The Salaf as-Salih and the “salafites”

According to the definition of the fuqaha the true Salaf as-Salih are those who act correctly, i.e. who act at the right time and in the right place, and who act in accordance with the first generations of Muslims. They are those referred to by Muslim as recorded in his Sahih from ‘Imran bin Husayn from the Prophet may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: ‘The best of this umma are the generation to whom I was sent, then those people who followed after them’; and in another narration from Ayesha, radi allahu ‘anha, who on asking the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, who were the best of people he replied: ‘The generation of people I am now (living) amongst, then the second generation, then the third . These then include the inhabitants of Madina al-Munawwara who followed the great imams of Madina, Malik, Asad ibn al-Furat, Ibn al-Ashhab, Abu ‘Abd Allah ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn al-Qasim al-‘Utaqi, Ibn Wahb and those who took from the latter like Sahnun ibn Sa’id ibn Habib at-Tanukhi , may Allah be pleased with them all, as well as those who later confirmed these first generations of Madina like Ibn Abi Zayd, Ibn ‘Ashir and Ibn Rushd al-Jadd – they are the true Salaf as-Salih because they held to the indubitable validity of the transmission of the model of a whole society by tens of thousands of Companions to hundreds of thousands of tabi’un and tabi at-tabi’un; and thus to the mu’amalat: the weights and measures of Madina, its transactions, its markets, its contracts, its caravans, its gold and its silver, its success as a thriving trading centre, its abhorrence of any unlawful increase (riba), in short to the mu’amalat; as well of course to the ibadat. This is the society about whom Allah, may He be exalted, speaks in sura at-Tawba, the society which was born of the meeting of the Muhajirun and the Ansar, the meeting of those who had not been able to establish the deen in all its comprehensiveness in Makka with those who made it possible:
The forerunners – the first of the Muhajirun and the Ansar – and those who have followed them in doing good: Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. He has prepared Gardens for them with rivers flowing under them, remaining in them timelessly for ever and ever. That is the great victory.
The Salaf then are the predecessors of all the Muslims about whom the Rasul, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has spoken so highly of. No one however is making an exhortation to regression into the Middle Ages as the media would have their audience believe (although of course they are referring to their Middle Ages which was indeed for the most part dark and dank). What the Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is indicating is that they were the highest model to be followed. So we turn to them in imitation in order to establish light in the present times of darkness; but we do not hold to the mindless mantra of progression. Rather we live with a technology subordinated to this dominant reality of balanced, healthy men and women who have worship at the centre of their social existence.
What is being considered then is how we are to follow them, for follow them we must, according to all men of knowledge whatever their madhhab, whatever their age. We must follow them with wisdom which means – in this age of casino capitalism and debt enslavement – applying their social and economic model in order to free ourselves and those amongst the non-Muslims who want this quality of freedom – freiheit. This freiheit shall not be obtained by uneducated pawns – bearing Muslims names – of a terror scenario overseen by and at times even devised by a security system that strives to go seamlessly total and global; rather it shall be obtained by addressing and seeking the cure to the illness through a much deeper understanding and a closer following of the practice of the salaf, through the implementation of that half of the deen ignored by the present day salafites.
The true Salaf do not belong to marginal terror organisations. How could they? Suicide is totally forbidden. We are forbidden by Allah to cause even the slightest harm to ourselves and a fortiori to commit suicide also:
Do not cast yourselves into destruction .
Muslim relates that Abu Huraira related that the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:
He who kills himself with an iron (instrument) shall remain endlessly for ever and ever in the Fire of Gehannam and he shall have that weapon in his hand thrusting it in his stomach for ever and ever; he who drinks poison and kills himself shall sip of this (same poison) in the Fire of Gehannam where he shall remain endlessly for ever and ever; and he who kills himself by falling from (the top of) a mountain shall fall constantly into the Fire of Gehannam and shall remain there endlessly for ever and ever.
in his commentary on the Sahih Muslim Qadi Iyyad points out is that this proof for Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, that the talion for the person who commits suicide applies just as if would apply if the person killed another: in other words the same punishment is inflicted on his self in the Fire as he inflicted on it in the world.
And Jundab narrated that the Prophet may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him said:
A man was wounded and he killed himself and so Allah, may His might and majesty be magnified, said: My slave has rushed upon Me with his self and I have forbidden him the Garden
And Abu Huraira related that the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:
He who throttles himself shall throttle himself in the Fire and he who stabs himself shall stab himself in the Fire
And Thabit bin ad-Dhahhak related that the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:
Whoever kills himself with an iron (instrument) shall be tortured with it in the Fire of Gehannam .
All of the actions of the Salaf as-Salih were manifest, open, in company. We only know the deen because nothing the Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, did he did alone. Dissembling – taqiya – is foreign to Muslims. Secrecy is not the way of the salaf for they have nothing to hide. The multiplication of number-based transactions, passwords, coded information which characterise the society we live in are indicative of the reduction of the zone of freedom to the inner realm of the personal: only an encoded freedom accessible to the individual is tolerated. While true salaf are vibrant social, outgoing, men and women who draw from the source communities as they want a life based on knowledge, who seek to live the whole of the deen of Islam and understand the technological demands of the age, the salafites have reduced Islam to a religion, to a way of narrowness and mere piety. And their deen is mostly in their heads, a concept, an ideal, and like all ideals unrealisable. The mu’amulat, the forgotten chapters of life, are nowhere to be seen in their behaviour. Behaviour is reduced to endless nawafil salat, recitation of Quran and study of non-madhhab based hadith without an understanding of fiqh which might give them an insight into a practical application of the entirety of Allah’s commands and the Messenger’s teachings. They admonish the kuffar but adopt their social and economic modes of behaviour while proclaiming their intensity of iman. A whole generation was educated in the USA under the illusion that they could ‘take the tech know how’ without being deeply programmed by the University system they took it from. After inadequate reflection many, like the shia, have come to see the enemy as embodied in this country despite one respected survey showing that the Muslim population in the USA tripled to 2.6 million in 10 years . They claim to embody the way of the earliest generations but hold more closely to the disjointed model of Shaykh Ibn al-Wahhab who purified Islam into a ‘religion’ when