8. Class Difference And Privileges, And Their Origins
The term class refers to a group of people who have a common and specific trade and profession in a society. The natural causes of class distinctions are special mental and physical attributes and training of individuals. People have various tendencies turns to a variety of professions and jobs on the basis of their attributes, talents, and training. They choose what matches their talents and inclinations; this is the natural and intrinsic basis for specialization and division of labour. A sound society capable of growing is one whose traditions and positive laws conform to these talents and intrinsic tendencies. Jobs and responsibility should be divided on this basis so that work will be carried better and better and the growth of potentials is made possible.
Every group and class in such a society must perform its own specialized tasks and duty. With the exception of matters related to social issues - for which all classes are responsible - they must not interfere in the affairs of others. These types of class distinctions are the basis of a developed and integrated society, and are acceptable and praiseworthy. An unnatural and despicable class society is the opposite of the one described above, in which the division of labour and duties arc not parceled out according to acquired and intrinsic talents.
As jobs in such a society are not distributed on the basis of merit, specialty, and desires of applicants, its foundation is inevitably built on injustice and is subject to encroachment. Therefore, oppression and injustice, in their various forms obviously are normal and permanent features of life. Such a society is structurally composed of vertical and horizontal classes each of which has privileges and special rights: the members of each class enjoy privileges and positions, which are the prerogatives of that class through inheritance, tradition and law.
On the basis of class privilege and rights, individual talents have no social value. Those who are the heirs of the upper classes - no matter how base and unworthy - will take charge of positions, which are influential and important to public destiny. And those who are members of the lower classes, no matter how capable and intelligent, have no right to take positions for which they are qualified. They are constantly controlled and held in subjugation by those who lack the intelligence and perception for what is in the public interest and wellbeing.
Any clear-sighted person with accurate perception and an active conscience, and who is not intellectually the victim of such a system, understands full well that such a social system is unnatural, topsy-turvy, tyrannical, stagnant and unable to progress and integrate. That is the reason public-spirited reformers in every class in all times and places have tried by different means to destroy such a system and construct a sound and natural order.
They rarely have been successful, however. The fact that class distinctions in various forms and degree prevail everywhere today is testimony to their failure. Although there is no doubt about the good intentions of these reformers, their failures reveal that the real reasons for the appearance of such corrupt and deviant systems have not been discovered and solutions to correct them have not been studied as they ought to be. Each reformer has seen the causes, the effects, and the cure from his own perspective. Such discussions concerning social justice originate in the ideas advanced by the ancient Greek and non-Greek scholars and other reformers, and we have given examples earlier of their ideas and opinions and there is no need to discuss them in detail here.
We will only examine the views and solutions presented by the collectivist economists. This group with its particular way thinking contends that a chaotic economic situation and uncontrolled capitalism are the sole origin and cause of the appearance of privileged classes. The solution according to this view is also clear: when capitalism is destroyed at the root, which is private ownership, or at least controlled, the despicable class systems will also be destroyed.
Marxism proposes a more practical solution: according to its views, the only way to eliminate capitalism is through a revolution and the establishment of government of the proletariat. This view, however, amounts to an acknowledgment of the present class system. Only God (or historical determinism) knows what would happen after that. Marxism either has no clear and decisive way to eliminate the new class it creates, or its solution is not apparent. What is apparent and can be understood is the dominance of the military class and the bureaucracy.
A look at the manifest present state of the world, as well as the past, shows that the principal and exclusive cause of the emergence of the privileged class is not the economic system. We can see the class groupings in history and at the present time that enjoy legal privileges but are often without economic privileges. We can see military classes, both in the past and the present, that have had and do still have special privileges and authority. Economically, they resemble the lower classes or are even more restricted.
The same is true of the bureaucrats and other classes who enjoy special privileges that are more important than economic privileges. In the past, when tribes were more numerous and powerful, they conquered each other on the basis of the strength, physical robustness, and the degree of loyalty to their chiefs or sheikhs. They would then attack a country - or in the case of the Mongols, more than one country - and following their victories and conquests would form a government and acquire privileges. These privileges would pass on to their children after them as tradition.
This way a class would become special and distinct, and other classes would form a suitable hierarchy. This situation would persist until a new wave destroyed the dominant class along with other classes and its supporters; then new classes with the same characteristics would emerge in a different form. The upper classes with their special privileges and rights - which would be established as traditions and laws - would control public and private property and acquire unlimited wealth just as they had dominated the lower classes and owned them as slaves or semi-slaves.
Today the military class, because it is disciplined, cohesive, and armed, is a special powerful class with rights and privileges. In most collectivist countries this class is the most important one. In capitalist countries it is the force for protecting capitalism within, and imperialism practiced abroad.
From this study, which is supported by historic evidence and social indicators, we conclude that power, either in the form of military armaments or capital, is the source of classes and domination. The classes remain in the society with their special rights, through inheritance and tradition. A question left unanswered is, what is the source of the power of individuals or classes?
The answer is that the talents and mental and physical superiority of individuals, tribes, or groups are the main sources of power. Those who possess these qualities should have special status in the society so that every capable person will have a place in the society in accordance with his ability. To this extent, class distinction is acceptable and indeed necessary.
What is abhorrent is when prerogative, rights, and special rules for this class and its heirs and supporters places them above the law, or makes them the source of laws, and gives them control over people’s lives and wealth. Special positions change hands among them. Others have no right to a free life in comparison to them and the way to growth, progress, change, exchange of positions, and advancement to higher employment is blocked for them.
To eliminate legal and class monopolies and privileges, laws that are above despicable customs and special privileges should be established and enforced. Reformers and individuals driven by the interest of the masses, in the past, have presented laws and principles that provide freedom and participatory rights for all people. They have concluded empirically and through experience that without democracy collectivism in its broad and true sense does not materialize and grow.
Another ambiguity that can be seen (and should be highlighted here) is that laws - no matter how well and comprehensively written - are not free from the taint of class distinction. Suppose that lawmakers are able to free their minds of class prejudices and undertake to legislate just and comprehensive laws. It has been shown that at the actual stage of formulation and implementation, the laws will not be free from class prejudice: the instinctive quest for privilege, inherent in human nature either consciously or unconsciously, would influence the content of laws.
It may not be easy to detect the taint of class privilege in the laws at the first glance. However, the taint of class privilege in them will gradually become apparent and, as in the past or in other ways, they will become the basis for other future social privileges. If we consider this truth and obvious reality with a broad view and an open mind, we have to acknowledge that the apologists are those who only heed and place their hopes in human thought and intellect. Those who have opened their minds to sources beyond human intellect will have no need to justify themselves or become perplexed.
The proposition that the sources of Islamic law are beyond human intellect has been discussed in detail. Therefore, by their very nature they cannot be tainted by privilege. Furthermore, since they should, in practice, be based on faith and since its principles are firm and enduring, class deviation has no lasting effect on them and cannot turn these laws away from their principles. Whatever deviations have occurred arc the result of adapting these principles to personal inclinations and whims. No deviations have influenced the principal injunctions and laws of Islam. This point becomes visible and clear when we disregard the imitative practices of pseudo-Muslims and concentrate as much as possible on the verses or Qur'an, the principal injunctions of Islam and the practices of the founders of Islam.
Such a study reveals that no case of privileges (for one group over another) can be found in Islam. It is hard to believe that in the environment of a comprehensive Islamic society, class privileges have or can become the center of gravity. Even if we disregard this significant truth of Islam and share the views of the contemporary collectivists in taking economics as the main sources of class distinctions, the conclusion does not change: in an Islamic economic environment, as discussed in detail earlier, there is no opportunity for the growth of privileged classes.
Military classes, which in all times and places have enjoyed privileges and class distinctions, have no place in any special sense in an Islamic government and society, because fighting in defence of one's country is incumbent upon all Muslims who are able to do so. Specialists in military affairs and leadership are very few and far between in Islamic societies. They are subject to laws and government but have no legal or financial privileges.
Religious classes have also enjoyed special privileges among all nations. Indeed, they were able to grant privileges either within or beyond the boundaries of laws to other classes (e.g., rulers, aristocrats, and the wealthy). They considered themselves the inheritors or the possessors of Divine authority and heavenly attributes and exempt from the possibility of blame or error, and communicated so to the common people.
Any objection to their behavior was considered heresy and apostasy. These people had such privileges in all religions and nations and were considered special class with rights that they could pass on to their descendants. However, the religious leaders (ruhaniyun) in Islam, particularly in Shi'a Islam are not a privileged class enjoying personal, financial, and legal advantages.
They have no claim to heavenly attribute and Divine authority. The basic attributes of ruhaniyun in Islam are only two things ‘Adalah [righteousness]1 and the authority of ijtihad [independent reasoning. Because of these two attributes the Islamic clergy consider themselves subject to Islamic injunctions and teachings in the same way as other Muslims or even more so. The same injunctions apply to everyone and no class is exempt from them.
Muslim masses should judge the Islamic religious leader ('alim al-lslami) according to these two attributes. If someone dresses oneself in religious garb but lacks these attributes and act outside of the limits imposed by righteousness and piety, he is considered by Muslims a usurper of the rights of the leaders of Islam and a plunderer of religion and the world. They consider his expulsion a necessity and a religious duty.
The three classes, the religious, military, and the wealthy, have more privileges and are more deeply rooted than other classes. Other classes stem from them and the rulers and the courtiers are either from among them or are supported by them. Because Islamic principles and laws abolish class distinctions and prohibit their emergence, government and administration by a special class has no place or root in Islamic communities. On the other hand, Islam has its own special injunctions and principles of government.
According to these principles and injunctions, individuals and dynasties who, contrary to these principles and injunctions, have ruled Muslims under the institution of caliphate or other forms have been regarded as aggressors, usurpers and unlawful. That is one of the reasons these governments were unstable and constantly changing.
Dynasties of the so-called Islamic caliphs and rulers who ruled for a while preserved their positions by pretending to be religious, appealing to tribal prejudice or taking on racial coloration. The Umayyads, for example, based their rule on Arab nationalism and religion, and the Abbasids considered themselves the just inheritors of the caliphate and relied on Iranian nationalism versus Arab nationalism. The Ottomans relied on Turkish clan sentiments and Islamic Caliphate.
The Safavids relied on Sufism, Shi' ism, and Iranian nationalism to hold off the Ottoman Empire. These people, who were the most durable rulers and caliphs after the emergence of Islam, seated hundreds of rulers on their thrones throughout all the Islamic countries during the thirteen centuries after the rule of the first caliphs (632-661 A.D.). But because they established their power on shaky ground they were toppled before they even consolidated their regimes. The lack of stability becomes quite clear when the rule of Islamic governments and caliphs and their successors are compared with those of non-Islamic ones in nearby and bordering countries such as India, China, Japan, Russia, and European and other Western countries.
Why is it that Sultanates and governments of this type never took root among Muslims while they lasted longer among non-Muslims? Because governments must either rely on public opinion or classes. In Islamic thinking and Muslim society there are no firm foundations of that nature. Even if a government fooled people for a while by assuming a religious guise its true face finally became visible. If they formed a class for their own protection, it had no social basis among Muslims.
Nationalistic and racial prejudices hold no sway and are even condemned in Islamic teachings. Privileged classes as well as governments derived from them had no root, foundation, and perpetuity in Islamic environment as they could have in other societies. The features of this reality can be seen clearly when class situations in Islamic territories are compared with those of other territories, and when the situation in Islamic territories after Islamic influence is compared to that before.
The class system was deep rooted and vigorous in Rome and Greece before the advent of Christianity that even the great philosophers and reformers who arose to rectify the social condition could not change those tyrannical and inhumane conditions. Most of the reformers were themselves influenced by those conditions and proposed their reformist views within the framework of the existing class structure. Class privileges were so dominant during the long history of these areas that the common people and the lower classes were either officially slaves or, even if in theory they are free, in practice they have no autonomy or freedom on their own in work, production, life, and death.
