Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi hero of Islam

Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi hero of Islam...time for some Islamic education respected brothers n sisters...is it no wonder the christian world does not print the savagery and barbarism they have inflicted on the world in the annals of history and mankind
yet they will print in the media and history books the lies and propagandas of terrorisam they accuse us of...seems they have much practice in ways of genocide only now they legaiize it sayin it is 'war on terrorism'...read on for their age old practice of so called civilized christianity...
Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi, the hero of hundreds of battles, was the person who for twenty years braved the storm of the Crusaders and ultimately pushed back the combined forces of Europe which had come to swarm the Holy Land. The world has hardly witnessed a more chivalrous and humane conqueror.
The Crusades represent the maddest and the longest war in the history of mankind, in which the storm of 'savage fanaticism of the Christian West' burst in all its fury over western Asia. `The Crusades form', says a Western writer, `one of the maddest episodes in history. Christianity hurled itself against Muhammadanism in expedition after expedition for nearly three centuries, until failure brought lassitude, and superstition itself was undermined by its own labour. Europe was drained off men and money, and threatened with social bankruptcy, if not with annihilation. Millions perished in battle, hunger or disease and every atrocity imagination can conceive disgraced the warrior of the Cross'. The Christian West was excited to a mad religious frenzy by Peter the Hermit, and his followers to liberate the Holy Land from the hands of the Muslims. `Every means', says Hallam, `was used to excite an epidemical frenzy'. During the time that a Crusader bore the Cross, he was under the protection of the Church and exempted from all taxes as well as free to commit all sins.
Peter the Hermit himself led the second host of the Crusaders comprising forty thousand people. `Arriving at Mallevile, they avenged their precursors by assaulting the town, slaying seven thousand of the inhabitants, and abandoning themselves to every species of grossness and liberalism'. The savage hordes called Crusaders converted Hungary and Bulgaria into desolate regions. When they reached Asia Minor, they, according to Michaud, `committed crimes which made nature shudder'.
The third wave of the Crusaders commanded by a German monk, according to Gibbon, `were comprised of the most stupid and savage refuse of people. They mingled with their devotion a brutal licence of rapine, prostitution and drunkenness'. `They forgot Constantinople and Jerusalem', says Michaud `in tumultuous scenes of debauchery, and pillage, violation and murder was everywhere left on the traces of their passage'.
The fourth horde of the Crusaders which had risen from western Europe was, according to Mill, `another herd of wild and desperate savages... The internal multitude hurried on the south in their usual career of carnage and rapine'. But, at last, they were annihilated by the infuriated Hungarian Army which had a foretaste of the madness of the earlier Crusaders.
Later the Crusaders met with initial success and conquered a major part of Syria and Palestine, including the Holy city of Jerusalem. But their victories were followed by such brutalities and massacres of innocent Muslims which eclipsed the massacres of Changiz and Hulaku. Mill, a Christian historian, testifies to this massacre of the Muslim population on the fall of the Muslim town of Autioch. He writes: `The dignity of age, the helplessness of youth and the beauty of the weaker *** were disregarded by the Latin savages. Houses were no sanctuaries, and the sign of a mosque added new virulence to cruelty'. According to Michaud: `if contemporary account can be credited, all the vices of the infamous Babylon prevailed among the liberators of Scion'. The Crusaders laid waste to flourishing towns of Syria, butchered their population in cold blood and burnt to ashes the invaluable treasures of art and learning including the world famous library of Tripolis (Syria) containing more than three million volumes. `The streets ran with blood until ferocity was tired out', says Mill. `Those who were vigorous or beautiful were reserved for the slave market at Antioch, but the aged and the infirm were immolated at the altar of cruelty'.
But in the second half of the 12th century, when the Crusaders were in their greatest fury and the emperors of Germany and France and Richard, the lion-hearted king of England, had taken the field in person for the conquest of the Holy Land, the Crusaders were met by Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi, a great warrior who pushed back the surging wave of Christianity out to engulf the Holy Land. He was not able to clear the gathering storm but in him the Crusaders met a man of indomitable will and dauntless courage who could accept the challenge of the Christian West.
Salahuddin was born in 1137. He got his early training under his illustrious father Najmuddin Ayub and his chivalrous uncle Asaduddin Sherkoh, who were the trusted lieutenants of Nooruddin Mahmud, the monarch of Syria. Asaduddin Sherkoh, a great warrior general was the commander of the Syrian force, which had defeated the Crusaders both in Syria and Egypt. Sherkoh entered Egypt in 1167 to meet the challenge of the Fatamide Minister Shawer who had allied himself with the French. The marches and counter-marches of the gallant Sherkoh and his ultimate victory at Babain over the allied force, according to Michaud, `show military capacity of the highest order'. Ibni Atheer writes about it: `Never has history recorded a more extraordinary event than the rout of the Egyptian force and the French at the littoral by only a thousand cavaliers'.
On January 8, 1169 Sherkoh arrived in Cairo and was appointed as the Minister and Commander-in-Chief by the Fatimid Caliph. But Sherokh was not destined to enjoy the fruits of his high office long. He died two months later in 1169. On his death, his nephew Salahuddin Ayubi became the Prime Minister of Egypt. He soon won the hearts of the people by his liberality and justice and on the death of the Egyptian Caliph became the virtual ruler of Egypt.
In Syria too, the celebrated Nooruddin Mahmud died in 1174 and was succeeded by his eleven year old son, Malik-us-Saleh who became a tool in the hands of his courtiers, specially Gumushtagin. Salahuddin sent a message to Malik-us-Saleh offering his services and devotion. He even continued to keep his name in the `Khutaba' (Friday Sermons) and coinage. But all these considerations were of no avail for the young ruler and his ambitious courtiers. This state of affairs once more heartened the Crusaders who were kept down by the advice of Gumushtagin retired to Alippo, leaving Damascus exposed to a Frankish attack. The Crusaders instantly laid siege to the Capital city and released it only after being paid heavy ransom. This enraged Salahuddin who hurried to Damascus with a small force and took possession of it.
After occupying Damascus, he did not enter the palace of his patron, Nooruddin Mahmud, but stayed in his father's house. The Muslims, on the other hand, were much dismayed by the activities of Malik-us-Saleh and invited him to rule over the area. But Salahuddin continued to rule on behalf of the young Malik-us-Saleh. On the death of Malik-us-Saleh in 1181-82, the authority of Salahuddin was acknowledged by all the sovereigns of western Asia.
There was a truce between the Sultan and the Franks in Palestine but, according to the French historian Michaud, `the Mussalmans respected their pledged faith, whilst the Christians gave the signal of a new war'. Contrary to the terms of the truce, the Christian ruler Renaud or Reginald of Chatillon attacked a Muslim caravan passing by his castle, massacred a large number of people and looted their property. The Sultan was now free to act. By a skilful manoeuvre, Salahuddin entrapped the powerful enemy forces near the hill of Hittin in 1187 and routed them with heavy loses. The Sultan did allow the Christians to recover and rapidly followed up his victory of Hittin. In a remarkably short time, he reoccupied a large number of cities which were in possession of the Christians including Nablus, Jericko, Ramlah, Caesarea, Arsuf, Jaffa and Beirut. Ascalon, too, submitted after a short siege and was granted generous terms by the kind-hearted Sultan.