he handed over the social, economic and political realm to the tribe of Al Saud. This is in blatant opposition to his insistence on tawhid – the unified understanding of Allah, his deen and His creation as a whole. They laud Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya but few have read his works – not surprising given their level of education and his use of tortured logic to reject the logicians; but while they rightly reject with him the mutazalite fascination for logic, they completely ignore his high regard for the way of the people of Madina and of the essential truth of tasawwuf, when understood as ihsan; they also have a tendency, like their alleged master, to criticise others, in particular scholars; the least they could learn from his mastery of the logic of his opponents is that their endless championing of the slogan ‘kitab and sunna’ – while they themselves live otherwise – renders this slogan mere rhetoric, not in any way an utterance connected to any known demonstrable proof. Their impatience with the accretions of legal judgements over the centuries should have taken them back to Madina, the home of the Kitab and Sunna par excellence. More importantly they fail to see that Ibn Taymiyya is not in fact their leader, neither intellectually or in person, he having been dead for centuries. They have no leader for a leader must be alive, flesh and blood. Most do not come anywhere close to an understanding of another of their iconic leaders, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawzi, himself a student of Ibn Taymiyya. Their mode of being is often dominated by negation and rejection and, as is evident from the questionnaire submitted to them by Maulana Shaykh ‘Ali Laraki, share many aspects in common with the Ikhwan: they have an uneasy relationship with women and pay lip service to Allah’s prohibition of usury – refusing to undertake any positive measures to establish proper markets, legal gold and silver currency or the taking of zakat. The rampant corruption and clear failure of their only feeble response – Islamic banking – is now clear even to them. This rejectionist stance has its roots in the rebellion of Shaykh Ibn Wahhab against the Osmanli Devlet and continues today with their continued refusal to acknowledge the necessity of bay’a – the oath of allegiance to the person in authority. Here they find common ground with the shia, albeit from a different approach road. It is of little use to anyone if one clings to minor aspects of the prophetic model while ignoring the basics. Pious insistence on the nawafil fasts of Monday and Thursday while ignoring the fard of zakat -collected as tax at the command of the ruler, not given as sadaqa – is a prevalent aspect of their modus vivendi and applies in their respect to all the mu’amalat. It is easy to be tough on their women folk but hard to take active measures to revive true markets or establish the minting of gold and silver coins. This withdrawal from the obligation to establish justice in the world on the part of the salafites has ironically contributed to the growing taste for the propagation of a ‘personal’ Islam by the media who in effect declare ‘this Islam of concepts, in the head, in the home, cut off from real life – we can deal with’. The media, whose bosses are from the ranks of the capitalists, thus sanction a way of being which shall in no way impede the machinations of the casino stock markets. The salafites have become a convenient category of theirs into which they shovel all those Muslims who are not merely passive consumers, distinguished only by a domestic Islam from the non-Muslims.
These characteristics of the salafites serve to engender a kind of pious person who is coming dangerously close to adopting the christian model of personal worship at restricted times of the year – accompanied by a total freedom – read unfettered economic activity – in the world. Historically the salafites have reached the point where the christians abandoned the prohibition of usury, abandoned intrinsic wealth and abandoned justice in the markets in favour of ‘religion’, i.e. a manner of existing severed from the life force itself. It leads inevitably to passivity and then to consumerism and a tacit acceptance of a democracy which then sanctions their domestic religious isolation. But while the non-Muslims are rewarded with total sexual licence in virtually all domains, the christian-like piety of the salafites prevents them from indulging in this licence and in a knee-jerk reaction they even forbid themselves Allah’s licence regarding the permitted number of wives, interpreting away the explicit ayat in modernistic terms could scarcely in tune with the true salaf.
Wherever they are in the world they recognise each other but this is a religious brethren and excludes the Muslims at large who naturally yearn for a deen which includes them and their worldly activities. Disturbing too is the increasing number of mosques on the Arabian Peninsula with stained glass windows, back rests and chairs placed at the disposal of the worshippers. No doubt not legally prohibited but bearing a dangerous resemblance to churches. The salafites – together with their coreligionists the ikhwan – through misplaced piety have cut themselves off from the joy of living which can only be tasted by entering the deen completely and realising that the true, full spirituality of the age is to be found in the mu’amalat, not necessarily in the mosque exclusively.
So while the rhetoric of the salafites is ‘kitab and sunna’, the part of the kitab and sunna acted upon is carefully selected to ensure the maximum pious effect; but this rejection, this turning away from establishing normal activities in the world according to the pattern of the Messenger, sallallahu alayhi was sallam brings frustration to the young who necessarily are still in touch with the fitra, however faintly. They want to act but the path of mu’amalat has been blocked by the dominance of salafite/ikhwani ulama who restrict teachings to iman and pious undertakings. It is not surprising some aspiring salafites, unhappy in the world, blow themselves up in a world they see as non-pious and irrelevant, being for them merely a fitna , not being for them a realm of positive activity. Not even those salafites dubbed as militant by the media – who by their militancy are active in the world – are essentially different for the goal after the fighting seems to be the establishment of a status quo in which an Islam reduced to the domestic within a capitalist world mode purified of wine and pork reigns.
The true Salaf as-Salih knew what a treasure they had and naturally wanted to share it; and they still know. This is the secret to the explosive expansion of the deen to the waters of the Atlantic up to the lands of the Chinese in the first centuries of Islam. The salafites however are marked by their extreme reticence with regard to dawa. As one of them remarked ‘We must rather work, brother, to increase the imam of the Muslims, we have enough Muslims as it is’. What strange aqida is this? And who are they to know of the iman of others when it is basically a hidden matter? Besides, their aspect is often forbidding, hardly conducive to bringing people into the society of Islam. The sadaqa of a smile would offset the length of their beards. A beard is of course a noble thing, the veil of the Muslim, but whenever little of the practice of the Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is left but this, then imbalance is the order of the day. A beard is of personal benefit both in this world and the next, the implementation of the mu’amalat is of social benefit.
The salafite movement is a grouping nurtured by the ‘experts’ on Islam with the support of the media many of whose adherents follow with enthusiasm the script supplied to them, not unlike the manner in which those addicted to TV soaps adopt the screen discourse into their own lives. But not even Ibn Taymiyya would have understood.

