Mara nyingi tunaulizwa: "Uislamu unaozungumzia uko wapi?" Je, uliwahi kutumika katika maisha halisi kwa umbo lake la kweli? Hamuchoki kusema kwamba ni mfumo bora wa kiidealisti, lakini je, uliwahi kuwepo katika maisha halisi? Mkiulizwa kuhusu umbo lake la kivitendo, hamuwezi kufanya kingine zaidi ya kurejea kipindi kifupi kinachoenea katika maisha ya (Mtume Mtukufu) na zama za mwanzo za ukhalifa, au hasa makhalifa wawili wa kwanza. Hamchoki kumzungumzia Omar bin Al-Khattab hasa, kwamba alikuwa mfano halisi wa kile Uislamu ulichosimamia; mnamuelezea kwa rangi zinazong'aa zaidi, lakini tunapouliza hali ya maisha iliyokuwepo wakati wa utawala wake, hatupati chochote isipokuwa "tabaka za giza moja juu ya jingine": ukabaila, dhuluma, ukandamizaji, kurudi nyuma na ushenzi. Mnasisitiza kwamba Uislamu unaipa taifa haki ya kuwaadhibu watawala wake endapo watashindwa kutekeleza wajibu wao, lakini ni lini, isipokuwa katika ukhalifa wa mwanzo, watu waliwahi kuruhusiwa kuwachagua watawala wao wenyewe, achilia mbali kuwaadhibu? Mnasema pia kwamba Uislamu unatoa uchumi wenye haki sana na mgawanyo wa haki wa mali, lakini ni lini, hata katika ukhalifa wa mwanzo, tofauti kati ya watu zilifutwa? Mnatuambia kwamba unaifanya dola kuwajibika kutoa ajira kwa raia wake wote, lakini vipi kuhusu mamilioni ya wasio na kazi ambao wakati mwingine waliishi kwa kuomba au walihukumiwa kwa umaskini na dhiki ya maisha yote? Pia mnazungumzia haki za wanawake katika Uislamu, lakini je, mwanamke aliwahi kweli kuzifurahia haki hizo? Je, si ukweli kwamba hajawahi kuweza kuzitumia kwa sababu ya hali duni ya kijamii na kiuchumi? Unaongelea kuinuka kiroho kwa watu kutokana na kumcha Mungu, na kuanzishwa kwa uhusiano kama matokeo yake baina ya watawala na watawaliwa, baina ya tabaka mbalimbali za jamii, kwa msingi wa ushirikiano wa pande zote kwa ajili ya haki na wema. Lakini je, kuinuka huku kwa kiroho kumewahi kushuhudiwa lini, isipokuwa katika kipindi cha nadra kiasi?

We are often asked: "Where is the Islam you Muslims talk about?” When was it ever applied to life in its true form? You are never tired of saying that it is an excellent ideal system but did it ever exist in actual life? If asked about its practical form you cannot but refer to a short period stretching over the life of the (Holy) Prophet and the early caliphate or rather the first two caliphs. You are never tired of saying about Omar bin Al-Khattab, in particular, that he was the embodiment of what Islam stood for; you depict him in the most resplendent colors but when we inquire about the conditions of life prevailing during his reign we find nothing but "layers of darkness one above another"-feudalism, inequity, tyranny, reactionarism and backwardness. You assert that Islam gives the nation the right to chastise its rulers in case they fail to carry out their obligations but when, except in the early caliphate, were the people ever allowed to choose their own rulers, let alone chastising them? You also say that Islam offers a very just economy with a fair distribution of wealth but when, even in the early caliphate were the differences among the people leveled? You tell us that it makes the providing of the employment for all its citizens incumbent upon the state, but what about those millions of unemployed who sometimes lived on begging or were otherwise doomed to a lifelong privation and poverty? You also speak about the rights of women in Islam but did she ever in fact enjoy these rights? Isn’t it a fact that she has never been able to exercise them because of the unfavorable socio-economic conditions? You talk about the spiritual elevation of men as a result of their fear of God and establishment of relations as a consequence therefore between the rulers and the ruled, between different classes of the community on the basis of a mutual co-operation for the sake of justice and virtue, but when, save in a comparatively rare period, was this spiritual elevation ever witnessed?

Je, jambo hilo lilikuwa kizuizi kwa watawala kuzuia wao kunyakua haki za maskini, kuwatendea dhulma na ukatili? Je, lilizuia wao kukanyaga uhuru wa watu na kuwaweka katika fedheha na udhalilishaji?

Did it ever provide a check on the rulers to prevent them from usurping the rights of the poor subjecting them to injustice and cruelty? Did it prevent them from trampling underfoot the liberties of the people and from exposing them to disgrace and humiliation?

"Kwa kweli unazungumzia nchi ya ndoto ambayo haipo katika ulimwengu wa uhalisia, na kipindi kifupi unachokipenda sana hakithibitishi chochote zaidi ya ukweli kwamba kulikuwa na watu wa kipekee waliofanya matendo makubwa ambayo wengine hawawezi kamwe kutumaini kuyafanya. Ni jambo la pekee, kwani halikurudiwa baadaye, je, inawezekana kuliona tena?"

n fact you are talking about a dreamland which does not exist in the world of reality, and the short period of which you are so fond proves nothing beyond the fact that there were certain extraordinary persons who did perform mighty deeds such as others can never hope to do. It is an exception, for it was never afterwards repeated, for is it likely to be witnessed again".