The uprising of His Holiness the Christ and his social class was directed against race-based privileges among the Jews and the privilege of ruling class and the aristocrats. After the spread of Christ's message by his apostles and the support of the oppressed and persecuted people the bases and sanctuaries for class privileges and their structured framework were either weakened or completely fell apart.
But because the roots of class privileges were not destroyed and Christianity did not transcend beyond preaching and the call to faith, and because it did not contain specific and codified judicial injunctions, class privileges - with the aid of the Church - reemerged later in a more oppressive and hideous manner. Consequently, societies were constituted of three distinct classes: the aristocracy, the clergy and the masses.
Within each class, there were subclasses subordinated to those above. The clergy, the aristocracy, and the rulers generally had mutual cooperation and robust association. They saw their power as suprahuman and saw themselves as having divine authority over the bodies, souls and possessions of the people. In the name of Christ, they called on the destitute and the poor to exercise patience in the face of oppression and poverty. They promised people rewards from God in exchange for their humility before the tyrants and the wealthy.
It was as if they considered Christianity a tool for gulling the people and amassing wealth and power for themselves and the rulers. In order to influence people and plunder their wealth, the clergy allied themselves with governments and the aristocracy. These groups supported each other: the governments resorting to bayonets and laws and the clergy using religious deception. These few who were faithful to the spirit of teachings of Christianity and considered it the source of virtue and justice did not dare to speak out. Those who did were exiled, imprisoned or put to death.
The European aristocracy consisted of the wealthy, landlords, princes and courtiers. Most of them were ignoble and inconsequential people who did nothing but plunder the fruits of labour of farmers and workers through intrigues; they ruled idiotically and enjoyed unrestricted pleasures. Backed by the state and laws, they treated people any way they desired. If there was an uprising or resistance against the exploiters, they became vicious and vengeful and butchered so many people that wild animals looked noble in comparison with these beasts disguised as humans.
The social situation in Eastern countries was no better than that in the West. The class system had been rooted for a thousand years in this region. Privilege and class arrangements based on customs, natural conditions, and inheritance were so diverse in India - the land of wonders - that the delineation of their levels, characteristics, and vanities needs an independent branch of sociology.
Some sociologists have distinguished more than two thousand different, distinct, horizontal and vertical classes among Indians, each with its own way of life, characteristics, ethics, architecture, dressing, and language or dialect. At the head of each vertical class, there were aristocrats, landowners, and princes who had special privileges. As one moved down the ladder, the privileges decreased. At the bottom of the ladder were the untouchables who were more restricted than slaves.
They had no right to have relations with those outside of their own class or to reside in the neighborhoods of other classes, or to use their roads. Whoever made contact with them or ate with them became untouchable! Despite the social development that has taken place in India, and all her contemporary liberationist regimes, there still exists class coloration in that country - particularly in the rural areas - to this day. Class situations in various similar forms constituted the social systems of China, Japan and other neighbouring countries, including pre-revolution Russia.
The Iranian society before Islam was composed of three classes: the clergy, the military, and the farmer. After the introduction of crafts, the artisan class was added. The rulers and courtiers were above the class system, and the clerks and scribes were attached to them. The privileges of each class are exclusive to those of the class and their offspring. A class was never downgraded or upgraded. The privileges pertained mostly to jobs and status rather than wealth or property.
Only the privileges of the village headman and the landowners were related to property and land. Therefore, lower classes such as merchants and artisans were frequently wealthier than the upper classes. The time would come when the kings or the military leaders and the aristocracy would borrow money from the merchants and tradesmen2, due to budget deficits.
In the Arabian Peninsula, before Islam, class conditions and the attendant privileges took a special form. There was no system of government - at the heart of the Arabian Peninsula - of the type that was common in that period. There was no basis for land ownership and expanded capitalism. There were nomadic Arabs who had a tribal system and followed their shaikh (tribal leader) all around the desert.
In cities with cultivated lands, such as Yathrib (later named Medina) and Ta'if, the rulers and privileged classes were mostly landowners. In reality, Arab spiritual leadership and the privileges of its elites belonged to the residents of Mecca; and the guardians of the Ka'aba of whom the highest ranking were the Quraysh, followed by their dependents and allies such as the tribes of Khaza’a, Kanana, Thaqif, Hasham and Bani ‘Amir.
Because of the special honors and privileges they had, they were all called Homs (meaning honored people with high and firm positions.) The first privilege was permanent hereditary guardianship of the Ka'aba. Later the guardianship of the Ka'aba was expanded to include custodianship of the key and the cover of the Ka'aba. The distribution of water and food became privileges as well and were divided among the branches of the Quraysh tribe.
Later the leadership of the military forces and the responsibility of handling the affairs of peace and war were granted to the Quraysh as well. During the time of Qusayy ibn Kilab3, Dar al-Nadwa was established. It was a place close to the Ka’aba where the leaders and wise men of the tribes gathered to discuss important matters. The directorship and membership of Dar al-Nadwa were also granted to the Quraysh and the Arab chiefs, which became the sources of other privileges and secondary advantages.
For instance, following the spread of idolatry, the idols of the Quraysh and those related to them had special titles, positions, status, figures, and forms, e.g. Ba'1, Habal, 'Uzza, Lah and Manat. These idols took the form of particular figures and were installed in and around the Ka'aba. Other Arabs had neither the right to build similar idols nor could they place their idols inside or around the Ka'aba. They had to prostrate before the Qurayshi idols and worship them. The Qurayshis, however, did not worship idols of others.
They considered themselves superior to their neighbors and companions. Other Arabs could not sit and ride in the company. During the pilgrimage season and the state of ritual purification within the holy precincts of the Ka’aba (i.e. ihram), the Qurayshis were the only group who had the right to enter their own homes using the entrance door following the ceremony. Other Arabs had to get inside their homes using either the back door or through an underground tunnel4.
The Quraysh separated themselves from other pilgrims and Arabs in 'Arafat and Mash'ar. They would not camp or travel with other Arabs and did not travel with the common people. The verse below is a command to the Arab aristocracy to join other pilgrims.
“Then hasten onward from the place whence the multitude hasteneth onward,... “ (2:199).
Despite all the privileges of the Quraysh and other Arab aristocrats, class condition and distinctions in Arabia were not like those in other lands. The privileges of upper-class Arabs that enabled them to rule over others and infringe upon people’s lives and plunder their wealth did not stem from governmental and legal prerogatives or military wealth and power. The privileges of the Quraysh stemmed from the guardianship of the house of God, its defense and hosting of pilgrims.
Other Arab aristocrats and chiefs had the same customs. Therefore, the privileges were relatively natural, acceptable and respectable from the viewpoint of the majority of Arabs. On the other hand, since the Arab relied on his sword and spear and took refuge in the desert with his tribe, the notion of accepting tyranny had no place in his mind. He never submitted himself to slavery and subjugation as long he lived. Consequently, the slaves of this area were either the homeless and the destitute, or people from other areas.
The Arabs did not know about science and civilizations of the neighboring areas. However, natural conditions, open lands, clear sky, and harsh living conditions provided them with certain advantages and privileges. Protected by the desert, Arabs were immune to outside aggression, violations and infiltration. The occasional aggression by neighbouring countries resulted in the aggressors' own defeat and withdrawal.
The mobilization of the invading forces by Abraha to destroy the city of Mecca and the Ka’aba and his unexpected and extraordinary defeat added to the respect for the Ka’aba and enhanced the prestige of the Arabs. Arabs had natural intelligence and keen sense. They also took lessons from nature. They expressed their innate understanding clearly and thoroughly. Under the protection of the desert, the Arabs had preserved their race, nationality, and heritage completely, clearly and proudly.
Not living under the pressure of any government or law, or classes, and relying on his own power and his tribe, he was not intimidated, overpowered, or dominated by any power. With privileges of this type the Arab saw himself superior to other nations, no matter how magnificent they were with their art, science and civilization. For the Arab in a desert where his vision was unrestricted in all directions, drinking the milk of camel and sheep, eating plants and the meat of animals, riding camels and carrying swords and spears were preferable over living in cities within closed walls and fortresses, and becoming subject to the laws and rules of the government.
As a result, the Arab saw himself as beloved and others as wretched, himself as free and others as slaves. By claiming to be Arab, who were known for their rhetoric, he was proud, and he called other nations, particularly the Iranians 'ajam’ which literally means ‘without tongue’ and mute. Possessing these just or unjust privileges, the Arab had so much pride and arrogance that he did not submit to any law or constraints and devoted himself to no science or art. Reformers and scholars - like laws and regulations - had no place at the heart of the peninsula either. If there emerged a reformer or scholar in some remote area, he did not dare to speak his mind.
The commander of the faithful, Imam 'Ali, peace be upon him, in his sermon when he returned from the battle of Siffeen5 presents such a clear picture of the jahiliyah (the Age of Ignorance) that the reader can imagine himself among those people! At the end of his speech, after elabourating the principles of the pagan society that existed before the Islamic society - which also apply to today's society - he describes it as “a country where the learned have to keep their mouths tight shut and where the uneducated and ignorant rule”6.
This phrase is a short and comprehensive description of the condition of the pre-Islamic pagans. It was a society where the learned is a muljam (bridled and muzzled) and the ignorant is a mukarram (honorable and dear)! In the sermon and words of the commander of the faithful, the situation of the Arabs is made evident in various ways. They are mostly descriptions and explanations of the arrogance, conceit, and ignorance of the pre-Islamic Arabs! With his extreme prejudice that he used to preserve his hereditary privileges and that unruliness and arrogance that was in his blood, the Arab could not submit to any social, ethical, legal, and ideological system.
Islam emerged to proclaim the message of tawhid (the unity of God] among the Arabs with all of their waywardness, prejudice, conceit, and disorder. It came to convert the rebellious people and those who called the people into servitude and idolatry to submit to God and His laws. It came to help the disinherited and the slaves to rise up. It came to destroy class distinctions and legal privileges. It came to make everyone to return to his human essence, which is that of God.
It came to make the religious laws of the Creator the dominant laws among the people and to eliminate the grounds for the growth of classes and privileges. In such an environment and society, the Qur'an declared:
The assertion of divine unity, “There is no god but God,” is the slogan and banner of Islam - which purifies souls of idolatry and the desire for privileges - joins human wisdom to the Absolute Power, Wisdom, and justice, and drives idols and idol-makers in their various forms out of the Islamic society. Islamic injunctions are expounded for the same purpose and the declaration of wars "in the path of God " is to achieve this very aim.
Islamic gatherings – from the congregational prayers and Friday prayers to the hajj - exemplify the superiority of piety, the sovereignty of God and His laws, equality before religious laws, elimination of existing privileges, and the rejection of class oppression and its psychological and spiritual outcomes.
On the day of the conquest of Mecca at which Islam gained total victory over polytheism, the messenger of God, after annulling honors and privileges in the House of God (Ka’aba), concluded his first sermon with the following words:
“Oh mankind! Beware that you are the descendant of Adam who was created from clay. Beware that 'the noblest of you in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct8.'
To the Arabs lineage and dependence on family do not bring piety. Lineage will not bring noble stature to the one whose actions prevent him from elevating himself9. The Prophet reiterated these same principles in the final year of his prophethood during last pilgrimage. After every sentence he encouraged the people to spread his word. Among other things, he said:
“ The honors and privileges of the Age of Ignorance have been eliminated, with the exception of one right, to distribute water during the pilgrimage and the custodianship of the Ka'aba.”
He also added: “The Arabs have no superiority over non-Arabs except with regard to piety.”10
After the victory at Mecca and the declaration of a general amnesty, the first command of His Holiness was to order Bilal, the black Abyssinian, to climb onto the roof of the Ka'aba and give the call to prayer. Bilal, being a slave - black, Abyssinian, and non-Arab - was considered the most worthless and unacceptable of all people in the eyes of the Arabs and the Qurayshis! In the view of the messenger of God, however, since Bilal had perceived the truth sooner than a great many other Muslims and possessed faith and a record of participation in the holy wars, he was superior. The Prophet elevated Bilal to the highest stature, ‘the roof of Mecca,” and delegated the task of proclaiming the most precious call for congregation (the azan) to him!
