Kwanan nan da na ji cewa wani ɗalibi ya rubuta takardar bincike (thesis) inda ya "tabbatar" cewa Musulunci tsarin mulkin ƙasashen sarauta ne (feudalistic), har ya samu Digirinsa na biyu (Master's Degree), na yi matuƙar mamaki. Halin da ɗalibin da kuma malaman da suka ba shi digirin suka nuna, duka biyun abin mamaki ne. To amma ana iya yafe wa ɗalibin da cewa ko dai bai san abin da yake rubutawa ba, ko kuma ya yi haka ne saboda ƙiyayya ga Musulunci. Amma malaman nan masana fa? Ta yaya za a yi bayanin halayensu, da sanin tsarin tattalin arziki da zamantakewar Musulunci, da fahimtarsu game da tarihi?

Recently when I heard that a student wrote a thesis wherein he "proved" that Islam was a feudalistic system and received his Master's Degree, I was deeply surprised. The performance of both the student as well as the professors awarding him the degree was equally mystifying. But the student might well be excused on the plea that he was either ignorant of what he was writing about or did so out of ill-will towards Islam, but what about the learned teachers? How are we to account for their conduct, their knowledge of the socio-economic system of Islam, and their understanding of history?

Amma sai na sake tuna waɗannan malamai masu ilimi wane ne su, na ƙara yin mamaki. Ashe ba su ne membobin wata al'umma da baƙi masu cin zarafi suka jawo su, aka tsara su bisa tsarin tunani da ya dace da amfaninsu ba? Ashe ba su ne mutanen da Mr. Dunlop1 ya fi sha'awa da su ba? An aika su ƙasashen waje da sunan neman ilimi, amma a zahiri wani ɓangare ne na makirci don mayar da su baƙi gaba ɗaya ga al'adunsu da wayewarsu; don sa su raina addininsu, kansu, tarihinsu, imaninsu, maimakon haka su bi sawun malamansu na Yamma. Ba abin mamaki ba ne, to, da suka yarda da irin wannan ɓata tarihi da gaskiya mai muni haka! Bari mu duba, duk da haka, ma'anar kalmar feudalism a zahiri da halayenta. Saboda wannan dalili muna kwafo a ƙasa sassan wani littafi, "Communism" na Dr. Rashid-al-Barawy, wanda aka buga kwanan nan a Turai. Yayin magana game da feudalism, marubucin ya ce: "Feudalism hanya ce ta samarwa, alamar banbancinta ita ce kasancewar tsarin bautar ƙasa na dindindin. Tsari ne wanda mai mallakar ƙasa ko wakilinsa ke da 'yancin karɓar ƙayyadadden rabon abin da aka samar kuma yana jin daɗin wasu haƙƙoƙin tattalin arziki na musamman, waɗanda ke ɗauke da gatan sa masu haya su yi musu aiki ko kuma su biya su da kuɗi ko kayayyaki maimakon haka. Domin bayani a kan wannan, za mu iya cewa al'ummar feudal an raba ta zuwa azuzuwa biyu na mutane: (I) masu mallakar ƙasashen feudal, da (2) masu haya, waɗanda kuma za su iya bambanta a matakansu, manoma, ma'aikatan noma, da bayi, adadin wasu daga cikinsu yana raguwa da sauri fiye da na wasu. Amma manoma, masu samarwa kai tsaye, su ne ke da 'yancin mallakar ƙasa da samun rabo daga amfanin gona da ke da muhimmanci a gare su don ciyar da iyalansu da kansu, baya ga 'yancin gina gidajen gona a kan gonar noma." Saboda waɗannan fa'idodi, ana buƙatar su yi wa mai gida hidima kowane mako ta hanyar yin ayyuka kyauta a gonakinsa, suna aiki da dabbobinsu da kayan aikinsu, tare da yi masa ayyuka da yawa a lokacin girbi da yanka amfanin gona, da kuma ba shi duk kyaututtuka da gudummawa da za su iya a lokacin bukukuwa. Har ila yau, ana sa ran su niƙa hatsinsu da inabinsu a injin niƙa da injin matse nasa.

But I no longer wondered as I remembered who these learned teachers were. Weren't they the members of a community enticed by the foreign exploiters and fashioned after an intellectual pattern serviceable to them? Aren't they the people in whom Mr. Dunlop1 was particularly interested? They were sent abroad ostensibly to acquire knowledge, but, in fact, it was just a part of a conspiracy to turn them into complete strangers to their own culture and civilization; to make them look down upon their religion, their own selves, their history, their faith, and, instead, follow in the footsteps of their western teachers. No wonder then that they allowed such a monstrous perversion of history and truth! Let us, however, see what the word feudalism means in fact and what are its characteristics. For this purpose we reproduce below extracts of a book, "Communism" by Dr. Rashid-al-Barawy, that has recently been published in Europe. Speaking about feudalism, the author says: "Feudalism is a way of production, the distinguishing mark of it being the existence of a perpetual system of serfdom. It is a system wherein the landlord or his representative is entitled to receive a fixed share of production and enjoys certain specific economic rights, carrying with them the privilege to make their tenants serve them or, instead thereof, receive payments from them in cash or kind. As an explanation of this, we may say that the feudal society is divided into two classes of people: (I) the owners of feudal lands, and (2) the tenants, who may again vary in their grades, farmers, agricultural workers, and slaves, the number of some of them dwindling off more rapidly than that of others. It is the farmers, the direct producers, however, who enjoy the right to possess land and have a share in the produce that is so necessary for them to support their families and themselves, besides the right to build farm-houses on the tillage. Against these benefits, they are required to serve the landlord every week by rendering free services in his fields working with their own cattle and instruments, along with performing for him a number of other services at the time of harvesting and reaping, and offering him on the occasion of festivals whatever gifts and presents they can. They are also expected to get their food-grains and grapes milled and pressed in his flour mills and pressing machines.

Mai gida yana da cikakken iko na zartarwa da na shari'a a kan masu haya da ke zaune cikin iyakokin filayen sa na gado.

"The landlord also exercises full executive and judicial powers over his tenants living within the bounds of his feudal lands.

Mai samar da kayan a zamanin feudalism ba ya jin 'yanci kamar yadda muke fahimta a yau; ba shi da filin ƙasa, kuma ba zai iya sayarwa ba, gadar da shi ko bai wa wani a matsayin kyauta ba. An tilasta masa yin aikin dole a filayen ubangidansa, ko da kuwa hakan yana cutar da amfanin kansa ko la'akari da shi. Bugu da ƙari, a alamar biyayyarsa ga ubangiji, dole ne ya biya masa haraji wanda babu iyaka a adadinsa ko a fadinsa.