Hili ndilo wanalodai wakomunisti na watu wa aina yao. Waislamu wengi pia, kwa bahati mbaya, wamekuwa mawindo ya propaganda za aina hii, kwa kuwa hawajui lolote kuhusu historia ya Kiislamu isipokuwa lile walilofundishwa na mabwana zao wa kikoloni.

This is what tile communists and their like assert. Many of the Muslims too are unfortunately found to be a prey to this sort of propaganda as they know nothing about the Islamic history save that taught to them by their imperialist masters.

Kabla ya kuendelea zaidi, tunapenda kusisitiza tofauti ya msingi kati ya itikadi bora tupu isiyo na mfano wowote wa kuonyesha kwamba inaweza kutekelezwa au kutumika katika hali za maisha, na itikadi bora ambayo inaweza kufikiwa kikamilifu, yenye ushahidi wa kihistoria unaothibitisha kwamba si tu inaweza kutumika kwa mafanikio katika maisha ya kila siku, bali pia ina uwezo kamili wa kuongoza mwenendo wake. Kwa hiyo swali linalojitokeza ni: je, Uislamu kwa asili yake ni ndoto ya kiutopia tu isiyokuwepo popote, wala haiwezi kutekelezwa duniani, muundo wake wote ukiwa umetengenezwa kwa vipengele vya kufikirika na vya kubuni tu? Au ni mfumo wa maisha wa kivitendo, ambao hata hivyo huenda usitumike kwa maisha kwa mafanikio sawa au kwa namna inayofanana katika kila kipindi cha historia ya binadamu? Ni wazi kwamba kuna tofauti kubwa sana kati ya aina hizi mbili za itikadi bora. Ikiwa Uislamu ni itikadi ya tabia ya kidhahania tupu, basi hakuna tena matumaini yoyote ya kuwa unaweza kutumika katika hali halisi za maisha, bila kujali jinsi mabadiliko makubwa ya mazingira ya kijamii na hali za maisha yatakavyotokea siku zijazo. Lakini ikiwa ni mfumo wa kivitendo wa maisha, na ni hali za nje tu za maisha ndizo zinazozuia utekelezaji wake kamili, basi hali ni tofauti kabisa. Katika hali hiyo kuna matumaini makubwa kwamba unaweza kutimia katika maisha pale hali hizo zisizo nzuri zitakapobadilika au kuwa nzuri kwake. Je, ni kipi kati ya hizi mbili kinachomhusu Uislamu, cha kwanza au cha pili?

Before proceeding further we would like to stress a basic difference between a pure idealism with no instance to show that it is practicable or applicable to conditions of life, and an idealism such as is fully attainable with historical evidence to support its claim that it cannot only be successfully applied to practical life but is also fully capable of directing its course. As such, the question that crops up is: is Islam by its very nature merely a Utopian ideal that exists nowhere, nor is capable of being practiced in this world, its whole texture being fabricated out of purely imaginary and fictitious elements, or is it a practical system of life but may not necessarily be applied to lire with equal success or in similar manner during all the periods of human history? Evidently, there is a very great difference between these two forms of idealism. If Islam be an ideology of a purely abstract character, then there is no longer any hope of its ever being applicable to the actually conditions of life howsoever great a change the social circumstances and conditions of life might undergo in future. But if it is a practical system or life and only the external conditions or life intervene in the way or its fullest application, then the case is quite different. In such a case there is every hope that it might be materialized in life if and when these unfavorable conditions of life change or become favorable to it. Which or the two cases is applicable to Islam, the former or the latter?

Jibu la swali hili liko wazi sana, hivyo hakuna sababu ya kuwa na mitazamo miwili kuhusu jambo hili. Ukweli kwamba Uislamu ulishawahi kutekelezwa kikamilifu katika historia ya mwanadamu unathibitisha bila shaka yoyote kwamba ni mfumo wa maisha unaoweza kutekelezeka kivitendo, na ambao mwanadamu anaweza kuufuata au kuukubali. Pia unathibitisha kwamba misingi yake si ya kufikirika wala ya kubuni. Wanadamu ni kama walivyokuwa hapo awali, kwani maumbile ya binadamu kama yalivyo hayabadiliki. Kwa hiyo kilichotokea mara moja kinaweza kutokea tena na tena.

The answer is not far to seek as the matter is so clear that there can hardly be two opinions about it. That Islam has once been already fully applied in human history proves beyond any doubt as to its being a practical system of lire that is fully capable of being practiced or adopted by man. It also proves 1hat its basis is not an imaginary or a fictitious one. Men are what they were or have been before, there being no change in the human nature as such. Therefore what happened once might happen again and again.

Wanaharakati wa kisasa wa maendeleo husema kwamba jambo hilo haliwezi kurudia tena, na kwa hiyo kuamsha upya Uislamu ni kazi isiyo na matumaini. Lakini tunaweza kuwauliza: je, wanataka kusema kwamba watu wa zamani za mwanzo za Uislamu walifikia kilele cha juu cha ukamilifu wa kimaadili, hivi kwamba ubinadamu hauwezi tena kurudi kwenye kiwango hicho milele? Wanalihalalishaje msimamo wao huu, licha ya dai lao wenyewe kwamba ubinadamu unaendelea kusonga mbele daima na kupiga hatua mbele?

