LEADERS OF THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH – COMPETING IN RUNNING ERRANDS FOR AN ELDERLY BLIND WOMAN
In a narration quoted by Imam Suyuti in his “History of the Khalifahs”, Abu Salih al-Ghifari (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Hadhrat Umar ibn al-Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) used to take care of an elderly blind woman on the outskirts of Madinah at night. He would draw water for her to drink, and help her out with any other chores she might have had. However, on some occasions, he would find that someone else had already beaten him to this work, and had already carried out all the elderly woman’s chores. So he started visiting the elderly woman more often in order that he is not deprived of this noble work. One day, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) lay in waiting in order to find out who the other man was that was also helping the elderly woman. It turned out that the other man was none other than Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) who was Khalifah at the time! Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) exclaimed, “You are he, by my life!”
HOW CAN I BE CONCERNED IF I DO NOT SUFFER WHAT THE PEOPLE SUFFER?
During the reign of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) a famine struck Madinah Munnawarah and its surroundings. When the wind blew, sand would come down from the sky like ashes, hence that year became known as Aam-ur-Ramadah (the Year of Ashes). Hadhrat Umar swore that he would not eat ghee, yoghurt or milk until all the people could afford to have these things. Once some ghee and yoghurt reached the local marketplace and a servant bought them for Hadhrat Umar for forty (dirhams). He came to Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and said: “O Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen (Commander of the Faithful), Allah has fulfilled your oath and made your reward great. Some ghee and yoghurt reached the marketplace and I bought them for you forty (dirhams)” Umar said, “You paid too much for them. Give them in charity, for I do not like to eat in an extravagant manner.” Hadhrat Umar then said, “How can I be concerned for the people if I do not suffer what they suffer?” [Tareekh at-Tabari, 4/98]
O MY STOMACH, RUMBLE AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE – YOU WILL NOT EAT!!!
It was narrated that Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) said:
“The stomach of Hadhrat Umar Ibn al-Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) would rumble during the Year of the Drought. He used to eat olive oil and he forbade himself ghee. He would pat his stomach and say, “You may rumble, but we have no other food until the famine is over.” [Al-Hilyah]
In Manaqib Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen of Ibn al-Jawzi, it is narrated that Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) would tell his stomach:
“Rumble as much as you like, for by Allah you will not eat ghee until the people eat it.”
RULERS WOULD REFUSE TO EAT FROM THE BEST OF THE FOOD
During the severe drought, at the time of Iftaar (the meal in the evening to break the day-long fast) Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) would eat plain bread soaked in oil. One day some people slaughtered a camel. They gave its meat to the people, and they kept the best parts of it – the hump and the liver – and brought that to Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). He demanded, “Where did you get this?” They replied, “O Ameerul Mu’mineen, it is from a camel that we slaughtered today.” Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said,
“Oh no, oh no, what a bad ruler I am if I eat from the best of it and the people eat from the worst of it. Take this away and bring some other food.”
Some bread and olive oil were brought to him and he started breaking the bread with his own hands and soaking it in the oil.”
[Nidham al-Hukm fee Ash-Sharee’ah wa at-Tareekh al-Islami]
RULERS HAD TO EAT THE SAME FOOD AS THE POOR’S
Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) would ensure that his governors throughout the Islamic Empire, which spanned most of the known world, applied the same principle that he abided by. When Utbah ibn Farqad (a governor) went to Azerbaijan, some khabees (a delicacy) was brought to him. When he ate it, he found it to be sweet and good. He said, “By Allah, I will make something like that for Ameerul Mu’mineen” So he made two huge trays of it for him and sent them on a camel, accompanied by two men, to Hadhrat Umar. When they came to Hadhrat Umar he enquired, “What is this?” They said, “Khabees.” He tasted it and found it to be sweet. He then asked, “Can all the Muslims afford to have this in their homes?” They replied, “No.” Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) then ordered, “Then take it back.” Then he wrote to Utbah saying, “It is not by the efforts of your father or mother (that you are living this life). Make sure that the masses are eating the same kind of food as you have in your home.” [Manaqib, Ibn Jawzi, p.147]
THE HONESTY AND SCRUPULOUSNESS OF ISLAMIC RULERS
Numerous Hadiths state that the rulers with which an Islamic nation is imposed with is a reflection of the state of the people. Allah Ta’ala is the King of all kings, the Ruler of all rulers. He holds the hearts of the rulers in His hands. Thus the Taqwa, piety, generosity, etc. displayed by Islamic rulers are, in general, a reflection of the state of the Muslim population.
The standard of piety set by the early Muslim rulers was indeed lofty and rare, and provides a glimpse into the state of the Muslim populace who had won over the hearts and minds of people all over the world, purely on the basis of the beautiful character, honesty, and justice they displayed in all their interactions and dealings.
