Hivi karibuni nilposikia kwamba mwanafunzi mmoja aliandika tasnifu ambayo ndani yake alidai "kuthibitisha" kwamba Uislamu ulikuwa mfumo wa kimwinyi, na akapewa Shahada ya Uzamili, nilishangazwa sana. Mwenendo wa mwanafunzi huyo pamoja na wa maprofesa waliomtunukia shahada hiyo ulinishangaza vilevile. Lakini mwanafunzi huyo anaweza kusamehewa kwa kisingizio kwamba alikuwa hajui vizuri alichokuwa akikiandika, au kwamba aliandika kwa chuki dhidi ya Uislamu. Je, vipi kuhusu walimu wenye elimu? Tunawezaje kueleza mwenendo wao, ujuzi wao wa mfumo wa kijamii na kiuchumi wa Uislamu, na uelewa wao wa historia?

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?

Lakini sikuendelea kushangaa nilipokumbuka walimu hawa wenye elimu walikuwa akina nani. Je, hawakuwa wanachama wa jamii iliyovutwa na wanyonyaji wa kigeni na kuundwa kwa mfumo wa kiakili uliowafaa wao? Je, si hao ndio watu ambao Bw. Dunlop¹ alivutiwa nao hasa? Walitumwa nje ya nchi kwa kisingizio cha kupata elimu, lakini kwa kweli ilikuwa sehemu tu ya njama ya kuwafanya wawe wageni kabisa kwa utamaduni na ustaarabu wao wenyewe; kuwafanya wadharau dini yao, nafsi zao, historia yao, imani yao, na badala yake wafuate nyayo za walimu wao wa Magharibi. Basi haishangazi kwamba waliruhusu upotoshaji mkubwa wa historia na ukweli huo! Hebu tuone sasa neno ubwanyenye (feudalism) linamaanisha nini hasa na sifa zake ni zipi. Kwa madhumuni haya, tunanukuu hapa chini sehemu za kitabu "Ukomunisti" cha Dkt. Rashid-al-Barawy, ambacho hivi karibuni kimechapishwa Ulaya. Akizungumzia ubwanyenye, mwandishi anasema: "Ubwanyenye ni namna ya uzalishaji, alama yake kuu ikiwa ni kuwepo kwa mfumo wa kudumu wa utumwa wa kimwili (serfdom). Ni mfumo ambao mwenye ardhi au mwakilishi wake ana haki ya kupokea sehemu maalum ya uzalishaji na kufurahia haki fulani maalum za kiuchumi, zikiambatana na haki ya kuwafanya wapangaji wao wawatumikie au, badala yake, kuwapokea malipo kwa fedha taslimu au bidhaa. Kwa ufafanuzi wa hili, tunaweza kusema kwamba jamii ya kimwinyi imegawanywa katika makundi mawili ya watu: (1) wamiliki wa ardhi ya kimwinyi, na (2) wapangaji, ambao nao wanaweza kutofautiana katika ngazi zao: wakulima, wafanyakazi wa kilimo, na watumwa, idadi ya baadhi yao ikipungua kwa kasi zaidi kuliko ya wengine. Ni wakulima, wazalishaji wa moja kwa moja, hata hivyo, wanaofurahia haki ya kumiliki ardhi na kuwa na sehemu katika mazao ambayo ni muhimu sana kwao kuwatunza familia zao na nafsi zao, pamoja na haki ya kujenga nyumba za shamba kwenye ardhi ya kilimo." Dhidi ya faida hizi, wanatakiwa kumtumikia mwenye ardhi kila wiki kwa kutoa huduma bila malipo katika mashamba yake, wakifanya kazi kwa kutumia ng'ombe wao na zana zao wenyewe, pamoja na kumfanyia idadi ya huduma nyingine wakati wa kuvuna na kukata mazao, na kumpa wakati wa sikukuu zawadi na zawadi zozote wanazoweza. Pia wanatarajiwa kusaga nafaka zao na kukamua zabibu zao kwenye mashine zake za kusaga unga na mashine zake za kukamulia.

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.

Mwenye ardhi pia anatumia mamlaka kamili ya utendaji na mahakama juu ya wapangaji wake wanaoishi ndani ya mipaka ya ardhi yake ya kimwinyi.