The swords of Muslim crusaders shone over the heads of the Quraysh and the earth trembled beneath their feet. The dust of defeat had settled on their astonished face when suddenly the sound of Bilal calling “God is great,” arose from the roof of the Ka'aba. The amazed Qurayshis who had lost their privileges and idols now saw the Abyssinian Bilal on the roof of the Ka'aba and heard the call to prayer over their heads! Their breath was so taken away and there was so much anger and sorrow accumulated and trapped in their hearts that they did not dare to say a word.
A few of the sad and defeated Qurayshi nobles and their allies gathered in a corner, put their heads together and consoled one another in whispers. They spoke softly in short sentences, which showed their pain and discomfort. 'Atab ibn Asid said: “Thank God for taking my father away so he could not see such a day!" Harth ibn Hisham said: “Could not Muhammad find any muazzin other than this crow?” Suhail ibn ‘Amr said: “God will alter whatever He wishes.” Abu Sufyan said: “I say nothing because I am afraid that the Creator of the heavens may inform him (Muhammad) .”11
After the victory at Mecca, the establishment of Islam, the defeat of polytheism and idolatry in the Arabian Peninsula, and the defeat of the privilege-seeking classes, all privileges of the Age of Ignorance were eliminated. One privilege remained, which is piety. The verse below pointed to piety as the source of faith, spiritual will and worthiness i.e. adherence to the truth, commitment to Islam and participation in the crusades, and life and property expended for their advancement.
Consequently, the Muhajirin had superiority over the Ansar and the Ansar over others12.
Important positions and military leadership were given to those who had more piety and worthiness. For example, Usama ibn Zayd, who was young and the son of a freed slave, gave orders to the leaders of the Ansar, Muhajirin and Quraysh and to older men.
In that Islamic community, the central gathering place was the mosque. The concluding and contracting of affairs, consultation, mobilization of forces, designating leaders, deciding on strategies, legal and military training, and teaching of injunctions all took place in the mosque. They would sit on the floor in a circle; there was no lower or higher seat. Newcomers or representatives of other tribes and nations could not distinguish the messenger of God from the others since he had no special clothing or seat!
Wealth was distributed equally. All houses looked alike. The Muhajirin and the Ansar concluded a pact of brotherhood. Each Muslim was responsible for implementing the injunctions and regulations. Based on the injunction ‘enjoining the good and prohibiting the evil’, which is one of the most important duties incumbent upon a Muslim. All Muslims were responsible for one another's actions.
The general responsibility for actions and implementation of injunctions, which is the acceptance of “enjoining the good and prohibiting the evil”, makes it incumbent upon Muslims to know and distinguish good from evil and impermissible acts. Each Muslim has the right, indeed the duty, to intervene in public affairs and to discern whatever is in the best interest of the people and to speak out and express an opinion and to prevent deviation and sin, even if the sinner and deviant is a ruler or the caliph. This public participation and responsibility is the secret of the superiority of the Islamic society and community:
Those Muslims who had received faith in their hearts and cleansed their souls and mind of all forms of paganism constantly strove to eliminate prejudice and privileges from the minds of other Muslims. They worried about a return to pride and prejudice.
In that Islamic community, following the conquest of Mecca, the newly converted Muslims who were still contaminated with polytheism and pre-Islamic influences, were deprived of the right to hold public offices. This was done to block the growth of pagan polytheism and privileges under the guise of Islam. The exalted Prophet constantly worried about the possibility that the Quraysh and the Umayyads might take Muslims back to the days of paganism in the name of Islam and recover their lost privileges, or that the Arabs might seek privileges and status when they went to other lands in the name of helping the prophethood and spreading the power of Islam.
As a result, periodically during his life, while expounding the principles of prophethood at large assemblies - such as the conquest of Mecca, the final pilgrimage, the gathering at Kheyf Mosque - and before his death - His Holiness discussed equality before the law, Islamic solidarity, elimination of racial and tribal privileges, superiority based on piety, and understanding of Islamic teachings and implementing them in various ways. Here are some examples of his sayings:
“Arabs have no superiority over non-Arabs except in piety”
“You are the descendant of Adam and Adam was created from clay...”
“The believers are brothers. They are equal and even the lowest of the low must try to implement his duties”
Before his death the Prophet willed:
“For the fear of God! For the fear of God! Do not seek to violate God's commands concerning His domain and His servants.”
He then recited the following verse;
Following the death of the exalted Prophet, peace be upon him, and the crisis of succession the rejected leaders of the Quraysh and other Arabs tried to use the crisis to reinstate class-based power and privileges from the Age of Ignorance. The commander of the faithful, ‘Ali, peace be upon him, who was the supreme example of Islamic training and uncontaminated by polytheism and fear of paganism - although he was living in seclusion - kept a vigil at all times so that pagan privileges would not reemerge.14
Abu Sufyan, the chief of the Umayyad, whose heart was contaminated with polytheism and paganism but who was outwardly a Muslim, imagined that he saw an opportunity to take the Muslims back in time and reinstate the last ascendency of the Quraysh. To that end he came with Abbas, who was himself one of the prominent chiefs of the Bani Hashim tribe, into the presence of the commander of the faithful (peace be upon him) and extended their hands to swear their allegiance to him.
Abu Sufyan said: “O! Why are you sitting down doing nothing? If you wish, I will mobilize infantry and cavalry forces," Angered by this suggestion, His Holiness stood up and said: "O people! When you see revolt and anarchy raging like storms try to find a way out to escape their injurious effects. Avoid the ways of hatred and malice, and do not let a superiority complex drive you toward class war."15 These words disappointed Abu Sufyan and put him in his place.
For a while at the beginning of the rule of the first caliph, there existed no financial, legal, or class privileges. Positions were given to men of piety, faith, and insight. Public wealth was distributed equally. Penal injunctions against criminals were enforced equally regardless of family background.16 But during the time of the second caliph ('Umar. 634·648 A.D.) Arab privileges and habits reappeared under the caliph and his supporters. They became increasingly contemptuous of the new non-Arab Muslims and reduced their social and property rights. It was not long before the second caliph granted the Muhajirin - who were mostly Meccans and Qurayshis - more financial privileges than the others. He appointed Yazid ibn Abu Sufyan and after the latter's death, Mu'awiya ibn Sufyan to the governorship of Trans-Jordan.
Although these people were unacceptable to Islam and the Muslims, these ominous appointments helped the power-seeking and ignorant Umayyads to consolidate their position in Trans-Jordan, far away from the center of Islam. They distorted the true essence of Islam. During the caliphate of 'Uthman (648 - 656 A.D.) the Umayyads and their allies, the Qurayshis (with the exception of Bani Hashim), and other friends, through deception, conspiracy, and the sword, dominated the life and wealth of Muslims throughout the Islamic territories. With the help of Marwan ibn Hakam in Hijaz and Mu'awiya in Trans-Jordan, 'Uthman monopolized wealth and positions on behalf of the rejected and reactionary Umayyads.
The government of the commander of the faithful, Imam ‘Ali peace be upon him, emerged from the bloody revolution of the people of Medina, Kufa, and Egypt. In solidarity with the deprived and suffering people, who were firm believers in the principles of Islam, the Imam's government was successful in eliminating the reactionary character of the pagan system and in establishing Islamic social justice. It was only for accepting this heavy responsibility that His Holiness accepted the rulership. This is what he said in his sermon known as Shiqshaqa after delineating the deviations and various aspects of the previous governments.
I swear by the Creator of this universe that had they not sworn unconditional allegiance to me: had they not shown unbounded thankfulness in my accepting their rulership; had not the presence of helpers and supporters made it incumbent upon me to defend the faith; had God Almighty not taken a promise from the learned doctors of theology to put a check upon the luxurious and vicious lives of oppressors and tyrants as well as to try to reduce the pangs of poverty and starvation of the oppressed and the downtrodden; and had He not made it incumbent upon them to win back the usurped rights of the weak from the mighty and powerful, l would even now have left the rulership of this state and would have allowed it to sink into anarchy and chaos as l did during the early days . . .17
And in a sermon at the beginning of his caliphate he preferred the program of his revolutionary regime with this sentence: “I hold myself responsible for what I say…” Then after a few sentences, he continued:
“Beware that you arc being spiritually tried at this hour and you will find hardships, perils, and calamities reappearing in the same forms as befell you at the time when God first ordered our Holy prophet (may peace of God be upon him and his descendants) to deliver His Message and to propagate Islam.
I swear by Him who appointed Muhammad (may the peace of God be upon him and his descendants) as His Messenger and as an apostle worthy of His trust that the existing order and form of your society will be subjected to satanic destruction: its major parts will be violently disturbed and its various sections will be mixed up, till the lowest and the meanest amongst you will find themselves in lofty places and the exalted, those who from the time of the rise of Islam were very ahead in service of the religion, will find themselves humiliated and persecuted, and those hypocrites who then had been lagging behind and were waiting for favorable opportunities will be raised to honoured ranks.”18
These are excerpts of the sermon his Holiness delivered at the beginning of his caliphate, which are all proclamations of revolution and the changing of the previous situation.
In the first days of his rule, on the basis of revolutionary Islamic principles and to destroy the anti-Islamic system forever, he: removed the governors and officials of the previous regime from their positions. He confiscated their wealth and turned it over to the public treasury. In answering those who were worried about the consequences of his practices he said:
“By God, if I had found that public money had been squandered even in celebrating marriages and in purchasing slave girls, I would have taken them back and would have handed them over to the state, because functions and responsibilities of justice and equity reach far and wide. One who does not boldly act according to the dictates of justice and fair play will feel very nervous in facing tyranny and oppression.”19
When a privilege-seeker objected, asking why he would distribute public wealth to Arabs and non-Arabs equally, he answered:
Do you want me to seek your help by oppressing and tyrannizing the people over whom I am appointed (by God) to rule? By God, this will not happen so long as I continue to live in this world and so long as the stars move under mutual gravitation. I can never abuse the power vested in me nor can I be cruel towards human beings. Had it all been my personal property I would have distributed it equally amongst the needy and the poor. But it (the national wealth) is the property of God (entrusted to human care).20
When it was reported to Imam ‘Ali that one of the governors of Iran had distributed the public wealth (fay') among Muslims and fighters unequally and had preferred his relatives and the Arabs to the Iranians, he sent the governor a threatening and reproachful letter. He ended his letter with the following:
“Remember that all the Muslims who are there or here have equal share in this wealth. Believing and acting on this principle they come to me for their share and receiving it from me they return to their places21.”22
In another letter full of reproach and threats to one of the governors who had embezzled the public wealth, he wrote:
“I swear by God that even if it was Hasan and Husain who had behaved the way you had, I would not have shown indulgence to them; they could not have received any favor or consideration from me. I would have taken this money back from them, and would have undone the harm done by them.”23
He wrote to the governor of Hulwan (a province of Fars):
“After praise of God and homage to the Holy Prophet (A.S.) let it be known to you that if a ruler develops different inclinations and shows favoritism over whom he rules then his treatment will not be on the basis of equity and impartiality. And this will not allow him to be just and fair to all. But so far as equity and justice are concerned, your treatment of all should be fair and unprejudiced.”24
His Holiness never took for himself from the public treasury more than the share of an ordinary person. And quite often he would open the public treasury and distribute all its contents among the needy. Then he would sweep its floor and return home empty handed! He would not accept any more formality and respect than that extended to an ordinary Muslim. When going to Siffeen with ninety thousand heroic Iraqi soldiers, he encountered village headmen and land owners who dismounted before him in a city (Anbar] on the border of Iran and stood with their hands on their chests. He asked: "What are you doing?" They answered: “This is our custom for showing respect to rulers.” He said:
“By God! By this action you do no good whatsoever to your rulers; you tire yourselves in this world and bring troubles upon yourselves in the next.”25
The revolutionary practices and justice of His Holiness forced the plunderers and privilege-seekers of the previous regimes to unite under the Umayyad leadership. First Talha and Zubayr - who did not gain what they were after – travelled to Mecca by night and gained the support of the mother of the faithful, Ayesha. They deceived some people from Hijaz and Basra and started the battle of Jamal only to get themselves and thousands of others killed.