Due to the fear of Allah (Glory be He, Most High) and accountability in the divine court, the pious Muslim rulers displayed extreme caution. Public property was regarded as a trust in their hands and they took care of it prudently.
Once, some musk (perfume) came to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (radiallahu anhu) from Bahrain. He asked for someone who would weigh it carefully, so that it may be equally distributed among the Muslims. His wife, Atikah, volunteered, but ‘Umar (radiallahu anhu) refused to give it to her. When she inquired why, he replied,
“I fear that, while weighing it, some of it may rub-off onto your hand and body. This will give me an unfair advantage over the other Muslims.”
A similar incident is related about ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz (rahmatullahi alayhi). While he was Khalifah, Musk belonging to the Bait-ul-Mal (Public treasury) was brought to him. He closed his nostrils, saying,
“The benefit derived from musk is its fragrance.”
He would only light the state lamp when he dealt with the affairs of the Muslims. When he had seen to their needs and had some private matters to attend to, he would light his own lamp.[Anecdotes taken from “Pearls of the Path” by Maulana Afzal Ismail]
MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD, CONQUEROR OF SUPERPOWERS, SUMMONED TO COURT AND ORDERED TO FIX A GUTTER
The concept of the independence of the judiciary is as old as Islam. Many, many centuries before the west began to theorize this concept, the courts of Islam acted independently of the executive. This concept is grounded in the Qur’aanic command of justice. The Qur’aan Majeed commands:
‘O People of Imaan! Become the establishers of justice, witnesses for Allah even though it be against yourselves or your parents or your relatives. If he be a wealthy or a poor person, then (know that) Allah is closer to both of them. Therefore, do not follow (your) desire in (the matter of) enforcement of justice.’ (Surah Nisaa, Aayat 135)
The Rulers of Islam (the Khulafa and the Sultans) had practically demonstrated the independence of Islam’s judicial system. Besides the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, even worldly kings and Sultans upheld the principle of justice. Mighty rulers of Islam would immediately submit to the summons of the Qaadhi (Judge) and unhesitatingly stand trial in exactly the same way as an ordinary citizen would. The following episode illustrates the Islamic system of justice and the independence which the judiciary enjoyed from the very inception of Islam.
Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) is no stranger to even non-Muslims. The two superpowers of the age — the Roman and Persian empires — were defeated and brought to their knees by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). His very name would send shivers down the spines of emperors and kings.
The home of Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu), the paternal uncle of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was adjacent to Musjid-e-Nabawi. Water from the gutter would splash into the Musjid causing distress to the musallis. During his Khilaafat, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered the removal of the gutter. The gutter was removed during the absence of Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu).
On his return to Madinah, when he saw what had happened, Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) was furious. He hastened to the court of the Qaadhi and complained about the action of Ameerul Mu’mineen, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu).
Hadhrat Ubay Bin Ka’b (radhiyallahu anhu) was the Chief Qaadhi. He immediately summoned Hadhrat Umar to court to answer the charge. On the appointed day, Hadhrat Umar, the Ruler of the Islamic Empire, attended the Qaadhi’s court with profound humility and simplicity. On his arrival at the court, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) had to wait outside for quite some time due to the Qaadhi’s other engagements. Finally Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was called inside. Hadhrat Umar on entering attempted to say something. But the Qaadhi silenced him.
Qaadhi: ‘It is the right of the plaintiff to speak and present his case. Be silent.’
Hadhrat Abbaas: ‘My home from the very beginning was adjacent to Musjid Nabawi during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as well as during the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu). But now Ameerul Mu’mineen has demolished the gutter and threw it away. I am considerably distressed by this action. I want justice.’
Qaadhi: ‘Ameerul Mu’mineen! What have you to say?’
Hadhrat Umar: ‘Undoubtedly, I had it removed. I am responsible for it.’
Qaadhi: ‘You were supposed to refrain from such unjust interference in the home of another person without his consent. Why did you do it?’
Hadhrat Umar: ‘Your honour, Sometimes water from the gutter would splash in the Musjid causing distress and inconvenience to the musallis. I therefore ordered its removal. I am of the opinion that I had acted correctly. I did not commit any crime.’
Qaadhi: (Addressing Hadhrat Abbaas): ‘What do you say in response?’
Hadhrat Abbaas: ‘Your honour, Rasulullah (sallallahu alyhi wasallam) had himself, marked out the foundations of my home with his knife. After the house was built, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered that the gutter be fixed in the very place where it was. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instructed me to mount on his blessed shoulders and attach the gutter. Inspite of my refusal out of respect, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) vehemently insisted. In compliance I stood on the blessed shoulders of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and did as he had commanded. I attached the gutter on the position from where Ameerul Mu’mineen had ordered its removal.’
Qaadhi: ‘Do you have any eye witnesses?’