Spontaneity before System

This is a call for a less bureaucratic interpretation of welfare in the early days of Islam – as a counterbalance to the rather misleading assessments of this matter often propagated today under such titles as ‘The Welfare State in Islam’ or ‘The Islamic Social System’. Welfare cannot be treated as an individual matter but rather must be seen as an aspect of health of the body of the Muslims as a whole, and that the early forms of welfare have all but disappeared and have been substituted by alien structures.
Allah ta’ala says in sura at-Tawba 129: ‘A Messenger has come to you from among yourselves. Your suffering is distressing to him; he is deeply concerned for you; he is gentle and merciful to the muminun.’ The Messenger then, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is described with the attributes of Allah: ra’uf and rahim – gentle and merciful.
In his Sahih, Muslim narrates that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab reported that ‘some prisoners were brought to Allah’s Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, amongst whom was also a woman, who was searching (for someone) and when she found the child (she was searching for) amongst the prisoners, she took hold of it, pressed it against her in her lap and breastfed it. Then Allah’s Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said to us: “Do you think this woman would ever throw her child into a fire? We said: ‘No by Allah, if she were able to prevent such a thing, she would never allow her child be thrown into a fire.’ Then Allah’s Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him said: ‘Allah is more merciful to His slaves than this woman is to her child’”.
So one may state that the primary source of welfare is Allah taala Himself and His Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
It is not surprising that in the light of this ayah and this hadith the subject of welfare is vast, indeed the whole of Islamic society is geared to the welfare of the Muslims. However, the word ‘welfare’ could be misleading to anyone raised in a democratic society and who understands it as mere systematic social state-care. The welfare we are dealing with here has a much broader and more profound meaning, a meaning determined by Allah and his Messenger which encompasses the well-being of the slave in this world and the next. Never has there been a society more attuned to the real welfare of men and women than ours.