Modern progressionists say that it cannot re-happen and, therefore, Islamic revival is a hopeless task, but may we ask them if they want to say that man in the early days or Islam had attained to such a high pinnacle of moral perfection as humanity is unable to regain those heights ever again? How do they justify this stand of theirs in the face of their own claim that humanity is constantly advancing forward and ever marching ahead?

Swali la kwa nini mfano wa khilafa ya mwanzo haujaonekana katika historia iliyofuata isipokuwa mara moja mwanzoni na baadaye katika vipindi vifupi sana vilivyotawanyika hapa na pale katika historia ya Waislamu, kama vile utawala wa Omar bin Abdul Aziz kwa mfano, linahitaji uchunguzi wa kina wa tatizo hilo. Hata hivyo, jibu lake limeandikwa wazi katika kurasa za historia, ama kwa njia ya jambo la kieneo lililoshuhudiwa katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu, au kama ukweli wa kiulimwengu unaodhihirika katika historia ya maisha ya binadamu.

The question as to why the like of the early caliphate is not seen in the subsequent history save once in the beginning and later on during the extremely short periods scattered here and there in Muslim history, such as the reign of Omar bin Abdul Aziz for example, calls for a close study of the problem. Its answer, however, is clearly imprinted on the pages of history, either in the form of a local phenomenon witnessed in the Islamic world or as a universal truth exhibited in the life-history of mankind.

Tunapaswa katika suala hili kurejea mambo mawili yafuatayo:

We needs must in this respect refer to the following two facts:

Kwanza, hatua kubwa ambayo ubinadamu ulipiga mbele kwa msaada wa Uislamu, na shimo la kina ambalo Uislamu uliliinua kutoka chini yake hadi kilele cha juu cha usafi wa kimaadili tuliouona katika Ukhalifa wa mwanzo, ilikuwa jambo ambalo haliwezi kueleweka kwa kutumia sheria za kawaida za maisha ya kimwili; badala yake lilikuwa muujiza, mmoja kati ya miujiza mingi iliyoletwa na Uislamu juu ya uso wa dunia hii. Lakini jambo hilo liliwezekana tu baada ya miaka ya maandalizi na mabadiliko ya kina ya kimaadili kwa wale mashujaa wakubwa wa Uislamu ambao walidhihirisha na kujumuisha muujiza huu mkubwa katika nafsi zao, pamoja na mwenendo wao wote maishani.

Firstly, the great leap that humanity strode forward with the help of Islam and the deep abyss from the bottom of which Islam lifted it to the lofty heights of moral refinement witnessed in the early caliphate, was a phenomenon such as cannot be explained in terms of ordinary physical laws of life; it was rather a miracle out or the so many other miracles brought about by Islam on the face of this earth. But it was made possible only after years of preparation and a thorough moral reorientation of those great heroes of Islam who exemplified and embodied this great miracle in their persons as well as in their whole conduct in life.

Lakini Uislamu ulienea kwa kasi ya ajabu duniani hata kwamba ni vigumu kupata mfano wake katika historia ya harakati mbalimbali za kihistoria, iwe katika zama zilizotangulia au zile zilizofuata. Hii ni muujiza mwingine ulioletwa na Uislamu, ambao ni vigumu kuueleza kupitia tafsiri yoyote ya kimaada au kiuchumi ya historia, kama ile ambayo wakomunisti na wanamaada hupenda kutumia kuieleza historia ya mwanadamu. Hata hivyo, kuenea huku kwa haraka kwa Uislamu kuliwaingiza ndani yake mataifa mengi sana ambayo hayakuwa yamefahamu kikamilifu roho halisi ya Uislamu, wala hawakuelewa maana halisi ya mfumo wake wa kijamii, kiuchumi na kisiasa. Kwa bahati mbaya, serikali za Kiislamu za wakati ule hazikuweza kupanga mafundisho ya kiimani au elimu ya maadili kwa waongofu hao, kama ile iliyotolewa kwa Waislamu wa mwanzo wa Arabia.

But Islam spread with such a lightning speed in the world that there is hardly any parallel to it in the history of the different historical movements either in the earlier or in the subsequent periods. This is just another miracle brought about by Islam that is hard to explain through any materialistic or economic interpretation of history such as with which the communists and the materialists are wont to explain away human history. This speedy propagation of Islam, however, brought into its fold very many nations who were far from being fully acquainted with the real spirit of Islam, nor did they understand the real significance of its socioeconomic and political system. Unfortunately, it was not possible for the Muslim governments of the time to arrange for the doctrinal instruction or moral education of these converts such as was given to early Muslims of Arabia.