Hadhrat Abbaas: ‘Not only one or two, but many.’
Qaadhi: ‘Present them now so that this matter could be resolved.’
Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) went outside and after sometime returned with several witnesses from among the Ansaar. They all testified that they were eye witnesses to the episode. Meanwhile the greatest Ruler on earth, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) stood humbly staring at the ground. Then he spoke.
Hadhrat Umar: ‘O Abul Fadhl (Hadhrat Abbaas)! For Allah’s sake forgive me. I was totally unaware that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself had ordered the construction of the gutter in its position. If I had been aware, I would not have ordered the removal of the gutter even by error. What right do I have to remove the gutter which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself had ordered?’
(Consider the destruction of the homes and relics of Rasulullah-sallallahu alayhi wasallam — and the Sahaabah sacrilegiously perpetrated by the Saudi regime which trample on the rights of people by usurping their lands and paying them a pittance, then selling the usurped land for exorbitant prices to the wealthy members of the family)
Hadhrat Umar: ‘Amends could be made by you mounting onto my shoulders and replacing the gutter on its original position.’
Qaadhi: ‘Yes, O Ameerul Mu’mineen! This is the demand of justice. You have to do this.’
Soon the people saw the powerful Khalifah who had defeated Qaisar and Kisra (the Roman and Persian emperors), standing by the wall with Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) mounted on his shoulders fixing the gutter to its position.
After completing the work of the gutter, Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) alighted and pleaded: ‘O Ameerul Mu’mineen! What has transpired was to reclaim my right. Now that I have acquired by right as a result of your love for justice, I seek forgiveness from you for this disrespect. I wholeheartedly give as Waqf my house in the Path of Allah Ta’ala. You have the right to demolish it and include it in the Musjid. May Allah Ta’ala accept my contribution.’
Independence of the judiciary from the executive is largely an empty slogan of the votaries of western democracy. In the annals of history there is no example to compare with the episode which appears on this page.
Islam has practically demonstrated the meaning of equality in front of the law. No monarch, governor, ruler, president, prime minister, cabinet minister, etc. could be ushered to court to stand as an ordinary citizen in front of the judge in the manner in which the Rulers of the Islamic Empire had demonstrated.
Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was not an isolated case. Islamic history bears ample testimony to the fact that even not so pious Muslim monarchs answered the summons of the Qaadhi without hesitation and stood on the same level as the plaintiff.
Those who pipe the tune of western democracy in which the independence of the judiciary is supposed to be a fundamental principle cannever hope to present the glittering examples of justice by an independent judiciary flaunted by Islamic autocracy known as Khilaafat.
Despite the slogan, it is a momentous struggle for an ordinary citizen to succeed in hauling a high government official of the democratic system to court. Public outcries and media pressure may succeed in activating the principle of the independence of the judiciary and that all men are equal in front of the law. But in a democracy, this is not normal nor in any other system of government.
It is only Islamic Autocracy which can be proud of the distinction of the true independence of the judiciary — a system in which true justice and fair play reign. The Islamic autocratic system is divine. In a true Islamic system of government, fear for Allah Ta’ala permeates the administration. The Ruler is not the maker of laws. He merely dispenses the divine laws of Allah Ta’ala. He is not an unjust despot like the presidents of democracies.
Although it is claimed that the president is ‘democratically’ elected, he is far from being a ‘democrat’. A glance at the presidents of the ‘democratic’ countries will convince the keen observer that all presidents of republics and democracies are cruel, unjust despots who are at the helm for personal glory and monetary gain.
Notwithstanding the flowery language which adorns constitutions and preambles, the irrefutable fact is that while the law will prosecute an ordinary citizen for a crime, cast him into a squalid cell, and haul him to court, similar treatment cannot be meted out to Mr. President of a ‘democratic republic’ irrespective of the notoriety of the crime which the despot may commit.
The hollowness of the slogans of democracy is manifest in practical every day life. The high sounding phrases of human rights, equality, justice and the like are designed for public consumption at forums of hypocritical display.
THE CHRISTIAN GENOCIDE OF JERUSALEM AND THE ISLAMIC “REVENGE”
The Fall of Jerusalem
In the year 492 Hijri when the Christians conquered Baitul Maqdis (Jerusalem), they slaughtered 70,000 Muslims in Musjidul Aqsa. Giving a graphic account of the massacre of Muslims by the Crusaders, the Christian historian Michaud writes:
“The Saracens were massacred in the streets and in the houses. Jerusalem had no refuge for the vanquished. Some fled from death by precipitating themselves from the ramparts; others crowded for shelter into the palaces, the towers, and above all into their mosques, where they could not conceal themselves from the pursuit of the Christians. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Omar, where the Saracens defended themselves for some time, renewed there the deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and cavalry rushed pell-mell among the fugitives. Amid the most horrid tumult, nothing was heard but the groans and cries of death; the victors trod over heaps of corpses in pursuing those who vainly attempted to escape. Raymond d’Agiles, who was an eye- witness, says. ‘that under the portico of the mosque, the blood was knee-deep, and reached the horses’ bridles.”