The Sultan now turned his attention to Jerusalem which contained more than sixty thousand Crusaders. The Christians, could not withstand the onslaught of the Sultan's forces and capitulated in 1187. The humanity of the Sultan towards the defeated Christians of Jerusalem procures an unpleasant contrast to the massacre of the Muslims in Jerusalem when conquered by the Christians about ninety years before.
According to the French historian Michaud, on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Christians in 1099 `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, in the mosques where they could not conceal themselves from the Christians. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Umar, where the Saracens defended themselves for sometime, renewed their deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and the 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.'
There was a short lull in the act of slaughter when the Crusaders assembled to offer their thanksgiving prayer for the victory they had achieved. But soon it was renewed with great ferocity. `All the captives', says Michaud, `whom the lassitude of carnage had at first spared, all those who had been saved in the hope of rich ransom, were butchered in cold blood. The Saracens were forced to throw themselves from the tops of towers and houses; they were burnt alive; they were dragged from their subterranean retreats, they were hauled to the public places, and immolated on piles of the dead. Neither the tears of women nor the cries of little children--- not even the sight of the place where Jesus Christ forgave his executioners, could mollify the victors' passion... The carnage lasted for a week. The few who escaped were reduced to horrible servitude'.
Another Christian historian, Mill adds: `It was resolved that no pity should be shown to the Mussalmans. The subjugated people were, therefore, dragged into the public places, and slain as victims. Women with children at their breast, girls and boys, all were slaughtered. The squares, the streets and even the un-inhabited places of Jerusalem, were strewn with the dead bodies of men and women, and the mangled limbs of children. No heart melted in compassion, or expanded into benevolence'.
These are the graphic accounts of the massacre of the Muslims in Jerusalem about ninety years before the reoccupation of the Holy city by Sultan Salahuddin in which more than seventy thousand Muslims perished.
On the other hand, when the Sultan captured Jerusalem in 1187, he gave free pardon to the Christians living in the city. Only the combatants were asked to leave the city on payment of a nominal ransom. In most of the cases, the Sultan provided the ransom money from his own pocket and even provided them transport. A number of weeping Christian women carrying their children in their arms approached the Sultan and said `You see us on foot, the wives, mothers and dauthers of the warriors who are your prisoners; we are quitting forever this country; they aided us in our lives, in losing them we lose our last hope; if you give them to us, they can alleviate our miseries and we shall not be without support on earth'. The Sultan was highly moved with their appeal and set free their men. Those who left the city were allowed to carry all their bag and baggage. The humane and benevolent behaviour of the Sultan with the defeated Christians of Jerusalem provides a striking contrast to the butchery of the Muslims in this city at the hands of the Crusaders ninety years before. The commanders under the Sultan vied with each other in showing mercy to the defeated Crusaders.
The Christian refugees of Jerusalem were not given refuge by the cities ruled by the Christians. `Many of the Christians who left Jerusalem', says Mill, `went to Antioch but Bohemond not only denied them hospitality, but even stripped them. They marched into the Saracenian country, and were well received'. Michaud gives a long account of the Christian inhumanity to the Christian refugees of Jerusalem. Tripoli shut its gates on them and, according to Michaud, `one woman, urged by despair, cast her infant into the sea, cursing the Christians who refused them succour'. But the Sultan was very considerate towards the defeated Christians. Respecting their feelings, he did not enter the city of Jerusalem until the Crusaders had left.
From Jerusalem, the Sultan marched upon Tyre, where the ungrateful Crusaders pardoned by Sultan in Jerusalem had organized to meet him. The Sultan captured a number of towns held by the Crusaders on the sea coast, including Laodicea, Jabala, Saihun, Becas, Bozair and Derbersak. The Sultan had set free Guy de Luginan on the promise that he would instantly leave for Europe. But, as soon as this ungrateful Christian Knight got freedom, he broke his pledged word and collecting a large army, laid siege to Ptolemais.
The fall of Jerusalem into the hands of the Muslims threw Christendom into violent commotion and reinforcements began to pour in from all parts of Europe. The Emperors of Germany and France as well as Richard, the Lion-hearted, king of England, hurried with large armies to seize the Holy Land from the Muslims. They laid siege to Acre which lasted for several months. In several open combats against the Sultan,, the Crusaders were routed with terrible losses.
The Sultan had now to face the combined might of Europe. Incessant reinforcements continued pouring in for the Crusaders and despite their heavy slaughter in combats against the Sultan, their number continued increasing. The besieged Muslims of Acre, who held on so long against the flower of the European army and who had been crippled with famine at last capitulated on the solemn promise that none would be killed and that they would pay 2,00,000 pieces of gold to the chiefs of the Crusaders. There was some delay in the payment of the ransom when the Lion-hearted king of England butchered the helpless Muslims in cold blood within the sight of their brethren.
This act of the king of England infuriated the Sultan. He vowed to avenge the blood of the innocent Muslims. Along the 150 miles of coastlines, in eleven Homeric battles, the Sultan inflicted heavy losses on the Christian forces.
At the last the Lion-hearted king of England sued for peace, which was accepted by the Sultan. He had found facing him a man of indomitable will and boundless energy and had realized the futility of continuing the struggle against such a person. In September 1192, peace was concluded and the Crusaders left the Holy Land with bag and baggage, bound for their homes in Europe.
`Thus ended the third Crusade', writes Michaud, `in which the combined forces of the west could not gain more than the capture of Acre and the destruction of Ascaion. In it, Germany lost one of its greatest emperors and the flower of its army. More than six lakh Crusaders landed in front of Acre and hardly one lakh returned to their homes. Europe has more reasons to wail on the outcome of this Crusade as in it had participated the best armies of Europe. The flower of Western chivalry which Europe was proud of had fought in these wars'.
The Sultan devoted the rest of his life to public welfare activities and built hospitals, schools, colleges and mosques all over his dominion.
But he was not destined to live long to enjoy the fruits of peace. A few months later, he died on March 4, 1193 at Damascus. `The day of his death' says a Muslim writer, `was for Islam and the Mussalmans, a misfortune such as they never suffered since they were deprived of the first four Caliphs. The palace, the empire, and the world was overwhelmed with grief, the whole city was plunged in sorrow, and followed his bier weeping and crying'.
Thus died Sultan Salahuddin, one of the most humane and chivalrous monarchs in the annals of mankind. In him, nature had very harmoniously blended the benevolent and merciful heart of a Muslim with a matchless military genius. The messenger who took the news of his death to Baghdad brought the Sultan's coat of mail, his horse one dinar and 36 dirhams which was all the property he had left. His contemporaries and other historians are unanimous in acknowledging Salahuddin as a tender-hearted, kind, patient, affable person--- a friend of the learned and the virtuous whom he treated with utmost respect and beneficence. `In Europe', says Phillip K. Hitti, `he touched the fancy of the English minstrels as well as the modern novelists and is still considered the paragon of chivalry'.

