Al-Risala (English), May-June 1997

Models for Humanity

1997 5-6 May-June 15-27 Models for Humanity (4254) IN a reply to a letter Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) wrote: My experience is that if ever any religion approached to this equality in an appreciable manner, it is Islam and Islam alone. Therefore I am firmly persuaded that without the help of practical Islam, theories of Vedantism, however fine and wonderful they may be, are entirely valueless to the vast mass of mankind. For our own motherland, a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and Islam – Vedanta brain and Islam body – is the only hope. I see in my mind’s eye the future perfect India rising out of this chaos and strife, glorious and invincible, with Vedanta brain and Islam body (Letters of Swami Vivekananda (1986), pp. 379-80).

Mahatma Gandhi used to advise Congressmen to follow the example of Abu Bakr and Umar. Once Gandhiji wrote in his journal ‘Harijan’:

Simplicity is not the monopoly of Congressites. I am not going to mention the names of Rama and Krishna because they were not historic personalities. I am compelled to mention the names of Abu Bakr and Umar. Though they were masters of a vast empire, yet they lived the life of paupers (Harzjan, July 27,1937).

It is a fact that the influence wrought on history by Islamic figures in their pursuance of Islamic ideals has been a source of inspiration for all humanity. The finest examples of human qualities have been demonstrated by Islam. Anyone may base a code of ethics on stories which are mere fictions but if real characters are to serve as models, these are no better examples than those set by personalities from the world of Islam. Such individuals are the common moral asset of all mankind. The relevant aspects of their lives being a matter of historical record. I shall now narrate a number of incidents, which will serve to illustrate their moral excellence.

Trust and Confidence

The first twelve years of his prophethood were spent by the Prophet in the city of Mecca, his hometown. In those days Mecca was completely under the domination of the idolaters, who inflicted all kinds of torments on him. Finally, they decided to rid themselves of his presence altogether by assassinating him. When the matter had deteriorated to this point, the Prophet left Mecca for Madina.

Those were hard times and the journey from Mecca to Madina by the normal routes was fraught with danger. Therefore, after leaving Mecca, the Prophet had to hide for three days alongwith his companion, Abu Bakr, in a cave called Thawr. This cave was situated at a narrow point on a hill which was difficult to traverse. Yet his enemies, managed to reach this point in their search. They stood so near the cave mouth, wielding their swords, that the Prophet could see their footprints. Everything pointed to the Prophet having reached the end of his journey. Abu Bakr was greatly disturbed at this turn of events. He said to the Prophet, “They have come even to this place.” The Prophet, calm and composed replied, “Abu Bakr, what do you think of the two who have God as their third.” These words are a perfect example of the Prophet’s trust and confidence in God - the highest point of this human quality.

Being Patient in the Face of unpleasantness

Once, in order to help a famine-stricken people, the Prophet of Islam borrowed some money from a Jewish merchant, by the name of Zayd ibn Sa’ana. A date was fixed for its repayment, which was to take the form of dates (80 misqal). Then, three days before the stipulated date, Zayd ibn Sa’ana suddenly appeared and harshly demanded that the debt be honoured. Catching hold of a sheet which the Prophet had draped around his shoulders, he gave it a sharp tug and said: ‘Oh Muhammad! Why don’t you pay your debt? By God, the descendants of Abdul Muttalib keep putting off paying their debts.’

Also with the Prophet at that time was Umar ibn al-Khattab, who became enraged and said, ‘O, enemy of God, what are you saying? Aren’t you afraid of having your head chopped off?’ At that time the Prophet of Islam was the ruler of Arabia and had full authority to take any strong measure he pleased against ibn Sa’ana. Even so, he tolerated Zayd’s insolence, showing no sign of anger and keeping his composure in the face of provocation. He did not even ask why the man was demanding that the debt be discharged before the stipulated time. Instead, he reprimanded Umar, saying that what he (the Prophet) and Zayd were in need of was not an outburst from him, but a simple request for the better fulfilment of dues on his (the Prophet’s part) and better behaviour on the part of Zayd when demanding repayment. Then he commanded that Zayd ibn Sa’ana should be given the dates according to the agreement, in addition to which he should be given an extra twenty kilos of dates for having been subjected to the scolding of Umar. On seeing this exemplary behaviour, Zaid ibn Saana entered into the fold of Islam.