Fulcher of Chartres, a Christian chronicler of that time, said:
“In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared”
The Conquest of Jerusalem
Ninety years after the fall of Jerusalem into Christian hands, Sultan Salahuddin Ayyubi (rahmatullah alayh) conquered this prized city. How did the magnanimous Sultan repay the butchery and massacre of 70,000 Muslims at the hands of the savage Crusaders almost a century ago? Describing the conquest of Jerusalem by Sultan Salahuddin, Steven Runcimman, a Christian, writes:
“Saladin had the city at his mercy. He could storm it when he wished…………Saladin, so long as his power was recognized, was ready to be generous, and he wished Jerusalem to suffer as little as possible. He consented to make terms and offered that every Christian should be able to redeem himself at the rate of ten dinars a man, five a woman and one a child……On Friday 2nd October, Saladin entered Jerusalem. It was the 27th day of Rajab……….The victors (i.e. the Muslims) were correct and humane.
Where the Franks, eighty-eight years before, had waded through the blood of their (Muslim) victims, not a building now was looted, not a person injured. By Saladin’s orders guards patrolled the streets and the gates, preventing any outrage on the Christians……. Then Saladin announced that he would liberate every aged man and woman. When the Frankish ladies who had ransomed themselves came in tears to ask him where they should go, for their husbands or fathers were slain or captive, he answered by promising to release every captive husband, and to the widows and orphans he gave gifts from his own treasury. His mercy and kindness were in strange contrast to the deeds of the Christian conquerors of the First Crusade.
The Orthodox Christians and the Jacobites remained in Jerusalem. Each had to pay a capitation tax in addition to his ransom, though many poorer classes were excused the payment. The rich amongst them bought up much of the property left vacant by the Franks’ departure. The rest was bought by Moslems and Jews whom Saladin encouraged to settle in the city. When the news of Saladin’s victory reached Constantinople the Emperor Isaac Angelus sent an embassy to Saladin to congratulate him and to ask that the Christian Holy Places should revert to the Orthodox Church. After a little delay his request was granted.”
This was the noble manner in which Sultan Salahuddin, the Conqueror of Jerusalem reciprocated the cold blooded massacre of 70,000 Muslims by the Crusaders 88 years before. In so doing, he was implementing the Qur’aanic command: “Ward off evil with what is beautiful.”[Mujlisul Ulama]
A FULL REFUND ON JIZYA (TAX ON NON-MUSLIMS)
AN EXAMPLE DISPLAYING THE NOBLE SPIRIT OF THE SALAF
The following excerpt from a non-Muslim historian contains an eye-opening account of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) refunding the Jizya tax to many cities due to sudden circumstances rendering them unable to fulfil the responsibilities they had originally undertaken in providing adequate protection and refuge to the non-Muslims. In fact, such behaviour was typical of the honesty, integrity, and nobility displayed by the early Muslims. It throws into vivid contrast the often dishonest and treacherous behaviour exhibited by many Muslims today who have veered far away from the religion, both practically or spiritually, under the influence of foreign ideologies:
“It is true that adherence to their ancient faith rendered them obnoxious to the payment of Jizyah – a word which originally denoted tribute of any kind paid by the non-Muslim subjects of the Arab empire, but came later on to be used for the capitation-tax as the fiscal system of the new rulers became fixed; but this Jizyah was too moderate to constitute a burden, seeing that it released them from the compulsory military service that was incumbent on their Muslim fellow-subjects…the following facts taken from the Kitab al-Kharaj, drawn up by Abu Yusuf at the request of Harun al-Rashid (A.D. 786-809) may be taken as generally representative of Muhammadan procedure under the Abbasid Caliphate. The rich were to pay forty-eight dirhams (footnote: A dirham is about fivepence) a year, the middle classes twenty-four, while from the poor, i.e. the field-labourers and artisans, only twelve dirhams were taken.
This tax could be paid in kind if desired; cattle, merchandise, household effects, even needles were to be accepted in lieu of specie, but not pigs, wine, or dead animals. The tax was to be levied only on able-bodied males, and not on women or children. The poor who were dependent for their livelihood on alms [distributed by the state] and the aged poor who were incapable of work were also specially excepted as also the blind, the lame, the incurables and the insane, unless they happened to be men of wealth; this same condition applied to priests and monks, who were exempt if dependent on the alms of the rich, but had to pay if they were well-to-do and lived in comfort. The collectors of the Jizyah were particularly instructed to show leniency, and refrain from all harsh treatment or the infliction of corporal punishment, in case of non-payment.