سقوط

سنتے آئے ہيں کہ تاريخ اپنے آپ کو دہراتي ہے? شايد بہت سے لوگوں کے ليے تاريخ ميں سوائے بوريت کے اور کچھ نہ ہو ليکن واقعہ يہ ہے کہ تاريخ کا مطالعہ نہ صرف آنے والے خطرات کي پيش بندي کا موقع فرہم کرتا ہے بلکہ وہ موجودہ حالات کو بھي ايک مختلف تناظر ميں متعارف کرا سکتا ہے? آج کل ہمارے ملک کا سب سے بڑا مسئلہ مہنگائي يا بڑھتي ہوئي خودکشياں نہيں بلکہ ايک ايسا معاملہ ہے جس ميں ہمارے ملک کي اعلي? ترين مقتدر شخصيات کا ملک دشمن سرگرميوں ميں ملوث ہونے کا انديشہ ہے?يہ معاملہ ہے ميمو گيٹ اسکينڈل کا (نہ چاہتے ہوئے بھي يہ مانگے کي اصطلاح استعمال کرني پڑ رہي ہے ورنہ صدر نکسن کا قصور اتنا بڑا نہ تھا کہ ايسي شرمناک حرکت اس سے منسوب کر دي جاتي) ? کہتے ہيں کہ ہمارے ملک کي اعلي? مقتدر ہستيوں نے امريکہ بہادر کے ايک جنرل کو لکھا (يا لکھوايا) کہ حضور آپ کي نظر کرم ہو تو ہم يہاں آپ کي من پسند انتظاميہ کھڑي کر ديں گے? اور جو کچھ آپ نے مانگا ہے وہ بلکہ جو آپ نہ بھي مانگيں وہ بھي آپ کي نذر کرتے ہيں بس ہميں اپني پسنديدگي کي سند دے ديں? يہ وہي مقتدر ہستياں ہيں جو پہلے يہ کہہ چکي ہيں کہ “کوليٹرل ڈيميج آپ امريکنوں کو پريشان کرتا ہے ہميں نہيں” يا “آپ ڈرون برسائے جاو? ہم منہ دوسري طرف کيے رہيں گے ليکن باہر باہر سے احتجاج بھي کريں گے”? مسلمانوں کي صفوں ميں غداروں کا ہونا کوئي نئي بات نہيں? ليکن مسلمان حکمران اپنے کافر آقا و?ں سے باقاعدہ خط و کتابت کے ساتھ غداري کے عہد و پيمان باندھ ليں اس کي مثال ہماري ذلت کي تاريخ ميں بھي بہت ہي کم ہے? آج ہم اس ميمو کو رو رہے ہيں کہ کس نے لکھا اور کيوں لکھا کس نے اس کو طشت از بام کيا اور کيوں کيا، ليکن مسلمانوں کي تاريخ پچھلے ??? سال سے چيخ چيخ کر کہہ رہي ہے کہ تب بھي کسي نے ايک ميمو لکھا تھا? اور مماثلت بس يہيں ختم نہيں ہو جاتي?
امير ابو عبداللہ غرناطہ ميں مسلمانوں کا آخري حکمران تھا? اندلس ميں آٹھ سو سالہ مسلم تاريخ کا آخري باب? اپنے باپ مولائے ابوالحسن کي پيٹھ پيچھے اقتدار پر قبضہ کرنے کے بعد اپنے اقتدار کو عوامي حمايت دلانے کے ليے اس نے قسطيلہ (کاسٹائل) کي عيسائي افواج پر يکطرفہ چڑھائي کردي اور بري طرح شکست کھا کر جنگي قيدي بنايا گيا? قيد سے چھوٹا تو اس شرط کے ساتھ کہ اس کو غرناطہ کا اقتدار واپس دلايا جائے گا تاکہ وہ غرناظہ کي بغير کسي مزاحمت کے عيسائي حکومت ميں شامل ہونے کو يقيني بنائے? ابو عبداللہ نے واپس آنے کے بعد اپنے اقتدار کے آخري دن تک ہر روز شايد اسي کوشش ميں گزارا کہ وہ کس طرح زيادہ سے زيادہ مال اکٹھا کر لے اس سے پہلے کہ اقتدار چھوڑنا پڑے? اس کام ميں اس کے معاون اس کے وزرا ء اور امراء بھي تھے اور پورے حکمران طبقہ ميں مشکل ہي کوئي ہو جو اس بہتي گنگا ميں ہاتھ نہ دھو پايا ہو? اس تقريباً سات سال کے عرصے ميں لا تعداد دفعہ خط و کتابت ہوئي اور ان ميں سے کئي کو محفوظ کر ليا گيا، ڈاکٹر حقي حق نے اپني کتاب “ہوئے تم دوست جس کے” ميں ان کا ذکر کيا ہے اور نسيم حجازي کے “شاہين” سے تو ہماري اکثريت واقف ہي ہے? ان “ميمو جات” ميں کبھي تو امير ابو عبد اللہ نے لکھا کہ کسي شورش يا ہنگامہ کي صورت ميں غرناطہ کي حفاظت کي جائے کيونکہ ہم اپنے دفاع کے ليے آپ کي طرف ديکھتے ہيں? تو کبھي جوابي خط ميں فرڈينينڈ نے ابو عبد اللہ کو لکھا کہ تمہارے وزير ہم سے زيادہ کا مطالبہ کر رہے ہيں کيا تمہارے علم ميں نہيں؟ کبھي فرڈينينڈ نے ابو عبداللہ سے ايک خط ميں “ڈو مور” کا مطالبہ کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ ہم تمہارے وزراء سے بات کرتے ہوئے تمہارے مفادات کو ترجيح ديتے ہيں? ليکن تم پر ہماري عنايات اسي وقت تک ہيں جب تک تم عيسائي حکمرانوں کے مفادات کا خيال رکھو? اور سگ ذہني کا پاتال وہ عبارت بھي موجود ہے جو مسلمان وزراء نے ايک مشترکہ خط ميں لکھي کہ اے شان والے بادشاہ، ہم تمہارے حضور حاضر ہو کر تمہارے ہاتھ چومنا چاہتے ہيں اور تمہارے جسم کا ہر وہ حصہ چومنا چاہتے ہيں جس کي کہ اجازت دي جائے تاکہ ان غلاموں کي وارفتگي تم خود ديکھ لو!