Kwa hiyo, dola ya Kiislamu ilipanuka na idadi ya waumini nayo ikaongezeka, lakini kanuni na mafundisho ya Kiislamu hayakuwahi kuingia mioyoni mwa umati mkubwa wa wongofu huu. Watawala hawakuogopa tena maoni ya umma, wakikanyaga chini ya miguu yao amri za Uislamu. Walinyang'anya watu uhuru wao na kuwatumbukiza katika kila aina ya dhuluma, kama inavyojulikana katika historia ya Bani Umayya, Bani Abbas, Waturuki na Wamamluki. Kwa kukosekana kwa maoni ya umma yaliyo imara na yenye elimu, waliweza kwa urahisi kuufanya Uislamu kuwa kichezeo na kunyang'anya haki za watu.

Consequently, the Islamic empire expanded and the number of the believers also multiplied but Islamic principles and teachings never found way into the hearts of these large hosts of converts. The rulers no longer feared public opinion while trampling underfoot the commandments of Islam. They usurped the people's liberties and subjected them to all forms of injustice as is known by the history of the Ommeyeds, Abassides, Turks and Mamlukes. In the absence of a well-formed and educated public opinion they could easily treat Islam as a plaything and usurp the rights of the people.

Pili, mafanikio makubwa ambayo Uislamu uliyaleta katika maisha ya mwanadamu hayawezi kuitwa jambo la kimwili au la kimaumbile, kwa kuwa kwa hatua moja kubwa uliinua ubinadamu kutoka kina cha chini kabisa cha utumwa na ukabaila hadi hali ya juu na bora zaidi ya haki ya kijamii ambayo wanadamu wamewahi kuishuhudia chini ya mfumo mwingine wowote wa kijamii ambao umewahi kujaribiwa hadi sasa. Uislamu uliukomboa kutoka utawala wa matamanio yasiyo na nidhamu, na kuupandisha hadi kilele cha ukamilifu wa kimaadili ambao haujawahi kushuhudiwa katika historia yote ya mwanadamu.

Secondly, the great advancement that Islam effected in human life cannot be termed as a physical or a natural phenomenon, for in one great leap it raised humanity from the lowest depths of slavery and serfdom to the highest and most ideal state of social justice yet experienced by mankind under any other social system it has so far tried. Islam freed it from the dominance of unruly passions and elevated it to the highest realms of moral perfection ever witnessed in the whole range of human history.

Ilikuwa Uislamu ndio uliowawezesha watu kufikia kilele hicho cha ajabu cha maadili wakati wa mwanzo wake, kwani nguvu ya kiroho iliyodhihirika katika haiba ya Mtume Mtukufu ﷺ na Masahaba wake ilikuwa ya kipekee. Ni nguvu hii iliyowainua watu hadi kiwango cha juu zaidi kuliko walivyoweza kufikia kwa kawaida, na kuwafanya wafanye kazi kubwa zilizofanana sana na miujiza. Lakini nguvu hii kuu ilipopungua, watu walirudi katika hali yao ya awali, wakiacha hali yao tukufu ya kimaadili na kiroho, ingawa bado walibaki na cheche angalau ya nuru ya Mwenyezi Mungu. Ni kurasa za historia zilizoangazwa na nuru hii ndizo tunazokusudia kuwaonyesha wenzetu katika risala hii. Lakini hii haimaanishi, kama baadhi ya watu wamedhani kwa makosa, kwamba inahitajika uwepo wa daima wa Mtume mwenyewe ﷺ na Masahaba wake ili kuleta hata mabadiliko madogo kabisa katika maisha ya kila siku kama yale yaliyotekelezwa na Uislamu, kwa sababu kile kilichokuwa muujiza katika ulimwengu wa mahusiano ya kisiasa na kiuchumi miaka elfu moja mia tatu iliyopita, sasa, kutokana na uzoefu ulioupatikana na wanadamu au na jamii ya Kiislamu yenyewe katika karne nyingi, kimekuwa kazi ambayo mwanadamu ana vifaa kamili vya kuitekeleza.

It was Islam that made men win these surprisingly lofty moral heights during its early period as the spiritual force exemplified in the personality of the Holy Prophet and his Companions was an extraordinary one. It was this force that raised men to a plane far higher than they could ordinarily attain and made them perform mighty works very much akin to miracles. When, however, this mighty impulse ebbed away the people reverted to their former state from their erstwhile sublime state of moral and spiritual existence, although they still retained a spark at least of the divine light. It is the pages of history illumined by this divine light which we intend to point out to our fellowmen in this treatise. But this does not mean, as some people have wrongly assumed, that it requires the constant presence of the Prophet himself and his Companions to bring about even the smallest change in practical life such as was effected by Islam, for that which was a miracle in the world of politico-economic relationships thirteen hundred years ago, has now, thanks to the experiences gained by mankind or by the Muslim community itself over the centuries, become a task for the performance of which man is fully equipped.

Kwa hiyo, ikiwa tunataka kutumia Uislamu katika hali za kisasa za maisha, huku tukizingatia ubora mkubwa wa kimaadili uliodhihirika katika maisha ya Waislamu wa mwanzo, hatutalazimika kusonga mbele kwa kasi ya ajabu kama ile iliyoyatambulisha maendeleo ya mwanzo ya Uislamu. Kwani uzoefu mbalimbali na maendeleo yaliyopatikana na mwanadamu tangu wakati huo yamekwisha kutuleta karibu zaidi na kilele kitukufu cha bora ya Kiislamu. Kwa sababu hiyo, kufikia bora hiyo kumekuwa rahisi zaidi, na juhudi zinazohitajika pia zimepungua sana. Mifano michache kutoka maisha ya kisasa inaweza kutosha kuonyesha ukweli wa tuliyoyasema hapo juu.