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

Mzalishaji halisi katika mfumo wa ukabaila hakufurahia uhuru kwa maana tunayoijua hivi sasa; hakumiliki ardhi, wala hakuweza kuiuza, kuirithisha au kuitoa kama zawadi kwa wengine. Alilazimishwa kufanya kazi ya kulazimishwa katika ardhi ya bwana wake hata kwa gharama ya faida zake mwenyewe za kimali au mambo yanayohusiana nazo. Zaidi ya hayo, kama ishara ya utii wake kwa bwana huyo, alilazimika kumlipa kodi zisizo na kikomo kwa kiasi wala kwa wigo.

"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.

Pamoja na ardhi, yeye pia alibadilishwa mabwana, akipitishwa kutoka mmoja hadi mwingine, kwa sababu hakuwa na haki ya kuhama kwa hiari yake kutoka kwenye fiefu moja hadi nyingine kutafuta kazi, wala hata kujiunga na huduma ya bwana mwingine. Kwa hivyo, mkulima wa kimwinyi (feudal villain) ndiye kiungo kinachounganisha watumwa wa zamani na wapangaji huru wa nyakati za kisasa.

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.

Ilikuwa ni bwana mwenye shamba aliyeamua ukubwa wa ardhi atakayompa mkulima.

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

Pia aliamua kuhusu huduma ambazo alitarajia wapangaji wake wampe, bila kujali haki za wamiliki wengine wa ardhi wala mahitaji ya wakulima alipofanya maamuzi haya makubwa." Mwandishi anaendelea kusema: "Katika karne ya kumi na tatu kulitokea harakati kubwa ya uhamiaji haramu ambayo hatimaye ilimaliza kuibuka kwa wafanyakazi wa kilimo. Harakati hii, inayojulikana kama 'kukimbia kwa wakulima', ilisababisha wamiliki wa ardhi kudai warejeshwe wapangaji wao waliotoroka. Walikubaliana miongoni mwao kwamba kila mmiliki wa ardhi angeruhusiwa kikamilifu kuwakamata wafanyakazi wote waliovuka mipaka ya eneo lake la kimwinyi. Lakini jambo hili, yaani kukimbia kwa wakulima, lilikuwa linakuwa jambo la kawaida la nyakati hizo, hivyo wamiliki wa ardhi walilazimika kutegemea zaidi na zaidi wafanyakazi walioajiriwa kulima ardhi yao. Makubaliano yao ya pamoja polepole yalipoteza umuhimu wake, jambo lililomaanisha kupungua kwa ushirikiano wao. Kutokana na hili kulifuata matokeo mengine yasiyoepukika: wafanyakazi walianza kulipwa mishahara kwa fedha taslimu badala ya kuwalazimisha kufanya kazi bila malipo yoyote."

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.

Wakulima wengi hatua kwa hatua walianza kustawi, kinyume na mahitaji ya wakuu na wamiliki wa ardhi, ambayo yalikuwa yameongezeka sana na hivyo kuwa mzigo mkubwa kwao kiuchumi. Hali ilizipendelea wakulima, nao wakanunua uhuru wao.

"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.

Hii iliendelea hadi karne ya kumi na nne, wakati uhuru wa wafanyakazi wa kilimo hatimaye ulipotambuliwa kama huo na wote. Hata hivyo, mabadiliko muhimu yaliyoletwa na nyakati hizo ni kwamba msingi ambao muundo mzima wa kimwinyi ulisimama ulianza kuporomoka; karne zilizofuata zilishuhudia kukomeshwa kwake kabisa".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

Hivi ni sifa za ukabaila. Tumezinukuu dondoo hizi hapo juu kwa undani kwa kuwa tunataka tuwe na ufahamu wa wazi kuhusu ukabaila na sifa zake, ili tusiuchanganye na udhihirisho mwingine unaofanana nao kwa mtazamo wa juu.

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.

Ukizingatia sifa zote hizi za jamii ya kimwinyi, tunaweza kuuliza: ni lini na wapi mfumo wa kimwinyi ulishuhudiwa katika historia ya Uislamu?

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?

Labda mwonekano wa nje ambao umekuwa kikwazo kwa watafiti wengi, au umewapa wanaotafuta faida fursa ya kutoa lawama dhidi ya Uislamu, ni ukweli kwamba mwanzoni, jamii ya Kiislamu kwa wakati ule ilikuwa na madaraja mawili ya watu: wamiliki wa ardhi na wakulima waliofanya kazi katika ardhi zao. Lakini hili lilikuwa ni mwonekano wa nje tu. Haliwezi kwa njia yoyote kuhalalisha kuchanganya Uislamu na ukabaila (feudalism). Ili kurahisisha ulinganisho kati ya Uislamu na ukabaila, tunaweza kufupisha sifa kuu za ukabaila kama ifuatavyo:

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) Utumwa wa kudumu.