Then Mu'awiya raised the banner of opposition and obstinacy, assembled all the deposed governors and plunderers and privilege-seekers from all over under his flag, and launched the terrifying war of Siffeen. Later a group of outwardly faithful but empty-headed people formed the Kharejite party, persuaded by these plunderers. This party stirred up another storm inside the country at the center of His Holiness' caliphate.
A midst these storms this godly captain kept his eyes on the distant shore and his hand on the rudder in order to guide the ship of justice and truth, which bore the banner of Islamic unity, through the storms to save it from destruction. Although the captain was sacrificed and the ship did not reach the shore or drop the anchor, it neither not sank nor stopped.
After his death, his exalted children and followers, who knew his goals, his way, and his methods, saved the ship and moved it forward. Eastern or Western men who rose to save God's people from tyranny, aggression and oppression by privilege-seeking classes, and to establish justice and equality, knowingly or unknowingly, had the same goal, path and method.
The distinct greatness of the storm-weathering hero of Islam (‘Ali) lies in that, thirteen and a half centuries ago in an unfavorable climate of public opinion and in an atmosphere of violent opposition, he could launch the vessel of justice and salvation, which Islam had built. He cleared the path for Islamic accomplishment and leadership and displayed such a model of a just and equal society ruled by truth that, though it was limited, its attainment had not even been imagined by the great philosophers and reformers. To this date, after centuries of human progress growing population, such proven model has not materialized in any country.
On The Declaration Of Human Rights
The pioneer of human rights (Imam ‘Ali) established justice and human rights when the whole world was dominated by the darkness and tyranny of classes and oppressive despots. With the exception of beacons of a few Greek and Roman sages, the West descended in to darkness during the middle Ages. In the latter part of the Middle Ages intellectual and reformist sparks from the minds of benevolent thinkers from every corner of the Western society enlightened minds that ultimately led to revolution.
As the result of a bloody revolution, the old system and the social fabric of the previous regime in France were destroyed. The Bastille fell and the people were victorious. The privileged class and the aristocracy lost their privileges. After that, the National Assembly was established, and on August 27, 1789, the general rights of the people were issued in the form of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens. Those who issued this declaration were the heirs of ideas of reformers and philosophers of earlier centuries, people such as Montesquieu (1689 -1755), Voltaire (1694-1778), and Rousseau (1712 - l778).
Their principles, which later were incorporated into the Declaration, had been growing and were cultivated in the minds of reformist men of truth during centuries of hardship and suffering. They had been elaborated in various ways in books and in poetry and passed on to future generations until they manifested themselves as seventeen principles of human rights.
Its basic message is the recognition of the freedom of all people within the boundaries of social wellbeing and equality. Corollaries to this principle are the following three. First, all people are born free and hence, have equal rights. Second, everyone possesses freedom of thought and expression. Third, the people have the right and freedom to administer the affairs of the society. These principles became the source of the seventeen articles, which later constituted the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which granted individual freedom limited by the interest of others and the community.
This Declaration, which was published in the West after the (French) Revolution, became the source of changes and a new way of life in the world. Parliamentary and consultative governments were formed on the basis of this Declaration. Various charters and laws for securing human rights were compiled and enacted. All these developments, however, cannot be credited to the Declaration alone. The Declaration was only a document that served as a justification for nations, which were already in the midst of change and were undergoing social and intellectual revolution by virtue of human progress. If a nation is not morally and intellectually developed and does not have a sense of social responsibility for the rights of individuals and groups, what power does this Declaration or others like it have?
Soon after the (French) Revolution and the publication of this Declaration, class privilege re-emerged. In France and in most of Europe, absolute power became concentrated in the hands of Napoleon. Another problem with understanding the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen that comes to mind is the Article VI, according to which “law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to take part in person or by their representative in its formation."26
The following questions come to mind concerning this principle: Does the article mean the general will of one nation or that of all nations? If it means the true will of all nations, how can they, with their diverse intellectual and moral beliefs and customs have a common perception of realities and the laws? And if the term “public will” refers to the legislative will of one nation (such as France), this declaration cannot be regarded as a universal declaration. Even supposing that a nation has a will, the unification of this will in terms of details and overall structure of laws, and the perception of that will is very difficult, if not impossible.
In short, would the laws conform to the actual interest or would they be based on the will of the public? If we consider law as something comparable to a physician's prescription of food and medicine to preserve public health or to cure social and spiritual ill, can it be said that the physician must base his prescription on the desires rather than the needs of the patient?
Albert Mallet states: "The aforementioned scholars and scientists (of whom the founders of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens were followers) believed that man must constantly conform his actions to the laws and rules of the intellect, which arc independent of time and space, and he should comply with whatever is endorsed by wisdom.”27 Does not this proposition contradict Article VI, which states that law is the expression of the general will of all citizens?
The second pact of Article VI states: “All citizens being equal in its eyes are equally admissible to all public dignities, offices and employments, according to their capacity, and with no other distinction than that of their virtues and talents”28 This part resembles the Qur’anic verse below:
And it is the basis for the nullification of privileges. At the same time, it is apparent that the law must be above class-based thinking and individual or class desires.29 Furthermore, since the general will is unlimited freedom, can it be the basis for laws designed to limit freedom?
A more significant difficulty lies with trying to justify Article XVII. This article states: “Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one may be deprived of it except for an obvious requirement of public necessity, certified by law and then on the condition of a just compensation in advance.”30 In this article the right of ownership is considered honorable and sacred but its limits are not defined.
In cases of public necessity - the limit and characteristics that are also vague - this right can be taken from someone if reparations are made. Although this Declaration was intended to destroy privileges and to establish equal rights and freedom, the unlimited right to ownership that the laws codified becomes the most effective, if not the only basis for class privilege. Consequently, this unlimited opportunity was open to the capitalist class. As this class formed and gained power, it dominated the government.
A good example of this is the entire Western world and industrialized countries where, despite revolution and declaration of human tights, capitalists have replaced the landlords. They have taken over the laws and the centers of power and become sovereign.31 Later, colonialism darkened the world horizons and deprived people in every corner of the world of their rights to freedom in all its forms.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948 is also an expanded and more elaborate version of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens. This new declaration, proclaimed with thousands of loud, ear-splitting words of propaganda and praise, recognized human rights only on paper. What is even funnier is that the signatories and authors of this document were the representatives of countries that were blatant depriving people of their rights.
Their armies and patrols, under the banner of freedom, silenced one for justice and freedom with fire and bombs wherever they arose. This was the practical result of the Universal Declaration and the Charter of the United Nations, the outcome of centuries of struggle, millions of lives lost and flirtation with the ideas of intellectuals.
The scientific and practical principles of the socialists and communists have neither eliminated privileges and classes, nor have they established justice and general freedom. What is happening is that they have demolished or are demolishing private ownership and nationalizing natural resources and the wealth of petty and major capitalists. But to the same extent that they have eliminated these things, they have also aided the growth of bureaucratic and military classes and governmental capitalism whose privileges and authority far exceed those of the capitalist bourgeoisie.
With nations coming closer together and with contact at every level between the deprived and the exploited or the world and the emergence of new class, the struggle has moved beyond the polarization between the proletariat and the private sector capitalists.32 In fact, the proletariat, in comparison to other classes that struggle against colonialism and subjugation, are a minority.
If we consider the proletariat as the source of evolution and change, its ultimate achievement will be the elimination of classes. But can it perform the miracle of preventing the emergence of a new class of which it will itself be a part? The answer, in practice, is negative because the elimination of classes is possible only under the umbrella of general human laws. Laws of this type are not the consequence of class struggle; rather they must rank above class environment or any other type of environment.
The Motivation For Human Struggle
Observation of innate human characteristics and instincts, and investigation of struggles and crusades will show that the roots of human unrest and struggle, throughout history, have not been just hunger and material poverty. One can assert that the most motivated people for struggle have been individuals and classes who have no intellectual and spiritual ability of any kind, but who enjoy every kind of material and legal right denied to others. A human being may accept hunger and deprivation, ignore material enjoyment, and sacrifice his life in order not to submit to humiliation and contempt. Class privileges enjoyed by a united minority are an insult to the majority of God’s people.
It is intolerable to people for whom humiliation has not become their second nature. Therefore, merely changing the class system, providing people with sustenance or making production and distribution equitable, will not secure public approval. The ultimate goal of social struggle is to nullify all privileges and to establish equal rights. A deviation from this goal or limiting it to class struggle either postpones or renders impossible the basic aim: class struggle does not destroy classes.
If a people are silent as a result of their victory over classes, over their weakness, international colonialism, or domestic upheaval, it should not be taken as a sign of contentment or acceptance of the privileges and newly emerging classes imposed. When international colonialism subsides, the global environment is reset, and the people awaken. Their struggle to eliminate classes and privileges will inevitably continue.
Only just laws - that apply to all and are not class-based - carry the power of enforcement, enjoy the confidence of the public, promote individual growth, and are capable of establishing a just and equitable environment – bringing contentment and happiness to everyone. Only such laws will move the society forward towards perfection and freedom. Declarations made with much fanfare and codification of empty laws - that create classes and lead to revolution - do not establish equality and liberty in their true and human sense, as understood by insightful minds.
To think and to see correctly one must consider social phenomena and developments from a sensory point of view, because social factors and circumstances are undoubtedly manifestations and reflections of innate characteristics and the senses. No doubt the senses and the spirit are influenced by the external environment. If we recognize social and economic conditions in this way, we will be able to identify real conditions better and find ways to cure them. But if we view the environment and everything else entirely as the result of environmental conditions and the economy, then have both strayed from realities and permanently deprived us of the possibility of finding solutions to our deviations and ills.
Class conditions - like other situations - are the result of human power and desires. They are affected to a certain extent by external factors. Self-interest and the struggle for dominance are the main causes of the emergence of priv1lcgctl classes. If environmental factors and prevailing principles prepare the way for the emergence of this human habit and rebellion against laws and restrictions, gradually rebellion against and infringement upon other people's rights become a deeply rooted and firmly established habit of this class. Moreover, alienation and subjugation among the oppressed classes become so established over time that the true spirit of freedom and human independence desert them to such an extent that these classes regard their own subjugation and submissiveness and the power and authority of the ruling class as natural truths.
As their sense of natural and inherent rights diminishes, and their impotence and non-resistance against the ruling and privileged classes grow, the natural rights of such people are taken away from them one by one until they all fall into slavery and are bartered and traded like commodities and livestock. In fact, as slaves their rights are less than those of commodities since they are denied the right to give birth, reproduce, eat and sleep. They are tortured and killed without reason, for vengeance. Even animals are not treated like them.
In view of this obvious fact that needs no reason and proof, we again conclude that the declaration of human rights, codification of laws, and outward changes in the society do not secure justice, equality, and freedom which are the natural and inherent desire of human beings. Laws, governing principles, and proper and enlightened education and training are necessary. This is the method employed by Islam. At its dawn, Islam broke all class ties, eliminated servitude of men by men, and destroyed or weakened the roots of slavery.
For those who lack a profound view of current affairs, and especially those whose ears and eyes have been filled and stupefied by western propaganda, these claims are difficult to believe or repeat. These ‘weststruck’ (gharbzadeh) and shallow people read Western books and publications and imitators of the West that the origins of the emancipation of slaves can be found in the French Revolution, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, etc. Moreover, in view of the common practice of slavery among Muslims since the dawn of Islam, and discussions relation to 'abd (slave) and ummah (community) in books on Islamic jurisprudence, these people definitely conclude that Islam recognizes slavery while other reject it.
