in any other society." While seeing communism as the oppression of the individual by fanatic socialists, and capitalism as the domination of the individual over the group, he focuses attention on the positive value of 'equality' (al-musawa). In explaining this notion, he uses scientific terms, such as mufadala (the difference in ability of some people over others) and al-tafdil (natural selection). He accuses the communists of misinterpreting the term 'equality.' In the world of living things, no two individuals, two trees or two flowers enjoy perfect equality. However, if communism arose on a false concept called 'equality,' it is no doubt in a transition period which will ultimately lead to a takaful system.

What, then, stands against the achievement of al-takaful al-ijtimai? Mazhar lists six obstacles:
1. The domination of individual or group interests.
2. Social parasitism. ("... types of individuals who have tried to obtain the necessities of life from other individuals without making any productive effort equal to what they consumed.")
3. Rigidity of social systems. (That is, slavery under unchanging
laws.)
4. Unequal life opportunities.
5. The conflict of responses and their harmony. There are people who burst out in destructive revolts disproportionate to the stimuli which caused them. Others surrendered and yielded to conditions which they could easily have rejected and thus freed themselves.
6. The converging of opposites. (This is manifested in the collaboration of higher authorities-the governmental and the religious powers-to suppress freedom and repress thought.)

Finally, how can the takaful be achieved? In Mazhar's opinion, the realization of al-takaful al-ijtimai rests on two important pillars. The first is legislation for the sake of regulating the needs of the society. In order to avoid social retardation, such legislation must not be inspired by a tyrant or be the outcome of his will, nor should it be inspired by the supernatural. In other words, the law must be the outcome of the will of the society. This is the core around which the ties of al-takaful converge and without which society disintegrates.

The second pillar is a moral-idealistic one. In explaining this, Mazhar reviews the early history of the Islamic State. He says: "During the 'first phase of Islam, I mean the phase during which the Muslims believed that the slate was the property of each one of them and that religion was for God, the Muslim State was able to defeat the two greatest empires, the Persian and the Byzantine, in a short time" because it was a state built on the concept of al-takaful, the complex which "united the Muslims and was supported by the conviction of every Muslim that he was part and parcel of the state, that the state was his state and that Islam was a religion which had no judge but God." When corruption crept into the new state, and when the complex of al-takaful between individuals was dissolved and replaced by a despotic state, the Muslim State disintegrated and collapsed.

These three writers, by defining and analyzing al-takaful al-ijtimai, make it clear what kind of society advocates of al-takaful are looking for. If al-takaful al-ijtimai or al-ishtirakiyva is one of the major outcomes of the socialist ideology, it becomes necessary to perceive it in the light of Islam as a religion. A comparison with Christian influences upon the development of socialism in the West would be of interest. The only point to which we can draw attention here is the issue of separation of 'state' and 'religion.' If the Christian West has succeeded in separating the State from the Church, it would seem that Islam can do the same but in a more limited sense, at least for the time being. What seems to be taking place now in socialist Egypt is the creation of a welfare state: based on secular arguments as well as arguments derived from Islamic teaching.

Finally, it should be stressed that the notion of socialism is not alien to the Arab culture as a whole. Asabiyya (clannishness) and al-aila (the family) belong to the typical Arab cultural patterns. Furthermore, the principle of sharing things is not only demanded by Islam, but is also advocated by Arabic proverbs, stories and legends. The heart of the matter seems to rest in today's challenge of a reinterpretation of Islam in order to meet the demands of the twenty-first century.

Social Responsibility in Islam

Social responsibility in Islam is understood to mean that the individual members of society work together to fulfill the general needs of society as well as the individual needs of its members and that they work together to protect society from harm. Each member of society is aware not only that he has rights, but also that that he has responsibilities towards others, especially those who are incapable of fulfilling their own needs. These responsibilities entail providing for the needs of these people as well as protecting them from harm.

The Scope of Social Responsibility in Islam

Muslim society is one that applies the belief system and laws of Islam, as well as the methodology, value system, and codes of behavior that Islam espouses. These are all articulated by the Qur’an and Sunnah and exemplified by the Prophet (peace be upon him), his Companions, and the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

When society adheres to these principles and values, social responsibility becomes a tangible reality, every aspect of which is fulfilled.

This is because Islam pays careful attention to society-building, providing a number of texts and legal injunctions to bring about the society described by Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) when he said: “The believers, in their affection, mercy, and compassion for each other, are like a single body; if one limb feels pain, the whole body becomes feverish and restless.”