(l) A perpetual serfdom.

(2) Majukumu ambayo mkulima alikuwa akiyatekeleza kwa bwana wake yalikuwa ni:

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

(a) siku nzima ya kazi ya bure na ya kulazimishwa katika ardhi ya bwana wake wa kimwinyi mara moja kwa wiki; (b) huduma za bure na za kulazimishwa anazomtolea bwana wake katika misimu maalum ya mavuno, n.k.; (c) kutoa zawadi katika sikukuu za kidini na nyinginezo za sherehe za aina hiyo, licha ya umaskini wake au utajiri wa mpokeaji, bwana mwenye ardhi tajiri; (d) wajibu wa kusaga nafaka zake katika mashine za bwana mwenye ardhi. (Tunaacha kando wajibu wake wa kukamua zabibu zake kwa ajili ya bwana wake wa kimwinyi, kwa kuwa pombe ni haramu katika Uislamu).

(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) Haki ya mwenye ardhi kuamua kwa matakwa au tamaa zake kiasi cha ardhi atakayoshikilia mkulima, huduma atakazotakiwa kutoa, na kodi atakazopaswa kulipa.

(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) Utekelezaji wa mamlaka yote ya kimahakama na kiutendaji na mwenye ardhi, si kwa mujibu wa sheria maalum ya nchi bali kwa matakwa na tamaa zake mwenyewe; (5) Wajibu wa wakulima kujinunulia uhuru wao kwa malipo ya fedha taslimu, pale hatimaye ukabaila ulipopisha nafasi na mchakato wa kuporomoka kwake ukaanza.

(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.

Wasomaji kwanza na waangalie haya, kisha waangalie kwa haraka historia yote ya Uislamu ili kutafuta sifa zinazofanana ndani yake. Hakika watakatishwa tamaa, kwa kuwa Uislamu hauna uhusiano wowote nazo.

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.

Hakuna utumwa wa kimwinyi katika Uislamu, kwani Uislamu hautambui aina nyingine yoyote ya utumwa isipokuwa ule wa watumwa, ambao sababu zake na masharti yake, pamoja na njia za kuwaweka huru, tumeshazungumzia katika sura iliyotangulia. Uislamu haukubali utumwa unaotokana na mkulima kufungwa katika ardhi. Watumwa pekee tunaowajua katika Uislamu ni wale waliotekwa katika vita, na hilo linatosha kuthibitisha kwamba katika jamii ya awali ya Kiislamu idadi ya watumwa ilikuwa ndogo sana ikilinganishwa na jumla ya raia wake huru.

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.

Walifanya kazi kwenye ardhi ya mabwana wao hadi waliachiwa huru kwa hiari, au wao wenyewe walichukua hatua na kudai kutoka kwa mabwana wao uhuru wao kwa maandishi (Mukatabah). Lakini hakuna mfano kama huo katika historia ya ukabaila wa Ulaya, kwani lengo lake kuu lilikuwa kuwatiisha wakulima pamoja na wafanyakazi wa kilimo, badala ya kuwatia moyo wadai uhuru. Ndiyo maana wakulima barani Ulaya walichukuliwa kuwa watumwa wa ardhi, waliofungwa nayo na wanaoweza kuhamishwa pamoja nayo kutoka bwana mmoja kwenda mwingine.

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.

Kwa hiyo, hawakuweza kuondoka kwenye ardhi waliyokuwa wakiifanyia kazi, wala kujikomboa kutoka wajibu waliokuwa nao kwa wamiliki wao wa ardhi.

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

Uislamu haujui aina hii ya utumwa au uovu wa namna hii kabisa, kwani katika msingi wake unapinga aina zote za utumwa isipokuwa ile anayompa mwanadamu Mungu wake, Muumbaji wa uhai wote. Hakuna kipengele ndani yake kinachoruhusu baadhi ya viumbe kutiishwa na viumbe wengine kama wao. Pale hali hiyo isiyo ya kawaida ya kutiishwa kwa baadhi ya watu chini ya wengine inapojitokeza kutokana na sababu za nje bila mpango wowote kutoka kwa Uislamu, daima ni jambo la muda au la mpito, ambalo Uislamu unajitahidi kulimaliza kwa rasilimali zote zilizo mikononi mwake, ukiwatia moyo watumwa wajikomboe kwa kujipatia uhuru wao, na pia ukiifanya dola kuwajibika kuwapa msaada wote unaowezekana kwa lengo hilo.