ليکن صحيح معنوں ميں اس دور کا “ميمو” اگر کسي خط کو کہا جا سکتا ہے تو وہ وہ کتابت ہے جو عبداللہ اور اس کے وزيروں نے غرناطہ کو عيسائي حکمرانوں کے حوالے کرنے کے عوض اپنے ليے مراعات کي ضمانت حاصل کرنے کے ليے کي تھي? اس خط ميں موجود چند شرائط يہ ہيں :
-سقوط غرناطہ کے وقت عبداللہ کو تين لاکھ ماراويد ( کرنسي) کي ادائيگي
-الميريا ميں زرخيز زمين
-شاہي خواتين کو زيورات اور بناو? سنگھار کي چيزيں فروخت کرنے کي اجازت
-عبداللہ اور اس کے امراء کے اموال محفوظ قرار ديا جانا
-الحمراء پر قبضہ کے وقت عبداللہ اور گورنر غرناطہ کو دس دس ہزار سکہ نقد ديے جانا
-جو کسان عبداللہ اور اس کے امراء کے ليے غلہ اگاتے ہيں ان کے تحفظ کي ضمانت
يہ خط ايک کافر بادشاہ کو ايک مسلمان بادشاہ کي طرف سے تھا? ايک ايسا مسلمان بادشاہ جس کے سامنے دو ميں سے ايک راستہ تھا? يا تو عيسائي قوت کے آگے ڈٹ کر کھڑا ہو جائے اور اللہ کي نصرت پر بھروسہ رکھے?يا اس قوت کے سامنے سے ہٹ جائے اور اپني اور اپنے خاندان کي بہتري کا خيال کرے? بادشاہ نے دوسري راہ اختيار کي اور تاريخ گواہ ہے کہ وہ کوئي بہت زيادہ جيا بھي نہيں اور مرا بھي تو اس حال ميں کہ اس کي لاش دريا کے کنارے پڑي تھي اور گھوڑے اسے روند رہے تھے? اس خط کے 6 سال بعد غرناطہ پر اسلام کا پرچم غروب ہو گيا? اور اس دن سے لے کر آج کا دن ہے، اندلس ميں اسلام کبھي واپس نہيں آيا? عبداللہ پر شايد اس کي اوقات سے بڑي ذمہ داري آگئي تھي اور اس نے اس ذمہ داري سے ہر ممکن پہلو تہي کرتے ہوئے اپنے تحفظ کو مقدم رکھا? اس نے اپني عوام کو يقيناً يہ باور کرايا ہو گا کہ اس معاہدے ميں ہي ہماري بقاء ہے ورنہ ہمارا “تورا بورا” بنا ديا جائے گا? يا فرڈينينڈ ہميں “پتھر کے دور” ميں پھينک دے گا? اور سقوط کے معاہدے ميں بظاہر مسلمانوں کے حقوق کا تحفظ کيا گيا تھا مثلاً انہيں زبردستي عيسائي نہ بنائے جانے کي يقين دہاني اور ان کے جان و مال کا تحفظ ليکن عملاً ايک بار جب عيسائي قابض ہو گئے تو مسلمانوں کے ليے معاہدے کي کسي ايک شق پر بھي عمل کرانا ناممکن تھا? مسلمانوں کو زبردستي عيسائي بھي بنايا گيا اور ان کے جان و مال زبردستي چھينے بھي گئے? ليکن يہ شايد ان کي غفلت کي قيمت تھي کہ انہوں نے اپنے اس بادشاہ پر بھروسہ کيا تھا جس نے ان کو اقتدار ميں آنے سے پہلے ہي بيچ ديا تھا?
???? کے اندلس اور آج کے پاکستان ميں صرف يہي مماثلت نہيں ہے کہ ان کا بادشاہ بھي جيل سے نکال کر بادشاہ بنايا گيا تھا? يا اس کے بادشاہ بنائے جانے ميں بھي کسي پاور ڈيل کا دخل تھا? يا يہ کہ اس کے وزير کا نام بھي يوسف تھا? يا يہ کہ اس نے بھي اپني خودغرضي کو وسيع تر قومي مفاد کا نام ديا تھا? يا يہ کہ تب بھي ايک ميمو لکھا گيا تھا اور آج بھي? بلکہ ہمار ے ليے سب سے بڑي مماثلت يہ ہے کہ اس وقت کے عوام بھي اپنے کام دھندوں ميں لگے رہے? معاملات کي جو تصوير ان کو حکام نے دکھائي وہ ديکھي اور خبردار کرنے والوں کي بات پر کان بھي نہ دھرے? حکام شريعت سے روگرداني کرتے رہے ، مملکت کے دفاع کے سودے کرتے رہے اور عوام اپنے کام دھندوں اور کھيل تماشوں ميں لگے رہے? اس وقت بھي،آنے والے حالات کي سنگيني سے آگاہ کرنے والوں کو “ميسينجرز آف ڈوم” يا “تباہي کے قاصد” کہا گيا ہو گا? ليکن حقيقت يہ ہے کہ يہاں غرناطہ ميں اسلا م کا پرچم سرنگوں ہوا اور وہاں مسلمانوں کي کم بختي شروع? يہ منظر بھي تاريخ کے اوراق ميں موجود ہے کہ ايک طويل قطار ميں لوگ اپني باري کا انتظار کر رہے ہيں اور زار و قطار رو رہے ہيں کہ يہ لائن داڑھي کٹانے کے ليے ہے? اور يہ بھي کہ مسلمان پردہ دار بيبيوں کو بپتسمہ ديا جا رہا ہے? اور يہ بھي کہ مسجدوں ميں عيسائي فوجيوں کے گھوڑے بندھے ہيں ? اور “انکوئيزشن” کا نام تو غير مسلم مو?رخين کے سامنے بھي ليں تو وہ بھي کانپ جاتے ہيں?
پھر لکھتا ہوں، تاريخ پڑھنے سے مستقبل کانقشہ واضح ہوتا ہے? يہ سطريں صرف تفنن طبع کے ليے تحرير نہيں کي گئيں بلکہ اس خطرے سے آگاہ کرنے کے ليے ہيں جو ہمارے سروں پر منڈلا رہا ہے? اندلس کي تاريخ کے مطالعہ کے وقت ہميشہ يہي سوچ ذہن ميں رہتي تھي کہ کيا اس دور کي عوام اندھي تھي کہ اس کے سامنے اتنا بڑا کھيل ہو گيا اور اسے خبر بھي نہ ہوئي? ليکن آج ہمارے ساتھ بھي کچھ ايسے ہي کھيل کھيلے جا رہے ہيں? آج ہمارے ليے بجلي، گيس اور دوسري چيزوں کي قلت پيدا کر کے دھيان ان چيزوں ميں لگا ديا گيا ہے جيسے يہ دنيا کي سب سے ضروري چيزيں ہوں? دوسري طرف ايک سياسي تماشہ ہے جو کبھي نئےصوبوں کے نام پر اور کبھي انتخابي ہنگامے کے نام پر رچايا جاتا ہے? اس سب کے بيچ نيٹو کے سامنے خم ٹھونک کر کھڑے ہونے کي ادا بھي دکھائي گئي ہے جس سے انہيں ہم پر حملہ کرنے کا جواز ملتا نظر آرہا ہے? ليکن شايد ان سب سے بھيانک بات يہ ہے کہ گزشتہ کئي سالوں سے دھيرے دھيرے ہميں اس بات کا عادي بنايا جا رہا ہے کہ ہم کفر کے نيچے رہنے کے ليے راضي ہو جائيں? ہمارے ملک ميں ہر سال کئي لوگ اصلي اور جعلي طريقے سے بيرون ملک جا رہے ہيں اور وہاں مستقل رہائش اختيا رکر رہے ہيں اور جب وہ لوگ وہاں موجود سہوليات کا ذکر کرتے ہيں تو ہمارے يہاں موجود لوگوں کے دلوں ميں بھي ارمان پيدا ہوتا ہے کہ کاش ہمارے يہاں بھي ايسا ہوتا? لوگوں کي ايک کثير تعداد کي نظر ميں کاميابي کي معراج اميگريشن ہے? اس صورتحال ميں ہماري اکثريت کا کسي کافرانہ نظام کو قبول کر لينا بعيد از قياس نہيں? ليکن ياد رکھيے، ان طاقتوں کے اصول اپنے ليے کچھ اور ہيں اور ہمارے ليے کچھ اور? يہ تجربہ آج سے ??? سال پہلے اندلس کے اور پھر افريقہ کے مسلمانوں کو، اس کے بعد ريڈ انڈينز کو اور ماضي قريب ميں عراق اور افغانستان کے مسلمانوں کو ہو چکا ہے?