"The real producer in feudalism did not enjoy freedom in the sense we know at present; he did not own the land, nor could he sell, inherit or give it as a free gift to others. He was compelled to a forced labor in the lands of his master even at the expense of his own material gains or considerations thereof. Moreover, as a mark of his obedience to the master he had to pay him taxes that were unlimited in amount as well as extent.

Tare da ƙasar kuma shi ma yana canza iyayengiji, yana wucewa daga wannan zuwa wancan, domin ba shi da haƙƙin ya koma da ra'ayinsa daga wani fief zuwa wani yana neman aiki ko ma ya shiga hidimar wani iyayengiji daban. Saboda haka, bawan fief ɗin feudal shi ne mahaɗin da ke tsakanin bayin zamanin da da kuma masu haya masu 'yanci na zamani.

With the land he too changed masters passing from one to the other, for he did not have the right to shift of his own free will from one fief to another in search of work or even join the service of still another master. As such, the feudal villain forms the connecting link between the slaves of olden times and the free tenants of the modern times.

Shi ne maigida wanda ya tsayar da girman filin da zai ba manomi.

"It was the master who fixed the extent of the land to be given by him to the peasant.

Ya kuma ƙara da cewa: "Ya kuma yanke hukunci game da ayyukan da yake tsammanin masu haya za su yi masa, ba tare da ya damu da haƙƙoƙin sauran masu mallakar ƙasa ko buƙatun manoma ba a lokacin da yake yanke irin waɗannan shawarwari masu muhimmanci." Marubucin ya ci gaba da cewa: "A ƙarni na goma sha uku aka samu babban motsi na ƙaura ba bisa ƙa'ida ba, wanda a ƙarshe ya kai ga bayyanar ma'aikatan noma. Wannan motsi, wanda aka sani da 'guduwar manoma', ya sa masu mallakar ƙasa suka nemi komawar masu haya da suka gudu. Sun yi yarjejeniya a tsakaninsu cewa kowane mai mallakar ƙasa zai sami cikakken iko ya kama duk wani ma'aikaci da ya shiga yankin mulkinsa na gona. Amma saboda guduwar manoma ta zama ruwan dare a wancan zamani, masu mallakar ƙasa sun tilastu dogaro da yin amfani da ƙarin ma'aikatan haya don noman filayensu. Yarjejeniyoyinsu sun rasa muhimmanci a hankali, wanda hakan ya nuna raguwar haɗin kai a tsakaninsu. Daga wannan kuma ya biyo baya wani sakamako da babu makawa: aka fara biyan ma'aikata albashi da kuɗi maimakon tilasta musu yin aikin kyauta ba tare da biyan kome ba."

He also decided about the services that he expected his tenants to render him without being under any obligation to have a consideration for the rights of the other landowners or the needs of the peasants while making such momentous decisions" The writer goes on to say: "In the thirteenth century there ensued the great illegal migration movement that finally ended with the emergence of agricultural workers. This movement known as "the running away of peasants" caused the landowners to claim back their fugitive tenants, they among themselves agreed that every landowner would be fully authorized to capture all the workers happening to transgress into his feudal domain. But as the phenomenon-the running away of the peasants-was fast becoming a common feature of the times the landowners were forced to depend on and consequently engage more and more of hired labor for the tilling of their lands, Their mutual agreements gradually lost all significance which meant a steady decrease in their co-operation. From this proceeded still another inevitable result: wages to the workers were paid in cash in place of exacting forced labor out of them without any payment.

Yawancin manoma sun samu ci gaba a hankali, sabanin bukatun masu mulki da masu mallakar filaye wadanda suka yi ta karuwa har suka zama nauyi mai girma a kansu ta fuskar tattalin arziki. Yanayi ya goyi bayan manoman, sai suka sayi 'yancinsu.

"Many of the peasants gradually prospered as against the needs of the nobility and landowners that were greatly multiplied and hence became a great burden on them economically. The circumstances favored the peasants and they bought off their freedom.

Wannan ya ci gaba har zuwa karni na sha huɗu, inda 'yancin ma'aikatan noma ya samu karɓuwa daga kowa a ƙarshe. Sai dai babban sauyin da ya zo da zamani shi ne cewa tushen da dukkan tsarin mulkin fewdal ya dogara a kai yana fara rushewa; ƙarnukan da suka biyo baya sun ga an kawar da shi gaba ɗaya.1

This continued till the fourteenth century when the freedom of the agricultural workers was at last recognized as such by all. However, the important change that came over the times was that the basis on which the whole feudal structure rested was beginning to give way; the following centuries witnessed its complete abolition".1

Waɗannan su ne halayen tsarin mulkin fiyade (feudalism), mun sake buga waɗannan ɗiyan rubuce-rubuce a sama dalla-dalla domin muna so mu kasance da cikakkiyar fahimta game da tsarin mulkin fiyade da halayensa, kada mu rikita su da wasu abubuwa masu kama da su a zahiri.

These are the characteristics of feudalism, we have reproduced these extracts above in detail as we want that we should become clear-headed about feudalism and its characteristics and not confuse them with other seemingly similar manifestations.

Tare da duk waɗannan halayen al'umma irin ta ƙasar sarauta (feudal), za mu iya tambaya: yaushe da ina ne irin wannan tsarin sarauta ya taɓa bayyana a tarihin Musulunci?

Bearing all these characteristics of a feudalistic society in mind, may we ask: when and where was such feudalism ever witnessed in the history of Islam?

Watakila abin da ya zama cikas ga masu bincike da dama, ko kuma ya ba masu neman dama dalilin zargin Musulunci, shi ne yadda al'ummar Musulunci a farkon lokacin ta kasance tana da azuzuwa biyu: masu mallakar filaye da manoman da ke aiki a filayensu. Amma wannan ba komai ba ne face kamanni na waje kawai. Ba ya nufin hada Musulunci da tsarin mulkin gwamnoni na filaye (feudalism) ta kowace hanya. Domin a sauƙaƙa kwatanta Musulunci da tsarin feudalism, za mu takaita manyan halayen feudalism kamar haka:

Perhaps the outward semblance that has proved a stumbling block for many a research worker or has given the opportunists an excuse to cast aspersions on Islam, is the fact that in the beginning, the Islamic society for the time being consisted of two classes of people: the landowners and the peasants who worked in their lands. But this was nothing more than a mere .outward semblance. It in no wise justifies the confusion of Islam with feudalism. In order to facilitate a comparison between Islam and feudalism we may sum up the basic characteristics of feudalism as follows:

(l) Bautar da ba ta ƙare ba.