Therefore if we should want to apply Islam to the modern conditions of life making due allowance for the high moral excellence exemplified in the lives of the early Muslims we would not have to move forward at the miraculously high speed such as characterized the early history of Islam, for the various experiences and the progress since made by man have already brought us much closer to the lofty pinnacle of the Islamic ideal. Its achievement has, as a consequence thereof, become much easier, the effort required also being far less arduous. A few examples from the modern life may suffice to illustrate the truth of what we have said above.

Mataifa mengi katika zama za kisasa huwachagua watawala wao kupitia uchaguzi mkuu, na pia wana haki ya kuwasimamisha au kuwaondoa madarakani iwapo watashindwa kutekeleza wajibu wao kwa wananchi. Lakini hii si zaidi ya utekelezaji wa kisasa wa kipengele muhimu cha mfumo wa utawala wa Kiislamu, ambao Uislamu uliuweka zaidi ya miaka elfu moja na mia tatu iliyopita. Hakika hili lilikuwa jambo la ajabu katika zama za makhalifa Abu Bakr na Omar, lakini si katika ulimwengu huu wa kisasa wetu; utekelezaji wake sasa uko kabisa ndani ya uwezo wetu, ilimradi tuwe na nia ya dhati ya kuutekeleza katika maisha yetu.

Most of the nations in the modern times elect their rulers through general elections and also have the right to suspend or dismiss them if they should fail in discharging their obligations towards the people. But this is no more than a modem application of an important feature of the Islamic system of government that was instituted by Islam more than thirteen hundred years ago. Surely this was a miracle in the age of the caliphs Abu Bakr and Omar, but not in this modem world of ours; its realization is now completely within our means provided we should honestly wish to enforce it in our lives.

Kwa kuwa kama tunaweza kuichukua kutoka England au Marekani, kwa nini basi tusiipitishe pia kwa jina la Uislamu, hasa ikiwa tayari iko ndani ya Uislamu?

For if we can take it from England or America, why cannot we as well adopt it in the name of Islam, especially when it is already therein Islam?

Kisha kuna suala la serikali kuhakikisha mahitaji ya msingi ya wafanyakazi wake yanatimizwa.

Then there is the question of guaranteeing the basic needs of its employees by the state.

Kuhusu hili pia, kuna amri ya wazi ya Mtume (rehema na amani ziwe juu yake) kwamba wafanyakazi wote wa serikali wapewe mahitaji yao ya msingi ﷺ. Ni amri hii hasa ambayo ukomunisti uliitekeleza katika karne ya ishirini, ingawa Uislamu ulishaitekeleza tayari bila kutegemea udikteta wa wafanyakazi kama ule ambao ukomunisti haukuweza kuukwepa. Iwapo leo tuna nia ya kuwahakikishia wafanyakazi wa serikali mahitaji yao ya msingi, kwa nini tusifuate mwongozo wa Uislamu badala ya kuiga ukomunisti?

About this too there is the explicit commandment of the Prophet (peace be on him) that all employees of the state shall be provided with their basic needs. It was this very commandment that communism carried into effect in the twentieth century notwithstanding the fact that Islam had already done so without resorting to a dictatorship of the proletariat such as communism could not do without. If we are inclined today to guarantee these basic needs to the state-employees, why should we not follow the lead of Islam rather than imitate communism?

Kwa hiyo tatizo tunalolishughulikia hatimaye linajitokeza wazi katika swali la msingi: Je, mfumo fulani wa kijamii, kiuchumi na kisiasa unawezekana kutekelezwa au la? Hiki ndicho kigezo pekee ambacho kwacho uwezekano au kutowezekana kwa mfumo unaweza kupimwa kwa usahihi. Tukitazama kwa mtazamo huu, tunaona kwamba mfumo wa maisha wa Kiislamu ni mfumo wa maisha unaowezekana kutekelezwa, kwani ndio mfumo wa kwanza kabisa kuwahi kutumika kivitendo katika maisha ya binadamu juu ya uso wa dunia hii.

Thus the problem we are dealing with in the final analysis crystallizes into the fundamental question: Is a particular socio-economic and political system practicable or not? This is the only criterion whereby the practicability or otherwise of a system can be judged aright. Judging from this standpoint we find that the Islamic system of life is in fact a practical system of life, for it was the first system ever practically applied to human life on the face of this earth.

Hakuna ukweli katika yale wanayosema wakomunisti na wafuasi wao kwamba maisha ya kisasa yamejengwa juu ya msingi wa kisayansi, wakati Uislamu ni mfumo unaotegemea matamanio na nia njema. Kwamba hili si kweli hata kidogo, inaweza kutambulika kutokana na ukweli kwamba sheria ya Kiislamu, kwa mfano, haitegemei hisia au mihemko ya watu hata kidogo.

There is no truth in what the communists and their camp-followers say that the modern life is raised on a scientific foundation while Islam is a system based on passions and pious intentions. That this is absolutely false may be realized from the fact that the Islamic law, for instance, does not at all rest on the feelings or emotions of men.