No precise statistics are available to us from the early generations of Muslims. It was not a society that felt the need to prove anything or plan anything in the modern sense. However evidence for the wide-ranging nature of this welfare is well documented, albeit often anecdotal – in the seeras of the Messenger, sallalahu alayhi wa sallam, those of al-Khulafa ar-Rashidun, the works of Qadi Abu Yusuf , ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Kattani and al-Qadi ‘Ali al-Mawardi for example. In general one may conclude from them that the closer in time to al-Madina al-Munawwara, the more spontaneous, the more fluid the nature of the welfare, and the further away in time – i.e. the later, in ‘Umayyad and ‘Abbasid terms, the more institutionalised it became.

Welfare has various modes: it may take the form of help given from the funds of the zakat, from sadaqa , silat ar-rahim, from the bayt al-mal – i.e. from the ghanima/fay booty, kharaaj, jiyza, ‘ushur, and khums, or from the awqaf, ‘ataa’iyaat, sukuk, ‘umraa, and loans and deposits.

It may well be that sadaqa was the most important of these in the early days of Islam. The natural concern of the inhabitants of Madina for one another was nurtured by the count-less injunctions of the Messenger, peace and blessings upon him, urging people to see to the needs of their fellow Muslims and by the numerous ayats praising sadaqa. Such wel-fare was essentially a personal in-the-moment matter, unlike most of the above mentioned types of welfare which were legislated in the sharia and became increasingly institutional-ized after the first generations. The instances of sadaqa are countless and are testified to in the seeras by the renowned generosity of the Messenger and his Companions, and then the Khulafa, the governors, and the leading social and literary figures and merchants in every Islamic society after them, and indeed is a core characteristic of the Muslims up until today. There is an aspect of pragmatism to this too, the natural human desire for in-crease – for Allah says that He ‘obliterates riba but makes sadaqa grow in value! ’. Sadaqa has however largely become institutionalised with the proliferation of so-called Islamic charities – in partnership with so-called Islamic banks.

To further understand this matter of welfare one must realise that it was always the prime concern of the leader of the community – initially, of course, the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, and then his representatives after him within the dawla. This is expressed by Ibn Khaldun who makes clear that the happiness and welfare of the people is a matter ordained by Allah and dependent for its implementation on the legitimate person in authority. Speaking about the organisation of society in general he says:

… it is necessary to have recourse to ordained political laws, which are accepted by all ….If these laws are imposed by the intelligent and leading personalities and the most perspicacious persons of the dawlat, the result will be a polity of an intellectual and rational (kind). If these (laws) are ordained by Allah by means of a lawgiver who establishes them as laws of the sharia, the result will be a polity based on the deen (of Islam) which will be useful for life in both this world and the next.

Significantly Ibn Khaldun continues:

This is because the purpose of human beings is not only their worldly welfare – for the entire world is trifling and futile given that it ends in death and annihilation. Allah says: “Did you suppose that We created you for amusement?”

One cannot just consider the matter of welfare in terms of the dawlat but rather as an embodiment of the person in authority. The welfare of the people – the ra’iya – is inextricably bound to the ra’i, the person in authority. The son of ‘Umar relates that the Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: ‘Surely all of you are shepherds and all of you are responsible for your flock (ra’iya). Thus the Amir over the people is responsible for his people, and a man is a guardian over the people of his household and is responsible for them, and a woman is a guardian over the household of her husband and her children and is responsible for them, and a slave is a guardian of the wealth of his master. Indeed all of you are guardians and all are responsible for whatever you are guarding ‘. Ibn Khaldun cites the following letter of Tahir b. al-Husayn, al-Ma’mun’s General, to his son ‘Abdallah b. Tahir whom he had ap-pointed Governor of ar-Raqqah :

Know that property (i.e. gold, silver and wealth in general), once it is gathered and stored in treasuries, does not bear fruit, but if it is used for the welfare of the ra’iya, for giving them what is due to them and to pre-vent them from need, then it grows, thrives and is (thereby) purified. The common people thrive by it, those in authority are firmly established by it and it brings a time of prosperity. It ensures power and profit (for all). Therefore, let your (particular) treasure from amongst the treasures (at your disposal) be the distribution of wealth for the establishing of ‘imarats – (i.e. the furnishing of all the facilities associated with a flour-ishing social nexus like markets, mosques, hamams etc.) – in order to al-low Islam and the Muslims to flourish. Make (funds) from it available for the governors of the Commander of the Faithful who preceded you, (i.e.) that which is due them, give them their share and see to that which might improve their affairs and livelihood.