(l) A perpetual serfdom.

(2) Ayyukan da manomi ya ke yi wa ubangijinsa sun kasance kamar haka:

(2) The duties which the peasant discharged towards his master consisted of:

(a) aikin kwana ɗaya gabaki ɗaya kyauta kuma tilas a gonakin ubangidansa na sarauta sau ɗaya a mako; (b) ayyuka na kyauta da na tilas da yake yi wa ubangidansa a lokuta na musamman na girbi, da sauransu; (c) bayar da kyaututtuka a lokutan bukukuwan addini da sauran irin wannan bukukuwa, duk da talaucinsa ko wadatar mai karɓa, wato babban mai gona mai arziki; (d) wajibcin niƙa hatsinsa a injinan niƙa na mai gona. (Mun bar wajibcin matsa inabinsa wa ubangidansa na sarauta, domin giya haramun ne a Musulunci.)

(a) a whole day's free and forced labor in the lands of his feudal lord once a week; (b) free and forced services rendered by him to his master in special seasons of harvesting, etc.; (c) presenting gifts on religious and other similar occasions of festivities, notwithstanding his poverty or the opulence of the recipient rich landlord; (d) an obligation to get his food-grains milled in the mills of the landlord. (We pass over his obligation to get his grapes pressed for his feudal lord as wine is prohibited in Islam).

(3) Haƙƙin mai gida ya yanke hukunci gwargwadon son ransa ko burinsa dangane da girman filin da manomi zai riƙe, ayyukan da za a bukace shi da su, da kuma harajin da zai biya.

(3) The right of the landlord to decide as his whims or desires might dictate as to the extent of the land to be held by the peasant, the services required of him and the taxes to be paid by him.

(4) Yadda mai gida ke aiwatar da dukkan ikon shari'a da zartarwa bisa ga son ransa da burinsa, ba bisa ga wata doka ta kayyade ta ƙasa ba; (5) Wajibcin da aka dora wa manoma na sayen 'yancinsu da kuɗi a lokacin da daga ƙarshe tsarin mallakar ƙasa na ubangida (feudalism) ya ba da wuri kuma aka fara lalacewarsa.

(4) The exercise of all judicial-cum-executive powers by the landlord not in accordance with a fixed law of the land but according to his own whims and desires; (5) The obligation of the peasants to buy off their freedom with cash payments when in the end feudalism gave way and a process of its degeneration set in.

Bari masu karatu su fara duba waɗannan, sannan su yi nazari a kan tarihin Musulunci gaba ɗaya don neman irin waɗannan halaye a cikinsa. Lallai za su yi takaici, domin Musulunci ba shi da wata alaƙa da su.

Let the readers first look at these and then glance over the whole history of Islam to find similar characteristics therein. They will surely be disappointed, for Islam has nothing to do with them.

Babu bautar ƙarfi a Musulunci, domin Musulunci bai amince da wani nau'in bauta ba face bautar bayi, wadda sababinta da sharuddanta da hanyoyin 'yanci daga gare ta mun riga mun yi bayaninsu a babin da ya gabata. Musulunci bai yarda da bauta da ke tasowa daga daurin mai gona a kan ƙasar da yake nomawa ba. Bayin da muka sani a Musulunci kawai su ne waɗanda aka kama a yaƙe-yaƙe, kuma wannan ya isa ya tabbatar da cewa a farkon al'ummar Musulunci yawan bayi ya yi ƙasa ƙwarai idan aka kwatanta shi da jimlar 'yan ƙasa masu 'yanci.

There is no serfdom in Islam as it recognizes no other form of servitude save that of slavery, the causes and conditions whereof and the means or freedom from which we have already dealt with in the preceding chapter. Islam admits of no bondage arising out or a tenant's being bound to the soil. The only slaves that we know of in Islam were those captured in wars which are quite sufficient to prove that in the early Islamic society the number of slaves was far less in comparison with the total numbers of its free citizens.

Sun yi aiki a kan ƙasar iyayengijinsu har sai an 'yantar da su da yardarsu, ko kuma su da kansu suka ɗauki matakin neman 'yancinsu daga wajen iyayengijinsu ta hanyar rubutaccen yarjejeniyar (Mukatabah). Amma babu irin wannan misali a tarihin mulkin mallaka na Turai, domin tsarin feudalism na Turai da farko yana nufin ƙaddamar da manoma da ma'aikatan noma, maimakon ƙarfafa su su nemi 'yanci. Shi ya sa aka ɗauki manoman Turai a matsayin bayi da ke ɗaure da ƙasa, kuma ana iya canja su daga wani iyayengiji zuwa wani tare da ƙasar.

They worked on the soil of their masters till they were freed voluntarily or they themselves took the initiative and demanded as writing of (Mukatabah) their freedom of their masters. But there exists no such parallel in the history of the European feudalism as it primarily aimed at the subjection of the peasants as well as the agricultural workers rather than encourage them to demand freedom. That is why the peasants in Europe were looked upon as serfs bound to and transferable with the land from one master to another.

Saboda haka, ba su iya barin ƙasar da suke noma ba, kuma ba su iya kuɓuce wa wajibin da ya rataya a wuyansu ga masu mallakar ƙasar ba.

As such, they could neither leave the soil they worked on, nor free themselves from the obligation devolving upon them towards their landlords.

Musulunci bai taɓa saninsa ba irin wannan bautar ƙarni ko miyagun masu mulki kamar yadda yake a wasu wurare ba, domin a ƙa'idarsa yana adawa da kowane irin bauta sai bautar da mutum yake yi wa Ubangijinsa, Mahaliccin dukan rai. Babu wani tanadi a cikinsa na sanya wasu halitta su zama ƙarƙashin wasu halittu irinsu. Duk lokacin da aka sami wannan yanayi na rashin daidaito, wato wasu mutane sun zama ƙarƙashin wasu, saboda wasu dalilai na waje ba tare da wani mataki daga Musulunci ba, to koyaushe abu ne na ɗan lokaci ko kuma matakin wucin gadi, wanda Musulunci yake ƙoƙarin kawar da shi da dukan hanyoyin da yake da su, yana ƙarfafa bayi su nemi 'yancinsu, baya ga riƙe gwamnati da alhakin ba su duk taimakon da ya dace domin cimma wannan buri.