اس سال ? جنوري کو غرناطہ ميں اسلام کا پرچم سرنگوں ہوئے ??? سال ہو گئے? کفر کي چالبازياں اور مسلم حکمرانوں کي غدارياں اب بھي اس ملت کو لاحق ہيں? ليکن ہم سے ہمارے عمل کا ہي سوال کيا جائے گا ان کےنہيں? بحيثيت قوم ، ايک با کردار قيادت کي ضرورت جتني آج ہے اتني شايد پہلے کبھي بھي نہيں تھي? تاريخ کے اوراق ہميں با آواز بلند متنبہ کر رہے ہيں کہ امت مسلمہ نے جب بھي اپني قيادت کے ليے شريعت کے علاوہ کوئي اور معيار اختيار کيا تو اسےمنہ کي کھاني پڑي? وقت کا تقاضہ ہے کہ ہم قيادت کے بارے ميں اپنے نظريات کو تبديل کريں اور با عمل علماء کو اس بات پر مجبور کريں کہ وہ حالات کي باگ ڈور سياسي مولويوں کے حوالے کرنے کي بجائے اپنے ہاتھ ميں ليں? بصورت ديگر حالات اگر اسي طرف چلتے رہے تو وہ دن دور نہيں لگ رہا جب، خاکم بدہن، اسلامي جمہوريہ پاکستان نہ اسلامي رہے نہ پاک بلکہ ايک جمہوري استھان بن کر رہ جائے? تب شايد ہميں ابو عبداللہ کي ما ں کي وہ بات سمجھ ميں آئے جو اس نے اپنے بيٹے کو روتے ديکھ کر کہي تھي کہ “جس زمين کي حفاظت تو مردوں کي طرح نہ کر سکا اب اس کے ليے عورتوں کي طرح آنسو کيوں بہاتا ہے”?
شايد ??? سال بعد تاريخ نے ايک ماں کا يہ سوال ہمارے سامنے دوبارہ لا کھڑا کيا ہے، کيا آپ کا جواب تيار ہے؟
نديم انصاري

Wealth and Society

Zakat, which Islam has enjoined upon Muslims, marks the lowest limit of the expression of human sympathy, kindness and compassion. It is a duty, the disregard or violation of which is not in any circumstances tolerable to God. The Shariah is emphatic in its insistence upon its observance. It has prescribed it as an essential requirement of Faith for Muslims.
But it they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then they are your brethren (Al-Tawba:11)
A person who injures zakat who willfully declines to pay it will be deemed to have forfeited his claim to be a Muslim. There is no place for him in the fold of Islam. Such were the men against whom Hazrat Abu Bakr took up arms and his action was universally supported by the Companions.
Other Obligations on Wealth
The Holy Prophet had, by his teachings and personal example, made it clear to his friends and Companions that zakat was not the be-all-end-all of monetary good doing. It was not the highest form or ultimate stage of charity and generosity. In the words of the Holy Prophet: "Beyond question, there are other obligations on wealth aside from Zakat." It is related by Fatima Bint-i-Qais that once the Prophet was asked (or she herself asked him) about Zakat. He replied: "Beyond question, there are other obligations on wealth aside from Zakat." The Prophet then recited the following verse of the Qur’an.
It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East or the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the Angles and the Scripture and the Prophets; and giveth his wealth, for Him, to kinsfolk and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty who they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and times of stress. Such are the God-fearing (Al-Baqara: 177).
The Prophet Attitude is Towards Wealth
The attitude of the Prophet towards wealth and the family bearing in mind that he possessed the utmost affection for the Ummah and was its greatest well-wisher.) was: "The best among you is he who is good for his household, and, among you, I am the best for my household"2 and this was typically illustrative of the Apostolic point of view. It was the attitude of a man to whom the Sublimity and All-powerfulness of the Divine Being was an absolute and self-evident reality, whose morals were the morals of God and who was permanently solicitous of the Day of Resurrection and Final Judgment: The day when neither wealth nor progeny will avail (any man) save him who bringeth unto Allah a pure heart." (Al-Shuara:88-89). The Holy Prophet was more impatient for the Hereafter than a bird is for its nest after a whole day’s flight. He would exclaim: "O God: There is no joy other than the joy of Futurity3 Wealth, in his eyes, was no greater significance than the foam of the sea or the grime of the palm. To him, the whole of mankind was the family of Allah, and he regarded himself to be the guardian and protector of orphans, the needy and the destitute. For others he wished ease and comfort, but for his own household, poverty and indigence. Not inpresently would he cry out from the depths of his heart: "(What I like is that) I may eat my fill on one day and go without a meal on the other,"4 and also, "O God! Bestow upon the descendants of Mohammad only as much provision as may be necessary to sustain life."
The Prophet had no hesitation in conveying to his wives the Message of the Lord:
O Prophet! Say unto thy wives: If ye desire the world’s life and its adornment, come! I will content you and will release you with a fair release.
But if ye desire Allah and His Messenger and the abode of the Hereafter, then lo! Allah hath prepared for the good among you an immense regard (Al-Ahzab: 28-29)
His pious wives, for their part, had willingly chosen to live with him and not with their parents or brothers where every worldly comfort was available to them.
The Life of the Prophet and his family
What then was the life the Prophet’s wives opted for? It us hear about it from Hazrat Ayesha herself:
"The members of the Prophet’s household," says she, "never ate even barley bread to their heart’s content. For months the oven was not lighted in our house and we lived only on dates and water. When the Prophet died there was nothing in our house which a living creature could eat except a piece of bread I had kept away in the cupboard."
 Once, Hazrat Omar visited the Prophet and found to his surprise that the Prophet was sitting on a mat which had made its mark on his body. In a corner of the room there was a small quantity of barley, in another was spread the skin of an animal while just above his head hang a water-skin. Hazrat Omar relates that on seeing it tears came into his eyes. The Prophet enquired why he was weeping and Hazrat Omar replied: "O Prophet of God! I have every reason to weep. This is the mat which has made deep impressions on your bare body. The room itself is so comfortless while the Chosroes of Persia and the Emperor of Rome are in the midst of their lakes and gardens though you are the Apostle of Allah"., The Prophet remarked, "Are you caught in two minds? These are the men to whom all the things of comfort and enjoyment have been granted here in this life."