Therefore, social responsibility in Islam is not based on material interests, even if such interests form an integral part of it. It extends far beyond such concerns to embrace all the needs of society and its members, whether they are material in nature, spiritual, intellectual, or otherwise.

In this way, all the fundamental rights of both the individual and society at large are attended to.

Likewise, social responsibility in Islam is not only with regard to other Muslims; it extends to all of humanity, irrespective of their different beliefs and ways of life. Allah says:

Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you because of your religion nor drove you out of your homes. Verily Allah loves those who deal justly.

This mutual responsibility exists because of the honor and dignity of every human being. Allah says:

And indeed We have honored the descendants of Adam and carried them on land and sea, and We have provided them with all the good things and have preferred them over much of what We have created.

The Domain of Social Responsibility in Islam

Islam considers social responsibility to be one of its fundamental objectives. It extends to all of humanity, believers and disbelievers alike. Allah says:

O mankind. We have created you from a male and female and made you nations and tribes so you could come to know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah are the most righteous.

Social responsibility encompasses everyone by degrees. It starts with the Muslim and his personal sphere of life, extends to his family, then to the society that he lives in, and finally to all the diverse societies that exist on Earth.

Responsibility to oneself:

Every person is responsible for himself. He is responsible to keep himself pure, cultivate good manners, reform his faults, do good, and refrain from evil. Allah says:

By the soul and Him who perfected its proportions; then He showed him what is wrong for him and what is right. Indeed, he who purifies himself succeeds. And indeed, he who corrupts himself fails.

Likewise, he is responsible to protect himself and to maintain his health. He must provide for himself in a lawful manner. Allah says:

Seek, with what Allah has bestowed upon you, the Hereafter, and do not forget your share of this world; and do good as Allah has been good to you, and seek not mischief in the land. Verily, Allah does not like the mischief makers.

A person is forbidden to kill himself, weaken himself, or inflict pain upon himself. Allah has prohibited suicide by saying:

And do not kill yourselves. Surely, Allah is Most Merciful to you.

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever kills himself with an iron blade will continually thrust it into his stomach for eternity in the fire of Hell.”

Likewise, it is prohibited for a person to take things that harm his health or impair his ability to think. Preserving life, reason, and property are among the most important objectives of Islamic Law.

Allah says regarding intoxicants:

O you who believe, wine, gambling, idolatry, and divination are all an abomination of Satan’s handiwork, so avoid them that perhaps you might be successful. Satan wants only to excite enmity and hatred between you with wine and gambling and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. Will you not, then, abstain?

Responsibility to one’s family:

Islam stresses mutual responsibility between family members, making it the solid foundation that protects the family from collapsing or splitting apart.

This responsibility starts with the husband and wife. They have a shared responsibility to carry out the obligations and duties of family life in the manner that Allah has made each of them naturally disposed to carry out. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “A man is a guardian over his household and he is responsible for those in his care. A woman is a guardian over her husband’s household and she is responsible for those in her care.”

Household responsibilities are divided between the man and the woman in a way that guarantees the material and spiritual foundations of the family. Allah addresses the men and women who run their homes with the following words:

O you who believe, protect yourselves and your families from a fire whose fuel is men and stones.

This protection cannot happen except if the truth is made clear and proper education is provided that clearly shows the way to righteousness. The husband and wife share the responsibility for the education and cultural development of the family. Whenever either one of them finds the other negligent in these duties, he or she must bring this to the other’s attention and call the other to what is right. Allah says:

The believing men and women are protectors of one another; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.

Islam encourages the cultivation of love and affection between the man and woman in their marital life. Allah says:

And from His signs is that he created for you mates from amongst yourselves to find comfort in and he placed between you affection and mercy.

Islam has established a number of principles to bring this about:

A. Preserving the rights of the husband and wife: Allah says:

And they (the women) have rights (over their husbands) similar to (their husbands’) rights over them.

B. Choosing a good marriage partner: The family unit is where children are brought up. It is imperative that this unit is established on a correct foundation. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “A woman is married for four reasons: for her wealth, her status, her beauty, or her religion. Marry the religious one or your hands will be covered with dust.”

With respect to what a woman should seek in a husband, Allah’s Messenger said: “If a man whose religion and conduct pleases you approaches you (to marry from your family), then let him marry. If you do not do so, then there will be a lot of mischief and moral degradation in the land.”