Islam is not at all familiar with this type of serfdom or villains as it is in principle opposed to all forms of servitude save that rendered by man unto his God, the Creator of all life. There is no provision in it for the subjection of some creatures to other creatures like them. Whenever such an abnormal state-subjection of some men to others is found due to certain external causes without any initiative from Islam, it always is a temporary or a transitional phenomenon, which it strives to do away with, with all the possible resources at its disposal, encouraging the slaves to earn their freedom besides holding the state responsible to render to them all possible help towards that end.

A cikin tattalin arziki ma Musulunci bai amince da wata bautar mutum ga wani mutum irinsa ba. Tsarin bautar da muka yi ishara zuwa gare shi a sama banda ne, domin babu wani madadin tattalin arziki kafin Musulunci a lokacin. Musulunci ya yarda da shi har sai da bayi suka samu 'yanci a ruhi, da kuma har sai da suka iya ɗaukar nauyin da ke kansu a matsayin 'yan al'umma masu 'yanci, a lokacin ne Musulunci ya taimaka musu sosai wajen dawo da 'yancin da suka rasa.

In economics too Islam does not recognize any bondage of man to other men like him. The system of slavery to which we have alluded above is an exception as there was no other economical alternative before Islam at that time. Islam tolerated it till the slaves were freed spiritually and till the time they were able to shoulder their responsibilities as free members of the community, whereupon Islam actively helped them in winning back their lost freedom.

Musulunci ya gina tsarinsa na tattalin arziki bisa 'yancin aiki tare da dangantaka ta cikakken haɗin kai da musayar hidima tsakanin dukkan mutane. Gwamnatin Musulunci, a matsayinta na haka, tana aiki a matsayin mai kula da kuma majiɓinci ga dukkan waɗanda suka koma baya a gwagwarmayar rayuwa saboda wani dalili, aka kuma hana su dukkan abubuwan more rayuwa mai kyau. Don haka, tare da dukkan albarkatun ƙasa a bayansa a cikin al'ummar Musulunci, babu wani mutum da zai buƙaci ya sa kansa ya zama bawa ga masu mallakar ƙasa. Musulunci yana biyan dukkan bukatunsa na asali ba tare da wulakanta shi ba ko sa shi ya rasa 'yancinsa, mutuncinsa ko darajarsa.

Islam bases its economic structure on freedom of action coupled with a relationship of a complete co-operation and exchange of mutual services among all individuals. The Islamic government as such acts as a guardian and custodian of all such people as happen to lag behind in the struggle of life for some reason and are denied all amenities of a decent living. Thus with all the resources of the state at his backing in an Islamic community no man needs let himself become a bondsman to the landowners. Islam provides for all his basic needs without degrading him or making him lose his independence, self-respect or honor.

Don haka Musulunci ya yi adawa da tsarin fiewdal duka ta fuskar ruhi da ta fuskar tattalin arziki. Ya kawo wa mutane 'yanci daga tsarin fiewdal tun kafin su shiga cikin sarƙoƙin bauta ta bayi (serfdom).

Thus both spiritually and economically Islam is opposed to feudalism. It brought to men freedom from feudalism even before they were caught up in the shackles of serfdom.

Dangane da wajibcin da manomi yake da shi ga ubangidansa na fewdal, babu wata hujja ko kaɗan da ke nuna cewa irin waɗannan wajibai sun wanzu a dukkan tarihin Musulunci.

So far as the obligations of the peasant towards his feudal lord are concerned there is no evidence whatever of their existence in the whole range of Islamic history.

Yana da nisa da irin wannan wauta. Ta wannan fuska, Musulunci yana tsaye ne a matsayi na musamman. Idan aka sami wani manomi da laifin wani aikin laifi, yana ba mai filin izinin ya kore shi ya bai wa wani filin daban. Amma wannan ba don ƙarfafa zalunci ba ne; a maimakon haka mataki ne na kawar da bautar gida. Musulunci yana nufin kafa dangantaka ta 'yanci tsakanin mai gida da mai haya.

It is quite free of such nonsense. In this respect, Islam stands quite unique. In case a peasant is found guilty of some crime, it allows the owner of the land to discard him and give away the land to another one. But this is not to encourage oppression; it is rather a step towards the eradication of serfdom. Islam aims at the establishment of a free relationship between the landlord and the tenant.

Dangantakar da Musulunci ya amince da ita a matsayin halal tsakanin talaka manomi da mai gona ita ce ta yarjejeniya ko kuma ta haya. A yanayin farko, manomi yana wajaba ya biya wa mai gona wani kayyadadden adadin kuɗi a matsayin hayar ƙasar, daidai da amfanin ƙasar, bayan haka kuwa ya kasance cikin 'yanci gaba ɗaya wajen noma da kashe kuɗinsa, da kuma wajen mallakar dukkan amfanin ƙasar don amfanin kansa. Idan shi mai haya ne, zai raba amfanin ƙasar a ƙarshen kowace shekara da mai gona. A irin wannan yanayi, mai gona ne yake ɗaukar dukkan kuɗaɗen, manomi kuwa yana bayar da aikin hannu ne kawai. A cikin waɗannan yanayi guda biyu, babu wurin aikin tilas, ko gata irin ta mulkin kama-karya, ko wani nauyi da ya rataya a wuyan manomi na yi wa ubangidansa hidima ba tare da ya samu wani abu ba a madadin hakan. Bangarorin biyu suna jin daɗin daidaito cikakke a 'yanci, da kuma a hakkoki da nauyin da ke kansu, tare da alaƙar musayar ba da karɓa ta juna. Da farko, manomi yana da cikakken 'yanci wajen zaɓar ƙasar da yake so ya yi haya, ko mai gonar da yake so ya yi aiki tare da shi a matsayin mai haya. Na biyu, yana daidai da mai gona, kuma yana da 'yanci iri ɗaya wajen yanke shawara ko amincewa da adadin kuɗin da zai biya wa mai gona a matsayin yarjejeniya. Idan bai ga cinikin yana da riba ba, yana da 'yancin ya janye daga yarjejeniyar ya ƙi amincewa da ita, kuma mai gona ba shi da iko ko haƙƙin ya hukunta shi saboda hakan. A matsayinsa na mai haya, manomi yana jin daɗin gata ta shari'a daidai da ta mai gonarsa.