Dislike of Unnecessary Goods
The Prophet did not like, even for a short time, to keep money or provisions in his house in excess of his needs. In the same way, he did not allow the goods of charity which were the property of common people to remain with him for a moment. He would have no peace of mind till they had been given away.
It is related by Hazrat Ayesha that, "I had six or seven dinars during the last illness of Holy Prophet. The Prophet commanded me to distribute them but due to his illness I could not find the time for it. Later, he asked what I had done with the dinars and I told him that owing to pre-occupation with his illness I had forgotten about them. The Prophet, then, sent for the dinars and placing them on the palm of his hand remarked: ‘What would the assumption be of the Apostle of Allah if he joined Him in such a state that these were lying with him."
It was the practice of the Prophet to distribute articles of charity as soon as they were received. Uqba bin-el-Harith relates that, "Once in Madina I offered the Asr Prayers behind the Prophet. The Prophet finished the Prayer-service and left abruptly for one of his wives apartments. The people could not understand it and they were worried. On returning, the Prophet felt that we were surprised at the manner of his departure. He, thereupon, explained that in the course of the service he had remembered that there was some gold in his house and he did not like that a night should pass with the metal still lying with him."
The Prophet guided his Companions and the entire Ummah along identical lines and infused into them the same values of generosity and self-denial. So forcefully and earnestly did he exhort the people to practise charity that as anyone reads the relevant traditions he begins to doubt if he really has a claim over anything that is in excess of his needs. When we look at ourselves and reflect on the things of comfort and luxury were freely make use of in everyday life we are caught in a curious predicament. Everything seems so unnecessary, redundant and superfluous. Costly dresses, sumptuous meals, luxurious carriages— all stand out as wrong and wasteful. What the Prophet said though appertained only to advice and extortion and there is no law against it. But, such was the way of the Prophet.
Verily in the Messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh into Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much. (Al-Ahzab:21)
The Prophet once said: "He who has a conveyance in excess should give it to him who is without a conveyance; he who has a meal in excess should give it to him who is without a meal.9 He, also, said: "He who has a meal for two should share it with the third, and he who has a meal for three should share it with the fourth." Another of his traditions reads: "He is not my follower who eats his fill and sleeps comfortably in the night while his neighbour, by his side, goes hungry, even though he may not be aware of it."
It is related that once a man came to the Prophet and said: "O Prophet of Allah! Provide me with clothes." "Is there no one among your neighbours," asked the Prophet, "who may have two pairs of clothes in excess of what he needs?" The man replied that more than one of his neighbours were in that happy position. The Prophet, thereupon, remarked, "May Allah not bring him and you together in Heaven."
The Importance of Compassion in Islam
The Holy Prophet placed human beings on such a high pedestal of nobility and ascribed such great virtue to taking care of their needs and bringing succour to them that no higher and more admirable conception of humanity and brotherliness can be possible. From the Islamic point of view, a shirker and transgressor in respect of the rights of man is no better than a renegade and a backslider in the path of God. It is stated in one of the Divinely inspired traditions of the Prophet that on the Day of Judgment God will say to His slave: "I fell ill you did not visit me." The slave will reply, "Thou art the Lord of the World; how could I visit Thee?" God will, thereupon, say, "Did you not know that such-and-such a slave of Mine was ill but you did not care to visit him? Had you gone to see him (in order to be of comfort or help) you would have found it with Me." He will, again, ask, "O son of Adam! I asked you for food and you did not give it to Me." The slave will reply: "Thou art the Lord of the World; how could I give you food?" God will then, say: "Are you not aware that such-and-such a slave of Mine begged you for food but you did not give it to him? Had you fed him you would have found it with Me." God, again, will ask: "O son of Adam! I asked you for water and you did not give it to Me." The slave will reply: "Thou art the Lord of the Worlds; how could I give Thee water?" God will say: "Such-and-such a slave of Mine asked you for water but you did not give it to him. Had you given it to him you would have found it with Me."
The extent of benevolence, kindliness and fellow-feeling was such that the Holy Prophet laid it down as a permanent law and maxim that "no one among you (the Muslims) can became perfect in Faith until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."
Impact of the Prophet Teachings
The life and character of the Prophet made such a powerful impact on the hearts and minds of the companions that their attitude towards life, family and property was largely determined by his own example, and they, on the whole, became the living symbols of his precepts. Of them, those who were nearer to him, naturally, bore a deeper imprint of his personality. The deeds of piety, compassion and self-denial that were habitually performed by them in their daily lives are worthy of being written in letters of gold in the annals of religion and ethics. No community in the world can boast of such a marvelous legacy of virtue and moral excellence.
It is a well known fact about Caliph Abu Bakr that he returned the money his wife had carefully saved to purchase the ingredients to make halwa to Bait-al-Hal. He further instructed the amount she had saved to be deducted them for already meagre allowance.
The sacrificial spirit of Hazrat Omar and the life of rugged simplicity and asceticism he led have become proverbial. It will suffice here to relate the incident of his journey to Jabia (in Syria) as the Caliph of Muslims and the Head of the Islamic State. In the words of a renowned historian, Hazrat Omar "was riding on a camel (and) his head was shining in the sun. There was neither a cap on it nor an Amama (a headpiece commonly worn by the Arabs). His legs were dangling on the two sides of the saddle and under him was only an ordinary woollen cushion which served for his bed when he halted and for the pack-saddle when he rode. He also carried a bag which was stuffed with cotton-wool. He used it as a pouch while he travelled and as a pillow while he rested. His shirt was made of a coarse cloth. It was old and was also torn on one side."
Hazrat Uthman was the wealthiest man among his friends. Of him Shurhabeel tells that he entertained others on a lavish scale but ate only bread and oil himself. Hazrat Ali is included among the most self-restraint and austerity has been described in the following words by Darar bin Damora.
 "He shunned the world and its allurements and liked the darkness and solitude of the night. He had a reflective nature and would often appear to be lost in thought. In that state he would make movements with his hands which showed that his attention was turned inwards. His dress was simple and his food was abstemious. By God! He looked to be one of us (the common people). If we asked anything from him he would answer promptly and when we went to see him he would start the conversation himself. When he invited him, he would readily accept our invitation."16
The ennobling influence of the Prophet’s character was felt in the lives of the people of his household, the illustrious Caliphs and the Holy Companions in proportion to the closeness of their association with him. The place occupied by Hazrat Ayesha (his most beloved wife) in dountness, self-abnegations and magnanimity is very high. It has, for instance, been put on record by chroniclers that once she distributed a lakh of dirhams as charity despite the fact that her own clothes were worn-out and she was fasting. After it was over, her maid said to her it would have been better if she had saved a few dirhams for Iftar (the fast-breaking meal). Hazrat Ayesha replied: "I would have, had ou reminded me of it at that time." She had given a lakh of dirhams and forgotten her own hunger.
Early Islamic Society
Self-effacement became second nature with the Companions. Ibn-i-Omar tells that, "We have seen days when none of us had a greater claim on his wealth than his Muslim brother."