Vivyo hivyo, makhalifa wa mwanzo hawakuweka maamuzi yao juu ya matamanio ya kufikirika au nia za watu walipokuwa wakishauriana na mabaraza yao, au walipokuwa wakitafuta tafsiri ya kisheria na utekelezaji wa sheria ya Kiislamu.

Similarly, early caliphs did not rest their decisions on wishful thinking or the intentions of men when conferring with their councils or seeking some legal interpretation and application of Islamic law.

Ukweli ni kwamba Uislamu hautegemei sheria pekee. Bila shaka unaweka sheria mbalimbali, lakini kwanza kabisa unataka kuwaadilisha wanadamu kutoka ndani, ili wautii sheria inapotekelezwa si tu kwa sababu ya hofu ya nje ya serikali, bali kwa sababu ya msukumo wao wa kimaadili kutoka ndani. Hakika, hili ni mafanikio bora kabisa ambayo wanadamu wamewahi kuyapata katika ulimwengu wa siasa. Lakini bado sheria ipo wakati wote, ingawa inatumiwa tu pale maslahi ya jumla yanapoihitaji. Katika hali kama hizo inatekelezwa bila kujali watu kwa kiwango ambacho Khalifa Uthman alisema: "Mungu anazuia kwa mamlaka kile ambacho Qur'ani haikizuii." Baadhi ya waandishi, wakibishana kwamba kufufuliwa kwa Uislamu hakuwezekani, husema kwamba watu kama Omar hawazaliwi kila siku; watu wa aina yake ni wa pekee na hawapatikani mara kwa mara katika historia. Lakini hoja ya namna hiyo inaonyesha ukavu wa mawazo yao wenyewe. Kwa maana, si mtu wa Omar, mfano wa kawaida wa mwanadamu aliyelelewa na Uislamu, ndiye tunayemhitaji ili kutekeleza sheria ya Kiislamu, bali ni sheria zilizowekwa au maamuzi ya kisheria aliyoyaacha nyuma. Kwa mfano, Omar aliamuru kwamba mkono wa mwizi usikatwe endapo kuna uwezekano kwamba alisukumwa kufanya wizi kutokana na shinikizo la nje la kiuchumi au kijamii. Hakika, maamuzi haya ya kisheria hayahitaji lazima uwepo wa mtu kama Omar ili kuyatumia katika maisha ya kila siku, kwa kuwa yalikuwa ni tafsiri ya kanuni ya msingi ya fiqhi ya Kiislamu inayoweka kwamba katika mambo yenye shaka adhabu ya kisheria inapaswa kuepukwa. Hakuna kizuizi cha nje wala cha ndani kinachotuzuia kutekeleza jambo hilo katika maisha yetu ya kila siku kwa sababu tu hakuna Omar miongoni mwetu.

The fact is that Islam does not rely on law alone. It no doubt frames various laws but it first of all wants to civilize human beings from within so that they would willingly submit to the law if and when it is enforced not only because of any outside fear of the government but because of their own moral initiative from within. Undoubtedly, this is the most excellent achievement so far gained by mankind in the world of politics. But still the law is there all the time although it is invoked only when the general good calls for it. In such cases it is enforced without any regard whatsoever of people to such an extent that caliph Othman said: "God restrains with authority that which is not restrained by the Qur'an." Some writers while arguing that the revival of Islam is impossible allege that men like Omar are not born every day; personalities like him are exceptions and not met with frequently in history, But such a line of reasoning betrays their own barrenness of thought, For, it is not the person of Omar-the typical man produced by Islam that we stand in need of for the enforcement of the Islamic law but rather the laws framed or legal precedents left behind by him. Thus, for instance, Omar ordered that the hands of a thief shall not be cut in case there is a possibility of his being driven to it due to some external economic or social exigency. Surely, this legal precedent does not necessarily call for the presence of a man like Omar to apply it to practical life, as it was nothing but an interpretation of the basic principle of the Islamic jurisprudence which lays down that in cases of doubtful nature the legal punishment should be avoided. There is no external or internal check upon us such as due to which we may not be able to enforce it in our practical life just because there is no Omar amongst us.

