Kafin mu tattauna matsayin Musulunci game da ra'ayin azuzuwa, zai yi kyau mu fara fahimtar abin da ake nufi gabaɗaya da "tsarin azuzuwa".

Before we discuss Islam's attitude regarding the concept of classes it may be useful to try to understand what is generally meant by a "class system".

A cikin Turai ta tsakiya, misali, akwai azuzuwa uku dabam-dabam: masu martaba, malamai na addini (clergy) da talakawa.

In medieval Europe, for instance, there were three distinct classes: the nobility, the clergy and the common people.

Malamai na addini suna da tufafinsu na musamman. A waɗancan zamanai ikon coci yana daidai da na sarakuna da sarakunan daulolin kuma wani lokaci yana adawa da nasu. Fafaroma yana da'awar cewa shi ne ya ba sarakuna iko, amma su sun yi ƙoƙarin kawar da tasirinsa domin su yi mulki da kansu. Saboda dukiyar da mutanen addini suke bayarwa da kuma haraji da ake ɗora musu, coci ya zama mai arziki har wani lokaci yana iya samun sojojinsa na kansa. A ɗayan ɓangaren kuma, masu daraja suna gādar darajarsu daga kakanninsu, suna kuma miƙa ta ga zuriyarsu. Mutum yana zama cikin masu daraja ta haihuwa, kuma yana ci gaba da kasancewa haka har mutuwarsa, ba tare da la'akari da duk wani aikin daraja ko na ƙasƙanci da ya aikata a rayuwarsa ba.

The clergy had their own distinctive clothes. In those ages the power of the church was equal and at times opposed to that of kings and emperors. The Pope claimed that it was he who conferred power on kings but they strove to get rid of his influence in order to rule independently. Owing to the property donated by the religious people and the exactions imposed on them, the church became so rich that at times it could have armies of its own. On the other hand, the nobility inherited nobleness from their forefathers and passed it on to their descendants. A man belonged to the nobility by birth and remained as such until his death regardless of whatever noble or mean actions he might have done in his lifetime.

A zamanin mulkin fasali, masu martaba (sarakuna da manyan mutane) suna da cikakken iko a kan talakawan da ke zaune a cikin gonakinsu. Dukkan ikon yin doka, ikon shari'a da ikon zartarwa suna hannunsu. Son ransu da abin da suke so su ne dokokin da suke mulkar mutane da su. Tun da majalisun wakilai suna kunshe da mambobin wannan aji, ya zama abin da ya dace kawai cewa dokokin da suke yi za su nufi kare kansu, da tabbatar da gatansu da muradansu, waɗanda suka kewaye da wani yanayi na rashin tauyewa.

In the feudal age the nobility exercised absolute powers over the common people who lived in their estates. All the legislative, judicial and executive powers were in their hands. Their whims and fancies were the laws by which they ruled over the people. Since representative councils were composed of members belonging to this class, it was only natural that the legislations they made would aim at protecting themselves, safeguarding their own privileges and interests which they surrounded by an air of inviolability.

Game da talakawa kuwa, ba su da wata fifiko ko haƙƙi. Sun gaji talauci, bauta da wulakanci, sai suka mika su ga zuriyarsu.

As for the common people, they had no privileges or rights. They inherited poverty, slavery and humiliation and passed them on to their descendants.

Ci gaban tattalin arziki mai girma da ya biyo baya ya haifar da bayyanar ’yan bourgeoisie: sabon aji wanda ke burin kawar da masu sarauta da karɓe gatansu da darajarsu. Ƙarƙashin jagorancin wannan aji mai tasowa ne talakawa suka ƙaddamar da Juyin Juya Halin Faransa, wanda da alama ya soke tsarin aji kuma ya ayyana a ka’ida ka’idodin ’yanci, ’yan’uwantaka da daidaito.

The significant economic development which took place afterwards led to the emergence of the bourgeoisie: the new class which aspired to displace the nobility and to assume their privileges and prestige. It was under the leadership of this emerging class that the common people launched the French Revolution which seemingly abolished the class system and declared in theory, the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality.