If these gentlemen examine the roots and origins of slavery or class conflict, they will understand that slavery or class conf1ict are not things that can be destroyed by proclamations and declarations or imposition of laws for all places, conditions, and circumstances. As we said earlier, the main cause of these changes is a continuum that has its roots in the thoughts and minds of the different classes. Even if we regard it as being grounded in historical or economic factors again, we conclude that the existing conditions and factors must change. Bearing this in mind, we now return to the declarations and proclamations.
There is no mention of the abrogation or slavery in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens adopted after the French Revolution33. Yes, slavery was formally abrogated in some industrialized countries by special laws after the Industrial Revolution. The real reason cannot be the awakening of compassion and sense of service to human kind, because the Industrial Revolution destroyed land ownership and replaced it with capitalism. This economic system needs workers and technicians more than anything else. Following these developments, it became more expensive and riskier for landlords to maintain slaves and workers.
The profit from working in a factory was considerably more than that which accrued from working as slave, and was with fewer difficulties. More important than this was the opening of ways to exploit and to colonize other nations, by which the human and natural resources of the native people could be exploited by sending a few political and military groups and bribing a few natives34. With this kind of mass slavery - when they could subdue other nations and take over their wealth, existence, and resources - what use had they for the traditional slavery? 35
This is the main reason for freeing the slaves after the Industrial Revolution and before the uprising of the slaves and their potential for harassing the landlords made it difficult and costly to maintain the slaves. Isn’t this kind of liberation a burden to humanity, and can it be seen as a defence of freedom? If this is pro-liberationism and humanitarianism, what does one call the massacre of men, women, and children and ruining of cities and villages in Africa and Asia by these “magnanimous and philanthropic” individuals? What were the crimes of those people? Had they committed any crime other than wanting to live in their own countries and homes freely and independently?
The Emancipation Proclamation by Lincoln in 1863 was initially resisted by slave owners, slave traders, and defenders of racial privileges, and led to bloody war. Lincoln ultimately gave his life. With all due respect to him and to his philanthropic act, what was the result? Slave trading was prohibited in the United States, and many of the slaves whose minds were not ready for freedom and could not support themselves, asked to return to slavery after being freed. Despite all these difficulties, the buying and selling of human beings was abolished (in the United States).
Since slavery meant that human beings became subject to being bought and sold, dealing in human beings was prohibited. But if slavery was condemned because it trampled human rights, one should note that the trading of human beings is only one of the trampled rights. Are the rights to life, property, choice of a profession and a mate, housing, education, a defence attorney, elected representatives, and the chance to serve in government offices any less important than a human being’s possession of his physical body?
If a human being were asked to choose between owning his own body together with all these rights and owning his body without these rights, which one would he choose? It is now almost a century since the Emancipation Proclamation was made in the United States, and yet blacks have no rights in the advanced and civilized land of America. Their only sin is that the color of their skins is black.36 A slave or servant lives in his master's house without responsibility; and he can marry and his life is secured. He is freer than someone who is free in theory, but since his color is black he can be torn to pieces with knives and pokers before the eyes of the police and in the land of ‘the rule of law’ if he should so much as walk down a street in a white neighborhood. The ‘weststruck’ people probably consider this a necessity of civilization and of freedom!
Following in Lincoln's footsteps, the late President Kennedy also wanted to introduce a bill in Congress that would guarantee the lives and rights of blacks. He also lost his life for that. But would the enactment of this law guarantee its enforcement? No one should doubt the good intentions of these liberators. With all the authority and popular support that these leaders had, did they think, plan and act with complete freedom without being influenced by special interest groups, capitalists, and cartels?
Considering that simultaneously with freeing of the slaves, the United States unilaterally, so to speak, came out of its isolation and took up international and world-wide slave-taking, one wonders whether the United States did not follow the same policy as that of the “freedom-loving” European countries after the 18th century, following the Industrial Revolution. Did not Europe abandon and abolish international and domestic slavery at that time because she no longer needed it and because there was no advantage in keeping them?
Their domestic forces had to be strong and cohesive in order to go abroad to colonize and enslave those nations. Is not the United States following - in a more ugly manner - the same path and procedure in this century despite her claims to freedom? Does she not buy ignoble people to hold dominion over the lives and the wealth of others? Does she not attack other nations with her power and weaponry? Have the nations of Africa and Asia committed any crime other than to say they must be free in their home, and choose their own life and fate? As answer to this human desire, must blood, fire, massacres, and torture be inflicted upon them? What sort of justifications do colonialists have for these acts that reason would accept?
The United States and her Western allies are the heirs and successors to Kennedy and Lincoln and the authors of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen! How appropriate it would be if the infatuated, ‘weststruck’ people would see all these scenes of crime, suppression of rights, and denial of the simplest freedoms plainly recorded on the pages of history and readily visible today. How appropriate it would be if they read and listened to the way in which blacks are dealt with in the United States and Africa, in the newspaper or on the radio.
If they could see how blacks are trampled and dismembered, their bones broken for entering a hotel, a school, or white neighborhood and see signs on hotel entrances that say “dogs and blacks prohibited.” They should also go back and look at the Arabian Peninsula of fourteen hundred years ago when Islam, in its first years, elevated the Abyssinian slave Bilal to the highest and most respected social position of the time, that of the mu’azzin, this position was, in fact, the position of the commander of the Islamic prayer ranks and congregation.
The Prophet, peace by upon him, appointed Zayd and later his young son Usamah, who were both slaves and the sons of slaves, as the commanders of the armies in which the Arab chiefs, Muhajirin and Ansar, served as soldiers. He said: “Even if an Abyssinian slave became your commander and leader, as long as he implements the Divine laws you must obey him!” When the second caliph 'Umar, on his death bed, was giving his views on the caliphate and was naming those worthy or the position for his consideration, one by one, he said. "If Salim, the slave of Abi Huzaifah, were alive, I would choose him as the new caliph.” Nobody objected to such a comment.37 Most of the lieutenants and associates of the commander of the faithful Imam ‘Ali, peace be upon him, were slaves and mawali (freed slaves) such as Maytham Tammar.
I have mentioned earlier several brief examples of the position of slaves in the luminous history of Islam in order to compare Islamic slavery with the emancipation of slaves during the century of human progress! Now let us go back to the solution and the final view of Islam concerning slavery. Has Islam abrogated slavery, or strengthened it, or left it untouched?
Just as this topic is unclear in the mind of those who are not familiar with Islam and its principles, it is also unclear for most Muslims themselves, because it has not been discussed much in the past, and it has been some time since it was a topic of habitual discussion. Whatever is discussed in judicial books on this topic relates to side issues and not the basic or general principles.
Even our presentation of the topic here relates to that aspect of slavery, which pertains to ownership and its repercussions. Therefore, we enumerate on generalities and principles so that it might become the basis for a separate, detailed study. To clarify Islamic views on slavery (or owning human beings) several issues must be noted:
1. Whatever the source of slavery, it is certain that slavery (ownership of human beings) has deep historical roots. No historian or researcher has been able to determine even the approximate time and place of its origins. Narrowing it down to a particular social and economic period is nothing but guesswork at best, and it boils down to ignorance about the actual origins.
2. For centuries before the birth of Islam and for centuries thereafter, slavery was not condemned and detested in any nation of the world. It was regarded as natural and customary. Even the great thinkers and reformers did not oppose it until in the past few centuries. What they recommended and set forth as law dealt with the treatment and rights of slaves. Plato thought of slavery as a social necessity and Aristotle saw it as a natural phenomenon. In ancient Rome, the center for free thinking, progressive laws and equal rights, slavery was considered normal and a good thing and had firmly planted roots. As far as recorded history indicates, there was no distinctive view on effective law for freeing slaves in any place in the successive centuries.
3. The source of slavery, whether it is man's habit of seeking superiority or economic considerations to increase production and wealth, does not automatically make the people in one group as masters and owners, and those in another the possessed and the slaves. Once these motivations ally themselves with intellectual, physical, and social powers, they can deprive a people of their freedom and property. Conversely, those who become slaves must be weaker and must not have the power to resist and defend themselves. At the beginning of their enslavement, those who feel abject and deprived of freedom are unhappy. But gradually these feelings and emotions fall silent in them and slavery becomes a normal state. The leadership and dominion of their masters and their own submissiveness and slavery become so normal for the affected servants, orderlies and slaves who are outwardly free that it reaches a point where they consider the children of their masters inherently superior to their own children.
Sometimes the habit of feeling despicable and abject reaches a point where the servants see themselves as a different breed from their masters. With this change in feeling and emotion, as, suggested earlier, the slave population considered slavery normal and natural for itself and was content. If we observe the uprising of slaves throughout history in some lands, the primary reasons and motive for them were the tortures and massacres and not merely the principles of slavery. In one or two slave uprisings, after their defeat their bonds of slavery became tighter.38
4. Since the slaves did not own themselves and their labours, they knew nothing but obedience. Learning any art or craft was forbidden to them. Their children also belonged to others. They had no skill. If they were freed, they either died or returned to slavery.
5. Slaves were not like other commodities that had to be obtained in special areas, either to be used locally or be transported to satisfy needs in some other place. Slaves were obtained everywhere through war or other means. They were used everywhere by the aristocracy, the landlords, and other privileged classes. Generally, slaves acquired in one land had to be sold elsewhere, and slave trade, subsequently, became an international business. There were traders, dealers, and companies everywhere with equipment such as ships and caravans, and specialists. Slave hunters cooperated and made deals with one another. They gathered or travelled back and forth among tribes and close to battlegrounds in order to buy prisoners of war, whose upkeep was a problem for the combatants - at bargain prices - and ship them to various locations. With this universality and cohesiveness among slave traders, the prohibition of buying and selling slaves in one or several countries had no effect and could not be implemented permanently.
Considering these matters and other historical, psychological, and economic conditions, was it possible for any exalted Prophet or influential reformer to eliminate slavery in a country with a single decree or law? No one more human and philanthropic than Christ, peace by upon him, appeared in the world before Islam. Certainly, his spirit, path, method, and speech were opposed to slavery. Were his faithful followers in the Christian countries able to destroy or modify the condition of slavery? In the Middle Ages, when the Church enjoyed such unrivalled and limitless powers, the protestors got nowhere.
Later the leaders of churches themselves acquired slaves and maids until the advice to slaves to be obedient to their masters became part of the message of the Christian leaders. The following was preached in a French Church: “God had willed that a group of people be masters and another, slaves. The masters will praise the Lord and the slaves will praise the masters. This way everyone will he granted salvation,”39
Although the teachings of Christianity certainly oppose slavery, history shows that following the emergence of Christianity in Rome and Europe, slavery became more prevalent and active in other countries. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, southern France was a hot market for slave merchants and dealers, and how often young and beautiful slave girls would be bartered for some sugar and flour! There were two types of slaves in the European markets: pure slaves who had no right to marry and reproduce, and citizen slaves who had such rights, but the owner preserved the right to sell or give away his wife and children.
The Islamic Solution
In order to weaken the deep roots of slavery and to destroy them, what approach could Islam have adopted? This is the question by those who think rightly and are familiar with the special environment in which Islam appeared, and the general state of the world in those days. It would be proper for such people to reflect on this and prepare an answer to this question before reading our presentation of the Islamic approach!
A simple and brief solution for Islam would have been to prohibit and banish slavery with a law and a clear decree. Under the then existing conditions and circumstances, this solution, although is enforceable, carried evils and consequences which themselves would have blocked the path to gradual and natural abrogation of slavery. The refusal of the slave owners and the confusion and bewilderment that it would bring for the slaves would themselves have become a problem, an obstacle to the advancement of the call of Islam.
The non-adherence to such a decree at the outset would have been a weak foundation for the abolition or slavery and would have been quickly abandoned. This would have served as a justification for future generations, which would have: “Since during the short life or the law giver (shari’), this law was not implemented, it must be void.” In the face of Arab opposition and resistance to the propagation of his message, the exalted Prophet, had to spend a few years of his life solely for the purpose of spreading and universalizing the principles of Islam and for firmly establishing the roots of intellectual, moral, and social changes for all times and place, encompassing all aspects of life.
