In response to:
===========================================
Salam and greetings.
Sister Aisha wrote:
"It was Omar ibn Abdel Aziz
(who a lot of historians argue was the last of the caliphs) not Omar
(RAA) who after implementing a great economical system was looking for
recipients of Zakah, and could not find poor eligible for zakah.
In the end he told his 'hisbah' people to buy seeds and throw it over the
hills for birds to feed on. It is a lovely story and I am surprised that
you don't know about the economical system that was in place then. I
suggest you read a book called (Al hisbah) I don't know if it is available in
English but it is a must read for anyone interested in 'Islamic/Ethical'
finance. I am surprised you don't know about the book. The system that
is described in that book is baffling masha Allah. It is by no way
primitive but rather so complicated that I am sure systems today can learn a
lot from. I think we should take more pride in our heritage and study our
history, I am stunned how little Muslims know about their history; did
you know that in the times of Khalifa Omar, he appointed the first woman
'minister'."
Sister Aisha is already surprised that I "don't
know about the economical system that was in place then." She is
also surprised that "I don't know about the book."
Indeed, she is even "stunned" that
"how little Muslims know about their history."
1. A woman "minister"?
Indeed, does anyone on this forum know that Hadrat
Umar appointed the "first woman minister"? Well, I am among the
ignorant ones. This is so because I don't know in what sense the word
"minister" is being used. I am aware that a woman was appointed by
Hadrat Umar as a market inspector (another word, a public official), whose job
was to see that market functions are carried out as well as market
participants behave as supposed to.
It is reported about Shifa' Bint Abdullah:
"Umar often entrusted her with market responsibilities (i.e., as a
market inspector).". [Afzal-ur-Rahman, Role of Muslim woman in
society, Seerah Foundation; 1st ed, 1986, p. 86, based on Al--Isti'ab
fi Asma' al-Ashab by Jalal U. Ansar Umri]
If Sr. Aisha is referring to that appointment,
then I know. However, a "minister"? I really don't. Does that mean
Hadrat Umar had a "ministry"? Since we all have limitations of our
knowledge and I am no exception, I would very much like to know if Sr. Aisha
is referring to the same as I have mentioned. Then, the word
"minister" does not apply here. "Minister" as a word
carries certain connotations about the position or responsibility.
2. Hadrat Umar II or, much earlier, Hadrat
Umar?
As far as the book is concerned, I believe Sr.
Aisha is referring to Ibn Taymiyya's Al-Hisbah, which is available in
English as Public Duties in Islam: Institution of the Hisba [Islamic
Foundation, 1982]. I am familiar with the book, even though currently I don't
have it in my personal collection. My asking for corroboration was not an
indication that I am not familiar with the book [an unnecessary jumping
to conclusion]. Rather I wanted to know if the source Sr. Aisha is referring
to goes beyond Ibn Taymiyya's al-Hisbah. Somehow we have a
tendency not to provide information when we assert something, and then when we
are asked for corroboration, we feel uncomfortable (or even condescending).
Even in this case, suppose I am familiar with the book and I can easily look
up. However, for someone who hasn't read the book, does the interested reader
need to read the entire book to find out where the narrative about Hadrat Umar
II appears in the book? If we really want to help each other in a mutually
enriching learning environment, then as writers we also need to present a
little bit more information while we are writing.
Anyway, as Sr. Aisha correctly reminded that we
should learn more about our history. My asking for corroboration was precisely
for that purpose. As I mentioned in my previous message that the observation -
Zakat personnel used to seek out eligible zakat recipient, but could not find
- relates to a period much earlier than Hadrat Umar II. Therefore, if we want
to learn about history, in this context, we have to go back to the period of
Hadrat Umar.
In this regard, I invite the readers to a
well-researched contemporary book Economic Functions of an Islamic State:
The Early Experience by S. M. Hasanuzzaman [Islamic Foundation, 1991].
This book is rather comprehensive and broad in drawing on relevant works
from the past. One of the things we learn from sources like al-Tabari [d. 310
AH], a much earlier source than Ibn Taymiyyah [d. 728 AH], the author of
al-Hisbah, that Zakat collectors were already finding surplus in the
zakat fund. There are also reports that they were not finding eligible zakat
recipients.
" ... within three months of Abu Bakr's
reign, Zakat income exceeded the requirements of the people of Madina."
[p. 182, referring to Tabari, I, 1880]
"Zakat funds were distributed within the
tribes of the paying locality for as long as there were deserving cases. In
the case of dire necessity the centre could take some or the whole of it.