A Matter not of Honour, but of Responsibility

Abu Bakr ibn Abi Qahafa, the first Caliph of Islam, ruled from 632 to 634. When after the death of the Prophet, he was selected for the Caliphate, he did not regard this as an office, but as a matter of responsibility. Instead of being happy over his elevation to the highest of positions, he was plunged into the deepest anxiety. After the bay’a (oath of allegiance), when he stood at the pulpit, he was so overwhelmed at this great burden of responsibility that he was in tears. He addressed the gathering in these words: “O People, I have been appointed your administrator, although I am not better than you. If the steps which I take are good, give me your cooperation. If I go wrong, set me right. Truth is a public trust (amanah) and falsehood is breach of trust. Your weak to me are powerful, unless I have given them their rights. Your strong are weak to me, unless I have received from them what is due from them.”

Ibn Sad narrates that after Abu Bakr had been elected Caliph, he was to be seen the next day, going about his business as usual, with a sheet around his shoulders. When Umar Faruq asked him where he was going. He said, “To the market.” Umar Faruq asked him if he did know he was the leader of Muslims. Abu Bakr replied that if he did not earn anything, what he would feed his family. Umar then suggested that they go to Abu Ubaydah, who would determine what “allowance” he should have. And so Abu Bakr had an allowance fixed for him by Abu Ubaydah just as if he was an ordinary person. This included two suits of clothing, one for summer and one for winter. When the time came for him to depart from this world, he had no money at home. In his will, he stated that the one piece of land which he owned should be sold so that all of the allowance he had taken as Caliph from Bait al-Mal (Treasury) could be returned to it.

For Abu Bakr, a high government position was not a matter of honour but a matter of responsibility. The same example was set by other Caliphs as well. This is an example which all rulers should follow. It tells them that they too must consider government posts as a matter not of pride and popularity but of strict personal duty. It is only if rulers adopt such an attitude that their governance becomes a source of goodness and well-being for the people.

Simple living

During the period of pious Caliphs, a kingdom had become an empire, and there had been tremendous increases in wealth and power, yet the Caliphs still led extremely simple lives-a fact that has been generally acknowledged by historians. Montgomery Watt writes: “The ruler of what was now a vast empire still lived a very simple life in Medina, and had not so much as a body guard.” (The Majesty that was Islam,1984).

The second Caliph, Umar Faruq, ruled over a large part of Asia and Africa, but continued to wear very ordinary clothes which often had patches. He would carry water bags over his shoulders. He would sleep on the ground with a stone as a pillow. He ate simple food and lived in an ordinary house.

Once Ahnaf ibn Qays came to see him in Medina. He found him walking hither and thither clad in ordinary clothes. When Ahnaf asked Umar what was the matter, he replied, that a camel belonging to Bait aI-Mal (public Treasury) had gone astray and that he was looking for it. Ahnaf said, “You are leader of the believers (Amirul-Muminin) why are you taking all this trouble? You should have asked a Servant to do this for you.” Caliph Umar replied, “Who is a greater Servant than I am?”

Considering oneself a common man, while in actuality being the ruler of an empire, gave a practical example of the humility expected of a ruler who obeyed the Islamic code of ethics. Instead, nowhere, except in Islam, does there exist such a code of ethics for rulers.

The Caliphate of Umar Faruq lasted from 634 to 644. It was during his rule that Palestine was conquered. On the occasion of this conquest, Christian priests of Palestine demanded that Caliph Umar come in person to negotiate the treaty. This journey, undertaken by the ruler of a vast empire, was marked by a simplicity so spartan as to be almost unimaginable.