Allah says:

Do not marry the idolatrous women until they believe. A believing slave girl is better than an idolatress, even if she pleases you. And do not marry your women to the idolaters until they believe. A believing slave is better than an idolater, even if he pleases you. They call to the Fire, and Allah calls to Paradise and forgiveness by His leave, and He makes His signs clear to mankind so perhaps they might take heed.

C. Good conduct between the husband and wife: Islam encourages good conduct between the husband and wife. This is established in the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Allah says:

- Live with them on good terms.

- Retain them on good terms or release them on good terms.

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “The believers who have the most perfect faith are the best in conduct, and the best men among you are the ones who are best to their wives.”

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) was the best in treating his wives and was the kindest and most gentle husband.

He used to joke with them and help out with the housework. He was very forgiving and tolerant. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “The best among you is the one who treats his family the best, and I am the one who treats his family the best.”

D. Providing for one’s family: Wealth is necessary to provide for the material needs of life. Since, the husband is responsible for his wife, he is responsible to provide for her. Allah says:

Let the wealthy man spend according to his means; and the man whose resources are restricted, let him spend from according to what Allah has given him. Allah does not put a burden on a person greater than what He has given him. Allah will grant, after hardship, ease.

Islam has made maintenance of the wife obligatory upon the husband. Even if he has divorced her, he must provide for her maintenance and housing for the full waiting period that the woman must wait – to ascertain whether she is pregnant – before she is allowed to marry another. Likewise, he must provide for the child’s nursing if the divorced woman has a child from him. Allah says:

Lodge them where you dwell, according to your means, and do not harm them to make their lives difficult (so they will be forced to leave your house). And if they are pregnant, then spend on them until they give birth. Then if they nurse the children for you, then give them their due payment, and let each of you accept the advice of the other in a just way. If you make difficulties for one another, then some other woman may nurse for him.

E. Caring for and raising children: Islam stresses the right of small children to be cared for and properly brought up, making it the most important duty of the parents. Islam does not consider it sufficient to rely on the parents’ natural inclinations. It reinforces these instincts with specific regulations that guarantee that the children will receive a proper upbringing and enjoy all of their rights. From the time of birth, the sacred texts discuss completing the period of nursing. Allah says:

The mothers shall nurse their children for two whole years if they desire to complete the term of suckling. The father of the child shall bear the cost of the mother’s food and clothing on a reasonable basis.

The right of proper upbringing is also clearly stated. Allah says:

O you who believe! Protect yourselves and your families from the Fire.

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Order your children to pray when they are seven years old, and when they become ten, beat them if they fail to do so and separate their sleeping quarters.”

Responsibility to Society: Islam makes the individual and society responsible for each other. It requires each to fulfill its duties to the other. It brings public and private interests together in such a way that fulfilling individual interests becomes a means of realizing the general good and likewise, realizing the general good entails realizing the good of the individual.

The individual in Muslim society is responsible to help in preserving the general order and to refrain from any behavior that could harm society or work against its interests. Allah says:

The believers, men and women, are protectors of one another; they enjoin what is right, forbid what is wrong, perform prayer, keep the fasts, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah will have mercy on them. Surely Allah is Almighty, All Wise.

The individual, moreover, is commanded to play an active and effective part in society. Allah says:

Help one another in righteousness and piety, but do not help one another in sin and transgression.

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “The believers, men and women, are like a building where every part of it supports the rest.”

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) explained the unity between the members of society and the feelings of mutual responsibility that they share in the following way: “The believers, in their affection, mercy, and compassion for each other, are like a single body; if one limb feels pain, the whole body becomes feverish and restless.”

From another angle, there are the rights and liberties of the individual. Society is responsible to protect the sanctity of the individual and ensure individual rights and freedoms. Allah says:

O you who believe! Let not a group of you belittle another; it may be that the latter are better than the former. Nor let some women belittle other women; it may be that the latter are better than the former. Nor defame one another, nor insult one another with nicknames. How bad it is to charge someone with iniquity after they have believed. And whosoever does not repent, such are indeed transgressors. O you who believe, avoid much suspicion; indeed some suspicions are sins. And spy not, nor backbite one another.