This was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state who religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Musalmans [muslims].
When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this Jizyah on condition that “the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.” Again, in the treaty made by Khalid with some towns in the neighbourhood of Hirah, he writes: “If we protect you, then Jizyah is due to us; but if we do not, then it is not due.”
How clearly this condition was recognised by the Muhammadans may be judged from the following incident in the reign of the Caliph Umar. The Emperor Heraclius had raised an enormous army with which to drive back invading forces of the Muslims, who had in consequence to concentrate all their energies on the impending encounter. The Arab general, Abu Ubaydah, accordingly wrote to the governors of the conquered cities of Syria, order them to pay back all the Jizyah that had been collected from the cities, and wrote to the people, saying:
“We give you back the money that we took from you, as we have received news that a strong force is advancing against us. The agreement between us was that we should protect you, and as this is not now in our power, we return you all that we took. But if we are victorious we shall consider ourselves bound to you by the old terms of our agreement.”
In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury, and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, “May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us.”
As stated above, the Jizyah was levied on the able-bodied males, in lieu of the military service they would have been called upon to perform had they been Musalmans; and it is very noticeable that when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax. Such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajimah, a Christian tribe in the neighbourhood of Antioch, who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay Jizyah and should receive their proper share of the booty.
Living under this security of life and property and such toleration of religious thought, the Christian community – especially in the towns – enjoyed a flourishing prosperity in the early days of the Caliphate…In trade and commerce, the Christians also attained considerable affluence; indeed it was frequently their wealth that excited against them the jealous cupidity of the mob – a feeling that fanatics took advantage of, to persecute and oppress them.
Further, the non-Muslim communities enjoyed an almost complete autonomy, for the government placed in their hands the independent management of their internal affairs, and their religious leaders exercised judicial functions in cases that concerned their co-religionists only [footnote: Von Kremer]. Their churches and monasteries were, for the most part, not interfered with, except in the large cities, where some of them were turned into mosques – a measure that could hardly be objected to in view of the enormous increase in the Muslim and corresponding decrease in the Christian population…
Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing. Indeed, it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude towards the Christian religion that facilitated their rapid acquisition of the country.”
[Thomas Arnold, The Spread of Islam in the World]
RESIGNATION FROM GOVERNORSHIP DUE TO INADVERTENT WORD UTTERED TO A NON-MUSLIM
Hadhrat ‘Amr bin Sa’d (Radhiyallaahu ‘Anhu) was a Sahaabi who possessed great fear of ALLAH Ta’aalaa. During the khilaafat of Hadhrat ‘Umar (Radhiyallaahu ‘Anhu), Hadhrat ‘Amr bin Sa’d (Radhiyallaahu ‘Anhu) was nominated as the governor of Hims by Hadhrat ‘Umar (Radhiyallaahu ‘Anhu). However, at the time of his nomination, he mentioned to Hadhrat ‘Umar (Radhiyallaahu ‘Anhu) that he will only accept the post of governorship on condition that he does not receive any remuneration for his services. He ruled over Muslims and non-Muslims. On one occasion, he became upset with a christian for some misdemeanour that occurred from the side of the christian. Inadvertently, the words slipped from his tongue, “May ALLAAH disgrace you”. However, later on, when he began to ponder and reflect over his statement, he realized that he should have not uttered such a word to the christian. He was so overcome by the fear of ALLAAH Ta’aalaa and concern for his Aakhirat that he immediately set out to Madeenah Munawwarah. He mentioned to Hadhrat ‘Umar (Radhiyallaahu ‘Anhu) his mistake and expressed his fear of falling into the same predicament in the future, and thereafter excused himself and resigned from the position of governorship. (Jawaahir Paare)
AURANGZEB’S GOOD CHARACTER TOWARDS THE ENEMY
Such was the integrity, honour, and justice which the True Jihadis and Ruers of the past were known to possess, that even their enemies would feel comfortable in consulting with them regarding their problems, confident that they would not be taken advantage of.
The Great Warrior and Ruler of a huge Islamic empire, Hadhrat Aurangzeb Alamghir was at war with Shewajee when the latter’s food supply fell short. Shewajee consulted his advisor, Aman, who suggested that he consult with Hadhrat Aurangzeb Alamghir.
Shewajee said, “But he is the enemy.”
Aman replied, “Yes, he is the enemy, but he is firm upon the Shariah.One of the teachings of Islam is [seek the opinion of] ‘One whose opinion is sought is trusted.’ Hence correct and sincere advice should be given. Therefore he will give you good advice.”
