We have considered international relations from the Islamic point of view, and we have touched upon many aspects of the problem. The purpose of such a brief presentation is to arouse an interest among both Muslim and non-Muslim readers in discussing fruitfully the tenets of the Message of Muhammad, with the anticipation that they will discover in its fundamentals and precepts a formula for salvation from the sufferings of modern civilization and from that turbulence which inflicted two world wars upon mankind within a quarter of a century.

      As a result of the last world war and of its widespread evil products, the modern world finds itself in three camps, two of which have been maintaining a hostile struggle against each other while the third tries to remain neutral but knows no immunity from the aggressiveness of these rivals.

       What are the three complaining about? Each of the two inimical factions is making demands to which the other cannot possibly acquiesce, and there is no point in discussing them here. Each claims that it has been wronged and at tacked while standing for the right and seeking to uphold the edifice of civilization. Let us leave these claimants the merits or falsehoods of their arguments.

     As for the third, the uncommitted faction, it consists of neutrals whose sanctities have been violated and others who watch fearfully at night, fully armed lest they be overpowered.

     If we take a general look at the causes of strife among nations during the past two centuries, we are struck by the fact that they have become more serious century after century, probably reaching an apex in the most recent world war, which engulfed all five continents. What provoked such excessive evils, and what are the aims of the belligerents, aims of such evident seriousness that they have persisted without being realized? Are these aims definable as a desire for territorial expansion or competition for control over the destinies and resources of weak nations?

     Do they represent a striving to gain special interests and economic advantage, emanating from disputes and contention among classes?

      Are they the expression, perhaps, of indulgence in national or racial friction-a yielding to excessive patriotism and racism leading to a denial of the rights of others, whether neighbors or citizens of countries in the farthest reaches of the world?

       Or do they embody a materialistic tyranny and love of extravagance, resulting in a concentration on amassing wealth or on quick gain, which further intensifies the differences among the classes of a single nation and sets them against one another, thereby provoking internal and external strife? Are these evils the result of the defeat of spiritual forces before the onslaught of materialistic forces, from which in turn derive a confusion in moral character and beliefs, apathy toward the righteous law, a loss of human virtue and a concomitant decrease in brotherliness  and an increasing disregard for pledges and pacts that has bred treachery and deception in international relations and fear in place of security, what with the constant presence of war preparations and the possibility of a sudden holocaust?

     Or are they the result of other causes, greater or lesser, or, possibly, the sum of all these reasons?

     Other possible causes and events may have a temporary effect; but if one looks searchingly into those I have mentioned, he is led to the belief that in them lie the roots of world corruption and the causes of calamities and grinding wars.

     Does the Message of Muhammad offer any preventive measures and possible cures for such corruption? This is what we shall attempt to discover.

      As regards the first definition given of the aims underlying world evils, it may be summed up in the single answer: modern colonialism. 1 Nothing is more indicative of the corrupting influence and the strength of this ill than the fact that wars did not become universal until after it had appeared and spread; as it extended into the five continents and became the pretext for materialistic strife, wars attained the proportions of a universal calamity.

     With the expansion of colonialism, more countries reached out for colonies, and all nations began to believe that colonialism was the road to wealth and power; they envied, hated, and vied with each other, and were not restrained by the fact that some nations had fallen prey to their own expansionist greed-some of colonialism's earliest knights, the Spaniards, Portuguese, and French, became its victims. In his The Wreck of Europe (L'Europa senza Pace, 1921), Francesco Saverio Nitti declares that the Italians spent fourteen billion lire to buy a track of sand. 2 What was the total price paid by fascist Italy in Libya, Ethiopia, and other countries? Italy exhausted her wealth and blood and jeopardized her very existence for the sake of colonialism but achieved only destruction and ruin.

      When these bloody wars, which have dealt civilization such crippling blows, are over with for all time, all nations will have come to realize that colonialism was but a mirage which they pursued and vied for, but which could not replace honest toil and the good life. Like an object thrown at a rock, it bounces back and strikes the thrower.