The only relationship that Islam recognizes as lawful between the peasant and the landlord is either that of contract or that based on tenancy. In the former case, the peasant is required to pay to the landlord a fixed amount as the rent of the land proportionate to its produce and after that he remains quite free in his cultivation and expenditure as well as in the acquiring of all the produce of the land for his own personal consumption. If he happens to be a tenant he will share the produce of the land at the end of every year with the landlord. In such a case all the expenses are borne by the landlord; the peasant provides the labor only. In both of these cases there is no place for forced labor, dictatorial privileges or any other obligation incumbent on the peasant to serve his master without getting anything in return. Both parties rather enjoy full equality in freedom, in their rights as well as duties with a reciprocity of mutual give-and-take relationship. The peasant is, in the first place, quite free to choose the land he would like to hire or the landlord he would prefer to work with as a tenant. Secondly, he is on a par with the landlord and enjoys as much freedom to decide or agree to the amount for the contract to be paid by him to the landlord. If he does not find the bargain profitable he is free to back out of it and not agree to the contract, the landlord having no power or right to take him to task for that. As a tenant the peasant enjoys as much legal privileges as his landlord.

Suna raba ribar da ake samu daidai-daida a tsakaninsu.

They divide the profit thereof equally between themselves.

Bayan haka, mun kuma ga cewa sabanin abin da ya faru a tarihin feudalism na Turai, al'adar da ta fi yaduwa a Musulunci ta sha bamban sosai. Mai arzikin mai gona ne, ba talakan manomi ba, wanda ke bayar da kyautuka da baiwa mai yawa ga masu haya a gare shi a lokutan Eid da sauran bukukuwa. Wannan gaskiya ne musamman game da watan Ramadan, wata mai muhimmanci sosai da ma'ana ta addini a Musulunci.

Besides this, we also find that contrary to what happened in the history of European feudalism, the practice commonly prevalent in Islam was quite different. It was the rich landlord and not the poor peasant who gave presents and bestowed bountiful gifts upon his tenants on the occasions of Eid and other festivals. This is specially true about the months of Ramadhan, a month of great importance and religious significance in Islam.

A cikin wannan wata, abokai da 'yan uwa suna ziyartar juna, suna karɓar baƙunci da abinci mai yawa, tare da ba da kyautai masu yawa ga talakawa da mabukata a cikin al'ummarsu. Wato dai, mawadata da masu hali suna kashe dukiyarsu a kan wasu, maimakon karɓar kyautai masu tsada daga talakawa, kamar yadda aka saba yi a Turai "mai wayewa".

During this month, friends and relations paid visits to each other and were entertained with feasts along with bestowing bountiful gifts upon the poor and needy ones of their community. It means, in other words, that the rich and well-to-do people were wont to spend their riches on others rather than exact costly gifts from the poor people as was the custom in "civilized" Europe.

Daga wannan a bayyane yake cewa ayyukan da manoma suka dauka a tsarin mulkin mallaka na feudalism, wadanda suka rikide zuwa aikin tilas, ba su da wurin zama a tsarin rayuwar Musulunci. Musulunci ya kafa maimakon dangantaka ta 'yanci tsakanin mai mallakar kasa da manomi, bisa girmamawa ta juna da daidaito cikakke. Game da ayyukan da ubannin kasa na Turai suka cika ga manoma nasu, a matsayin ramuwa ga aikin tilas da bautar da ba ta dace ba da suke yi musu, wato kare su daga wasu da kuma kiyaye hakkokinsu, a cikin al'ummar Musulunci masu arziki sun cika irin wadannan ayyuka ga manoman nasu da yardar rai, ba tare da sun tsammaci komai daga gare su ba. Wajen yin wadannan hidima ga 'yan'uwansu, ba su nemi komai ba sai yardar Allah. Wannan shi ne abin da ke banbanta tsarin rayuwa da ke kan akida mai daraja da wanda ba shi da ita. A na farko, hidimar zamantakewa da mutum yake yi wa wasu tana zama ibada, wadda ta ke kusantar da shi ga Ubangijinsa, yayin da a na biyun kuwa ba komai ba ne sai kasuwanci, kowane bangare yana kokarin kwace mafi yawan riba, yana kuma son bai wa dayan abin da ba zai iya rikewa ba, sakamakon haka a karshe bangaren da ya fi karfi, ba wanda ya fi cancanta ba, shi ne ke samun nasara ya kuma tafi da duk riba.

From this it is clear that the duties that the peasants were encumbered with in feudalism and which degenerated into forced labor have no place in the Islamic system of life. It established rather a free relationship between the landowner and the peasant with a reciprocal respect and perfect equality. As regards the duties discharged by the feudal lords in Europe towards their tenants as a recompense for their unjustifiable forced labor and abject slavery to them in the form of defending them from others and safe guarding their rights, in Islamic society the rich people discharged voluntarily similar duties with regard to their tenants without expecting anything from them in return. In rendering these services to their fellowmen they sought nothing save God's pleasure. This is what distinguishes a system of life based on a lofty creed and the one devoid of it. In the one the social services rendered by a man towards others assume the character of a worship whereby he is brought closer to his God, whereas in the other they are nothing more than a commercial enterprise, each party striving hard to get hold of the lion's share and anxious to yield to the other nothing but that which is beyond its power to hold longer, with the result that in the end the most powerful party rather than the one rightfully deserving emerges victorious and gets away with all the profits.

Hali na uku na tsarin mulkin fewdal, wato haƙƙin ubangidan fewdal na yanke shawara game da girman filin da za a ba mai haya da kuma ƙayyade ayyukan da zai yi da waɗanda ake tsammanin zai yi, abu ne da ya keɓanta da tunanin Turawa na ubangida da bautar ƙasa kawai. Irin wannan tunani bai taɓa wanzuwa a tarihin Musulunci ba, wanda ba ya amincewa da ikon ubangidan fewdal a kan mai noma ko kuma bautar manomi gare shi. Abin da kawai ke takaita zaɓin manomi game da samun hayar ƙasa a Musulunci shi ne nufinsa na kansa da ƙarfin kuɗinsa. Mai mallakar ƙasa ba shi da wata fifiko a kan haka sai dai ya nemi kuɗin hayar da aka amince da shi daga manomin. Hakazalika, a hayar gona girman filin da mai haya zai noma yana ƙayyadewa ne da ƙarfin jikinsa ko yawan hannayen taimako (waɗanda galibi 'ya'yansa ne) da zai iya samu. Ayyukan da ake ɗora masa a hayar ba su wuce abin da gyaran ƙasar da ya karɓa ke buƙata ba. A irin wannan yanayi, ƙasar ana ɗaukarta mallakar haɗin gwiwa ce ta manomi da mai ƙasa har sai ta bayar da amfaninta. Game da ƙasar mai ƙasa wadda ba ta cikin hannun mai haya ba, ba a tsammanin mai haya zai shiga cikinta, kuma ba shi da wani wajibi na yin aiki a cikinta, komai irin nau'i ko yanayin aikin ko hidimar.