Consequently Shewajee asked Hadhrat Aurangzeb Alamghir’s advice who promptly told him to make a truce during which he may make the necessary arrangements to replenish his food supplies. When fully prepared, the battles may once again be commenced. Shewajee took the advice and sought a ten year truce. Hadhrat Alamghir Aurangzeb ordered his troops to withdraw. When asked why he conducted himself like this, he replied, “It comes in the Qur’an ‘And truce is good’.” He was then asked why ten years. He replied,”Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) made an agreement of ten year at Hudaibiyyah, and success lies only in the following the most noble Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) of Allah”
Such was the integrity and honour of Hadhrat Aurangzeb Alamghir that made him deserving of the Nusrat of Allah (azza wa jal) which he undeniably received during his glorious rule.
For an upcoming and ongoing refutation of all the maliscious lies and slanders fabricated regarding Aurangzeb, which are repeatedly swallowed and regurgitated as if they are the gospel truth, see: www.aurangzib.wordpress.com
THE SPIRIT OF JUSTICE IN ISLAM
HADHRAT AMR’S OFFER OF SUPREME SACRIFICE
(This touching episode is recorded by the Muslim historian, Imaam Waqidi. We have reproduced it from the English version extracted from the book, “Anecdotes of Islam” by E. Khan)
“Defeated and dislodged from Syria, the Roman warriors took their last bold stand at Alexandria, then the capital of Egypt. They concentrated all their strength here to arrest the progress of the Muslims, but Amr Ibnul ‘As (radhiyallahu anhu), the invincible Muslim commander, crushed the united might of the Romans even at this place. The victorious General thereafter took into his hand the rule of the conquered territory (by the appointment of Ameerul Mu’mineen, Hadhrat Umar Bin Khattaab—radhiyallahu anhu).
General Amr began by granting the fullest liberty to the Christian subjects in all their religious affairs.
(NOTE: In an Islamic state, the non-Muslim citizens are required to pay a special tax called Jizyah which obliges the Islamic state to protect their lives, honour and property. They are allowed freedom of worship in their areas. The term ‘fullest liberty’ is erroneous – Mujlisul Ulama)
One morning intense commotion was witnessed in the Christian quarter of the city. Bands of the excited inhabitants streamed towards Chawk Bazaar and assembled in a large meeting. One after another, fiery speeches were delivered. Thereafter a number of their leaders with the local Archbishop as their head, arrived at the gate of the house of General Amr Ibnul ‘As. Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) cordially received the deputation.
The Bishop explained to Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) the cause of the excitement of the Christian inhabitants. There was a marble statue of Jesus Christ in the Bazaar. The Christians used to worship the idol with great reverence. Someone had broken the nose of the image the previous night. The Christians naturally connected the sacrilege with a Muslim.
General Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) gave a patient hearing and came to share the same suspicion (i.e. that a Muslim damaged the idol). He turned to the Bishop and said in a voice of agony: “I am deeply ashamed and pained at what had occurred. It is true, Islam disapproves of idol-worship. But it equally disapproves of the profanation of the gods and goddesses of non-Muslim communities. Please have the statue repaired and I shall bear the entire cost.”
The Bishop replied: “But it is impossible to repair it, for a fresh nose cannot be fitted to it.” General Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “Then build a new statue, and I shall meet the cost.”
(NOTE: Lest there be a misunderstanding on the issue of idols, it should be understood that when the non-Muslim community in an Islamic state pays the Jizyah tax and becomes subservient to Islamic rule, the Shariah guarantees them freedom of worship in their own areas. It is not permissible in an Islamic state for either the authorities or the Muslim populace to interfere with the worship, churches and objects of veneration of the Zimmis – the non-Muslim inhabitants in Darul Islam. All of this is part of the pledge between the Islamic state and the Zimmis, hence Hadhrat Amr’s offer – Mujlisul Ulama)
The Bishop replied: “But even that is not acceptable. You know we believe Jesus to be the son of God; so vulgar money cannot compensate for the profanation of his image. There is one compensation: we shall build a statue of your Prophet (Muhammad—sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and break its nose.”
(The bishop had exceeded all bounds of propriety in making this profane and insolent demand – Mujlisul Ulama)
The face of General Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) blazed up in anger. His eyes rolled fiercely; his lips tightened; his body began to quiver, and again and again his hand grasped at his sword and again and again he extricated his hand from the weapon. General Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) left his seat, walked restlessly to and fro for some time. Then he washed his face with cold water. He then returned to his seat and said in a quiet sorrowful voice:
“You propose to erect a statue of the Great Prophet who after years of strenuous struggle abolished idol-worship and then you want to break it with insult — and all this before our eyes! It is better that all our wealth, our children and lives perish! Bishop make some other proposal. I am prepared to cut off and deliver the nose of anyone of us for the nose of your image.”