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.

Katika uchumi pia, Uislamu hautambui utumwa wowote wa mwanadamu kwa wanadamu wenzake. Mfumo wa utumwa ambao tumeutaja hapo juu ni kisa cha pekee, kwa kuwa kabla ya Uislamu wakati ule hakukuwepo mbadala mwingine wa kiuchumi. Uislamu uliuvumilia hadi watumwa walipokuwa wamekombolewa kiroho na hadi walipoweza kubeba majukumu yao kama wanachama huru wa jamii, ndipo Uislamu ulipowasaidia kwa vitendo kurejesha uhuru wao uliopotea.

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.

Uchumi wa Uislamu unajengwa juu ya uhuru wa kutenda pamoja na uhusiano wa ushirikiano kamili na ubadilishanaji wa huduma kati ya watu wote. Serikali ya Kiislamu, kwa hiyo, hufanya kazi kama mlezi na mtunzaji wa watu wote ambao kwa sababu fulani wamerudi nyuma katika mapambano ya maisha na wamenyimwa huduma zote za maisha ya heshima. Hivyo, kwa kuwa na rasilimali zote za dola nyuma yake, katika jamii ya Kiislamu hakuna mtu anayehitaji kujifanya mtumwa wa wamiliki wa ardhi. Uislamu unamtunzia mahitaji yake yote ya msingi bila kumdhalilisha au kumfanya apoteze uhuru wake, kujiheshimu wala heshima yake.

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.

Hivyo basi, kiroho na kiuchumi Uislamu unapinga ukabaila. Uliwaletea watu uhuru kutoka katika ukabaila hata kabla hawajanaswa katika minyororo ya utumwa wa kimwinyi.

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.

Kuhusu majukumu ya mkulima kwa bwana wake wa kimwinyi, hakuna ushahidi wowote wa kuwepo kwake katika historia yote ya Kiislamu.

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.

Yako huru kabisa na upuuzi wa aina hiyo. Katika jambo hili, Uislamu unasimama peke yake kwa namna ya kipekee. Iwapo mkulima atapatikana na hatia ya kosa fulani, unamruhusu mmiliki wa ardhi amwondoe na kuikabidhi ardhi kwa mtu mwingine. Lakini hili halikusudiwi kuhimiza dhuluma; bali ni hatua ya kuelekea kuondoa utumwa wa kimwinyi. Uislamu unalenga kuanzisha uhusiano huru kati ya mwenye ardhi na mpangaji.

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.

Uhusiano pekee ambao Uislamu unautambua kuwa ni halali kati ya mkulima na mwenye ardhi ni ule wa mkataba au ule unaotokana na upangaji wa ardhi. Katika hali ya kwanza, mkulima anatakiwa kumlipa mwenye ardhi kiasi kilichowekwa kama kodi ya ardhi, kulingana na mazao yake, na baada ya hapo anabaki huru kabisa katika kulima na kutumia, pamoja na kupata mazao yote ya ardhi kwa matumizi yake binafsi. Iwapo ni mpangaji, atagawana mazao ya ardhi na mwenye ardhi mwishoni mwa kila mwaka. Katika hali kama hiyo, gharama zote hubebwa na mwenye ardhi; mkulima hutoa nguvu kazi tu. Katika kesi hizi zote mbili hakuna nafasi ya kazi ya kulazimishwa, mapendeleo ya kidikteta, wala wajibu mwingine wowote unaomlazimu mkulima kumtumikia bwana wake bila kupata chochote kama malipo. Pande zote mbili badala yake zinafurahia usawa kamili katika uhuru, katika haki zao pamoja na wajibu wao, kwa uhusiano wa kutoa na kupokea wa pande zote. Kwanza kabisa, mkulima yuko huru kabisa kuchagua ardhi anayotaka kukodi au mwenye ardhi ambaye angependa kufanya naye kazi kama mpangaji. Pili, yuko sawa na mwenye ardhi na anafurahia uhuru kama huo wa kuamua au kukubaliana kuhusu kiasi cha mkataba atakachomlipa mwenye ardhi. Ikiwa hataona makubaliano hayo yana faida, yuko huru kujitoa na kutokubaliana na mkataba huo, huku mwenye ardhi asiwe na mamlaka wala haki ya kumwajibisha kwa hilo. Kama mpangaji, mkulima anafurahia haki za kisheria sawa na zile za mwenye ardhi wake.