The third characteristic of feudalism, that is, the right of the feudal lord to decide as to the extent of the land to be given to the tenant and prescribe the duties to be discharged by and expected of him, is a thing peculiar to the European concept of lordship and serfdom only. Such concept had never existed in the history of Islam which does not recognize the over-lordship of the feudal lord or the serf-hood of the peasant to him. The only factor which does restrict the choice of a peasant with regard to his acquiring a lease of land in Islam is his own free will and financial potentiality. The lesser enjoys no privileges against this save that of claiming the agreed upon rent of the land from the peasant. Similarly in tenancy the extent of the land to be farmed by a tenant is determined by his own physical ability or the number of the helping hands (consisting of his sons generally) he can get hold of. The duties imposed on him in tenancy are no more than what the rehabilitation of the land acquired by him may necessitate. The land in such a case is considered as a common property of the peasant and the landowner till it brings forth its produce. As to the land of the landlord other than that held by the tenant in tenancy, the tenant is not supposed to have anything to do with that, nor is he under any obligation to work therein whatever the form or nature of such a work or service might be.

Amma mafi bayyanar banbanci tsakanin Musulunci da tsarin fiyuda shi ne ikon shari'a da zartarwa da mai gona ke da shi a tsarin fiyuda. Shi kadai ne a tsarin fiyuda ke sarrafawa da tsara dukkan rayuwar zamantakewa da siyasa a cikin iyakokin gonakinsa.

The most striking point of difference between Islam and feudalism, however, is the judicial-cum-executive prerogative enjoyed by the landlord in feudalism. He alone in feudalism controls and regulates all social and political life within the bounds of his fiefs.

Musulunci ya saba da irin wannan iko gaba ɗaya, domin manufarsa ita ce kawar da shi, ba riƙe shi ba, a cikin dangantakar ɗan Adam da juna.

Islam is diametrically opposed to such a prerogative as it aims at the abolition, rather than its retention, in the world of human relationships.

Ƙasashen Turai ba su da wata doka ta ƙasa a ainihin ma'anar kalmar dangane da dangantakar mai gida da mai haya da aka ambata a sama. Dokar Roma, wadda daga baya ta zama tushen dukkan dokokin Turai da suka biyo baya, ta ba wa iyayen gidan sarautar fiyadali (feudal lords) damar zama masu mulkin kama-karya a yankunansu, su yi dokoki ga mutane, su riƙe ikon shari'a a tsakaninsu, kuma su aiwatar da hukuncinsu yadda suka ga dama. Don haka suka riƙe a cikin kansu ikon yin doka, ikon shari'a da ikon zartarwa duka a lokaci guda. Kowannensu ya kafa gwamnati a cikin wata gwamnati. Gwamnati ba ta shiga harkokin cikin gida na masarautun fiyadali ba muddin suna cika wajibcinsu na kuɗi da na soja a gare ta a lokacin buƙata.

The European nations did not possess any law of the land in the real sense of the word with regard to the above-mentioned landlord-tenant relationship. The Roman Law, which later on formed the basis of all subsequent European legislation, conferred upon the feudal lords the right to become virtual dictators in their respective areas, make laws for the people, hold judicial powers among them, and enforce their decisions as they might think fit. Thus they held in their persons legislative, judicial and executive powers all in one and at the same time. Each one of them formed a government within a government. The government did not interfere with the internal affairs of the feudal monarchies so long as they continued to carry out their financial and military obligations towards it at the hour of need.

Babu wani abu irin wannan a cikin Musulunci. Yana da gwamnatin tsakiya tasa, da dokar ƙasa tasa, wadda ta yi ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa a rayuwar dukkan mutanen da ke zaune cikin iyakokinta. An naɗa alƙalai don aiwatar da dokar ƙasa a dukkan sassan ƙasar. Duk mutane an sa su daidai a gaban doka, babu wanda yake da fifiko a kan wani. Ana kiran mutum yin lissafi ne kawai idan ya yi kuskure ko ya aikata ba daidai ba.

Nothing of the sort is to be found in Islam, It had its own central government with its own law of the land which it strove to enforce in the lives of all those living within its boundaries, Judges were appointed to enforce the law of the land in all parts of the country. All were made equal before law, None enjoyed any priority over others. The individual was called to account only when he committed a mistake or acted wrongly.

Daga baya, sabanin koyarwar Musulunci, lokacin da gwamnati ta koma sarautar gado, har yanzu tana riƙe wasu halaye na Musulunci. Misali, gwamnatin ta ci gaba da riƙe ikon sa ido kan dukkan al'ummu da daidaikun mutane da ke rayuwa a cikin yankin tasirinta. Doka ɗaya ce kuma iri ɗaya ga dukkan mutanen da ke zaune a cikin manyan yankunanta. Bambance-bambancen da ake gani kawai shi ne sabanin ra'ayoyin malaman shari'a a tsakaninsu kan wasu batutuwan shari'a, wanda bai wuce abin da ake samu a kusan dukkan tsarin shari'a da ake da su a duniya ba. Wannan dokar ce ta ba wa manoma kariya daga zaluncin ubangidan ƙasa da kuma haɗama, sha'awa ko son zuciyarsu. Ana mulkar su bisa dokar Allah maimakon bisa son zuciya da buƙatun ubangidan ƙasa. Ba wai kawai ta ɗauki masu mallakar ƙasa da masu noma a matsayin daidai ba, domin dukkansu yanzu 'yantattun mutane ne, ta kuma yi wa dukkan mutane adalci iri ɗaya, ta hanya ɗaya.

Later on when contrary to the teachings of Islam, the government degenerated into a hereditary monarchy it still retained some Islamic characteristics. Thus, for instance, the government continued exercising a supervisory authority over all the different peoples and individuals that lived within its sphere of influence. The law of the land was one and the same for all people living within its vast territories. The only exception appears to be differences of the jurists among themselves on certain legal points, which is no more than what is met with in almost all the systems of law found on the face of the earth. It was this rule of the law that provided a safeguard for the peasants against the oppression of the feudal lords as well as their greed, lust or whim. They were ruled in accordance with the divine law rather than the whims and wishes of the feudal lords. It held not only the landlords and the tenants as equals as both of them were now made free men but also treated all men alike and in the same manner.