The Bishop accepted the last offer with gleeful alacrity. The following morning Christians and Muslims swarmed to the open square—the Christians would have their revenge in this open place. General Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) addressed the gathering and narrated the circumstances of the unfortunate incident in their fullest details. He then called the Bishop to his presence and said:
“You are the head of the Christians, and I am the head of the Muslims here. The responsibility of ruling this country is mine and I must accept the punishment for any insult that may have been offered to your religion or for the weakness of my administration. Take this sword and cut off my nose”.
Saying this, he handed the Bishop his sword. The Bishop took the sword in his hand and began to examine the sharpness of the edge. The huge concourse stood silent and breathless in the profoundest astonishment. Suddenly the silence was broken by a Muslim soldier who was running towards the spot and crying:
“Stop! Stop Bishop! Here is the nose of your image and herewith the culprit of the day. It is I who broke your idol and this punishment is due to me. The General is entirely innocent.”
Then the man stepped before the Bishop and offered his nose. The Bishop threw away the sword and said: “Blessed is the soldier; blessed is the General and above all, blessed is the noble Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) whose ideal has built up men like these. It was no doubt a wrong to break the image, but it will be an immeasurably greater wrong to mangle a human face for that.” — End of episode cited
THE LESSONS FROM THE EPISODE
No doubt, every Muslim’s heart will be moved by this touching episode which vividly illustrates the boundless and profound love which the Sahaabi, Hadhrat Amr Ibnul Aa’s (radhiyallahu anhu) cherished in his bosom for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is only the transcendental concept of devotion for the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which can induce a powerful ruler in full control of the land under his jurisdiction to voluntarily offer his face to be mangled by one of his defenceless subjects.
Non-Muslims can never even grasp the very rudimentary elements of the type of devotion and love which the illustrious Sahaabi demonstrated by his actions. Every move which Hadhrat Amr made during his dialogue with the Bishop displays his love, the superiority of his intelligence and his lofty state of moral excellence.
From Hadhrat Amr’s spontaneous reaction of blazing anger the moment the Bishop presented his suggestion of insulting Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the West, while not being able to understand the spiritual rationale which underlies the surge of almost uncontrollable rage, should at least acknowledge the existence of an inexplicable spiritual force which impels Muslims to react spontaneously and violently when their beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is insulted. This is a reality which the West has to take into account when they formulate their policies and conspiracies in relation to Muslims.
Besides the aforementioned lesson which the West can learn from this wonderful episode, Muslims can learn several lessons.
(1) That there is no anarchy in Islam. The way in which Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) acquitted himself in the face of the severest provocation is exemplary. After all, the Sahaabah were beacons of guidance. “All my Sahaabah are just (guiding stars). Whomever you follow, you will attain guidance.”, said Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
(2) That issues are resolved intellectually within the framework of the Shariah, not emotionally at the behest of the inordinate demands of the evil nafs whose counsellor-in-chief is Shaitaan. Hadhrat Amr’s first and spontaneous reaction on merely hearing of the suggestion of insult was the desire to smite the neck of the Bishop and despatch him into the bowels of Jahannam. But he arrested his anger and discharged his obligations as a just ruler representing the Rasool of Allah Azza Wa Jal. He did not permit his blazing anger and his revulsion for the vile suggestion of the Bishop to goad him into the commission of the slightest vestige of injustice. He did not react like a hooligan and a thug. His head was held high aloft in the clouds of morality and spirituality—there where the Angels dwell.
(3) That a powerful man is always in control of his anger and his nafs. He is not a slave of his bestial desires. When the fire of anger drove Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) to repeatedly clasp his sword to despatch the Bishop to Hell, most certainly, the words of his Beloved Master Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) for whom he was prepared to mangle his face and disfigure himself for life, rang in his ears: “A powerful man is not he who drops another in physical combat. A powerful man is he who is the master of his nafs at the time of anger.” He then proceeded to wash his face with cold water to cool the flames of his anger because his Beloved Master said: “Anger is from shaitaan and Shaitaan was created from fire. Extinguish fire with water.” Although enflamed with anger, Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) maintained his mental equilibrium and abstained from committing any excesses.
(4) That the rights of non-Muslims should be observed. Pledges made with non-Muslims have to be honoured. The insult which the Bishop proposed was not a valid ground for violating the pledge which existed between the Muslim ruler and his non-Muslim subjects.
(5) That notwithstanding Islam’s uncompromising concept of Tauhid (Monotheism) and implacable aversion for idolatry, the Sahaabah practised great tolerance of the kufr religions of the non-Muslim people in the conquered territories. Part of the pledge and treaty stipulated freedom of religion for the non-Muslims in their areas. It therefore devolved on the state to guarantee protection of the churches and relics of the non-Muslim subjects.