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.

Wanagawanya faida yake kwa usawa baina yao.

They divide the profit thereof equally between themselves.

Zaidi ya hayo, tunaona pia kwamba, tofauti na kilichotokea katika historia ya ukabaila wa Ulaya, desturi iliyoenea katika Uislamu ilikuwa tofauti kabisa. Ni mwenye shamba tajiri, si mkulima maskini, aliyetoa zawadi na kuwapa wapangaji wake vipawa vingi wakati wa Idi na sikukuu nyingine. Hili ni kweli hasa kuhusu miezi ya Ramadhani, mwezi wenye umuhimu mkubwa na maana kubwa ya kidini katika Uislamu.

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.

Katika mwezi huu, marafiki na jamaa walitembeleana na kukaribishwa kwa karamu, pamoja na kutoa zawadi nyingi kwa maskini na wahitaji wa jamii yao. Maana yake, kwa maneno mengine, ni kwamba watu matajiri na wenye mali walikuwa wakitumia mali yao kwa wengine badala ya kudai zawadi za gharama kubwa kutoka kwa watu maskini, kama ilivyokuwa desturi katika Ulaya "iliyostaarabika".

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.

Kutokana na hili inadhihirika wazi kwamba majukumu ambayo wakulima walilemewa nayo katika mfumo wa ukabaila, na ambayo yaligeuka kuwa kazi ya kulazimishwa, hayana nafasi katika mfumo wa maisha wa Kiislamu. Badala yake, Uislamu ulianzisha uhusiano huru kati ya mmiliki wa ardhi na mkulima, wenye heshima ya pande zote na usawa kamili. Kuhusu majukumu yaliyotekelezwa na wakuu wa kimwinyi barani Ulaya kwa wapangaji wao, kama malipo ya kazi yao ya kulazimishwa isiyo na haki na utumwa wao wa kudhalilisha kwao, yaani kuwalinda dhidi ya wengine na kulinda haki zao, katika jamii ya Kiislamu watu matajiri walitekeleza majukumu kama hayo kwa hiari kwa wapangaji wao bila kutarajia chochote kutoka kwao. Katika kutoa huduma hizi kwa wanadamu wenzao, hawakutafuta jambo lolote isipokuwa radhi za Mwenyezi Mungu. Hili ndilo linalotofautisha mfumo wa maisha unaotegemea itikadi tukufu na ule usio nayo. Katika mfumo wa kwanza, huduma za kijamii anazozitoa mtu kwa wengine huchukua sura ya ibada ambayo kwayo anakaribishwa kwa Mola wake, ilhali katika mfumo wa pili huduma hizo si chochote zaidi ya biashara, kila upande ukijitahidi kupata sehemu kubwa zaidi na kuwa na hamu ya kutoa kwa upande mwingine kitu kisichozidi uwezo wake wa kukishikilia, matokeo yake mwishowe upande wenye nguvu zaidi, badala ya ule unaostahili kwa haki, hushinda na kujichukulia faida zote.

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.

Sifa ya tatu ya ukabaila, yaani haki ya bwana mwenye ardhi ya kuamua ukubwa wa ardhi itakayopewa mkulima mpangaji na kuweka majukumu atakayotakiwa kuyatekeleza na kutarajiwa kuyatekeleza, ni jambo mahsusi kwa dhana ya Kiulaya ya ubwana na utumwa wa mkulima pekee. Dhana kama hiyo haijawahi kuwepo katika historia ya Uislamu, ambao hautambui mamlaka ya juu ya bwana mwenye ardhi wala utumwa wa mkulima kwake. Jambo pekee linalozuia uchaguzi wa mkulima kupata ukodishaji wa ardhi katika Uislamu ni hiari yake mwenyewe na uwezo wake wa kifedha. Mwenye ardhi hana haki yoyote ya ziada dhidi ya hilo isipokuwa ile ya kudai kodi ya ardhi iliyokubaliwa kutoka kwa mkulima. Vivyo hivyo, katika upangaji, ukubwa wa ardhi itakayolimwa na mpangaji huamuliwa na uwezo wake wa kimwili au idadi ya mikono ya kusaidia (inayojumuisha wanawe kwa kawaida) anayoweza kuipata. Majukumu yanayowekwa juu yake katika upangaji hayazidi kile ambacho ukarabati wa ardhi aliyoipata unaweza kuhitaji. Ardhi katika hali kama hiyo inachukuliwa kuwa mali ya pamoja ya mkulima na mwenye ardhi hadi itakapotoa mazao yake. Kuhusu ardhi ya mwenye ardhi isipokuwa ile inayoshikiliwa na mpangaji kwa upangaji, mpangaji hatarajiwi kuwa na chochote cha kufanya nayo, wala hana wajibu wowote wa kufanya kazi humo, kwa namna yoyote au asili yoyote ya kazi au huduma hiyo.