Hakika an sami wasu abubuwa marasa daɗi a tarihin Musulmai, inda aka ga alƙalai sun yanke hukunci sabanin lamirinsu da kuma sabanin ruhin shari'a domin samun gamsuwar iyayen ƙasa ko sarakuna, amma waɗannan lamuran ba su wuce wasu keɓantattun misalai kaɗan ba. Su keɓe ne kawai, kamar yadda tarihi ya nuna, kuma har malaman Turawa sun shaida sahihancin hakan. Sabanin waɗannan 'yan lamuran zalunci, akwai abubuwa masu yawa a tarihin Musulunci da ke nuna cewa alƙalai sun yanke hukunci a cikin goyon bayan talakawa matuƙa, a kan ba masu gonaki, gwamnoni ko ministoci kaɗai ba, har ma a kan Khalifa da kansa, wato Khalifan da yake riƙe da cikakken iko da mulki. Duk da haka, ba a cire kowane alƙali daga muƙaminsa ba, kuma sarki bai nemi ramuwar gayya a kansa ba.

Of course there are found certain unfortunate Incidents in the history of Muslims as well, wherein we see that judges gave judgments contrary to their own conscience as well as in contravention of the spirit of the law in order to win favor with the feudal lords or the rulers, but these incidents were no more then certain stray instances. They are merely exceptions as is shown by the historical facts to the veracity of which even the European scholars bear witness. As against these few stray case of injustice there are a great many instances in Islamic history which show that judges gave judgments in favor of extremely poor men against not only landlords, governors or ministers but even against the caliph himself-the caliph who wielded absolute authority and power. But, in Spite of this, neither any judge was dismissed from his post, nor did the ruler seek any revenge against him.

Haka kuma, ba a samu wani motsi na guduwar manoma a tarihin Musulunci kamar yadda aka gani a Turai ba. Wannan ya faru ne saboda manoma suna da hakkin yin zirga-zirga cikin 'yanci ba kawai daga wata gona zuwa wata ba, har ma daga wata kasa zuwa wata cikin iyakokin Daular Musulunci mai fadi. Babu abin da ya hana su canza wuri sai kawai kaunarsu ko alakarsu da wani yanki na musamman, kamar yadda lamarin ya kasance ga manoman Masar, misali. Sai dai manoma a sauran sassan duniyar Musulunci sun yi amfani da wannan 'yancin motsi sosai, domin ba su kasance cikin alaka da yankunansu kamar takwarorinsu na Masar ba, kuma babu wani cikas da aka sanya a hanyarsu don hana su motsi, kamar yadda cikas ya kasance ga manoman Turai ta hanyar bautar kasa (serfdom) da nauyin wajibai iri-iri da aka dora musu.

Similarly, there is not any escape movement of the peasants met with in the Islamic history as was witnessed in Europe. This was so because the peasants enjoyed not only the rights to move freely from one farm to the other but also from one country to another within the boundaries of the vast Islamic Empire. Nothing prevented them from shifting from place to place except their own fondness for or attachment to a particular tract of land as was, for instance, the case with the Egyptian farmers. The peasants in other parts of the Islamic world, however, fully availed themselves of this freedom of movement as they did not happen to be so attached to their particular areas as their Egyptian counterparts were and as no obstacles were hurled in their way to prevent their movement such as blocked the way in the case of the European peasants in the form of serfdom and the various obligations they were encumbered with.

Manoman a tarihin feudalism na Turai zuwa ƙarshen zamaninsa sun kasance dole su sayi 'yancinsu. Wannan ma ba shi da makamancin hakan a tarihin al'ummomin Musulunci, saboda a tsakaninsu manoma suna jin 'yanci kamar kowane sashe na al'umma. Don haka ba su da bukatar sayen 'yancin da suka riga suka mallaka. Bugu da ƙari, ana iya ƙara cewa a duniyar Musulunci an sami ƙananan jihohi masu yawa a cikin tarihinta. Waɗannan jihohi suna samar da abin rayuwa ga masu mallakarsu, suna taimaka musu wajen gudanar da nau'ikan cinikayya ta teku ko ta ƙasa, da kuma tallafa wa sana'o'in masana'antu iri-iri. Amma a Turai duk waɗannan an share su gaba ɗaya ta hanyar tashin feudalism. A lokacin ne duhun dare na jahilci na ruhi da duhun hankali ya lullube Turai. Musulunci ne ya kawo mata haske, da farko a lokacin da ta haɗu da duniyar Musulunci a yakin Crusades, sannan kuma a lokacin da su biyun suka haɗu a Spain. Waɗannan haɗuwa sun sa Turai ta shiga hanyar Renaissance, don haka Turai a hankali ta fito daga wancan duhun dare na tsayuwar hankali da ruhi.

The peasants in the history of the European feudalism towards its final phase had to buy off their freedom. This too has no parallel in the history of the Islamic peoples for the simple reason that among them peasants enjoyed as much freedom as any other section of the community did. They as such had no need to buy off the freedom they already possessed, Moreover, it may also be added that in the Islamic world a large number of small states existed throughout its history. These states provided livelihood to their possessors, helped them carry out various kinds of sea or land trade and support the various industrial crafts. But in Europe all of these were completely swept away by the upsurge of feudalism. It was then that a dark night of spiritual ignorance and intellectual darkness settled on Europe. It was shown light by Islam, first when it came into contact with the Islamic world during the crusades, and again, when the two encountered each other in Spain. These encounters set Europe onto the path of the Renaissance and so Europe gradually climbed out of that dark night of intellectual and spiritual stagnation.

Don haka, za mu ga cewa tsarin mulkin fandali (feudalism) a zahiri bai taɓa wanzuwa a duniyar Musulunci ba muddin Musulunci ya ci gaba da mamaye ƙasashen Musulmai, domin tsarinsa na ruhi da na tattalin arziki, da akidarsa ta asali, da ƙa'idodinsa da dokokinsa, duk suna adawa da tsarin fandali. Ba haka kawai ba, har ma yana kawar da dukkan abubuwan da ke haifar da bunƙasarsa. Duk wani alamar fandali da aka gani a zamanin Daular Umayyawa da Abbasiyawa, ta kasance a iyakance a fagenta, baya ga cewa bai taɓa bunƙasa har ya zama wani abu da ya zama ruwan dare a rayuwar zamantakewar Musulmai ba.

Thus we find that feudalism as such did never exist in the world of Islam so long as Islam remained dominant in the Muslim lands because its spiritual and economic system as well as its basic creed, principles and laws are all opposed to feudalism. Not only this but it also does away with all the causes conducive to its growth. Whatever semblance of feudalism was witnessed during the Ommayad and Abbaside periods was limited in its sphere, besides the fact that it never flourished so as to become a common feature of the social life of the Muslims.