Vivyo hivyo, Omar alitoa amri kwamba mtawala alikuwa na mamlaka kamili ya kuchukua sehemu ya ziada ya mali ya matajiri na kuigawa miongoni mwa maskini, kama inavyofanyika siku hizi, kwa mfano, nchini Uingereza. Haikuhitaji Omar mmoja kutekeleza sheria hii nchini Uingereza, jambo ambalo linatosha kuthibitisha uwezekano wake katika ulimwengu wa kisasa. Hukumu hii yake pia ilitegemea kanuni maarufu ya Qur'ani kuhusu mali: "Ili isizunguke tu miongoni mwenu kati ya matajiri" (Al-Hashr: 7). Omar pia alieleza haki ya dola ya kufanya uchunguzi kuhusu mali iliyokusanywa na magavana, ili ijulikane wameipata wapi, kama ni mali yao wenyewe au ni mali iliyotumiwa vibaya kutoka hazina ya umma au kupatikana kwa njia zisizo halali. Hili pia limekuwa desturi karibu ya kimataifa katika ulimwengu wa leo, ingawa, bila shaka, hakuna Omar hapa miongoni mwetu. Pia aliweka sheria kwamba mtoto aliyeokotwa atunzwe na dola, na gharama zake zilipwe kutoka hazina ya umma, kwa kuwa hawezi kuwajibishwa wala kuachwa ateseke kwa dhambi iliyofanywa na wazazi wake. Ulaya na Amerika hatimaye zilitambua jambo hili kwa kutunga sheria za namna hiyo katika karne ya ishirini, jambo ambalo tena linaonyesha kwamba, kwa kadiri ya utekelezaji au matumizi ya sheria, uwepo wa Omar si jambo lisiloepukika. Tunamhitaji Omar si tu kwa sababu alikuwa mtu wa haiba kubwa, bali pia kwa sababu alikuwa mwanasheria mashuhuri zaidi wa kipindi cha mwanzo cha Uislamu, mbali na kuwa alijawa sana na roho na ufahamu wa Uislamu. Kuhusu maisha yake binafsi, tunaweza kuyafuata kwa manufaa, kwa kuwa yanatusaidia kupanda hadi viwango vya juu zaidi vya kuwa, na yanawapa Waislamu wa nyakati zote zijazo mfano mtukufu na adhimu wa kufuata. Lakini hata tukishindwa kufuata mfano wake binafsi, kuzingatia sheria alizoziweka kunaweza kutosha katika maisha ya kila siku, kwa kuwa sheria hizo zingetuwezesha kusimama kwa miguu yetu wenyewe, badala ya kuiga tu au kufuata kwa upofu sheria na katiba zilizoagizwa kutoka nchi za kigeni.

Similarly, Omar laid it down that the ruler was fully authorized to take of the excess of the rich people's wealth and distribute it among the poor as is nowadays being done, for instance, in England. It did not need an Omar to enforce this law in England which is sufficient to prove its practicability in the modern world. This ruling of his was also based on the well-known Qura'nic principle concerning riches: “In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you” (Iix : 7). Omar also enunciated the right of the state to institute an inquiry about the wealth amassed by the governors with a view to know as to whence they had acquired it, if it was their own or misappropriated from public funds or gained through unlawful means. This has also become almost a universal practice in the contemporary world, although there is, of course, no Omar here among us, He also made it a law that a foundling shall be looked after by the state and his expenses defrayed from the public exchequer, for he could not be held responsible or left to suffer for the sin committed by the parents, Europe and America at last recognized this by framing laws to that effect in the twentieth century, which again shows that so far as the enforcement or the application of the law is concerned the presence of an Omar is not inevitable. We need Omar not just because he was a man of towering personality but because he is the most outstanding legist of the early period of Islam besides his being so deeply imbued with the spirit and understanding of Islam, As for his personal life, we may follow it with benefit, for it helps us to ascend to higher planes of being and affords the Muslims of all times to come with a sublime and noble example to follow. But even if we fail in following his personal example, our observance of the laws enacted by him might suffice in practical life, for these would enable us to stand on our legs and not merely imitate or follow blindfoldly the laws and constitutions imported from foreign lands.

Kuna pia upotoshaji mwingine mkubwa dhidi ya Uislamu unaoenea sana. Unasemwa kwamba Uislamu haukuwahi kuanzishwa kikamilifu duniani isipokuwa katika kipindi cha mwanzo cha ukhalifa. Ni kweli kwamba Uislamu haukuwahi kutekelezwa katika umbo lake halisi isipokuwa kwa kipindi kifupi cha Omar bin Abdul Aziz baada ya ukhalifa wa mwanzo; lakini hilo halimaanishi hata kidogo kwamba Uislamu kama dini na mfumo wa maisha ulikoma kuwepo baada ya kipindi cha ukhalifa. Katika miaka iliyofuata, ni serikali pekee iliyopata mabadiliko mabaya kwa mtazamo wa Uislamu, kwa sehemu au kikamilifu. Jamii nyingine iliendelea kuwa ya Kiislamu kiroho kama hapo awali. Haikuwahi kukubali mgawanyiko wa watu kuwa 'wenye nacho' na 'wasio nacho', wala kuwa mabwana na watumwa. Badala yake, wote waliunganishwa katika udugu wa kimataifa, wakishirikiana kazi pamoja na matunda yake.

There is also still another great misunderstanding prevalent against Islam. It is said that Islam was never fully established on this earth save in the early caliphate period. It is correct that Islam was never enforced in its true form except during the short period of Omar bin Abdul Aziz after the early caliphate; yet it does not at all mean that Islam as a religion and a system of life had ceased to exist after the caliphate period. In the subsequent years, it was the government only that had suffered a morbid change from the point of view of Islam partly or totally. The rest of the society remained as Islamic in spirit as ever. It did never recognize the division of the people into the 'haves' and 'havenots' nor into masters and salves. Rather they were all united in a universal brotherhood sharing with one another the labor as well as the fruits thereof.