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.

Hata hivyo, tofauti inayojitokeza zaidi kati ya Uislamu na ufalme wa kimwinyi ni mamlaka ya kimahakama na kiutendaji ambayo mwenye ardhi hufurahia katika mfumo wa kimwinyi. Yeye peke yake katika mfumo wa kimwinyi ndiye anayesimamia na kudhibiti maisha yote ya kijamii na kisiasa ndani ya mipaka ya mashamba yake (fiefs).

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.

Uislamu unapingana kabisa na haki kama hii, kwani unalenga kuondoa, badala ya kuendeleza, hali hiyo katika mahusiano ya kibinadamu.

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

Mataifa ya Ulaya hayakuwa na sheria ya nchi kwa maana halisi ya neno hilo kuhusiana na uhusiano wa mwenye ardhi na mpangaji uliotajwa hapo juu. Sheria ya Kirumi, ambayo baadaye ilikuja kuwa msingi wa sheria zote zilizofuata barani Ulaya, iliwapa wamiliki wa ardhi wa kimwinyi haki ya kuwa madikteta wa kweli katika maeneo yao, kutunga sheria kwa watu, kushikilia mamlaka ya kimahakama kati yao, na kutekeleza maamuzi yao kama walivyoona inafaa. Hivyo walishikilia ndani ya nafsi zao mamlaka ya kutunga sheria, ya kimahakama na ya kiutendaji kwa pamoja na wakati mmoja. Kila mmoja wao aliunda serikali ndani ya serikali. Serikali kuu haikuingilia mambo ya ndani ya falme za kimwinyi mradi tu ziendelee kutekeleza wajibu wao wa kifedha na wa kijeshi kwake wakati wa haja.

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.

Hakuna chochote cha aina hiyo katika Uislamu. Uislamu ulikuwa na serikali kuu yake yenyewe yenye sheria yake ya nchi, ambayo ilijitahidi kuitekeleza katika maisha ya wote waliokuwa wakiishi ndani ya mipaka yake. Mahakimu waliteuliwa ili kutekeleza sheria ya nchi katika sehemu zote za nchi. Wote walifanywa kuwa sawa mbele ya sheria, na hakuna aliyekuwa na upendeleo wowote juu ya wengine. Mtu binafsi aliitwa kuwajibika pale tu alipofanya kosa au kutenda vibaya.

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.

Baadaye, kinyume na mafundisho ya Uislamu, serikali ilipoporomoka na kuwa utawala wa kifalme wa kurithishana, bado ilibaki na baadhi ya sifa za Kiislamu. Kwa mfano, serikali iliendelea kuwa na mamlaka ya usimamizi juu ya watu wote na mtu mmoja mmoja waliokuwa wakiishi ndani ya eneo lake la ushawishi. Sheria ya nchi ilikuwa moja na ile ile kwa watu wote waliokuwa wakiishi ndani ya maeneo yake makubwa. Tofauti pekee inaonekana kuwa ni hitilafu za wanasheria wenyewe kwa wenyewe kuhusu baadhi ya masuala ya kisheria, jambo ambalo si zaidi ya lile linalopatikana katika karibu mifumo yote ya sheria iliyopo duniani. Ilikuwa ni kanuni hii ya sheria iliyowapa wakulima kinga dhidi ya dhuluma za wamiliki wa ardhi wa kifalme, pamoja na tamaa zao, matamanio yao na hiari zao. Walitawaliwa kwa mujibu wa sheria ya Mwenyezi Mungu badala ya matakwa na matamanio ya wamiliki wa ardhi hao. Ilimchukulia si tu mwenye ardhi na mpangaji kuwa sawa, kwani wote wawili sasa walifanywa kuwa watu huru, bali pia iliwatendea watu wote kwa usawa na kwa namna ile ile.

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.