Hakika, a cikin tarihin zamani za mu iya ganin tsarin mulkin zalunci na sarakuna da masu manyan gonaki (feudalism) a ƙasashen Musulunci a ƙarshen daular Usmaniyya, a lokacin da tushen imani na Musulunci ya bushe a zukatan Musulmi, kuma ikon siyasa ya koma hannun waɗanda ba su san komai game da Musulunci ba sai sunansa. Yanayin ya ƙara duhu sosai lokacin da wayewar Turawa, wadda ba ta yarda da Allah ba, mai bin abin duniya kuma mai tsananin ƙwazon mamaye wasu, ta yi tattaki cikin nasara zuwa duniyar Musulunci. Ta kafa sojojin mamaya, ta lalata dukkan dabi'un ruhaniya, ta kawo ƙarshen ruhin haɗin kai, tana maye gurbinsu da mafi munin nau'ikan cin zalin tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja, da wahala ta rayuwa duka ga talakawa. Wannan tsarin feudalism da aka shigo da shi daga Turai har yanzu yana ci gaba da wanzuwa a wasu ƙasashen Musulmi, tare da dukkan halayen da suka siffanta iyayensa, wato feudalism na Turai. A bayyane yake cewa Musulunci ba ya da wani uzuri game da kasancewar wannan tsarin a duniyar Musulunci ta yau, kuma ba shi da wani alhaki a kan bayyanarsa ko wanzuwarsa. Za a iya ɗora masa alhaki ne kawai idan yana da ikon mulki a ƙasashen Musulmi. Wasu sarakunan Musulmi a yanzu suna mulkin al'ummominsu bisa kundin tsarin mulki da dokokin da aka shigo da su daga ƙasashen Turai, maimakon bisa dokokin Musulunci. Su ne mafi aminci ga ubangijinsu na Yamma waɗanda aka taɓa gani a doron ƙasa.

Of Course we do find feudalism in the Islamic countries in the modern history towards the end of the Ottoman Empire when headsprings of Islamic faith had dried up in the hearts of Muslims and the political power had passed into the hands of those who knew nothing as regards Islam save its name. The picture became all the more dark when the Godless, materialistic and aggressive European civilization marched in triumph against the Islamic world. It staged military occupations, destroyed all spiritual values and put an end to the spirit of co-operation, replacing these with the most hideous forms of capitalistic exploitation and a life-long misery to the poor. This feudalistic system imported as it was from Europe still continues to linger in some of the Muslim lands with all those features that characterized its parent-the European feudalism. It is quite clear that Islam owes no apology for the presence of it in the contemporary Islamic world, nor is it in any way responsible for its emergence or existence. It could be held responsible only if it were a ruling power in the Muslim lands. Some Muslim rulers are at present ruling their peoples in accordance with the constitutions and laws imported from various European countries rather than according to the Islamic laws. They remain the most faithful followers of their western masters that were ever witnessed on the face of the earth.

Daga wannan tattaunawa wasu gaskiya sun fito fili a sarari, waɗanda suka zama cibiyar rikicin akida da ke ci gaba a duniyar zamani. Daga cikin waɗannan gaskiya, ga waɗanda za a iya nunawa:

From the above discussion certain facts stand out clearly that have become a centre of the ideological conflict raging in the modern World. Of these the following facts may be pointed out:

(1) Ba wai yanayin mallaka da kansa ne ke share hanya ba babu makawa ga bunkasar tsarin ubangida da bayi (feudalism) ba, ba tare da nufin ɗan adam yana da wani rawa a haɓakarsa ba. Maimakon haka, hanyar mallakar da irin dangantakar da ke tsakanin masu filaye da waɗanda ba su da filaye ne ke fifita bunkasarsa. Shi ya sa mallaka tana nan a duniyar Musulunci, amma tsarin ubangida da bayi bai wanzu ba, domin akidar Musulunci da aikace-aikacen ta iri-iri a rayuwar yau da kullum suna kafa irin dangantaka tsakanin mutane wadda ba ta fifita bunkasar tsarin ubangida da bayi ba.

(1) It is not the factor of ownership as such that inexorably paves the way for the growth of feudalism with human will having no part in its enhancement. It is rather the manner of possessing and the nature of relationship between the owners of the land and those who have no land in their possession that favor its growth. That is why ownership was there in the Islamic world and yet feudalism did not exist because the ideology of Islam as well as its various applications to practical life establish between the individuals such relationships as do not favor the growth of feudalism.

(2) Idan Turai ta faɗa cikin tsarin ubangida da bayi (feudalism), ba don tsarin yana da mataki ne wajibi a cikin juyin halittar al'umma wanda ɗan Adam ba zai iya tsallakewa ba, koda kuwa yana so. Turai ta sha wahala daga gare shi ne saboda ba ta da wani tsari ko akida da za ta tsara alaƙar mutane da ba su shiriya ta hankali mai kyau. Da an sami irin wannan akida da mafaka kamar yadda duniyar Musulunci take da ita, wadda za ta shiryar da tsara alaƙar tattalin arzikinsu da zamantakewarsu, da ba a taɓa samun tsarin ubangida da bayi ba, ko kuma ya yi tasiri a Turai.

(2) If Europe was condemned to feudalism it was not because feudalism is an essential stage of evolution on the path of evolution that can never be bypassed by mankind even if it should so desire. Europe suffered from it rather because of the fact that it did not possess any system or creed such as might have regulated human relationships and offered a sound intellectual guidance. Had there been present such a creed and ideology as was the case with the world of Islam, to guide and organize their socioeconomic relationships, no feudalism could ever have sprung up or flourished in Europe.

(3) Matakan ci gaban tattalin arziki daban-daban — da farko al'ummar gama-gari ta kwaminisanci, sannan bautar da mutane (bauta), sannan tsarin fewdal, sannan jari-hujja, sannan kuma al'ummar kwaminisanci ta ƙarshe — waɗanda masana falsafar dialectical materialism ke bayyanawa a matsayin al'amari na gama-gari a tarihin ɗan Adam, a zahiri ba su da wani wanzuwa a waje da tarihin Turai. Ba wata al'umma a wajen Turai da ta taɓa shiga ta cikin waɗannan matakai. Duniyar Musulunci a dukkan tarihinta ba ta taɓa shiga matakin fewdal ba; haka kuma ba ta taɓa kai matakin kwaminisanci ba har zuwa yanzu, kuma ba za ta taɓa kaiwa wannan matakin ba.

(3) The different stages of economic evolution-first communist society, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and then the final communist society-which the dialectical materialists describe as a common phenomenon in the history of mankind, really have no existence whatsoever outside the European history. These stages were never passed through by any people outside Europe. The world of Islam never in its whole history passed through the stage of feudalism; it has never also as such till now come to the stage of communism, nor will it ever reach that stage.