Sheria ya nchi za Kiislamu daima ilitawala kikamilifu katika sehemu zote mbalimbali za ulimwengu wa Kiislamu. Watu hawakuwahi kuachwa katika huruma ya wakuu wa kimwinyi kama ilivyotokea huko Ulaya. Mila za Kiislamu ziliishi, na hili linaweza kushuhudiwa katika historia ya vita vya Uislamu dhidi ya maadui zake. Kupitia vita vya Msalaba, hasa wakati wa Salah-ud-Din Al-Ayubi, kunatosha kumshawishi mtu juu ya ukweli wa kauli iliyotangulia. Mwenendo wa Waislamu katika kutekeleza mikataba yao ya kimataifa, hata katika historia yao ya baadaye, ulikuwa wa kiungwana na wa kutukuka vilevile. Upendo wao wa elimu na heshima yao kwa ustaarabu uliufanya ulimwengu wa Kiislamu kuwa kimbilio pendwa la wote waliokuwa wanatafuta kweli ya elimu na sanaa. Ni mwenge huu wa elimu uliowashwa na Uislamu ndio hatimaye uliowasha moto Ulaya yote na kuifanya isonge mbele katika njia ya maendeleo.

The law of the land of Islam always ruled supreme in all the different parts of tile Islamic world. The people were never left to the mercy of feudal lords as happened in Europe. The Islamic traditions lived and these may be witnessed in the history of wars of Islam against its enemies. A perusal of the crusades, particularly during the days of Salah-ud-Din Al-Ayubi, may suffice to convince one of the veracity of the above Statement. The conduct of the Muslims in carrying out their international agreements even during their latter history was no less sublime and glorious. Their love for knowledge and regard for civilization made the Islamic world a favorite haunt of all true seekers of knowledge and arts. It was this torch of knowledge lighted by Islam that finally set ablaze the whole of Europe and made it march ahead on the path of progress and development.

Kwa kifupi, Uislamu si mfumo wa kinadharia (wa ndoto) kwa maana ya kudharau ambayo neno hili huelewekana nayo mara nyingi huko Magharibi. Badala yake ni mfumo wa maisha wa vitendo kabisa ambao tayari umeshajaribiwa mara moja na wanadamu. Wanadamu kwa ujumla wanaweza kuukubali sasa kwa mafanikio kama yalivyokuwa miaka elfu moja mia tatu iliyopita, kwa sababu ya uzoefu uliopatikana tangu wakati huo, kwani umewaleta wanadamu karibu zaidi na kuufikia utekelezaji wake. Kwa upande mwingine, ukomunisti ndio unaoweza kwa haki kuitwa udhanifu tupu usio na utumiaji wa vitendo wenye mafanikio hadi sasa katika maisha ya binadamu. Hatua ya ukomunisti halisi, kama tunavyoambiwa, bado haijafikiwa: dunia inasonga kwa kasi kuelekea hatua hiyo ya kiidealisti.

In short, Islam is not an ideal system in the derogatory sense this term is commonly understood to imply in the West. It is rather a perfectly practical system of life that has already been once tried by humanity. Mankind as such can adopt it now with as much success as it did thirteen hundred years ago thanks to the experience gained since, for it has brought mankind much closer and nearer to its realization. On the other hand, it is communism which may rightly be dubbed as a mere idle idealism with no successful practical application of it so far to human life. The stage of real communism, we are told, has not yet been attained: the world is rather steadily moving towards that ideal stage.

Wakati dunia yote itakapokuwa chini ya udhibiti wa dola moja la kikomunisti la kidunia, na mali yote kugawanywa kwa usawa miongoni mwa raia wake wote, ndipo hatua halisi ya ukomunisti itakapofikiwa. Hapo vita vya kitabaka kati ya 'walio nacho' na 'wasio nacho' vitamalizwa kabisa mara moja, kwani ugawaji usio sawa wa mali ndio chanzo pekee cha vita hivi vya kitabaka.

When all the world shall be brought under the control of a single world communist state and all wealth distributed evenly among all its citizens, then will the real stage of communism be attained. Then the class-war between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' shall be done away with once for all as it is the uneven distribution of wealth that is the sole cause of this class warfare.

Ndoto hii ya ukomunisti ni utopia ambayo kamwe isingeweza kutimia katika ulimwengu huu wa uhalisia. Iko ndani ya ulimwengu wa udanganyifu. Misingi yake ya msingi, kwamba wanadamu wanaweza siku moja kufanywa sawa kwa njia ya bandia katika kumiliki njia zinazofanana za uzalishaji, na kwamba vita vya kitabaka vitakoma endapo utajiri utagawanywa kwa usawa kati ya watu wote, na kwamba ubinadamu hauwezi kuendelea isipokuwa kupitia vita baina ya matabaka, yote hayo hayana msingi wowote na si kweli. Inawakilisha mawazo ya kiidealisti ambayo yanaweza kuwavutia wajinga tu. Ilianzia katika fikra za kimaada, na cha kushangaza, inadaiwa kujengwa juu ya kanuni za kisayansi na ukweli wa maisha.

This communist dreamland is a Utopia such as would never be materialized in this world of reality. It belongs under the realm of delusion. Its basic assumptions that human beings can ever be artificially made equal in possessing similar means of production and that all class war shall come to an end when and if wealth is distributed evenly among all the people and that humanity cannot progress except through interclass warfare, are altogether baseless and untrue. It represents an idealism such as can fascinate the fools only. It originated out of materialism and, ironically enough, is supposed to be based on scientific principles and facts of life.