Then the General adds – and this is the fundamental difference between welfare in the modern sense and what we are talking about here:

If you do that you will be assured of the blessing (of Allah) and you will make it incumbent upon Allah, ta’ala, to increase (His blessings for you and society).

However the Khalif no longer exists and instead of leaders we now have elected representatives whose allegiance is to the party, the media and the banks who got him elected.

But we are not as Muslims caught up in a social ideal, striving after a welfare which– in accordance with a socialist-capitalist vision of progress – must become more and more refined and better and better. No! welfare is subject to a divine model which has preceded us, i.e. the model of Madina – which was perfect with respect to the welfare of its inhab-itants. It began to decline – even during the first century AH – when one began to lose sight of how Allah defines welfare, viz. the greater welfare indicated above by Ibn Khal-dun – and is today still declining, indeed very rapidly. Just as freedom cannot really be legislated, neither can welfare – unless it is understood in this wider, divine sense. Exis-tentially it is often only through wars, natural disasters and poverty that many people have access to the divine or feel the need to call on Him. Man’s state, sa condition humaine, is clear from the following ayat: ‘Mankind! you are the poor in need of Allah whereas Allah is the Rich Beyond Need, the Praiseworthy ’ – if poverty were to be eliminated, which is a modern fantasy, a whole aspect of the deen of Islam would disappear. We as Muslims know that both good and bad are from Allah and although we are commanded to strive for the welfare of ourselves and others, we do so in the knowledge that He alone is the Determiner and Disposer of affairs: we do not and cannot have recourse merely to the in-tellect to rationally resolve the matter of welfare in an absolute sense.

Ibn Khaldun discusses the nature of Allah’s concern for human welfare and what is best for man but makes it clear that we do not follow the mu’tazilites who consider man the creator of his own actions , and that his actions have nothing to do with divine power, especially not man’s evil actions – the argu-ment being that Allah in His wisdom would find it impossible to do them.

Again this comprehensive aspect of welfare may only be fully understood if we take into account the effect of what Ibn Khaldun calls ‘asabiyya: whereas up to the time of the hijra the tribal bonds of blood had been the only effective means of welfare, the Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was first able to reconcile the feuding clans of the Aus and Khasraj and then joined in brotherhood and sisterhood the Muhajirun with the Ansar. This then became the highest instance of welfare – that is, the care taken by the people of Madina of the muhajirun when they allotted half of their property, even their wives, to the newcomers who had made hijra from Makka . This bonding of men and women which went beyond family and clan was not an abrogating of the command to ‘maintain the bonds of blood’ – i.e. silat ar-rahim – but rather an extension of the command to include one’s brothers and sisters in Islam. This ithaar, this preferring others over oneself – which is one of the primal aspects of non-organised welfare in Islam – then served as a model for the welfare of the umma up to the present day. It was this solicitude which formed the basis of the new society which had not been possible in Makka, which made possible the establishment of the deen, as a social reality, on the ground .
As one would expect there was little systematisation – in the modern sense – of welfare in the early days of Islam. After the Messenger’s personal establishment and overseeing of the primal diwan – as model – in Madina which served as an administrative centre for zakat, agricultural estimates, contracts of trade and sales and the recording of political treaties , we hear that Abu Bakr, for example, ‘would make sure that his soldiers had everything they needed… [and] would on a consistent basis, purchase camels, horses and weapons’ – an indication that he himself assured this welfare and that it had not become purely bureaucratic, i.e. separated from the personal source from which it took its legitimacy. Again, on his own personal initiative he would purchase Muslim slaves who were being tortured by their owners and free them for the sake of Allah. It was Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, who threatened to make war on the Eastern Tribes who had refused payment of the zakat after the death of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him – in the knowledge that it was a fard aspect of the deen and a basis of welfare.
Here then are some of the different modes of welfare – with little mention of their administration which varied from age to age, culminating in the administrative systems of the Mughal and Osmanli dawlats.
Zakat
This, as the primal source of prescribed welfare, is well documented. The parameters are clear: it is collected according to the lunar year on the orders of the person in authority. The tax collectors who collect it hand to hand – making a du’a for the person being taxed – receive payment paid from it, as well as seven other categories . It is distributed locally in order to strengthen the community. Distribution amongst the various categories is at the discretion of the Amir. The welfare resulting from the zakat must have been considerable: even in the early days in Madina there were many very rich traders – and of course Abu Bakr and ‘Umar – following his success in trade, were also amongst the richest of the inhabitants. Moreover, as Khulafa, they could dispose over the fifth of the booty for Allah and His Messenger . ‘Umar developed the institution of zakat after Abu Bakr – a growth which was natural given the vast new conquered territories and the increasing number of new Muslims.