Bila shaka kuna matukio ya kusikitisha pia katika historia ya Waislamu, ambapo tunaona kwamba majaji walitoa hukumu kinyume na dhamiri zao wenyewe, na kinyume na roho ya sheria, ili kujipatia upendeleo wa wamiliki wa ardhi wa kimwinyi au watawala; lakini matukio haya hayakuwa zaidi ya mifano michache ya pekee. Ni tofauti za pekee tu, kama inavyoonyeshwa na ukweli wa kihistoria ambao hata wasomi wa Ulaya wanashuhudia usahihi wake. Kinyume cha visa hivi vichache vya dhuluma, kuna mifano mingi sana katika historia ya Kiislamu inayoonyesha kwamba majaji walitoa hukumu kwa kuwapendelea watu maskini sana dhidi si tu ya wamiliki wa ardhi, magavana au mawaziri, bali hata dhidi ya khalifa mwenyewe, khalifa aliyekuwa na mamlaka na nguvu kamili. Hata hivyo, licha ya hayo, hakuna jaji aliyeondolewa katika wadhifa wake, wala mtawala hakutafuta kulipiza kisasi dhidi yake.

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.

Vivyo hivyo, hakuna harakati yoyote ya wakulima kukimbia inayojulikana katika historia ya Kiislamu kama ilivyoshuhudiwa huko Ulaya. Hili lilitokana na ukweli kwamba wakulima hawakufurahia tu haki ya kuhama kwa uhuru kutoka shamba moja kwenda jingine, bali pia kutoka nchi moja kwenda nyingine ndani ya mipaka ya Dola kubwa ya Kiislamu. Hakuna kitu kilichowazuia kuhama kutoka mahali hadi mahali isipokuwa mapenzi yao wenyewe au kushikamana kwao na eneo fulani la ardhi, kama ilivyokuwa, kwa mfano, kwa wakulima wa Misri. Wakulima katika sehemu nyingine za ulimwengu wa Kiislamu, hata hivyo, walitumia kikamilifu uhuru huu wa kuhama kwa kuwa hawakuwa wameshikamana sana na maeneo yao mahususi kama wenzao wa Misri walivyokuwa, na kwa kuwa hakuna vikwazo vilivyowekwa njiani mwao kuzuia kuhama kwao, kama vilivyozuia njia kwa wakulima wa Ulaya kwa njia ya utumwa wa kimwinyi na wajibu mbalimbali waliokuwa wamelemewa nao.

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.

Wakulima katika historia ya ukabaila wa Ulaya, hasa kuelekea awamu yake ya mwisho, walilazimika kununua uhuru wao. Jambo hili pia halina mfano katika historia ya watu wa Kiislamu, kwa sababu rahisi kwamba miongoni mwao wakulima walifurahia uhuru kama sehemu nyingine yoyote ya jamii. Kwa hiyo hawakuwa na haja ya kununua uhuru ambao tayari walikuwa nao. Zaidi ya hayo, inaweza pia kuongezwa kwamba katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu kulikuwepo idadi kubwa ya mataifa madogo katika historia yake yote. Mataifa haya yaliwapatia riziki wamiliki wake, yaliwasaidia kufanya aina mbalimbali za biashara ya baharini au ya nchi kavu, na kusaidia ufundi mbalimbali wa viwanda. Lakini huko Ulaya yote haya yaliondolewa kabisa na kuongezeka kwa nguvu kwa ukabaila. Ndipo usiku wa giza wa ujinga wa kiroho na giza la kiakili ulipotanda Ulaya. Ulaya ilipata mwanga kutoka kwa Uislamu, kwanza ilipokutana nao katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu wakati wa Vita vya Msalaba, na tena walipokutana Uhispania. Mikutano hii iliiweka Ulaya kwenye njia ya Renaissance, na hivyo Ulaya ikaanza polepole kutoka katika usiku ule wa giza wa kudorora kiakili na kiroho.

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.

Hivyo basi tunaona kwamba mfumo wa kimwinyi (feudalism) kama ulivyo haukuwahi kuwepo katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu kwa muda wote ambao Uislamu ulibaki kuwa mkuu katika nchi za Waislamu, kwa sababu mfumo wake wa kiroho na kiuchumi pamoja na imani yake ya msingi, kanuni na sheria zote zinapingana na mfumo wa kimwinyi. Sio hivyo tu, bali pia unaondoa sababu zote zinazosaidia kukua kwake. Mfano wowote wa mfumo wa kimwinyi uliopatikana katika zama za Bani Umayya na Bani Abbas ulikuwa na upeo mdogo, mbali na ukweli kwamba haukuwahi kustawi kiasi cha kuwa jambo la kawaida katika maisha ya kijamii ya Waislamu.

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.