Umar’s entry into Palestine in this way is testified to by a manuscript written in Greek by a Christian during Umar’s lifetime. This was found in a Church in Palestine by Abdullah Uttal (a veteran of the Palestine war of 1948) who published a book containing an Arabic translation of it in 1964 from Dar al-Qalam (Cairo) in 1964. The following is a summary of the manuscript’s contents:

When the Muslims tightened their siege around Bait al-Maqdis (The Holy House) in 636, the Patriarch climbed up the city wall of the city of al-Quds (Jerusalem) and addressed the Muslim army. He told them that they wanted to enter into a peace settlement with them on the condition that it would be personally drawn up by their Caliph. Therefore, a letter was sent to the Caliph explaining this proviso and requesting him to come to Palestine.

On receiving this letter, Umar Faruq left Madina for Bait al-Maqdis with only one slave and one mount. As he left the city, he said to his servant, “We are two and the mount is one. If I ride and you go on foot, I shall be doing you an injustice. And if we both ride, we shall break the camel’s back. So we had better take it in turns to ride. So they alternately rode and went on foot, then they would both go on foot for some time to give the camel some respite. They went on in this way until they were approaching al-Quds, when, by chance, it was the servant’s turn to ride. The servant declined to sit on the camel’s back so that the Caliph may be on the mount while entering the city. But Umar Faruq did not agree to this. And so the Caliph reached the gates of al-Quds with the servant on the camel’s back and himself on foot. Witnessing this sight, the priests opened the gates and directly made peace with Umar Faruq.

After the completion of the peace treaty, Caliph Umar made a short speech in which he said: ‘O People of Palestine, what is for us is for you. What is not for us is not for you either.”

Caliph Umar’s journey indubitably serves as the most perfect example for all the rulers of the world.

Respect for Humanity

Amr ibn al-As was the governor of Egypt during the Caliphate of Umar Faruq. One day the governor organized a horse race in which his own son Muhammad ibn Amr ibn al-As, also took part. But in the race, the horse of the governor’s son was beaten by the horse of a Copt, a non-Muslim. The Copt expressed his jubilation and this hurt the governor’s son. He lashed the Copt with his whip, saying, “Take that! I am the son of a nobleman!”

As narrated by Anas ibn Malik, the Copt came from Egypt to Medina and complained to Umar Faruq that the governor’s son had whipped him. Umar asked him to stay in Medina and immediately sent a special emissary to Egypt to bring Amr ibn aI-As and his son without delay to Medina, the capital. When they arrived, they were both brought before the Caliph. Then the latter sent for the young Copt and asked him if this was the man who had beaten him. When the Copt replied in the affirmative, the Caliph handed him a whip and asked him to flog this ‘son of a nobleman.’ The Copt did so, and went on flogging him till he felt that justice had been done. Then the Caliph asked him also to flog Amr ibn aI-As, the father of the young wrongdoer, as it had been his high status – as Umar explained – which had encouraged the son to take his whip to him. But then the Copt said, “No, I have whipped the person who whipped me, and I wish no more than that.”

Umar Faruq said to the Copt: ‘By God! if you had beaten him (the governor) we would not have intervened, until you yourself had stopped beating him. Then Umar Faruq turned to Amr ibn aI-As and said: ‘O Amr, since when have you enslaved people who were born free?’ (Ibn Jauzi, Seerah Umar ibn al-Khattab)

This incident serves as the highest example of respect for the ideal of equality. It had the practical effect of ending all kinds of differences between one man and another. It set such an example in human justice as is to date unparalleled.

Selflessness

As narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas, when a famine struck Arabia during Abu Bakr’s caliphate, the people were in great distress. Abu Bakr asked them not to become overwrought and told them that God would soon come to their assistance. Sometime later, Usman’s caravan, consisting of one thousand camels all laden with cereals and other foods, came to Medina, whereupon the merchants came knocking at Usman’s door. He came out with a shawl on his shoulders.

Usman (later elected to be the third caliph) asked them: “Why have you come here and what do you want from me.” The merchants said, “It has come to our knowledge that one thousand of your camels have arrived here laden with wheat and other foods. We want to buy the goods. If you sell them to us, we shall be able to help the people of Medina who are in dire need of foodstuffs. Usman told them to come inside his home to talk about it. When they entered, they saw that one thousand bags full of foodstuffs were stacked in his house.