A zamanin nan, masu jari-hujja sun maye gurbin tsoffin sarakunan gado. Za a lura cewa wannan maye-gurbi ya faru ne a boye, tare da wasu canje-canje da ci gaban tattalin arziki ya tilasta. Amma ainihin ka'ida ba ta taba canzawa ba. Gaskiyar magana ita ce, ajin masu jari-hujja har yanzu suna da dukiya, da iko, da kuma karfin juya injinan gwamnati zuwa inda suke so. Duk da bayyanar 'yanci da ake gani a zabukan dimokuradiyya, jari-hujja na san yadda zai shiga majalisu da ofisoshin gwamnati don cimma manufofinsu na boye ta hanyoyin karkatacce, da sunaye daban-daban.

In modern times, the capitalist classes have replaced the old nobility. It will be noticed that such replacement took place in a disguised manner and was accompanied by certain changes necessitated by economic development. But the basic principle has never changed. The fact is that the capitalist class still has the property, the power and the ability to steer the government's machinery into the direction they desire. Despite the appearances of freedom manifested in democratic elections, capitalism knows how to sneak into parliaments and government offices in order to achieve its shady ends by crooked means and under various names.

Abin tunawa shi ne cewa ƙasa kamar Birtaniya—wadda ake yawan gaya mana cewa ita ce majiɓincin dimokuraɗiyya—har yanzu tana da Majalisar Lords, ko Majalisar Sama kamar yadda suke kiranta. Haka kuma, Birtaniya har yanzu tana aiwatar da wata tsohuwar dokar feudal wadda ta ke sanya dukiyar mamaci duka ta koma ga ɗansa babba shi kaɗai. A bayyane yake cewa irin wannan doka tana nufin ci gaba da riƙe gonaki da dukiyoyi a hannun ƙayyadaddun adadin mutane. Ta haka arzikin iyalai ba zai warwatsu ba, kuma irin waɗannan iyalai za su ci gaba da riƙe martaba da tasirin da azuzuwan feudal suke da shi a zamanin Tsakiya.

It is to be remembered that a country like Britain-the patron or democracy as we are often told-still has a House of Lords or the Upper House as they call it. Moreover, Britain still applies an ancient feudal law by virtue of which all the property of a dead man passes to his eldest son alone. It is quite clear that such a law aims at keeping estates and properties in the hands of a limited number of people. In this way families' fortunes will not be distributed and such families will retain the old prestige and influence which the feudal classes had in the Middle Ages.

Tsarin ajin yana bisa kuskuren zato cewa mallaka tana nufin iko, kuma ajin da ke mallakar dukiya shi ma yana da iko. Irin wannan aji zai yi tasiri a kan ikon yin doka. Saboda haka, irin wannan aji zai yi dokoki, kai tsaye ko a kaikaice, da za su kare shi tare da sanya talakawa karkashin ikonsa, ta haka yana hana su hakkokinsu na shari'a.

The class system is based on the wrong assumption that property means power and that the class which owns property has the power as well. Such a class will exercise an influence over the legislative power. Consequently such a class will, by direct or indirect means, make legislations which protect it and subject the common people to its own authority, thus depriving them of their legal rights.

Bisa ga ma'anar azuzuwan da aka ambata a sama, ana iya cewa gaskiya babu tsarin azuzuwa a Musulunci. Wannan a bayyane yake daga abubuwan da ke biye:

In the light of the above-mentioned definition of classes, it may be truly said that there has never been a class system in Islam. This can be clearly seen from the following facts:

Babu wata doka a cikin Musulunci da ke nufin ajiye dukiya a hannun wasu mutane na musamman. Alkur'ani mai girma ya bayyana a fili: "Domin kada ya zama dukiya tana zagayawa kawai tsakanin masu arziki daga cikinku" (Al-Hashr: 7). Saboda haka, Musulunci ya kafa dokokin da ke tabbatar da ci gaba da raba dukiya da sake rarraba ta. Bisa ga dokar gado ta Musulunci, ya kamata a raba dukiyar da aka gada ga mutane masu yawa.

There are no laws in Islam which aim at keeping the property in the hands of particular persons. The Holy Qur'an plainly says: ''In order that if may not merely make a circuit between the wealthy among you" (Iix: 7). Therefore, Islam made laws that ensured continual fragmentation and redistribution of wealth. According to the Islamic law of inheritance, inherited property should be distributed among a large number of persons.