However, the majestic fard of Zakat has more or less disappeared or has been often reduced to a plastic box hung on the wall of the entrance to a mosque; or to a payment system overseen by the banks. Gone too is the personal du’a made by the tax collector after receipt of the zakat.
Bayt al-Mal
It is evident that allowances for soldiers, muhtasibs and qadis for example , as well as the poor, were made from the outset – other than the zakat allowances. In the nature of things these allowances must have varied greatly from day to day, year to year, in accordance with the income accruing to the bayt al mal. At certain times of the Messenger’s rule, sallallahu ‘alayhi was sallam, and in particular during that of the Khulafa ar-Rashidun and the expansion of the territories of Islam, the income accruing to the bayt al-mal was great. The majority of the income to the bayt al-mal is from the four fifths of the booty and the khums – i.e. the fifth accruing from mineral wealth or the earth’s mined resources. Again, like the zakat, it is obviously in the nature of the source of such income that it is not estimable in advance: it varies greatly in accordance with the campaigns made and the wealth of the territories conquered.
There is an interesting description of the differences in approach to the distribu-tion of wealth at the time of the Khulafa ar-Rashidun. We cite it here to empha-size the early lack of systematisation and the fluidity of the application of the legal ruling: the Qadi, Ibn Rushd al-Jadd reports a narration from Malik from Ibn al-Khattab who says: ‘If I live until next year I shall join the lowest of peo-ple to the highest’. Commenting on this Qadi ibn Rushd says: ‘Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq would treat people equally when distributing the wealth of Allah to them, not preferring any (over another) on the basis of their higher rank or their long standing (acceptance of Islam) when according an allowance to them. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab spoke to him about this saying; “They have achieved such marks of excellence for the sake of Allah and their reward for these is incum-bent upon Allah. People see an example in (the varying allocation of) such live-lihoods and this world is (the abode of) struggle”. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab distrib-uted (the wealth) distinguishing between people (in doing so) and allotted the diwan payments on the basis of their precedence (in embracing Islam) and their excellence over others saying: “A man is (to be considered) along with his per-formance as well as his seniority (in the deen)”. (The Qadi continues:) The most obvious meaning of Umar’s words ‘If I remain alive until the following year I shall join the lowest of people to the highest’ is that he will renounce his practice – of according preference regarding the payments on the basis of the excellence or seniority of people over those of no (particular) priority or known excellence – in favour of the practice of Abu Bakr in according equality between them .
The bayt al-mal of course no longer exists. Any accumulation of Muslim wealth is usually in the form of numbers on the computer of a bank.

Waqf
The early charitable contracts, institutions and foundations established for any aspect of welfare of the Muslims became more and more important as the umma grew. The instances of waqf made by the Messenger, like his setting aside of various orchards for the benefit of the community, the himas and of course the establishment of the mosques in Madina served as precedents for the great and numerous institutions of waqf established after him. Al-Waqidi tells us: ‘The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, made a waqf of al-A‘raf, Barqa, Muthayyib, ad-Dalal, Hasna and as-Safiyya and the water-hole of Umm Ibrahim in 7 AH. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Awf, ‘Ali, Talha, az-Zubayr, Zayd ibn Thabit, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar and ‘Amr ibn al-‘As also all made waqfs.’ Al-Kattani says: “The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the Muslims after him continued to use the habous until it became one of the main sources of revenue in Islam to help its people, and the income from awqaf today in all Muslim lands exceeds that obtained by means of taxation.” This was written in the early part of the last century and it is clear from it that during the whole history of Islam, from the time of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, onwards almost into our own time, the social welfare needs of Muslims throughout the world were taken care of by the myriad instances of awqaf.
Kharaaj
It was ‘Umar, radi allahu anhu, who developed the very important source of in-come of the kharaaj for the Muslims – i.e. the tribute tax from lands conquered by force and left mainly in the hands of the non-Muslim original owners to earn income for the Muslims.
‘Ushar
The ‘ushar is the tenth tax collected on the agricultural produce of the lands of those who accepted Islam, and which remained in their possession; it is also used to refer to the tax on traders passing through the borders of Dar al Islam first imposed by Umar.