Now the negotiations began. Usman asked, ‘How much profit will you give me on my merchandise from Syria?” They said, “Twelve dirhams on ten dirhams. (That is, if you have bought goods for ten dirhams, we shall pay twelve dirhams). Usman said, “I am getting more profit than this.” Then the merchants said, “We will pay fourteen dirhams on ten dirhams. Usman again said that he was getting a higher price than that. They said, “Well, we shall pay fifteen dirhams on ten dirhams.” Usman again replied that he was getting more profit than that. The merchants became curious and asked Usman, who it was that was giving him more than this since all the merchants of Medina had already gathered there. Then Usman said to them, “I am getting ten dirhams for one dirham, so can you give me more than this?” They replied in the negative. Then Usman said to them that God had promised in His Book that “he that does a good deed shall be repaid tenfold” (6:160).

“So, O merchants of Medina,” said Usman, “be witness to it that I have given my entire merchandise in charity to the needy people of Medina for the sake of God. (AI-Abqariat lslamia, p. 572).

This incident serves as an example of total faith in the promises made by God. Belief in God produces in man this kind of conviction and trust. And when such confidence and conviction is born within a person, he rises above all worldly interests and considerations. His ambitions become so high that even the greatest of sacrifice is not difficult for him.

Legal equality between the ruler and the ruled

Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth pious Caliph, wielded great power, being the ruler of a vast empire. But he lived among the people like a common man. Neither was his standard of living different from that of other people nor had he any special legal rights.

According to Tirmidhi, Hakim and Abu Nuaym narrated this incident in these words: Hazrat Ali had a zira (coat of armour) which he had lost. One day he went to the market in Kufa, where he found that a non-Muslim was selling a coat of armour. On closer inspection it turned out to be the same coat of armour which he had lost.

Hazrat Ali was at that time ruler of the Muslim empire. If he had so desired, he could have taken possession of that coat of armour right there and then. But he did not consider himself above the law, and merely said to the person concerned that the coat of armour belonged to him and then asked him to come to the Qazi (judge), who would decide between them. At that time Shuraih was the Qazi for Muslims. So both of them went to him.

Shuraih in the capacity of Qazi addressed Hazrat Ali, “O leader of the believers, what you have to say? Hazrat Ali replied, “This coat of armour is mine. So this should be returned to me. Shuraih then asked the non-Muslim what he had to say. He said that the leader of the believers (Amirul-Muminin) was not telling the truth for the coat of armour was his. Qazi Shuraih then said to Hazrat Ali, “I cannot order the coat of armour to be given to you just because of your claim. You must fetch two witnesses in support of your claim.

Hazrat Ali said that Qazi Shuraih’ s demand was proper. Then he presented two witnesses, one his slave Qambar and the other, his son, Hasan. Qazi Shuraih said that he would accept the testimony of Qambar, but that he would not accept that of Hasan. Hazrat Ali asked, ‘How is it that you will not accept Hasan as a witness, although according to a hadith the Prophet said, “Hasan and Husain are leaders of the youths of paradise.” Qazi Shuraih said: “That is a different thing. In worldly matters the principle of Islam is that evidence given by children in favour of their fathers is not reliable.”

Hazrat Ali being the Caliph had the power to dismiss the Qazi. But he surrendered before the judgement of the Qazi and withdrew his demand with regard to the coat of armour. On seeing this, the Christian was astonished. He exclaimed and made the following declaration: “I bear witness it is by God’s commandments that the leader of the believers (Caliph) comes to the court like a common man and the Qazi may give a verdict against him. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship save Him and that Muhammad is the messenger of the Lord. Then he said that the coat of armour really belonged to Ali and that once when it had fallen off Ali’s camel, he had picked it up. Having heard his admission, Ali gave the coat of armour back to him and also gave him seven hundred dirhams. After embracing Islam, the man remained with Ali until at the battle of Siffin he was martyred (Hayat as-Sahaba, part 1, p. 234-35).