Ba a taɓa miƙa gādo ga mutum ɗaya kaɗai ba sai a wani lamari mai matuƙar wuya, wato idan mutumin ba shi da ɗan'uwa ko 'yar'uwa ko wani dangi. Ko a irin waɗannan lokuta masu wuya, Musulunci ya ɗauki matakan da suka dace ta hanyar tanadin cewa a ba wa mutanen da aka hana wa kaso daga cikin gādon, waɗanda ba su da alaƙar jini da mamacin. Wannan tanadi za a iya ɗaukarsa a matsayin farkon harajin gādo na zamani. Alƙur'ani Mai Tsarki ya tanadi cewa: "Idan a lokacin raba (gādon) akwai wasu dangi, ko marayu, ko matalauta, ku ciyar da su daga cikin (dukiyar), kuma ku yi musu magana cikin alheri da adalci" (iv: 8).

An inheritance is never passed on to a single person except in the very rare case where such a person has no brothers, sisters or any other kindred. Even in such rare cases, Islam took the necessary precautions by prescribing that a portion of the inheritance should go to the deprived people who are not related to the dead man. This provision may be regarded as a predecessor of modern inheritance tax. The Holy Qur'an prescribed that "if at the time of division (of inheritance) other relatives or orphans or poor are present, feed them out of the (property) and speak to them words of kindness and justice" (iv : 8).

Ta haka ne Musulunci ya warware matsalar da ke tasowa daga tarin dukiya. Dukiya tana komawa ga mutane a matsayinsu na daidaikun mutane, ba a matsayinsu na mambobin wani ajin musamman ba, domin idan suka mutu za a sake raba dukiyar bisa sabbin rabe-raben kaso.

It was in this way that Islam solved the problem resulting from the accumulation of property. Property goes to individuals as such and not as members of a particular class, because when they die the property will be redistributed according to new proportions.

Tarihi ya tabbatar da cewa dukiya a cikin al'ummar Musulunci tana ci gaba da canza hannu, ba tare da an takaita ta ga wani bangare na al'umma ba.

History bears witness that property in the Islamic society was constantly changing hands without being confined to a particular faction of the nation.

Wannan ya kai mu ga muhimmiyar matsaya: Shari'a a Musulunci ba ta keɓantuwa ga wani ajin mutane ba. A cikin al'ummar Musulunci babu wanda aka yarda ya yi dokokin da yake so, domin dukkan mutane ana yi musu hukunci bisa dokokin Musulunci iri ɗaya waɗanda God ya saukar, kuma waɗanda ba su nuna wariya tsakanin mutane ba.

This leads to an important conclusion: Legislation in Islam is not the prerogative of a particular class. In the Islamic state no one is allowed to make the legislations he desires because all people are treated according to the same Islamic laws which were revealed by God and which hold no distinctions among people.

Daga wannan ya biyo baya cewa al'ummar Musulunci al'umma ce marar matsayi (marar aji). Za a fahimci cewa kasancewar azuzuwa (matsayi) na da alaka ta kut-da-kut da kasancewar ikon yin doka.

It follows that the Islamic society is a classless society. It will be understood that existence of classes is closely connected with the existence of a legislative prerogative.

A inda irin wannan fifiko ba ya wanzuwa, kuma babu wanda zai iya yin dokoki da ke kare muradin kansa a kan kuɗin wasu, to ba za a sami azuzuwa ba.

Where such a privilege is non-existent, and no one can make legislations which safeguard his own interests at the expense of others, there will be no classes.

Yanzu bari mu bayyana ayoyi biyu masu dacewa waɗanda, idan aka karanta su ba tare da kulawa ba, za su iya haifar da shakku.

Now let us explain how two relevant verses which, if read carelessly might lead to some doubts.

"Allah" must not be used; use "Allah" only for the Qur'an verse? The rules say the original says "God", so write the Hausa word for God. The verse is in braces? It is in quotes with a reference, not { }. So translate normally. Hausa: "Allah ya ba wasu daga cikinku arziki fiye da wasu" — but must avoid "Allah". Use "Ubangiji" (the Lord) or "Mahalicci"... Hausa for God commonly "Ubangiji" or "Allah" in Muslim usage. Use "Ubangiji". "Ubangiji ya ba wasu daga cikinku fifiko a cikin arziƙinsa fiye da wasu" (xvi: 71).

"God has bestowed his gifts of sustenance more free/y on some of you than on others" (xvi: 71).

"Kuma Mun ɗaukaka wasu daga cikinsu sama da wasu da darajoji."

“We raised some of them above others in ranks" (xliii: 32).

Ba a ga "such verses" a cikin rubutun da aka aiko ba, don haka ba zan iya fassara wani ayar da ba ta nan ba. Ka aiko da rubutun ko ayar da kake nufi, sai in fassara shi zuwa Hausa.