      Colonialism has been the cause of most of the wars of the past two centuries and has left its imprint on all of them. An investigation of the causes of each war must lead back to colonialism somewhere on earth, either in the heritage of a weak nation or in the form of an object of modern worship petroleum, gold, coal, cotton, minerals, and other fruits of the earth .

      In its modern guise, European colonialism is obviously an evil for both the victor and the vanquished, the colonizer and the colonized .On the one hand, the conquering nations gradually are led to a life of reliance upon others, becoming inflicted with a deadly habit of ease; they fall into disputation with those who envy them or seek revenge upon them, thus exposing their previously powerful existence to extinction. And what has happened to certain nations in the past still has its effects on them today .On the other hand, the maintenance of colonies for material exploitation lowers the standard of living of their inhabitants and limits their ability to consume goods. In addition, it stifles their spirit of inventiveness, their initiative and productiveness, and their dignity, placing a significant segment of the world's population in a desperate position; thus they become a problem for mankind.

      Stratagems and wars waged by the envious and greedy hasten the decline, even the ruin, of civilization.

       Were not the Napoleonic Wars-a blight on the world, not only on France-the outgrowth of hatred and envy resulting from a desire to dominate the weak and acquire their possessions? So were the wars of Russia, Turkey, and Austria, Were not these wars undertaken for self-enrichment at the expense of the weak? The Russo-Japanese War during the early part of this century (1905) would not have taken place, because of the distance that separated these nations, had the two rivals not clashed in their expansionist aims.

        Whatever the reasons one might give for the First and Second World Wars, the hatred buried deep in the hearts of those who were defeated and the desire for expansion and for acquisition of the raw materials and properties of the weak were among the fundamental causes of contention among strong, overpowering nations, And because the large nations felt strongly about the evils of colonialism, after the First World War they tried to find a remedy in the theories of the mandate system and the principle of free access to raw materials.

       The evils of colonialism will continue to prevail until people discover by trial and sacrifice a solution equally acceptable to the strong and the weak, In the past, wars were limited to neighboring states, but when colonialism became worldwide, so did wars. Therefore, a need exists for common principles that will set straight the problems of the world, The sacrifice of colonialism is necessary for the salvation  of  prsent-day civilization. Already the Great Powers are searching for a way through the Atlantic Pact, and like declarations resorted to by other factions indicate that they too realize the evil colonialism has wrought on both victor and victim.

       As long as force is the only criterion in the conduct of nations, hardship will persist. One of the virtues of the Message of Muhammad is its denunciation of colonialism and of the use of force for worldly purposes. It does not sanction war for the expansion of dominion, for securing raw materials, for cornering markets, or for allegedly civilizing people. Nor does it sanction one nation's exalting itself over another, or one monarch over another, or one race over an other. "O ye who believe! When ye go forth [to fight] in the way of Allah, make investigation, and say not unto one who offereth you [the salutation of] peace: `Thou art not a believer,' seeking the chance profits of this life [so that ye may despoil him]. With Allah there are plenteous gains." 3

     The focus of the Islamic view in international relations is clear, for people are as equal as the teeth of a comb, as the Prophet says, with no preference for one race, class, or
nation over another except in their piety and love for peace; and as I have said again and again, Islam recognizes no dispute that does not aim at making the word of God supreme and insuring the freedoms of all.

      Certain people might say that the history of the Muslims does not conform with what they preach. We preach the Book of God and His religion, not an apology for the actions of certain Muslim states or rulers, which may resemble, more or less, what the Europeans have done. The Muslims have been punished for these actions even as modern nations have been.

      There is no doubt that the Message of Muhammad rejects colonialism in all its forms. The wisdom of its lofty and sublime views now has been affirmed as a result of the impact of colonialism on people in past centuries as well as in recent times; for when the evils of colonialism expanded, its perils took hold, and its plague became universal, it dragged the world through successive global wars.

     We pray that people will awaken to guidance, that they will discover in Islamic principles the means for establishing international relations on a basis other than that of colonialism, and that this new attitude will rest on the Islamic spirit of brotherhood, which does not recognize boundaries of race, class, or narrow nationalism, does not measure rights according to knowledge and ignorance or progress and regression, and considers men Only as brethren; for they are all descendants of Adam, and Adam is of dust.