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) has given us a clear picture of these mutual responsibilities by saying: “The parable of one who stands in defense of the limits of Allah (meaning the one who works to protect the order of society and the individuals therein) is like a situation where a group of people board a ship, some settling on the upper deck and others on the lower deck. Those on the lower deck begin to feel thirsty and say: ‘If we drill a hole in our part of the ship, we will get water without bothering those on the upper deck.’ If those on the upper deck leave them to do what they want, all the people on board the ship will perish, and if they prevent them, all of them will be saved.”

As far as the mutual responsibility between all human societies is concerned, Allah says:

O mankind. We have created you from a male and female and made you nations and tribes so you could come to know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah are the most righteous. Verily Allah is All-Knowing All-Aware.

This verse sets down the principle of mutual responsibility between nations, placing all nations in a worldwide union that has the ultimate purpose of realizing universal welfare and preventing harm on a global scale, as well as fostering a beneficial exchange on all planes: material, spiritual, scientific, cultural, and economic. At the same time, each society retains its unique characteristics and identity. There is no threat that these unique qualities will be destroyed or abolished, because all are united by a sense that their origins and their ultimate destinations are the same.

This responsibility is not limited to the present generation. It must take into consideration future generations as well. Many of our present problems and those that are sure to face future generations could have been avoided or solved if this had been taken into consideration. Many of the world’s problems stem from the present generation running after its own interests without considering the future consequences of its behavior for humanity as a whole. These problems are many, among the most serious of these being the problem of the environment and that of dwindling natural resources.

We have in the policies of the Caliph `Umar b. al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), an example of one generation taking into consideration its responsibility to future generations. When the Muslims opened up Iraq, the soldiers wanted to divide the fertile agricultural land between them as part of the spoils of war. `Umar rejected this opinion, saying: “I want a situation that will be good for the people of the present and the future.” He decreed that the land should have a land tax levied on its produce and it should remain in the hands of its people who would pay the tax to the general state treasury.

This principle is derived from the following verse of the Qur’an that defines the relationship that one generation of Muslims has with other generations:

And those who came after them say: “Our Lord, forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in faith and do not put in our hearts hatred for those who believe. Our Lord, you are indeed Most Kind, Most Merciful.”

The future generations should have a good impression of the present one, so they will uphold their honor, seek from Allah their forgiveness, and carry in their hearts good feelings towards them. This is, in turn, how the present generation should feel about their relationship with the generations to come and the effects that their actions will have on them. Thus, they will refrain from depleting the resources that are in their possession and squandering the necessities of life.

They should enrich the soil of the future so that a continuous progression of generations can be built on solid ground and inherit a rich and venerable legacy.

In this way, the present generation presents an ideal realization of its responsibility to those who are to come, and the next generation, in turn, looks back on them with love in their hearts and prayers on their tongues asking for their forgiveness. In this way, their mutual responsibility towards each other is fulfilled from the first generation to the last.

Manifestations of Social Responsibility in Islam

A general outline of social responsibility should be clear from what has already been said. When we turn our attention to specific manifestations of this responsibility, we find that Islam pays greater attention to the needs of certain classes of people who are more exposed to suffering and harm than others and who are more often the focus of social responsibility in its narrowest sense.

Responsibility towards the elderly Islam pays special attention to the elderly. It considers them to have a right to be cared for in repayment for the sacrifices that they have made to ensure the prosperity of the generation that they raised and nurtured. In Islam, the responsibility to take care of the elderly starts with the children. Allah says:

- And we have enjoined on man to be good and dutiful to his parents.

- And be dutiful and good to parents…

The responsibility of children to care for their parents and treat them kindly is compulsory, both religiously and in the court of Law. It is, first and foremost a religious commandment upon the children. Then, if they are neglectful in their duties to their parents, the courts can force the children to perform them.

It does not matter if the parents are of a different religion; their rights are still the same. Allah says:

And we have enjoined on man to be dutiful and good to his parents. His mother bore him in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship, and his weaning was in two years. Give thanks to Me and to your parents. Unto me is the final destination But if they both strive to make you join in worship with Me others of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not; but, in the world, behave with them kindly.

If elderly people do not have children, the responsibility to care for them is transferred to society in the form of mandatory state support.

This is further strengthened by the abundance of texts that encourage doing good to others, especially those who cannot take care of themselves like many of the elderly. This inspires a believing soul to naturally expend effort to do good voluntarily.