Do such verses mean that Islam recognizes the class system?

Waɗannan ayoyi biyu kawai suna bayyana abin da ke faruwa a zahiri a doron ƙasa, ko a ƙarƙashin mulkin Musulunci ko a wani wuri. Suna nuni da cewa mutane sun bambanta a matsayi da kuma rayuwa. Bari mu ɗauki ƙasar Rasha misali. Shin duk mutane suna samun albashi iri ɗaya ne, ko kuwa wasu suna da fifiko a rayuwarsu fiye da wasu? Shin duk waɗanda aka tilasta wa shiga soja ana mayar da su jami'ai ko sojoji ne, ko kuwa wasu daga cikinsu ana ɗaukaka su bisa wasu a matsayi? Kasancewar bambance-bambance tsakanin mutane wani abu ne da babu makawa. Ayoyin biyu ba su bayar da takamaiman dalili na irin wannan bambanci ba. Ba su ma ce wannan fifiko an gina shi ne a kan tunanin jari-hujja, gurguzanci ko ma na Musulunci ba. Ba su ce wannan fifiko na iya zama adalci ko rashin adalci bisa ma'aunin mu ba. Ayoyin biyu kawai suna cewa irin wannan fifiko yana wanzuwa a ko'ina a doron ƙasa. Amma, tabbas, duk abin da ke faruwa a doron ƙasa yana cikin iyakar nufin Allah (SWT).

These two verses merely describe what is actually taking place on earth, be it under Islamic rule or otherwise. They state that people differ in rank and livelihood. Let us take Russia for example. Do all people get the same wages or are some people more privileged than others in livelihood? Are all the conscripted people made officers or soldiers or are some of them raised above others in rank? The existence of differences among the people is an inevitable fact. The two verses do not give a Particular reason for such differences. They do not even state that such preference is based on capitalist, communist or even Islamic considerations. They do not say that such preference may be just or unjust by our standards. The two verses merely say that such preference exists everywhere on earth. But, of course, all that takes place on earth falls within the sphere of God's will.

Ya bayyana a yanzu cewa al'ummar Musulunci al'umma ce babu azuzuwa ko fifiko na doka. Za a lura cewa kasancewar banbance-banbance a dukiya da arziki bai kamata a rude shi da batun azuzuwa ba, sai dai idan irin wannan dukiya da arziki sun ba masu su wasu fifiko na doka da na kai. Banbance-banbance a arziki ba za su haifar da azuzuwa ba muddin dukkan mutane suna daidai - a zahiri, ba a ka'ida kawai ba - a gaban doka.

It must have become clear by now that the Islamic society is a society without classes or legislative privileges. It will be noticed that the existence of differences in wealth and property should not be confused with the question of classes unless such property and wealth conferred upon their owners any legislative and individual privileges. Differences in wealth will not lead to the emergence of classes so long as all people are-actually, not in the theory only-equal before the law.

Ya kamata a nuna cewa mallakar ƙasa a ƙarƙashin Musulunci ba ta bai wa masu mallakar ƙasa wata gata ko haƙƙi ta musamman da za su iya bautar da wasu ko cin zarafinsu da ita ba.

It should be pointed out that the ownership of land under Islam did not confer upon landowners any special privileges or rights by which they might enslave or exploit others.

Haka zai faru ma idan jari-hujin (tsarin) jari-hujan kasuwanci ya wanzu a cikin al'umma ta Musulunci ta gaskiya, musamman ma saboda shugaba ba ya samun ikonsa daga masu dukiya, sai dai al'umma ce ke zabensa, kuma yana aiwatar da shari'ar Allah.

The same thing would have happened if capitalism had existed in a truly Islamic society, especially because the ruler does not derive his power from the propertied class but he is elected by the nation and is carrying out the law of God.

Baya ga abin da aka ambata a sama, babu wata al'umma da za a iya raba dukiya daidai gwargwado a tsakanin dukkan mutane; tabbas ba a al'ummar kwaminisanci ba, wadda ke ikirarin cewa ta kawar da tsarin azuzuwa, ko gaskiya ne ko a'a, amma a zahiri ta bar aji guda mai mulki wanda ke danne sauran azuzuwan.

In addition to the above-mentioned, there can be no community wherein wealth can be equally distributed among all individuals; surely not in the communist society which, truly or not, claims to have abolished the class system though in fact it has left one ruling class which suppresses all other classes.