‘Atiyyat

The allocation of stipends evolved during the Khalifate of ‘Umar, may be Allah be pleased with him, continued during that of ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan and then became an established part of the finances of the umma. It is difficult to determine the extent of these allocations from the bayt al-mal. As we have heard above, Ibn Rushd al-Jadd says of Abu Bakr for example that he treated all people alike in his giving whereas ‘Umar discriminated on the basis of their seniority and ‘rank’ in Islam , but how many people were involved and whether the receipt of such allocations was also subject to need is not mentioned. It was ‘Umar who seems to have been the first to have imposed a really organised form to the diwan – as an office and register of financial dealings . This, it may be argued, represented a kind of systematisation of the primal welfare form existing during the time of the Messenger and Abu Bakr. A clear indication of the extent and importance of these allowances is contained in the narration of Malik who says that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said to Ibn al-Arkam: ‘Record (the names of) people.’ So he recorded them and came (to ‘Umar) with them who then asked him ‘have you recorded them?’ he replied ‘yes, I have recorded (the names of) the Muhajirun, the Ansar – both the Arab muhajirun and those (of the non-Arabs who have been) freed’. Then ‘Umar said: ‘Perhaps there is a man whose people is not mentioned here and which you have not recorded – so go back’. Then Muhammad ibn Rushd al-Jadd comments: (Ibn al-Qasim) says in the al-Mudawwana with respect to this matter that this means ‘go back and record (further) for it may well be that you have left a man out whom you are not aware of.’ What he meant was that no one should be left out. So this demonstrates that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab at this point in time would divide (the common wealth) amongst all of the Muslims. Moreover he also said, may Allah be pleased with him: ‘There is no one from amongst the Muslims but that he has a right to this wealth – whether in fact given to him or denied him – even if this person is a shepherd or shepherdess in Aden’. Ibn Qasim continued: ‘I noticed that Malik liked this hadith, and success is by Allah’. At the time of ‘Uthman, radi allahu ‘anhu zakat, in the form of stipends or salaries were paid to muezzins, governors, judges, troops, agents and workers of the dawlat, and funds were made available for the digging of wells, building of mosques for the poor, needy, orphans, travellers and the setting free of slaves, and it was ‘Uthman who permitted that the stipend of a Muslim soldier could be given to his Muslim heirs . In the Muwatta, we have the following reference to ‘an allowance’ – but again the incident is informal and indicates just how unsystematised this practise was, even at the time of the third Khalif: Yahya related to me from Malik from his paternal uncle, Abu Suhayl ibn Malik, that his father said, “I was with ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan when the iqama was said for the salat and I was talking to him about being assigned a definite allowance by him. I continued talking to him while he was levelling some small stones with his sandals, and then some men that he had entrusted to straighten the rows came and told him that the rows were straight. He said to me, ‘Line up in the row,’ and then he said the takbir.” Another example in the Muwatta demonstrates the unlikelihood of any systematic distribution – in its modern sense – of such allowances, indeed of any systematic collection of zakat: given that we hear that Abu Bakr personally would give the men their allowances and that he himself would also simultaneously take the zakat from them if due from them, then it does not appear that such financial matters were organised exclusively from any diwan or that every person was approached by the tax collector in a manner and time regulated officially so to speak. Indeed a far more informal form of distribution and collection suggests itself – in conjunction, one assumes, with the diwan: Yahya related to me from Malik that Muhammad ibn ‘Uqba, the Mawla of az-Zubayr, asked al-Qasim ibn Muhammad whether he had to pay any zakat on a large sum given to him by his slave to buy his freedom. Al-Qasim said, “Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq did not take zakat from anyone’s property until it had been in his possession for a year.” Al-Qasim ibn Muhammad continued, “When Abu Bakr gave men their allowances he would ask them, ‘Do you have any property on which zakat is due?’ If they said, ‘Yes,’ he would take the zakat on that property out of their allowances. If they said, ‘No,’ he would hand over their allowances to them without deducting anything from them.” However we also hear from Malik that Ibn Shihab said, “The first person to deduct zakat from allowances was Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan” (i.e. the deduction being made automatically). This too indicates a rather informal arrangement.

Such allowances and stipends no longer exist given the demise of the bayt al mal.

Sukuk

Another means of welfare were the sukuk – the vouchers issued by the person in authority to those in need to be used for the receipt of specific goods. Again the extent of this help, numbers of people involved and those entitled to receive must be subject to further research. From the entry in the Muwatta it is clear that it was organised on a relatively large scale and was of such importance that the Khalif on hearing of an irregularity took immediate measures to resolve the matter: ‘Malik had heard that the sukuk-receipts were given to people in the time of Marwan ibn al-Hakam for the produce of the market at al-Jar. People bought and sold the receipts among themselves before they took delivery of the goods. Zayd ibn Thabit and one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went to Marwan ibn al-Hakam and said, “Marwan! Do you make usury halal?” He said, “I seek refuge with Allah! What is it?” He said, “These receipts which people buy and sell before they take delivery of the goods.” Marwan therefore sent a guard to follow them and to take them from people’s hands and return them to their owners.’