Consequently, many events took place which joined the frontiers of kindliness with those of fellowship, and which carried fellowship to the heights of altruism and self-sacrifice. It is related by Ibn-i-Omar that "Once a Companion of the Holy Prophet received the head of a goat as a gift. Thinking that such-and-such a person had a greater need of it, he sent it to him. But he, too, thought the same and sent it to another friend. The head of the goat, thus, travelled from one person to another till after making a round of seven homes it came back to the Companion who had received it first."
Passing from the Companions to the Tab’een, we learn from Hazrat Hasan Basri that during their time the moral and spiritual state of Muslims was such that at day-break a man from among them would announce: "O you householders! Take care of the orphans in your midst; take care of the helpless in your midst."
Ahead of all others were the tribe of Bani Hashim and the people of the Prophet’s household. They pursued the path of truth and earnestness with single-minded devotion. Innumerable instances of the generosity and kindheartedness of Imam Hasan and Abdullah bin Jafar are recorded in history. Imam Ali bin Husain bin Ali (known popularly by the name of Zainul Abedin) received the largest share of these virtues from his ancestors. It is related by Ibn-i-Ishaq that during the lifetime of the Imam many people did not know from whom were they received their livelihood. When the Imam died and the supply stopped they realised that it was he who used to bring them provisions secretly in the night. On the death of the Imam it was discovered that his body bore marks of the bags he used to carry to the homes of the poor and the needy.
Stray Examples
This legacy of generosity and unselfishness was preserved by the Muslims as a sacred trust and their religious and spiritual leaders functioned in all parts of the world as the most faithful representatives of this glorious way of life. That no money be left in the house when night fell was regarded by these pious and truthful men as a regular rule of conduct. They never failed to place the needs of others above their own and to pass on promptly to the poor and the destitute what they received from better off members of society by way of gifts or donations. Their motto was: Charity should be taken from the well-to-do and distributed to the poor.’’ Like their hearts, their table spreads, too, were larger, wider and more open to the common people than those of the rich men and noble lords. It was once remarked by Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani (universally accepted as the leader of the whole class of Sufia-i-Karam, the venerable Sufi ascetics) about himself that, "There is a hole in the palm of my hand. Nothing stays in it. If I had even a thousand dirhams they would be spent up before dusk." On another occasion, he is reported to have said in a wistful mood: "I wish the whole world was given to me and I went on feeding the hungry."
These evolved souls, these man of piety and godliness, were found in various parts of the far-flung world of Islam. They were the true blossom of the "tree of Apostleship." They had sprung from the same ‘Goodly Tree’ about which it is stated in the Qur’an:
Its roots (are) set firm; its branches (are) reaching into heaven, giving its fruit at every season by permission of its Lord. (Ibrahim: 24-25)
Volumes can be written on the prodigious deeds of religious charity and selflessness which marked the lives of these peerless specimens of humanity. To illustrate our point we will refer to a few such events here.
About Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia it is related by his attendant that he took the Saheri24 to him which included all kinds of dishes. But the Sheikh partook very little of it and for the rest he instructed that it should be kept carefully for children. Khwaja Abdur Rahim, whose duty it was to take the Saheri to him, tells that often he ate nothing. The Khwaja would implore him to take some nourishment as he ate very little at the time of Iftar, and if he also did not eat anything at Saheri he would become very weak. Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia would burst into tears at it and say: "How many poor and helpless people are lying on the platforms of mosques without a morsel of food? They spend their nights in starvation. How, then, can this food go down my throat?" The attendant reports that often he used to find the meal untouched by the Sheikh.
When the hour of his death drew near, the Sheikh summoned all the disciples and attendants to his bedside and said: "Be a witnesses to it that if Iqbal (the name of an attendant) has held back any of the provisions in the house he will have to answer for it tomorrow, on the Day of Judgement." Iqbal affirmed that he had spared nothing. Everything had been given away in the name of God. That fine, generous-hearted man really had done so. Except for a few foodgrains which could suffice for the needs of the inmates of the Khanqah25 for a few days he had distributed all that was in the house to the poor. Syed Husain Kirmani reported to the Sheikh that everything had been given to the needy save these foodgrains. The Sheikh was very angry with Iqbal when he came to know of it and calling him to his side enquired why had he held in reserve the ‘rotten dust’ (the foodgrains). He, then, ordered those around him to collect a crowd, and, when it had gathered, the Sheikh said to it: "Go and break the earthen jars in which the grain is stored. Take it away and leave nothing." The multitude made quick work of it and within a short time the storehouse was empty."
Another example of the same way of living can be cited from the biography of Syed Mohammad Saeed Ambalavi.27 It is stated by his biographer that once Nawab Roshanudaula28 presented to him a purse of Rs. 10,000 (which must have been equal to 700000 of rupees today) for the construction of the Khanqah. The saint advised him to leave the money and go and have a little rest as the work would commence in the afternoon. After Nawab Roshanuddaula had retired, he sent, through his disciples, the entire amount to the widows, orphans and other needy people of Ambala, Thanesar, Sirhand and Panipat. When Roshanuddaula returned in the evening, the saint said to him: "Yes could never have earned so much Divine reward by the construction of Khanqah as you have by serving so many poor and helpless people." On another occasion, Emperor Farrukh Siyar, Nawab Roshanuddaula and Nawab Abdullah Khan sent him Rs. 300,000 with their petitions. For his part, he distributed so received all the money among the indigent and well-born families of neighbouring towns and villages.
It may be said that these were the deeds of the ascetics who had renounced the world and dwelt on a different place, well away from the trials and tribulations of everyday life. What remains to be seen is whether similar instances of unalloyed asceticism, self-sacrifice and contentment are as easy to find among other sections of the Ummah. Here, too, the verdict of history is in the affirmative. For, in Islamic society there have been found, at very stage, men who have conformed to the noble standard set by the Holy Prophet in their attitude towards life, worldly possessions, relatives, neighbours and countrymen. They belonged to all classes of people, including kings, noblemen, saints and savants. To take up only two examples, one from among the scholars and the other from among the rulers, the name of Sheikhul Islam Ibn-i-Taimiya comes first to mind in the former category of earnest and deep-hearted Muslims. Those who do not know much about him are often inclined to imagine that he was a dry, old-blooded theologian who had little regard for human emotions, but his contemporary, Hafiz Ibn-i-Faizullah-el-Umari, writes thats "Heaps of gold, silver and other goods would come to him and he distributed them all till nothing was left. If he ever laid aside anything it was only with the object of giving it to some particular person... His generosity knew no bounds, and, sometimes, when there was nothing to give he would hand over the clothes he was wearing to the needy."
From the class of kings and conquerors, Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi makes an ideal choice. He was the ruler of the largest Muslim Empire of his time and had inflicted a crushing blow to the mightiest military power of the then known world. His friend, Ibn-i-Shaddab tells that the entire assets of the Sultan at the time of his death amounted to a mere 47 dirhams and a gold coin. He left no other property to his descendants.
This powerful monarch whose Empire extended from the north of Syria in Asia to the Nubian desert of Sudan in Africa departed from the world in such a state that there was not enough money in the house to pay for his funeral Ibn-i-Shaddad writes:
"Not a price was spent for his legacy on his burial. Everything had to be borrowed, even the bundles of straw for the grave. The shroud was provided by his Minister and chronicler, Qadi Fadil, from a legitimate source."