Bila shaka tunakuta mfumo wa kifalme (feudalism) katika nchi za Kiislamu katika historia ya kisasa, hasa kuelekea mwisho wa Dola ya Ottoman, wakati chemchemi za imani ya Kiislamu zilipokuwa zimekauka mioyoni mwa Waislamu, na madaraka ya kisiasa yakawa mikononi mwa watu ambao hawakujua lolote kuhusu Uislamu isipokuwa jina lake. Picha hiyo ilizidi kuwa nyeusi zaidi pale ustaarabu wa Kiulaya usiomcha Mungu, wenye mtazamo wa kimaada na uchokozi, ulipoandamana kwa ushindi dhidi ya ulimwengu wa Kiislamu. Ulifanya uvamizi wa kijeshi, ukaharibu maadili yote ya kiroho, na kumaliza roho ya ushirikiano, nafasi yake ikachukuliwa na aina za unyonyaji wa kibepari zenye kuchukiza zaidi, pamoja na taabu ya maisha yote kwa maskini. Mfumo huu wa kifalme, kwa kuwa uliingizwa kutoka Ulaya, bado unaendelea kubaki katika baadhi ya nchi za Kiislamu ukiwa na sifa zote zilizoutambulisha mzazi wake, yaani ukabaila wa Kiulaya. Ni wazi kabisa kwamba Uislamu hauna haja ya kuomba msamaha kwa kuwepo kwake katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu wa leo, wala haubebi lawama yoyote kwa kuibuka kwake au kuwepo kwake. Ungeweza kubebeshwa lawama hizo tu endapo ungekuwa nguvu inayotawala katika nchi za Waislamu. Baadhi ya watawala wa Kiislamu kwa sasa wanawatawala watu wao kwa mujibu wa katiba na sheria zilizoingizwa kutoka nchi mbalimbali za Ulaya badala ya sheria za Kiislamu. Wao ndio wafuasi waaminifu zaidi wa mabwana zao wa Magharibi kuwahi kushuhudiwa juu ya uso wa dunia.

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.

Kutokana na mjadala uliotangulia, baadhi ya ukweli unajitokeza wazi, na umekuwa kitovu cha mzozo wa kiitikadi unaoendelea katika ulimwengu wa leo. Miongoni mwa ukweli huo, yafuatayo yanaweza kutajwa:

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) Si kigezo cha umiliki wenyewe ndicho kinachoandaa kwa lazima njia ya kukua kwa ukabaila, bila mapenzi ya binadamu kuwa na sehemu yoyote katika kuukuza. Badala yake, ni namna ya kumiliki na asili ya uhusiano kati ya wamiliki wa ardhi na wale wasio na ardhi mikononi mwao ndivyo vinavyopendelea ukuaji wake. Ndiyo maana umiliki ulikuwepo katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu, lakini ukabaila haukuwepo, kwa sababu itikadi ya Uislamu pamoja na matumizi yake mbalimbali katika maisha ya kila siku huanzisha kati ya watu mahusiano ambayo hayapendelei ukuaji wa ukabaila.

(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) Ikiwa Ulaya ilihukumiwa kuishi chini ya ukabaila, haikuwa kwa sababu ukabaila ni hatua ya lazima katika mageuzi ya jamii, hatua ambayo wanadamu hawawezi kuiruka hata wakitaka. Ulaya iliteseka nao kwa sababu haikuwa na mfumo wowote au itikadi iliyoweza kupanga mahusiano ya kibinadamu na kutoa mwongozo sahihi wa kifikra. Lau kungekuwepo itikadi na mfumo wa namna ile iliyokuwepo katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu, wa kuongoza na kupanga mahusiano yao ya kijamii na kiuchumi, basi ukabaila usingeweza kamwe kuibuka wala kustawi Ulaya.

(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) Hatua tofauti za mageuzi ya kiuchumi, yaani jamii ya awali ya kikomunisti, utumwa, ukabaila, ubepari, kisha jamii ya mwisho ya kikomunisti, ambazo wanamaterialisti wa kidiyalektiki wanazieleza kama jambo la kawaida katika historia ya binadamu, kwa kweli hazina uhalisia wowote nje ya historia ya Ulaya. Hatua hizi hazikuwahi kupitiwa na watu wowote nje ya Ulaya. Ulimwengu wa Kiislamu katika historia yake yote haukupitia hatua ya ukabaila; haujawahi pia kufikia hatua ya ukomunisti kama ilivyo hadi sasa, wala hautawahi kuifikia hatua hiyo.

(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.