‘Umraa

Another type of gift is that given for life known as ‘umraa – i.e. the gifting of something, especially a house, land, or livestock for life. This is recorded in the Muwatta, with three entries, and we can assume it was a customary practice. We hear for example that Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Abu Salama ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf from Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah al-Ansari that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “If someone is given a life pension, for him and his posterity, it belongs to the person to whom it has been given. It never reverts to the one who gave it because he gave a gift and the rules of inheritance apply to it.”; and again in the Muwatta : Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Sa’eed that Abd ar-Rahman ibn al-Qasim ibn Muhammad heard Makhul ad-Dimashqi ask al-Qasim ibn Muhammad about the life pension and what people said about it. Al-Qasim ibn Muhammad said, “I have only come upon people who keep to the conditions they make about their property and what they are given.”

Hiba

Gifts of a spontaneous nature, i.e. without any immediate ulterior motive, have always been a natural part of the welfare of the Muslims. In the Muwatta we hear that “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘O trusting women! Let none of you despise giving to her neighbour even if it is only a roasted sheep’s trotter.’ However the accepting of money or gifts from people in authority has always been a subject of discussion – given that it might open the door to the buying of political influence – and might lead to a diminution of respect regarding the receiver . The Messenger also pointed out on one occasion that it was better not to take such gifts because by abstaining one was effectively preferring others over himself . Moreover the taking of an-ything was always conditional upon it being halal, i.e. having been acquired in a halal manner by the donor .

Jizya

Mention should also be made of the jizya which was a tax strengthening the bayt al mal of the Muslims but which benefitted the people of the book by effectively affording them protection as minorities and relieved them of military service.

This even, as a term, no longer exists, having been proscribed as politically incorrect by the media.

Loans and deposits

Mention may be made too of the act of loaning someone something or receiving his deposit – wadi’a, both being acts of charity for which nothing is required in return. Moreover they are essentially of an informal nature, no written proof being required. There is perhaps no more fitting example for the tendency of these and many other – essentially personal and unofficial – acts within the sunna of the Muslims to become institutionalised and structuralised in the course of time. In this case the act of loaning or depositing has turned into the tyranny of the banking system which no amount of islamisization can ever make halal. A sunna has been turned into an global, computerised grid whose power is greater than governments and the act of loaning or depositing is designated a product – as if something useful has been produced. Now, someone in need of a loan is expected to submit to the humiliation of an interview with an anonymous bank clerk instead of turning to his fellow men and women within his community.

Inheritance

Inheritance is an important aspect of welfare in that it is Allah who has determined the apportioning of two thirds of the wealth of the deceased person – thus avoiding the disputes and family splits so common in non-Muslim communities where the allotment of portions is often determined by third party lawyers.

Guilds

The welfare of man and women living and working within guilds is infinitely greater than that afforded by the current capitalist insurance system which is a division of the banking system which of its nature is geared to making a profit rather than caring for people.

The Market Place

The service of providing people with a place to buy and sell – afforded by the person in authority of any given community, town or city – is a welfare sorely missed in today’s ‘advanced’ societies which are characterised by monopoly malls and exorbitant taxes for those who wish to sell outside of the malls.

Amn

A final aspect of welfare which in a way is a precondition of all the above is amn – security. There must be security for social life to flourish. Security was a characteristic of Madina and guaranteed the wellbeing of its inhabitants. Security is an aspect of welfare not only afforded by the person in authority but also by every man and woman of Muslim society – who of their nature command to the good and prohibit what is bad. Security remained a dominant feature of the social life of the Muslims for many centuries. Indeed even during the Osmanli dawlat the cutting of hands and other hudud were extremely rare – indicative of the degree of security which prevailed. This aspect of welfare – security, has largely disappeared from the so-called ‘Muslim lands’ of today: they too, like the rest of the world, have become riven with theft, rape, drug and alcohol related crime and have adopted the democratic institutions of policing which are industries in themselves, little to do with real justice or the establishment of security. Up to very recently traces of this security were to be seen amongst the Muslims – for example the practice of shop owners of merely covering over their goods with a cloth when they went for the salat while leaving the shop open. This practice too has almost disappeared.

In conclusion one may say that the society established by the Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and the four Khulafa ar-Rashidun established a great many instances of welfare which served as precedents for the development of the umma after them. However these in the course of time have generally become institutionalised and or ceased to exist.

We ask Allah taala that He enable us to reestablish the comprehensive welfare of Madina as well as the spontaneity of unsystematised giving which was part of the umma prior to the establishment of the charity-bank syndrome – and which is encompassed in the famous du’a of the Messenger, sallahualayhi was sallim: ‘O Allah give us good in the dunya and in the akhira, and protect us from the Fire’.

The vote is the coke of the folk is the joke of the bloke at the bank

who is kulchured