Caring for the elderly is not merely on the material level. Spiritual and emotional support, that the elderly desperately need, also come into play. Allah says:

If one of them or both of them attain old age in your lifetime, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor shout at them, but address them in terms of honor. And lower unto them the wing of submission and humility through mercy and say: “My Lord, bestow on them Your Mercy as they did bring me up when I was young.

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever does not show mercy to the young and honor the elderly is not one of us.”

Responsibility towards Children and Orphans

We have already mentioned in our discussion about responsibility towards the family that Islam stresses caring for small children and requires parents to care for and raise their children until they reach the age of discretion and are able to lead independent lives.

When children lose their parents, the responsibility to care for them is transferred to other close relatives who are able to do so. There is a legally prescribed order of succession for guardianship.

In the absence of relatives, the responsibility falls on society and the state.

There are a number of verses in the Qur’an that encourage taking care of the orphans and inspire the believer to do so. This is above and beyond the fact that this responsibility is a legal obligation that can be enforced by the state that acts on behalf of society. Allah says the following in the Qur’an:

- Therefore, treat not the orphan oppressively. And repulse not the beggar.

- And do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, the poor…

- …and gives his wealth, in spite of his love for it, to the kinsfolk, the orphans, the poor…

- Have you seen the one who denies the Judgment? That is the one who repulses the orphan, and urges not the feeding of the poor.

- And know that whatever you may gain of war booty, one fifth of it is for Allah, his Messenger, the Messenger’s near relatives, the orphans, the poor…

If we look carefully at Islamic history, we shall find that many of Islam’s most ingenious thinkers and creative inventors had been orphaned as children. This is merely one tangible result of Islamic direction and Islamic policies regarding the orphan, policies that the Muslims continued to carry out instinctively and voluntarily, even during the times when the state failed to fulfill its duties. Caring for the orphans never disappeared, because society always found a way to carry it out, setting up private welfare organizations in response to the orphans’ needs.

One manifestation of this care in Islam is the protection and investment of the orphans’ wealth. Every form of conduct that could be harmful to that wealth must be strictly avoided. Allah says the following:

- And come not near to the orphan’s property except to improve it until he attains the age of full strength.

- Verily, those who unjustly consume the property of orphans, they consume only fire into their bellies and they shall be scorched by the blazing Fire.

- And test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then you find in them sound judgment, release their property to them, and do not consume it wastefully and hastily, fearing that they should grow up.

- And give unto the orphans their property and do not exchange (your) bad things for (their) good ones. And do not consume their wealth by adding it to your own. Surely this is a great sin.

- And they ask you (O Muhammad) concerning the orphans. Say, “The best thing is to work in their property for their best interests, and if you mix your affairs with theirs, then they are your brothers. And Allah knows the one who intends mischief from the one who intends good.”

- …but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice.

Responsibility towards the Poor and the Destitute

The Islamic texts repeatedly encourage taking care of the poor and the destitute, commiserating with them, alleviating their difficulties, and giving them assistance, both material and otherwise.

Islam, when confronting the problems of society, sets a minimum that is needed for proper living. Beyond this, it encourages and paves the way for voluntary acts of charity by describing the awards that await the charitable in the worldly life and in the Hereafter.

Islam, we find, uses the same approach to combat poverty that it uses to deal with other problems of life and society. It encourages voluntary acts of good to help the poor while simultaneously prescribing the mandatory Zakah tax to ensure that society takes complete responsibility over those who cannot find work and do not have the resources to fulfill their needs. The rate of this tax is 2.5% of society’s wealth that is collected by the state each year for redistribution to the poor, the destitute, and other eligible recipients who are defined by Allah Almighty in the Qur’an. Allah says:

- The charity tax is only for the poor, the destitute, those employed to collect it, to encourage those whose hearts are inclined towards Islam, to free captives, for those in debt, for the cause of Allah, and for the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

- It is not righteousness that you turn your faces to the east and the west, but righteousness is the quality of one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, and the Prophets; and who gives his wealth, in spite of his love for it, to the kinsfolk, the orphans, the poor, the wayfarer, those who ask, and to free slaves.

- You will never attain righteousness until you spend from what you love.

- So give the relative his due, and give to the poor and the wayfarer. That is best for those who seek Allah’s countenance, and those are the ones who will be successful.

Recognizing the rights of neighbors

One of the manifestations of social responsibility in Islam is the consideration that is given to the rights of neighbors. Islam places great stress on being kind to neighbors and maintaining good relations with them. It also emphasizes that one should try to help one’s neighbors and be careful not to abuse them in any way. Allah says:

…and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, the poor, the neighbor who is near of kin, the neighbor who is a stranger…

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should honor his neighbor.”