Injunctions that are not easily accepted, cannot be easily implemented, or face opposition. They need to be gradually elaborated and implemented. That is the way Islam or any other law or reform movement would work, in the face of opposition and in conflict with people's inclinations. The final prohibition of alcohol and usury, and the establishment of fasting or jihad were implemented gradually when Muslims were ready for them. The custom of slavery and its roots and implications were deeper than the practice of usury and alcohol consumption. The abolition of slavery, therefore, required more time than the natural life span of the exalted lawgiver. Just because slavery could not be eliminated in the initial period with a clear decree, did Islam have to abstain from expressing its views on it?
If we accept the idea that Islam is not restricted to any particular time and place - that it is for all times and places - that it deals with what is relevant to the fate, happiness, and good of mankind40, then Islam cannot be without a viewpoint on slavery, a perfect example of injustice and transgression against humanity, nor can it support and affirm it.
Let us now see what method Islam adopted for uprooting slavery and eliminating its principles. Islam's particular method regarding this was built on three principles. First is the elimination of all privileges. Second is by closing all avenues for slave taking. The third is Opening of Various ways towards liberation of slaves.
Elimination Of All Privileges
Slavery is a manifestation of legal and racial differences and distinctions. With regard to the elimination of class privileges, as discussed in detail, in the call and proclamations of the Qur’an humans are addressed alike. All are called upon and required to heed their rights and those of other people in order to purge the concept of privilege form their minds and thoughts, to enable those who seek to gain superiority to identify themselves with others, and to enable the condemned and deprived to recognize their human rights and rise above submission to others. Then injunctions and laws are expounded which are for everyone, before which all are equal, with differences in responsibility based only on differences in physical and intellectual growth.
The sermons of the Qur'an, where they pertain to the general call for human rights, begin with “O mankind," For example is these verses:
They call attention to human rights and responsibilities so that everyone understands such rights and that color, race, wealth, and power are not used for the purpose of attaining superiority or ignoring the rights of others. Everyone must know that he is a creature of God and remove the yoke of slavery from the necks of others.
The monotheistic call of the Qur'an and that of Islam are invitations to freedom and revolt against polytheism and enslavement by anyone other than God. Where special responsibilities are discussed, they are either addressed to believers, men or women. No legal sermons or warnings are directed to any particular class. Therefore, no categorization other than this is sanctioned, and differences in responsibilities and rights are in accordance with differences indicated by such categorization only.
Closing Off The Avenues To Slave-Taking
The principal avenues for the acquisition of slaves were warfare for plunder, expansionism and prisoner taking. After that, there were differences in color and race, and then there were laws and particular traditions. Captives taken in wars were usually thrown into slavery if they were young, healthy, and able to work, and those who were infirm and old were killed. In all times and places where there was a thriving market for slaves, the purpose of wars and invasions was to take captives for slavery. If there were no war, athletic and adroit individuals would attack at night and kidnap unsuspecting and defenseless people. The black and red races - being regarded in most countries and by most other races as inferior - were considered natural slaves.
In some states (such as Rome) those who could pay their debts would become slaves by law, and if the debts were large, their wives and children would become slaves as well41. The agricultural labourers who refused to do their work or disobeyed were enslaved by the masters, who had the right to make them their slaves. During the Middle Ages, the European landlords at times would sell their property along with their workers.
These were the prevailing and customary methods or laws for slave taking and the conversion of human beings into property. No one can claim that Islam authorized or subscribed to these methods: they are all contrary to the principles and injunctions of Islam. In the injunctions of Islam and among Muslims, slave taking from among the prisoners of war appears in the lengthy pages of Islamic jurisprudence books and in the extensive Muslim wars, and this has given rise to hair-splitting on the part of critics. On this account, there is no alternative but to look back, in passing, the principles and Islamic laws on warfare. In order to understand the view of the theologians on whether or not the acts of Muslims in some wars were correct.
Can Islam ignore war and be without an opinion concerning it? War, in whatever form, is one of the permanent phenomenon throughout human history, rooted in the human instincts of rebellion and anger. Therefore, if it is not channeled towards higher aims and limited by humanitarian concerns, it will be used to seek privileges, plunder, and violate the borders, rights and property of people. Should not Islam - which has views and injunctions concerning even the most trivial and least significant acts of an individual - have a legal viewpoint on the elimination of war, or on changing its goals and specifying its limits?
If it is not possible to eliminate war in all its forms at once, then it is certainly necessary to change its objectives and limits in order to eliminate it gradually. If we agree that Islam has set down such objectives and limits, then war must be held within these limits and conditions by believing Muslims who are familiar with these requirements.
If Islam contained only moral teachings - like Christianity or other ethical and spiritual systems - and its prophet and saints were merely teachers of human ethics, there would perhaps be justification in saying that Islam ought not to issue war commands.42 Could Islam, despite having views and injunctions about intellectual transformation and the establishment of a social system, content itself with merely sounding the call without looking at the degenerating condition of the public and the prevailing oppression?
If the proponents of Islam were content with merely sounding the call, is it to be believed that the autocrats and the dominant profiteering classes who held dominion over all places and things would not have protested it and prevented this call from being expressed? In light of this brief and clear assessment, is it not necessary to declare that if Islam had not had injunctions and laws concerning warfare it would have been a limited, deficient, and ineffective creed?
The laws for Islamic crusade and the applicable restrictions, in accordance with the Qur'an and the traditions of the exalted Prophet and the infallible (Imams), are as follows:
(i). Limitations of Scope and Intent
Jihad is an act of worship and must be carried out for the purpose of coming nearer to God. If this is not the purpose, it is forbidden. Just as this is the initial motivation, it continues to operate throughout the war. As intended by the Qur'an, jihad and killing (qatal) are sanctioned only if done “for the sake of God”. To work for the sake of God is to worship and be obedient, which is the good, sound, and merciful path for the people.
(ii) Limitations on Wars
War is sanctioned first against those who transgress or invade:
Then with those who have taken a hostile position and have prepared for war:
The with those who create disturbances and chaos, lead the people astray and violate Islamic restrictions (hudud) and the laws:
And finally in order to establish the laws and government of God:
(iii) Prohibition against the violation of these rules by any Muslim Individual or Fighter
If the aggressor or the one who hinders the advancement of the call (of Islam) desists from creating disturbances, obstructions, and resistance, then he must no longer be opposed.
(iv) Prohibition of aggression in times of peace.
In times of tranquility and peace, the slightest act of aggression or war is prohibited, so that enemies and warring groups can come to a mutual understanding and heed the call. In the vicinity of the great Mosque:
And during the forbidden months, unless the enemy violates the restrictions and covenants:
The wars and commands of the exalted prophet, may God's peace and blessings be upon him and his household, were all subject to commands and limitations of these same Qur'anic regulations. Sometimes when Muslims slightly exceeded these limitations and interfered with nonhostile peoples in the midst of hostilities and conflicts, he would chastise them severely, as history records clearly and elaborately.
In Islamic jurisprudence jihad is formulated on the basis of these restrictions and injunctions. The first condition for offensive war in Islamic jurisprudence, after the exalted Prophet, is that they must be carried out under the leadership of an infallible and just Imam or his deputy, who is free from passions and desires and conducts war within the limitations set by these injunctions, and does not deviate from the objectives.
A declaration of war is issued when a belligerent enemy has been called to Islam and its principles and refuses. The People of the Book – Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians - should they refuse to accept Islam, have a choice between accepting Islamic taxation on non-Muslims or war. If, after receiving the call and elaboration on the faith, they accept Islam, they will become brothers of Muslims.
If they accept Islamic taxation, do not violate the lives and principles of Muslims, do not spy or plot against for the enemies, do not violate Muslim shrines and sacred precincts; and pay the jizyah tax - which is designed to meet expenses in the public interest and collected on the basis of the ability to pay - they will enjoy all the social rights and security, and they will have more freedom of thought, religion, and way of life than under their former systems. The heavy burden or class distinctions will he lifted from them and they will be able to think freely about the principles and nuances of Islam.43
Before Muslims confront any nation and go to war with them, this declaration and exposition of the call must be propagated clearly by the Imam or the ruler. Formerly, in the year six or seven Hijri, before the conquest of Mecca, when Muslims were still skirmishing and fighting the Arab polytheists and lacked the strength to advance to the borders of the Arabian Peninsula and beyond, the most exalted Prophet, may God's peace and blessings be upon him and his household, after proclaiming the principles of Islam and its call to Arabs and the people of Hijaz conveyed the message to all rulers, sultans and religious leaders in the region by letters.
At the conclusion of the letter to Khosrow Anushiravan (the Shah of Iran), following an exposition of the principle of unity and a general message, the Prophet wrote: ''Choose Islam that you may remain whole. If you turn away from it, the sins of the peasants and the workers (largely Zoroastrians) will be on your shoulders”.44
At the end of his letter to Muqawqis (King of Egypt), he wrote: “If you turn away, the sins of the Egyptian people will be on your shoulders.”45 At the end of his letter to Byzantine Emperor46, he wrote: ''If you turn away, the sins of the work force (al-yirisiyyin - workers, labourers, and the deprived who have been enslaved) will be on your shoulders."47
As explained above, the letters sent to the Christian leaders began with the verse:
As noted in this reliable historical document, before the Muslims prepared for and undertook their offensive wars, the principles of the general call to Islam48, were propagated by the prophet. Following a call and public proclamation and private notification - all of which must be done at every encounter or meeting - if the enemies of truth and the people's interests, namely the rulers and the privileged classes, balked and did not submit to the truth, and turned their backs on a peace treaty, then the Muslims are obligated to go to war.
After the war breaks out and prior to its end, if the other side proposes peace, the Muslims and the Islamic ruler - in accordance with the verse below and in accordance with public interest and security from enemy plots and tricks - must accept the enemy's proposal.49
Muslims cannot and must not surrender under any situation. After the outbreak of war they must stand their ground until the enemy is defeated or they are themselves killed. In exceptional cases they can withdraw to regroup and reinforce. When the enemy is defeated and war prisoners are taken, how must they be treated? The Qur'an spells out the treatment of prisoners as follows:
This verse clearly states that after the order is given to take and detain captives. The Imam and the commander are empowered to choose between showing favor to the captives and releasing them gratuitously or releasing them after the payment of ransom.50 Although the verse apparently limits one to a choice between freedom and ransom, our jurists have added another alternative to the Imam's options.
The Imam may choose between extending favor (release without ransom), ransom, and taking prisoner as slaves. This last provision, not stated in the verse but accepted by the jurists, is an exception that applies to special cases in public interest. Its exercise is solely the prerogative of the Imam. Thus, if the public interest or the policy of war does not provide that infidel captives be released with or without ransom, and if the other party docs not wish to release Muslim captives in exchange for his own or according to customary practice, the Muslims should exercise the option of making the captives slaves. In this case infidel prisoners of war are automatically made slaves, there being no other choice.51
This kind of enslavement is not the result of Islamic laws. It is rather the result of the will and choice of the captives. These disgraced people did not accept the Islamic invitation to liberation even though the way was open for them both before and during the war either to accept Islam or to come forth in peace and make treaties on an individual basis. They had the opportunity to reflect on their best interest and heed the public and private proclamations of Islam.
They went to war in order to protect the governments and the privileged classes that had deprived them of every form of right. They brought the flames of war down upon themselves and upon the people who had extended the hand of help, freedom and brotherhood to them, closing off the way to ransom and freedom for themselves. Are they slaves in the same sense as the slaves of Rome, Babylon, and Chaldean? No, they are only slaves in name. Muslims are not given the right to kill and torture them.
Muslims who have these slaves living in their midst must regard them as one of themselves. They must feed and clothe them as they do themsclves, they must not put them to difficult tasks, they must train and teach them to develop their intellect and morality, and they must prepare them - like children or under-developed people - for independent and freethinking. The doors to freedom are open to them in all directions and at any time!