(6) That while Muslim anger is natural, valid and justified when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or Islam is insulted, we have to contend with the Shariah. Anger should not constrain Muslims to transgress the prescribed limits of the Shariah which prohibits injustice and anarchy. The action which is to be instituted should be calculated and conform to the Shariah. Mob rampages and commission of destruction are not the Shariah’s ways of resolving issues.
“These are the limits of Allah. Do not approach even near to them.” (Qur’aan)
That is, commit no transgression of the Shariah’s laws.
TRUE JIHAAD IS CHARACTERIZED BY JUSTICE, HONOUR, AND INTEGRITY
A few young men of a Muslim Army, while in pursuit of a Kaafir soldier in the battlefield, called out in Persian, “Don’t be afraid!” The Kaafir soldier, understanding this call to be an assurance of safety, permitted the Muslims to catch up with him, only then to be killed by them.
When Hadhrat Umar (radhiyllahu anhu) heard of this seemingly minor misdemeanour in the battlefield against a Kaafir enemy combatant, he sounded the following severe warning to any Muslim who commits such treachery, which portrays the enormous emphasis placed by Islam on justice, honour and integrity, even during war:
“By He in whose hand my soul is, if I hear of anyone who does that, I shall strike off his neck [i.e. execution].”
This narration is related in numerous authentic books such as Imam Malik’s Muwatta. The Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen (Leading Imams of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen), whilst differing on whether the specific punishment stated by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) is mandatory or not, all agreed that the misdemeanour described above constituted treachery and as such deserved severe punishment.
Numerous other narrations from Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) convey a similar meaning, emphasizing the fact that even in a real battlefield, if a Kaafir combatant understands or misunderstands, from even the slightest indication, that he has been granted safety by a Muslim, then the Muslim is obliged to honour that impression of him, and is obliged not harm the Kaafir combatant at all. For example, the following authentic narration used by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen as evidence (istidlaal) for the prohibition of treachery even against a Kaafir combatant on the battlefield, quotes Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) as saying:
‘A Muslim man that gestures to a man from the enemy: “If you come down I will kill you.” And he (the enemy) comes down believing that he has been granted safety, then he (the Muslim) has guaranteed him (the enemy) safety.’” [Musannaf Abi Shaybah, Kitab-ul-Kharaj of Imam Abu Yusuf, al-Siyar of Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani, and other books of the Salaf]
[Despite the Muslim expressing his intention to kill the enemy, the enemy misunderstood from the gesture that the Muslim does not intend to harm him, hence the Muslim is obliged not to harm him.]
Noteworthy is the fact that Ameerul Mu’mineen, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), who was a true Khalifah – unlike the fake version currently installed and funded by the West in Syria – issued a stern warning to any Muslim Warrior who kills in a treacherous manner a Kaafir combatant in a real battlefield – a Kaafir enemy who might quite possibly have killed or harmed many Muslims.
Not too much Aql (intellect) is required to understand what Hadhrat Umar’s (radhiyallahu anhu) Fatwa and attitude would have been towards the fraudulent ‘Jihadis’ of ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Pakistani Fake Taliban, and other Salafi-influenced ‘Jihadi’ groups, and their Zindeeq “scholars” who, like all modernists today, excel in the art of making Halaal that which is Haraam, and who legalize (make Halaal) such perverted abominations as gunning down or blowing oneself up amongst innocent, non-combatant men, women and children in a completely non-battlefield scenario.
The Laws of Islam pertaining to every single aspect of life, including Jihaad, were derived, recorded, compiled, and set in stone over a thousand years ago, by a galaxy of Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen (the Leading Imams of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen) and Fuqaha who had instituted a incomparably monumental and unmatchable process of codification, compilation, and intense scrutiny which culminated eventually in the compendium of rulings that now constitutes the Four Madh-habs (schools of thought which comprise of all the original rulings of Islam).
These rulings of Islam which include the absolute prohibition of targeting civilians in Jihaad, and the absolute prohibition of treachery and fraud, are ALL immutable, unchangeable, and not up for review or “improvement”, regardless of how rigid, restrictive and “backwards” such Laws of Islam might appear to the fraudulent “Jihaadis”, Salafis, and modernists today, whose satanic pride (Kibr) and desperate craving to concoct a tailor-made religion (Deen) based around their filthy desires lead them to dwell under the self-deception that their kindergarten-level of knowledge enables them to re-enact an improved version of the monumental process instituted by those who were, according to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the most superior of generations (Khairul Quroon), whose knowledge and piety will never be matched again, and who witnessed first-hand and carried forward to their direct students the spirit and ethos of the Deen as practised by the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum).
Any version of “Deen” which seeks to differ with or “improve” on the Four Madh-habs even slightly, such as the innumerable new versions of “Deen” of the multitudes of Salafi and modernist groups that have mushroomed recently, is a deviated imposter of a “Deen” that has nothing to do with Islam.
To be updated with many more true anecdotes…