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “By Allah, he does not believe. By Allah, he does not believe.” He was asked whom he was talking about. He said: “He whose neighbor is not safe from his abuse.”

He also said, defining the neighbor’s rights: “If he falls ill, visit him. If he has good fortune, congratulate him. If ill fortune befalls him, console him. Do not build your building in a way that would keep the breeze from reaching his dwelling except with his permission. Do not annoy him with the aroma of your cooking pot unless you serve him some of your food. If you buy some fruit, then give him a gift from it, and if you do not do so, then bring it into your home discreetly, and do not let your child take it outside to taunt his child with it.”

The rights of the guest and the stranger

Islam encourages honoring guests and giving good hospitality. Honoring one’s guest is considered a noble character trait that attests to the sincerity and strength of one’s faith. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him): “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should honor his guest.”

Islam emphasizes treating strangers and wayfarers kindly. The wayfarer is a traveler who is cut off from his home and unable to return to it. This person has a right to receive from the Zakah tax. Allah says:

The charity tax is only for the poor, the destitute, those employed to collect it, to encourage those whose hearts are inclined towards Islam, to free captives, for those in debt, for the cause of Allah, and for the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

The Means Employed by Islam to Achieve Social Responsibility

Islam legislates certain measures and regulations to assure social responsibility. Some of these measures concern the individual and some concern the state.

Measures connected to the individual:

Islam has charged the individual with a number of measures, some of which are compulsory while others are voluntary.

The following are among the compulsory measures that the individual is charged with:

1. The Zakah tax: This is among the most important of these measures. Allah has made it a religious obligation upon the Muslims and has empowered the state to collect it forcibly if necessary. The importance of Zakah comes from its general application to most of the population and from the quantity of the general wealth that it represents (2.5%).

This is a sufficient quantity of wealth, when managed properly, to solve the majority of society’s problems that stem from poverty. For this reason, it is a very effective means of upholding social responsibility.

This is above and beyond its more abstract effects, because it prevents the class hatred that always develops in society when there are haves who are ambivalent to the needs of others and have-nots who are deprived and neglected.

2. Expiations: These are the measures required by Islam to atone for prohibited acts committed by a Muslim or to compensate for obligatory acts that have been neglected.

There are many types of expiations, among them being the expiation for breaking an oath taken in Allah’s name and the expiation for intentionally breaking an obligatory fast in the month of Ramadan without a legitimate excuse.

Sometimes these expiations entail feeding a number of poor people, making them a means of assuring social responsibility. Allah says:

Allah will not take you to task you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but he will take you to task for your deliberate oaths. For their expiation, feed ten poor people in the manner that you would feed your own family, or clothe them, or manumit a slave. But whoever cannot afford that must fast for three days. That is the expiation for oaths when you have sworn.

3. The charity at the end of the month of fasting: This is an obligatory act of charity given on `Eid al-Fitr, the auspicious day marking the end of Ramadan. Its measure is roughly three kilograms of the staple food of the region. It must be paid on behalf of every Muslim man, woman, and child. Its purpose, as stated by Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) is to: “...make them have no need of asking on this day.”

4. Assisting the needy: If a person knows that his neighbor is hungry or has no food to eat, and he is able to assist him, then it is obligatory upon him to do so. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Whosoever goes to sleep satisfied while being aware that his neighbor is hungry does not believe in me.”

He also said: “Allah has no obligation towards a household where they let someone go to sleep hungry.”

Islam gives the person who reaches the level of severe hunger the right to steal from others enough food to satiate his hunger, even if he has to use a degree of force.

Islam does not only impose compulsory measures to ensure social responsibility, it opens the door for voluntary acts in many ways:

1. Endowments: Islamic Law provides for endowments and considers them to be among the most excellent of good deeds. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “When a person dies, his good deeds come to end, except for three things: charity that continues to benefit others, knowledge that continues to be of benefit, and a pious child who prays for him.”

An endowment is where a Muslim gives some property in charity that will remain, for a period of time, available to certain other parties who are allowed to benefit from it and from its proceeds but are not allowed to dispose of it. The property in question might be a residential building, a profitable investment, agricultural land, or something else.

There have been numerous endowments in Islamic history of a wide variety. They have been established for many different purposes.