                                              Class struggle

      Class struggle is a by-product of European civilization 4 . Its disease has spread, and its calamities have become universal.

      From the beginning of time, people have met with varying fortunes in this world; there have been the poor and the wealthy, the rulers and the ruled, the weak and the strong, the sick and the healthy, living in reasonable cooperation and understanding with each other within the jurisdiction of the tribe, town, city, metropolis, or nation. Through instinct and experience, their natural disposition has been to associate and cooperate.

      The early human groupings were like beehives cooperating to produce an order acceptable to all; if they did not accept it as a matter of personal preference, they would consent to it voluntarily or by law and tradition (`urf). Such an order would be subjected at times to disturbances. Disorder would arise from aggression by other groups or from internal corruption in the form of exceptional cases of oppression caused by the deviation of a strong group or a strong individual who would undertake acts of tyranny and commit excesses. These troubles would usually subside, however; and the course of affairs would return to normalcy, and cooperation would be resumed through the interplay of natural instinct and custom.

      In earlier times, people were not conscious of class conflict as an element of disturbance as it is today-a bitter, constant struggle between the poor and the wealthy, workers or craftsmen and proprietors or managers-though in the annals of mankind, we might find extremist ideologies, such as that of the Mazdakites in pre-islamic Persia, advocating complete equality in living. History witnessed in the wake of the Roman Empire the struggle between the masses and the privileged or, in other words, between the slaves and the free. In the early days of Islam, there is the example of such as Abu-Dharr, a Companion of the Prophet's, who migrated from Syria complaining of opulence and objecting to land ownership.

      We also learn of the Khawarij, who unsheathed their swords and plunged bravely into social anarchy with the more exalted among them declaring, "There is no rule but Allah's." They denied the necessity of government, claiming that it is corrupt by nature and that to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong through motivations of religion and conscience suffices to regulate the affairs of the people and the social order. They rejected the ruler's right to rule, while the more moderate among them refused the monarch the right of inheritance. The head of state was elected with no regard for his family or tribe; even if he had been a slave, he possessed an equal right to rule. They would abstain from worldly pursuits and call on people to do the same until the means of subsistence were equally shared, although they did not forbid the possession of property.

      These ideologies were regarded as deviant, however. Few in history have followed them, and they never reached the level attained by socialism and communism in modern times, either in magnitude or in pretension. For example, Islam did not even advocate equal distribution of property, nor did the Muslims preach class struggle, as between workers and owners; unlike modern times, earlier periods witnessed no bloody conflicts between classes. The communism and socialism that have organized workers today are undoubtedly new, and are a direct result of modern capitalism. 5 Acting through instinctive simplicity, the Muslim people understood each other. The wealthy neighbor was the friend of his poor neighbor; he knew him and his children personally. Everyone was united by a communal spirit of brotherhood and by ties of blood or protection. No matter how comfortable his living conditions might be or how extensive his power, the chieftain of the tribe or village was the chieftain of the poor and the wealthy alike, having a feeling of close attachment to all. His wealth and possessions were not held selfishly or directed toward ostentation and opulence: he prided himself on his generosity and glorified in giving. His children, despite the comfort they enjoyed, were like all children of the tribe or the village, playing the same games, eating similar food, and wearing the same kind of clothes as other children.

       Sentiments of envy and jealousy were not aroused by the wealth and luxury enjoyed by the important and well-to-do. Moreover, fortunes were limited, and most of the people lived on the same modest scale.

      In the modern world, with the advent of steam and electricity, fortunes expanded, and so did the influence of the wealthy, whose numbers increased. Machines replaced manual labor, communications advanced and speed increased, trade expanded; the gap between poverty and wealth widened. The world smiled on landowners, traders, and those who controlled the means of transportation. And so the new capitalistic order thrived with all of its accompanying lack of human relations; consequently, people drifted farther and farther apart in their thinking and their ways of life, and grew to be antagonistic toward one another.