Can any perceptive and fair-minded person say or believe that slavery is one of the goals or necessities of Islamic warfare? Is it not true that the objective of Islamic warfare is to free the people of the world intellectually from polytheism and enslavement to any being other than God, and to liberate people from the absolute sovereignty of individuals and classes? If we say that the liberation of "free slaves" and "official slaves” is not an Islamic goal in wars, we can certainly say that it is one of its inevitable aspects, based on the assumption that slavery is entirely the result of legal and economic privileges and unrestricted ownership of land.
One of the goals of Islamic warfare is to eliminate these privileges and to establish Divine law. Wars that are waged to achieve Islamic aims, even if they are unable to eliminate these privileges and slavery in a single stroke, do open the way and take preliminary steps toward the liberation of the subjects ruled and the slaves.
The principal and derived laws of Islamic jurisprudence have closed all the usual doors to enslavement and have opened no new doors to it. In all of vast literature on Islamic jurisprudence there is not a single chapter on the capture or slaves, but the subject of the liberation of slaves has been discussed at great length.
From the point of view of Islamic jurisprudence there is only one certain and sanctioned path to enslavement, and that is to acknowledge enslavement and choose it freely. If a rational and mature human being willingly and freely submit to enslavement and acknowledges he that he been enslaved and no one contradicts it, then he must be accepted as one. If such an acknowledgement were not respected, it would in fact be a denial of that person's freedom.
A reputable tradition states: Abdullah ibn Sanon reports that he had heard from the exalted Imam Sadiq (the sixth Imam) that the commander of the faithful Imam 'Ali had repeatedly said, “All people are free except someone who acknowledges his own enslavement.”
Opening Of Various Ways To Freedom
The third principle concerning slavery, upon which Islamic views and commands are based is the principle of 'itq (liberation). The approach Islamic jurisprudence has taken to ‘itq opens up various avenues for the liberation of slaves. These avenues arc set forth as Islamic injunctions and obligations, not merely as a general humanitarian responsibility or as advice. In the books of Islamic jurisprudence, the various aspects of 'itq are divided into four [sic] principal sections namely: mubarshirat (directness, pursuit, supervision]; sirayat (emanation), mulk (property); and 'avarez (compensation).52
Muhashirat: This applies when the owner, with his own initiative and free will, in fulfillment of a promise of a pledge or in return for a defined sum at the slave's request (mukatiba) frees a slave. According to the intent of the Glorious Qur'an and the saints of Islam, and in order to perform a pious act and draw nearer to God, it is a recommended Islamic and human obligation on every Muslim individual to liberate his slaves whenever possible. Or, if he has surplus wealth, to use it to buy and liberate slave!
“Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Ascent is!” (90:12).
Mukatiba (request by the slave): This applies to an agreed-upon sum of money in return for which a slave will be freed. The source of this principle is the following verse:
On the basis of the above verse, when a slave has attained significant personal of or financial growth and asks to buy his freedom, it is obligatory (evidently) or highly recommended that the owner should agree to the request, and if the slave cannot pay the sum or its installments, he should be helped from the public treasury. As soon as the agreed sum is paid, the slave is fully at liberty and no one can make him return to slavery.
Tadbir (planning): This is a provision in the will of the owner for the liberation of a slave after the owner's death. Although the owner can remove this provision from his will before his death, the children of such a slave who are born before the provision is revoked are free.
Sirayat (emanation): This is related to the case where there is a shared ownership of a slave. If one part of a slave, for any reason - by petition, by a pledge to God, or by a will - should be liberated - the liberation emanates to his other parts, and that slave - according to reliable traditions - is free. However, the one who liberates the slave must pay the other part owners their share. If he cannot pay them, the liberated slave must try to pay them.
Mulkiyat (property): If any person, through inheritance or purchase, acquired ownership of his mother, father, any one of his maternal or paternal grandparents, his children or his grandchildren, these people are automatically liberated at the time of transfer. If any free man acquires ownership of any one of his wives, these wives are liberated. It is commonly accepted that siblings who nurse from the same mother are blood relatives according to law. If a slave girl becomes pregnant by a free man, the lifting of her bonds of ownership is prohibited until it can be passed on to her children by inheritance and they can all be freed at once.
Avarez (compensation): This refers to events that lead to liberation, such as torture. If an owner amputates any member of a slave's body as punishment, that slave is liberated: if he beats him severely and wounds him, the government can compel the owner to free him; and if the beating does not cause injury it is recommended that he liberate the slave. If a slave converts to Islam - before his master does - in a war zone of unbelievers, he is liberated. If a slave becomes bedridden, blind, or afflicted with leprosy, he is liberated. All of these paths to liberation are themselves the source of liberation of some others (such as the children and liberation through inheritance.)
These are the general principles guiding liberation found under the section on 'itq. From each one are derived injunctions and limitations, and the person who desires a detailed discussion of those must refer to books on jurisprudence. The paths to liberation which Islam has opened are not confined to what is found under 'itq in the books of Islamic jurisprudence. There are other sections such as kaffarat (expiation) and inheritance, which have opened other doors to the liberation of slaves.
Kaffarat [expiation]: These are acts that must be performed as penance for sins. In a great many cases, one is obligated to liberate a slave, whether willingly or under prescribed conditions. In a case of premeditated murder, where the victim is a Muslim and the murderer is not executed due to a pardon or monetary reparation, or if he is guilty of breaking the obligatory fast, he must free a slave (and to fast continuously for two months and to feed 60 poor people). If the victim is a tax-paying infidel, a slave must be liberated (and reparations are payable). In the case of an unintentional killing of a Muslim and in the oral renunciation of a wife, which is similar to divorce, for absolution before God and the Prophet, one must liberate a slave if possible. If this is not possible, there are other prescribed acts of penance. In the matter of penance for breaking of the fast during the month of Ramadhan, or rescinding an oath, pledge, or promise, the liberation of a slave is optional.
Inheritance: If the heir is a slave and the bequeathing mother or father is free, the consensus is that he is free with regard to inheritance rights and will collect the inheritance. This is also the preferred opinion with regard to the children and other members of the family. This is a list of Islamic theological injunctions on the liberation of slaves, based on the following verses:
One of the ways of using the public treasury, ordinary expenditures, and charitable alms is the liberation of slaves.
Slaves Who Live Among Muslims And On Their Properties
From the standpoint of rights, there was no similarity between their situation and that of slaves in non-Muslim countries, except for the fact that they were owned by another. They enjoyed all the public Islamic rights, the right to worship in the same ranks of prayer, the right to hold public office, the right to political immunity, and the right to marry freemen or among themselves. The following verse decrees that slaves, like the mother, father, family, and neighbors of a Muslim and like the poor Muslims, have rights and must be treated favorably:
As for the rights to ownership, according to the view of a number of theologians, based on reliable traditions, a slave can own property. But as long as they have not freed him or he has not become free, he cannot take possession of it. With all these rights granted to slaves by Islamic injunctions, this kind of slave is really only half a slave, on the threshold of freedom.
On the basis of these injunctions and teachings the saints and great men of Islam seem to have regarded the purchase, training, and releasing of slaves as religious obligation. There are no instances of them selling slaves their life history, such that in the early days of the emergence of Islam, all slaves - whether owned by Muslims or whether Muslims owned by non-Muslims - were bought and liberated by them.
The commander of the faithful Imam 'Ali, peace be upon him, and his chaste children and their followers were always buying slaves. After teaching and training, they would liberate them on every occasion that arose in order to draw nearer to God, without compensation. Some of them freed more than a thousand slaves. This practice of the saints was customary and habitual for other Muslims. They would free slaves after they have matured and were able to think independently, because noted previously, the habit of slavery and blind submission to authority was deeply rooted in the minds of the slaves as a result of their particular circumstances and their heritage.
For example, suppressed and colonized nations and retarded children - with superficial independence - cannot stand on their own feet. They do not believe that they can manage their own affairs without the support and help of other, or direct and manage their own lives. A superficial environment of independence and freedom has the effect of gradually allowing the coming generation to become self-reliant. Most slaves and people in similar circumstances are like a diseased plane. Its roots have the capacity to make it live and grow; as soon as the disease is cured it will sprout and grow leaves and fruit. Such people become free before they were aware of their own identity, independence and freedom of thought, and were more likely to return to their master’s house (like small children) or refuse to go out. Many of these people, as freed slaves (mawali) have remained in the home of their liberators until the end of their lives.54
Despite the fact that Islam closed the avenues to enslavement such as this and opened doors to liberation of slaves and people living in slave-like conditions, the question arises as to how and why were slaves and slavery common among Muslims and in Muslim countries for centuries? The answer to this question become clear after a brief look at the history, the state of Islamic societies and the changes they underwent.
We need to compare these circumstances against the scriptures and traditions of the Prophet. Were the caliphates and the governments of the Umayyads and the Abbasids and others like them truly Islamic caliphates, in accordance with the scriptures, the traditions of the Prophet and the will of the Muslim public? Can their war edicts and acts be considered legal and Islamic?
These people rode the backs of Muslims with plots, swords, and hereditary privileges. How could it be expected of these people - who shed the blood of innocent Muslims with the swords of their soldiers and agents and whose treatment of the Muslim population was crueller than that of Roman slave drivers - that they would deal with other nations in accordance with Islamic justice or conduct their wars and conquests in accordance with Islamic laws and principles.55
The centers of slavery in Islamic countries were the courts of the caliphs, the rulers, and their agents, who attracted various types of men and women by means of illegal wars or from the surrounding area for their revelries, assemblies, and ceremonies. Many of those in the courts had contro1 over the people and the caliph himself, and sometimes the caliph was removed and installed by them.
Every Muslim and non-Muslim who is familiar with the Qur'an, the traditions of the Prophet and the principles and derived laws of Islam knows that neither these governments nor their agents conformed to Islamic teaching.
Anyone who apologizes for them or tries to prove that the practices of these people were Islamic is either a liar or is misled.
All these deviations and changes notwithstanding, slavery (like that of class privilege and land ownership) in Islamic countries cannot be compared with that of other countries. The slave market in Islamic countries, unlike in other countries, was not active except in wartime, and as slave taking and slave trading grew in other countries, it diminished among Muslims.56
- 1. The word ‘Adalah has often been translated into English as ‘justice’. A more accurate rendition, one that is closer to the Islamic world view, would be ‘righteousness’. The Oxford English dictionary defines ‘righteousness’ as ‘conformity of life to the requirements of the divine or moral law’. This is the precise connotation of ‘Adalah when used as a human attribute in Islam (tr).
- 2. The characteristics of the Iranian social structure before Islam are nowhere better explained than in Ferdowsi’s poetry and stories. In one of the stories about Anushravan (ruled 531-579 A.D), Ferdowsi (Hakim Abu al-Qasim 932-1020 A.D, the Iranian epic poet) states: “When the treasure became empty, as a result of long wars with the Romans, the Shah of Shahs needed a loan to balance his budget and equip his army. A shoemaker agreed to provide the loan on the condition that his son be allowed to learn how to read and write so that he might become a member of the class of scribes. When the special council to the Shah put forward the proposal, the Shah dismissed the idea as a product of the imagination by a madman”.
- 3. He was the son of Qusayy ibn Ka’ab ibn Lu’ayy who assumed the chiefdom of the Quraysh some generations before Prophet Muhammad. He consolidated the power of the Quraysh in Mecca as the guardian of the Kaaba until the whole Meccan system was destroyed by Muslims (623 A.D).
- 4. Most of the interpreters of Qur'an bclievc this custom is what verse below refers to.
“….. It is not righteousness that ye go to houses by the backs thereof (as do the idolaters at certain seasons),…..” (2:189).