Such an austere and self-denying way of life was not peculiar to any generation or school of thought, but all theological masters, divines and spiritual leaders punctiliously abided by it. ‘A new day a new provision’, was the guiding principle of their lives. They never saved anything for the future nor did they economise in the fear of being empty-handed. This is not a romantic tale of bygone days. Even today, there are men of Religion and spirituality among Muslims who do not like that anything in excess of their requirements remain with them which might be needed by someone else or that a night should pass with money above their needs. This is not a philosophy of mortification or renunciation of the world, nor is it motivated by the desire to interfere with the Divine scheme of things or to create hardship where God has provided ease or to forbid and disallow what has been declared by Him to be lawful and legitimate. Furthermore these men of God do not take to his path because of any constraint. They are inspired solely by the fear of Divine Reckoning, by a love of mankind and by an eagerness to follow the confirmed practice of the Prophet and trace his steps not only in charity and self-sacrifice but in all good and virtuous deeds.
Last Phase
Notwithstanding the failings, against which Muslim reformers have been striving to the best of their ability, Islamic society is still conspicuous for fellowship, large heartedness and compassion. Thanks to the precepts of Islam the spirit of mutual help, sympathy and kindliness has penetrated into the inner depths of its consciousness. Muslims are comparatively free from the evils of crude materialism and worship of the stomach. In Muslim society there has never been a dearth of men to raise the banner of revolt against excessive attachment to worldly things. The intensity and extent of competition, selfishness and greed is definitely less in it than in other societies which believe in no other life beyond this worldly existence and aspire only for material ease and comfort.30
In Muslim society there is a greater scope for the promotion of social justice and other laudable ideals because of the instinctive respect it has for the Islamic way of life, to whatever degree it may be, and the existence of a spiritual tie which has invested its diverse elements with a sense of identity and brotherliness.
Fellowship and Equality?
An attribute common to the different social and economic movements popular in the modern world is lack of Faith in humanity. The leaders of these movements and their theoreticians have a special liking for a regimented and restricted sort of equality over instinctive fellow-feeling and kindliness. They over look the fact that man does not live by earning and spending alone nor can mere partnership of equality in material possessions fill the vacuum in his life. There is a greater need for genuine human sympathy in life than equality of income or community of means of production. Sometimes a tear springing from the bottom of a bleeding hearts proves to be more efficacious than piles of gold and silver.
All men are dependent on one another. No one is above the operation of the law of inter-dependence. What, however, is needed for sharing each other’s grief is a genuine warmth of feeling and mildness of temperament. If this is kept in mind, the teachings of the Prophet will seem to include all the different aspects of sympathy and fellowship. Speaking of the various kinds of charity and good-doing, the Prophet once said:
"Your doing justice between two persons is charity; your helping a man to mount a horse (or carriage) is charity; your lifting up his luggage and putting it (on the mount or vehicle) is charity; your saying a good thing is charity; your taking a step towards salat is charity, and your removing an obstacle from the road is charity."
It is related that the Prophet once said: "The distress should help the needy." On being asked what one should do if one is not in a position to help the needy, the Prophet replied: "Enjoin what is good." The Companions again asked: "And if it, too, may not be possible"? The Prophet remarked: "Abstain from evil. This is charity."
It is related that the Prophet once remarked: "Your lending a helping hand to anyone engaged in a work or enabling a clumsy worker to do his job properly is also charity." On being enquired what a person should do if he was too weak to render such a service, the Prophet replied:P "Let people remain safe from your mischief. That will be charity on your ego."
Yet another tradition of the Prophet reads:
"Your smiling in your brother’s face is charity; your bidding what is good is charity; your forbidding what is wrong is charity; your putting a man who has lost his way on the right path is charity; your assisting a man who has a defect in the eye is charity for you; your removing a stone, thorn or bone from the road is charity for you; and your emptying the bucket into the bucket of your brother is charity for you."
The preference accorded to enforced equality over natural kindliness and fellow-feeling has resulted in the establishment, in most countries, of a society that has given a decidedly commercial orientation to human personality. It is a narrow, selfish and mechanical society in which no one’s life or honour is secure. Cut-throat completion goes on all the time, with people plotting to bring down one another through deceit, forgery or spying.
The sense of responsibility and keenness to perform one’s duty to the best of one’s ability has disappeared. People behave like stray cattle whose sole object in life is to roam about and feed upon whatever falls within their reach. Every kind of responsibility has been thrown upon the state. One conducts oneself in relation to society like a witness child. With the State doing everything for everybody the noble ideals of human sympathy, generosity and self-denial have lost their meaning.
By contrast compassion and benevolence, arising out of the inmost recesses of the heart, and peace, serenity, contentment, trustfulness and self-assurance were seen in their most glorious light in the original Islamic society and their influence was felt in every walk of life. But this radical transformation of human disposition was not peculiar to that age alone. It can be brought about at any time. Any society which adopts for its deal spontaneous feelings of sympathy and kind-heartedness, in contrast with enforced equality, will be blessed with a true bond of love and affection. Its members will become well-wishers of each other, acknowledging each-other’s rights with an open heart and deposing against each-other with truth. Each generation will bear witness to the virtue and excellence of the preceding generation and pray to God for its salvation. It is of such men that the Qur’an has said:
And those who come after them and say: Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who were before us in the faith, and place not in our hearts and rancour towards those who believe. Our Lord Thou art Full of pity, Merciful. (Al-Hashim:10)
This, in brief, is the picture of a true Islamic society in which everyone behaves as the mirror of his brother, wishing to see him free from blemish and preferring for him what he prefers for himself:
Why did not the believers, men and women, when ye heard it (the slander) think good of their own folk, and say: It is a manifest untruth? (Al-Aur:12)
The Holy Prophet has alluded to the enviable state in these few words: "In kindliness and affection the Muslims are like a single body. If any part of it is stricken with disease, the whole body develops fever and restlessness."
In such a society honesty and gentlemanliness, truth and trustworthiness become the order of the day and everybody acts as if he was brother’s custodian. The Prophet said: "Every Muslim is a Muslim’s brother. He neither harms him himself nor leaves him alone (when he is in need of help). He neither tells a lie to him, nor bears a grudge against him nor puts him to shame. The life, honour and property of a Muslim are sacred for one another."
Life in many countries has on the contrary, become a veritable curse, a specimen of Hell in misery and wickedness:
Every time a nation entereth (the Hell), it will curse its sister nation (Al-A’raf: 38)
In modern totalitarian States, for instance, when a new dictator comes into power, he considers it a duty to denounce his predecessor and charge him with treason, dishonesty and other grave malpractices. Even if such a person becomes ruler for just a day, he leaves no stone unturned to wreak a terrible vengeance on his critics and adversaries:
And when he turneth away from thee his efforts in the land is to make mischief therein and to destroy the crops and the cattle, though Allah loveth not mischief. (Al-Baqara: 205)
For him who stays with the path of folly and wretchedness the pronouncement of the Qur’an is tract:
Would ye exchange that which is higher for that which is lover? Go down to any country and there ye shall find it. (Al-Baqara:61)