This incident is a telling illustration of the principle that the ruler and the ruled are equal in the eyes of the law. In a court of law both must appear on an equal footing and the legal verdict must be equally binding on them.

Realism

Hazrat Hasan (son of Ali) was appointed Caliph after Ali was martyred. Hasan was the fifth caliph of Islamic history. He had all the ethical, moral and Shariah right to remain on the seat of the Caliphate. But as soon as he was appointed, Amir Muawiya, the governor of Syria, revolted against him. On the plea of seeking compensation for the blood of Usman, he managed to rally a large group of Muslims around him.

When Hasan made a review of the situation, he found that he had forty thousand Muslims at his command ready to do battle with Muawiya. But Amir Muawiya also had similar number of Muslims ready to fight to the finish. Hasan then concluded that both sides being Muslims, an outbreak of war meant Muslims fighting Muslims. That is, those precious souls who had gathered under the banner of Islam in order to extirpate idolatry from the face of the world, were on the contrary, bent on extirpating themselves along with the history of Islam as well.

Hasan’s position was that of a rightful caliph of Islam, while Muawiya’s was one of rebellion, but Hasan aptly surmised that Amir Muawiya was not willing to surrender at any cost. He would continue to do battle even if it resulted in the large-scale slaughter of Muslim soldiers. Therefore, Hasan himself surrendered in order to save the Muslims from a general massacre. Taking a unilateral decision, he abdicated the caliphate in favour of Muawiya.

This is the highest example of realism. Here we find a man on the highest pedestal of realism, a level from where he can think dispassionately, in the real sense of the word. Hasan took this decision objectively, rising above his own self. That is why he was able to take such a momentous decision, which has perhaps no parallel in history. Due to his abdication, Muslims who were at war with one another, gathered under one flag once again under Muawiya and made progress in many ways which greatly contributed to human advancement.

Justice

Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (62-101 AH) is the fifth pious caliph. His servant, Abu Umayya once remarked to the Caliph’s wife that he was tired of eating masur (pulse) daily. She answered: Your caliph too eats the same pulse daily.

There used to be one hundred security guards placed at the service of the Caliphs preceding Umar ibn Abdul Aziz. But Umar ibn Abdul Aziz sent them off on various other official assignments and remarked: ‘Destiny will suffice for my security.’ This was the style of living of one whose empire extended from Sindh in India to France in Europe.

Once during his caliphate a delegation came to him from Samarqand. They complained of a military general, Qutaybah ibn Muslim al-Bahili, who in total disregard of lslamic principle, and without giving any prior warning, had marched his armies into their city. They had therefore come to seek justice from him. Although the conquest of Samarqand had taken place seven years before, long before he had become caliph, he still considered it necessary to meet the demands of justice.

Umar ibn Abdul Aziz wrote to the governor of Iraq to appoint a special Qazi (judge) to hear the case of the people of Samarqand. The governor carried out his orders without delay and appointed Jami ibn Hazir al-Bahili as Qazi. The case was brought to his court. Both the parties freely presented their arguments. After hearing them, the Qazi discovered that the people of Samarqand were justified in their complaints. He therefore gave the verdict that the Muslim army must leave Samarqand, and the fort and all other things must be returned to the local people. Afterwards, following the Islamic principle, the army general would lay before them all the conditions, and only on their refusal to accept these conditions, would the Muslims be allowed to do battle with them.

At that time the Muslim army enjoyed a victorious position. It had even brought the king of China to the point of surrender. But when the Qazi gave his verdict, the Muslim army general accepted it without any argument. He immediately ordered the entire army to leave Samarqand. When the people of Samarqand saw how principled and just the Muslims were, they were taken aback for they had never experienced such fair and impartial justice. They felt that the coming of the Muslim army was akin to a divine blessing. And so, before this order could be carried out, they accepted Muslim rule of their own free will and of their own pleasure. They exclaimed: “Welcome, we are your obedient and loyal servants” (Futuhul Buldan by Belazuri).

This incident presents an example of the Islamic reverence for justice and fair play – the highest of human values – the equal of which is hard to find in the entire annals of human history.