- 5. Siffeen is an important battle fought in 658 A.D between Imam ‘Ali (d. 661 A.D) and Mu’awiyya (d. 680 A.D), the governor of Syria, who did not recognize ‘Ali as the caliph. The stalemate at the battle was to be resolved by arbitration, which proved unsatisfactory to ‘Ali. It was detrimental, however, in causing a schism among the supporters of ‘Ali; some supporters of ‘Ali (the Kharejis) disapproved of his submission to the arbitration and therefore left him (tr)
- 6. Nahjul Balagha, Sermon # 4, p.7
- 7. The universal and humanitarian viewpoint of the glorious Qur’an is in contrast to those unrealistic views which see class and tribal distinctions as a means of seeking superiority and conquest in war. The Qur’an declares that tribal and racial differences, like natural differences, must bring about coalition and cohesiveness, and turn out better people. Superiority should only be based on piety and human virtues, and that too in the sight of God and not simply to show obedience to public laws or regulations.
- 8. The part in bold is from a verse of the Qur’an (49:13)
- 9. See Muhammad Ibn Ishaq ibn Yasa Sirat Rasul Allah, translated by A. Guillaume (Oxford University Press, 5th impression 1978). Pp 552-553 (tr).
- 10. See Muhammad Ibn Ishaq ibn Yasa Sirat Rasul Allah, translated by A. Guillaume (Oxford University Press, 5th impression 1978). Pp 649-652 (tr).
- 11. Maroun Beyk ‘Ubud (a contemporary poet, scholar and the president of the National University of Lebanon) has composed many eloquent and pithy poems on the personality and mission of the messenger of God and the principles and goals of Islam and the Muslim crusades, the text and translation of which have been published in Persian. The following are two lines about Muhammad’s victory over Mecca: “God is great. You idols have been toppled, then smashed! Have you heard the call to prayer” This is Bilal! He proclaims unprecedented and great news, and imprints the name of God upon people’s minds”.
- 12. However, none of the marks of superiority resulted in any financial or legal privileges.
- 13. These two verses proclaim the superiority of the Islamic community, the form of Islamic society and the general salvation possible through Islamic injunctions! Can democracy in its true and complete sense mean anything but such freedom based on responsibility to oneself?
- 14. After the death of the prophet, the leaders of Arab tribes gathered in the hall of Bani Sa’ida to decide on his successor. Abu Bakr (d. 634) was elected the first caliph to succeed the prophet. Following his death, he was succeeded by ‘Umar (d. 644) and then by ‘Uthman (d. 656). After the latter’s assassination, ‘Ali (d. 661) assumed leadership. ‘Ali, therefore, had remained in seclusion from 632 to 656 A.D (tr)
- 15. Nahjul Balagha. Sermon #9. p. 10.
- 16. Many distinct examples are recorded in history of the implementation of the law during the time of the second caliph showing equality before the law and impartiality of the Islamic executives and judges. One of these examples is the case of the Ghassanid king Jahla ibn ‘eyhim. (Note: Ghassan was a protectorate kingdom of the Eastern Roman Empire, located in today’s Syria – tr). He travelled with royal pomp and ceremony to Medina and converted to Islam. In the same year, he accompanied the caliph on a Hajj pilgrimage. While he was performing the sacrament, an unknown Arab stepped on his garb whereby he was disrobed. Jabla got angry and slapped the man in the face. The Arab complained to the caliph. The caliph summoned Jabla and when he confessed, he decreed: “You must either give the Arab satisfaction or submit to retaliation”. The common Arab insisted on retaliation. Jabla said: “This man is a commoner but I am the king.”. The caliph said: “All men are equal before Islamic law. Jabla asked for a period of grace, and in the night, he took refuge with the defeated Roman leader Heraclius (emperor 610 -641 A.D). However, he always regretted his conversion from Islam to Christianity and not subjecting himself to Islamic justice. Poems about him were frequently recited. Other famous cases include the order of the second caliph for the punishment of his son and the confiscation of the wealth of some governors.
- 17. Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 117. p. 10.
- 18. Nahjul Balagha, Sermon #20, p. 16.
- 19. Nahjul Balagha, Sermon #19, p. 16.
- 20. Nahjul Balagha, Sermon #129, p.96.
- 21. Nahjul Balagha, Letter #43, p. 241.
- 22. He was Musqala ibn Hobayra Shaybani, the governor of the southern province of Iran during the caliphate of Imam ‘Ali. Apparently, the capital of that province had been Ardeshir Khoreh, or Khoreh Ardishir (kor meaning center of a province), which is totally destroyed now. Some ruins of this city are found in areas between Abadan and Busher in Iran. Musqala had lived in this city.
- 23. Nahjul Balagha, Letter #41, p. 240.
- 24. Nahjul Balagha, Letter #59, p. 261.
- 25. Nahjul Balagha, Sayings #37, p. 276.
- 26. George Lafevre, The Coming of the French Revolution, translated by R. R. Palmer, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947) appendix (tr).
- 27. Albert Mallet, The History of Eighteenth Century (Tarikh-e Qarn-e Hejdah), part two, translated into Persian by Rashid Yasemi (Tehran: n.d). This quotation is a direct translation from the original Persian (tr).
- 28. See Note 167.
- 29. The basis of laws and the necessity for them to be above classes were discussed earlier.
- 30. See Note 167.
- 31. The privileges of the aristocrats and lords, and the power of major capitalists, corporations and trusts are the manifestations of the old and new western privileges.
- 32. Marxism considers capitalists and labourers the two principal classes in every society regardless of time and place. Engels has written that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are the two main classes. The struggle between them is the ultimate struggle of modern times. Therefore, communist revolution is not just a nationalist revolution. It is a revolution that will occur simultaneously in all civilized countries, or at least in England, the United States, France and Germany.
- 33. However, Article IV of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations abrogates slavery.
- 34. England, which pioneered the abrogation of slavery among the European countries, was seeking pretexts to dominate the seas and seaports completely and control the traffic of other powers for the sake of restricting and supervising ships of other countries. The best way to do this was through the prohibition of slave trades, which was quite widespread. Using this prohibition, England placed maritime traffic under its own security with the cooperation of its allies. The matter is noteworthy and important in the British colonial history.
- 35. It is analogous to the new work practice in the rural areas. When the landlords acquired trucks, and with broad highways to their villages were constructed, they set their donkeys and mules free to graze on their own. Could the freeing of the animals in such cases be taken as kindness and benevolence of the landowners?
- 36. The following news item reported in Ettela’at (September 6, 1964/Shahrivar 16, 1343) a century after the Emancipation Proclamation, is an example of the kind of freedom for the blacks in the United States.
The Chief of Ku Klux Klan Said: It is Permitted to Kill Blacks
Atlanta – In a talk before six-hundred members of his organization, the chief of Ku Klux Klan who vigorously opposes equal rights for the blacks said: “A white should never be prosecuted for killing a dirty black.” He added, “ Those blacks who set foot in the south, which is the domain of the whites, should be killed.” Referring to a recent case in which three whites were acquitted after killing a black teacher, he said. “The whites are permitted to kill blacks.”
- 37. Although this kind of executorship is wrong in the eyes of the Muslim public.
- 38. Spartacus led the most important uprising of slaves in southern Italy (the island of Sicily) in 73 B.C. The cause of the uprising was the treatment of slaves by the Roman aristocracy. One example was the practice of requiring muscular slaves to wrestle at public celebrations. In this type of wrestling, the winner had to kill his opponent for the amusement of the audience. Spartacus gathered slaves of Rome and North Africa around him and fought Rome. Finally, after some victories they were defeated as a result of internal dissension and a great many of them were killed. Six thousand slaves were crucified along the road to Rome.
- 39. Something close to this preaching is recommended or decreed for slaves in the books of Peter and Paul in the Bible. These are laws for capturing and keeping slaves to be found in Exodus, XXI.
- 40. “We sent thee not save as a mercy for the peoples.” (21:107).
- 41. This was the official law in Rome. Since most of the people were always indebted to the aristocracy and the wealthy, it was always possible for them to become slaves of the minority on the basis of this law.
- 42. Although Christianity, despite being merely a creed teaching ethics and morality, made use of the sword and the swordsman once it attained power.
- 43. In none of the early wars of Islam - managed and concluded under the leadership and command of the exalted prophet, peace be upon him – were prisoners enslaved. During the battle of Badr, Hunain (Hawazan) and the conquests of Mecca and Ta’if, when the Arab polytheists were taken captive by Muslims, most of them were released without ransom. Some of the polytheist leaders who had instigated the wars and were wealthy, were released upon payment of ransom.
- 44. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, op. cit pp. 652-658 (tr)
- 45. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, op. cit pp. 652-658 (tr)
- 46. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, op. cit pp. 652-658 (tr)
- 47. The word al-yirissiyyin (the work force) apparently has a Roman origin. Professor Muhammad Abu Zohra in al-Alaqat al- Dauliyah fi al-Islam has rendered it as “peasants, farmers and workers”. Abu ‘Ubayed in al-Amual has used “servants and serfs”. There is also a difference of opinion regarding the correct (Arabic) pronunciation of this word. See Makatib al-Rasul by the learned scholar, Mr. Ali Ahmadi.
- 48. Unity, the sovereignty of Divine law, peace and security (peaceful coexistence!), freedom for the peasants, the deprived and other people; and the nullification of the worship and servitude to any being other than God.
- 49. Concluding treaties or retreating from battles are the responsibilities of the Imam. However, all Muslims - free or enslaved, men or women with the qualities of a practising Muslim - can conclude peace treaties with more than one non-Muslim and grant asylum. This treaty must be respected and obeyed by all Muslims, including the Imam, even if the Muslim person has secured treaty worth ten persons of the opposite camp. Some jurists content that each Muslim can grant asylum to the inhabitants of one village or a fortress.
- 50. Ransom is the amount of money that is agreed to by both sides as payment for the release of eaptives; if the enemy has taken captives from the Muslims’ side, the exchange of prisoners is also considered ransom.
- 51. Now that in the interest of the public, prisoners must be in the custody of Muslims. To prevent them from escaping or causing trouble, two options appear to be available: either imprison them, or let them free among the Muslims and their families. To imprison them runs contrary to Islamic justice and mercy. To let them go free among Muslims is contrary to public interest, because there is no guarantee that they will not plot and get away. Thus a third alternative is to place them under the supervision of individual Muslim families without ownership. In this case, the families would be under no compulsion to look after and supervise them, because this necessity is one of the obligations of family ties or ownership. Thus the only remaining solution is to establish property (owner-serf) relationships between the individuals and captives within special conditions.
- 52. The reader should note that although Taleqani lists four principal sections for ‘itq, he proceeds to describe six, adding mukatiba and tadbir (tr)
- 53. In this verse, the Qur’an regards the freeing of a slave as an indication that a human being has transcended worldly concerns.
- 54. It is reported that after the emancipation of slaves in the United States, a group of unemployed and unsupervised slaves asked to return to slavery.
- 55. Following the tragic crime at Karbala in 63 A.H/681 A.D., Yazid ibn Mu’awiya sent a blood-thirsty man named Muslim ibn ‘Aqaba to subdue the people of Medina (the birth place of the Islamic community and government), and authorized him to commit any crime. After this blood-thirsty individual filled the sacred precincts of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and the streets of Medina with blood, rape and massacre, he obtained the allegiance of the rest of the people who swore that what they owned belonged to the ‘commander of the faithful’ Yazid! This was in accordance with the traditions and prophecy of the exalted prophet, who said: “When the children of ‘Aas have reached thirty in number they will make the children of God their slaves.”
- 56. According to the statistics of Webva (sic) an American statistician, the export of blacks to the American continent alone during the sixteenth century numbered 900,000. In the seventeenth century, it was 2.75 million and in the nineteenth century it was 7 million.
Comparing the slave market and the rights of Muslim slaves in Islamic countries with the slavery laws in other countries, foreign researchers and historians such as Dr. Gustave le Bon have affirmed that the circumstances of slaves among the Muslims were different in every way from those elsewhere. (Note: The correct spelling of the name of this American statistician could not be verified – (tr).