Endowments have been an active partner to Muslim society up to this day in addressing issues of general welfare and security and in assisting society in taking care of the needy.

2. Bequests: A person gives a bequest before his death to another party from his estate. This party could be an individual or an organization. A bequest can even be generally worded so that the recipients are those who meet certain criteria.

Islam encourages bequests. Allah says:

It is prescribed for you, if one of you approaches death and leaves behind wealth, to make a bequest to parents and relatives in a reasonable manner.

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Allah has allowed you to bequeath a third of your wealth at the time of death.”

Islam, though, balances between the rights of the inheritors (who are solely responsible for the funeral preparations) and the rights of the recipients of bequests. For this reason, it does not allow a person to bequeath more than a third of his estate.

One of the Companions, Sa`d b. Abi Waqqas, asked Allah’s Messenger: “I am a wealthy man and have no inheritors except for my daughter. Should I make a bequest of two-thirds of my estate?”

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) replied: “No, one third, and one third is plenty. Leaving your inheritors wealthy is better than leaving them dependent and begging.”

3. Loans: A loan is where one party allows another to utilize his property for free on condition that the property is returned. Islam encourages this activity as a positive means of assisting others and cultivating love between the individuals in society. It strengthens social relations and fosters cooperation. Islam discourages denying others the right to borrow as long as doing so poses no harm to the owner. Islam associates the one who refuses to lend to others with a person who is deficient in his prayers, prayer being one of Islam’s most important pillars. Allah says:

So woe to those who pray who are negligent while in their prayers and who only wish to be seen of men and who withhold even neighborly needs.

These needs would include any small everyday items, like dishes and hand tools.

Islam expects the borrower, in return, to treat what he borrows in the best possible manner, protect it, and return it on time. Allah says:

Verily, Allah commands you to render back the trusts to those to whom they are due.

Allah describes the believers as:

Those who are faithful in observing their trusts and their covenants.

4. Gifts: Islam encourages the exchange of gifts and makes mention of how it strengthens social bonds and spreads affection throughout society. Allah’s Messenger (may the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said: “Exchange gifts, it will cause you to love one another.”

The Responsibility of the State:

Though Islam pays close attention to social responsibility on the individual level, it does not stop there. Alongside the individual measures, it establishes general measures that the state is responsible to carry out.

Among these measures are the following:

1. Safeguarding natural resources: This entails assuring the proper utilization of the country’s natural environment, including the mineral resources of the land and sea as well as all other forms of wealth that Allah has placed in the Earth. Allah has made humanity responsible for these resources and has given mankind the power to turn such resources to his benefit in order for society to realize the highest standard of living possible for all of its members, not just for a select few.

If only every nation would fulfill its duty in this regard and distribute the benefits of these resources in a just manner – by providing general services and opportunities for work - then the world’s societies would surely enjoy phenomenal growth and development.

2. Creating opportunities for employment: This entails seeking out the best solutions for confronting unemployment and establishing constructive programs to contribute to general development.

Such programs can provide work for idle hands in a completely just manner that takes into consideration the general needs of society and gives preference to the poorer and more deprived sectors of society.

We should mention here an event that occurred at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). A man came to Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) begging, so he gave him a silver coin and ordered him to buy an ax and go to the wilderness to collect wood and then return after a period of time. When the man returned, he informed Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) that he had earned enough to fill his needs and even gave some money in charity. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) then said: “That one of you should take his rope and go collect wood is better for him than to go around begging people, whether or not they give anything to him.”

3. Organizing individual efforts: The state has the responsibility of organizing and regulating the efforts of individuals in fulfilling their social responsibilities in the ways that we have previously discussed. This is especially true for the Zakah tax and endowments. This entails enacting the necessary legislation to ensure that the objectives of these individual efforts are realized, like eliminating poverty and closing the gap between the haves and have-nots. In the context, the Qur’an comes with the following command for Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) and for all Muslim leaders who come after him: “Take from their wealth the charity tax.”

4. Utilizing the property of the wealthy when necessary: When society is faced with unusual circumstances whereby the division of wealth reaches an intolerable level of imbalance and the state with its resources is incapable of fulfilling its duties and responding to the needs of society, at this time it is permissible – and sometimes even necessary – to levy against the property of the wealthy what will restore a normal social balance. This is the opinion of the majority of jurists, provided that the state acts justly and solely in the interests of society and the general welfare.


(The Discover Islam Project)