After the minimum level of incomes of the beneficiaries are achieved--when
they were no more entitled to receive Zakat -- the entire amount of Zakat
could be transferred to the centre. It is reported that Mu'adh remitted a
portion of Zakat to Caliph Umar on the ground that it exceeded the
requirement of his district. Within the next two years the whole of the
Zakat receipts are reported to have been declared by him as surplus to local
requirements and remitted to Madina. (referring to Abu Ubayd's Kitab al-Amwal,
1911) The report suggests that in the district, the general level
of incomes was relatively higher than in other districts and as a result the
number of deserving persons was also smaller. Moreover, through the process
of redistribution of wealth a certain minimum level of incomes was achieved
so as to remove them from the list of beneficiaries. The policy seems to
have been pursued in even in the far-flung newly-converted Muslim
communities of Barqa and Zawila (referring to al-Baladhuri's Futuh al-Buldan,
226), where Zakat collections were distributed in toto, during Caliph Umar's
time. The report that Umar II returned the Zakat proceeds of Uman for local
distribution (al-Baladhuri, p88) suggests that at least some of
the rulers before him did not care much to satisfy the local requirements.
But along with it, the report that the Zakat of Banu Kalb was declared
surplus to local requirement and was retained for expending the following
year (referring to Ibn Sad's al-Tabaqat, 5, 257) suggests that by
that time the distribution of Zakat had already brought some degree of
satiety at some places." [pp. 187-188; also note that each of these
sources are much earlier than Imam Ibn Taymiyya's al-Hisbah.]
Therefore, for those who want to be better informed about
history, please find out from sources earlier than Ibn Taymiyya's al-Hisbah
that during the period of Hadrat Umar - much earlier than Hadrat Umar II -
many communities became free from the need of Zakah.
3. Distribution vs. Production?
It is well-established from early Islamic sources that from the
period of Khulafa-i-Rashidoon, especially beginning with Hadrat Umar,
significant redistribution program was undertaken, which had some meaningful
and broadbased welfare effect. However, for those who claim or suggest that
this was due to Zakat should check the historical sources and do so more
closely. First of all, those early periods coincided with significant
conquests and expansions, which brought to the Bait al-mal a lot of ghanimah
(booty), fai' and Jizya. There is no recorded data
to know or ascertain as to the composition of sources of Bait al-Mal.
"The total collections of Zakat cannot be determined for
any period up to the end of the Umayyad rule. The historians and geographers
have given many valuable statistical details about the later
period but they cannot be made a point of analogy, interpolation or
extrapolation for want of information about as many factors as the changes
in population, religion, land tenancy system, and other sources of income
and the per-head average holding of wealth liable to Zakat." [Hasanuzzaman,
p. 186]
Since Hadrat Umar II was also from Umayyad dynasty, the above
information applies to his reign as well that we don't about what part of Bait
al-Mal came from Zakat.
Please refer to pp. 158-160 in Hasanuzzaman to get a picture of
how just Ghanimah made many people rich. Within a few years after the
Prophet's death "less than 100,000 men were deployed on different fronts,
and the amount of Ghanima that they might have acquired can be
conceived by the fact that Khalid, who took part in various expeditions for
about five years, collected goods and cash valued at 160,000 dirhams. Even so
this would be a modest figure if the picturesque accounts of the Ghanima
accruing from Mada'in, Bukhara, Ifriqiyya, and Andalus, as reported by the
historians, are correct."
Thus, the initial redistributive effect, including the period
of Umayyad dynasty, was in large part from non-Zakat sources: Ghanimah,
fai', and Jizya. That the redistribution program was somewhat
egalitarian had a broadbased socio-economic effect. However, quite notably,
Hadrat Umar II served as Khalifah during 717-720 AD - only for three years.
The kind of egalitarian redistribution that was suspended (or sabotaged) after
the Khulafa-i-Rashidoon was reinstituted by Umar II. However, his aggressive
and bold program of redistribution cost his life. "His reforms in favor
of the people greatly angered the nobility of the Umayyads, and they would
eventually bribe a servant into poisoning his food." [Wikipedia]
What we learn from his period is populist redistribution.
However, what information do we have from the production side? Elimination of
poverty in just 3 years is no small feat. The multiplier effect must have
been astronomically high. Can Sr. Aisha shed some light on that? She
wrote: "I am surprised that you don't know about the economical system
that was in place then."
Well, Sr. Aisha, I am disappointed at myself for my ignorance.
However, an economic system is based not just on the distribution, but also
production side. We must remember that gradually Ghanimah, fai' and even Jizya
sources of revenue for Bait al-Mal shrunk considerably. To sustain the
beneficial effects of the distribution, the production side must have taken
off as part of a sophisticated or "complicated" system. Therefore,
can you please enlighten us about this economical system, especially in regard
to the production side?
Maybe you can identify and list 5-10 salient aspects of this
economic system that covered or affected the distribution as well as the
production side?
One humble request. Let's write with corroboration. It does
help all of us in mutually enhancing our learning.
Fi amanillah.