       It was inevitable that the deprived class, which fell into a kind of servitude to the machine and its owner, should seek a way to freedom, for it felt that despite its numbers it hardly possessed a corresponding power. It deplored existing laws and saw in them the implementation of decisions ostensibly merciful but subtly torturous, enabling the wealthy to have their own way and to use the police to their advantage. The controlling few thus triumphed over the deprived multitudes, who then turned to revolution, fostered by dreamers and frustrated leaders and parties, thus creating one of the fundamental causes of world disturbance.

       World War I had hardly ended before ungovernable revolutions and bloody riots began. Their victims reached tens of millions in the Russian civil war, the flames of which raged for years. Nor were the remaining European and American regions secure from bloody riots, and the ideology that arose, communism, still impels the poor to vent their anger against the rich, the class of artisans, workers, and peasants against proprietors, thus preparing the ground for new and more dangerous outbursts everywhere.

     Governments and people have undertaken a search for a remedy and have wandered off in many directions. Some have extirpated the propertied class, as happened in Russia; some have liquidated the spokesmen of workers and communism, as happened in Spain; and some have resorted to force and oppression in order to establish security and equilibrium, suppressing personal freedom, as happened in Italy and Germany, where dictatorial leadership removed all power of decision from the people.

     It is very difficult in a rapid exposition such as this to enter into a discussion of what is called the capitalist system, its assets and liabilities, as it is likewise difficult to outline the social problem and the solutions proposed by Europeans and Americans and the ills they suffer from a system that is based on usury and selfishness. We trust to the reader's knowledge of the intricate question of class struggle, its causes and effects.

      Let us examine the precepts provided by the Message of Muhammad to see whether we can discover a remedy for the social problem of this age.

      Poverty is the first problem of society and the primary cause of class strife. Islam has a flexible system of its own which embraces the general welfare of its classless society in curing poverty. The Shari'ah advocated two methods to accomplish this end.

     First, it gave the deprived a fixed right to a share of the wealth of all people. I say all because every able-bodied worker is subject to the poor tax on wealth, property, and productive assets; payment of a poor tax on al-Fitr, 6  for example, is expected of any Muslim who himself possesses what exceeds his need for a day. In other words, the poor man is taxed to help those even poorer.

       The legal taxes on the possessions of people of all classes, levied to resist and eliminate poverty and other social ills, have varied. The proceeds are specially allocated by decrees of the Koran to the needy, and the head of state may not spend them for any purpose other than that stipulated. Those entitled to charity are listed in the Koran, as in this verse: "The alms are only for the poor and the needy, . . . and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives [slaves] and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and for the cause of Allah, and [for] the wayfarers; a duty imposed by Allah. And Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom."  7

      The Koran does not state in detail the types of possessions that fall within the jurisdiction of the poor tax or the amount that must be paid,  8   but these questions are answered in Islamic tradition (sunnah) by a letter the Prophet wrote to those whom he placed in charge of distributing all the funds set aside for the poor.

     The Koran laid down the principle, then, and the Prophet implemented it; the Koran designated the poor tax (zakah) and considered it the duty of the head of state to allocate the funds collected according to need. In our day, he might discover that little if any money was needed for the liberation of slaves or for "those whose hearts are to be reconciled" or for the wayfarer; in that case, he could increase the share for the poor or assign funds to a social security program,for he could find in the way of Allah many gates to that beneficence which is directed to the common welfare in every age according to the circumstances besetting its inhabitants.

      The Shari'ah was not content with simply stating this known right of the needy to help from those capable of payment. As a second means of doing away with poverty, it also charged the state with the duty of establishing and maintaining social equilibrium. The head of state is responsible for this equilibrium, which he regulates by use of the poor tax; if it does not suffice, he is entitled to make appropriations from the possessions of the people in the interest of the general welfare, as it is his duty to measure out justice in an equitable balance. Wherever this justice exists, it conforms to the decrees and religion of God. If this justice should demand a decision not previously decreed and which cannot be found in Muslim law, then the head of state, after consultation, is entitled to exercise ijtihad-that is, independent reasoning .   9 

       Let us consider two cases of ijtihad by the great Imams Abu-Bakr and `Umar (may God be pleased with them). Abu-Bakr used to divide the incomes from state revenue
among his officials, pensioners, soldiers, and others equally, showing no preference for one over the other. He was once asked, "You have divided this wealth equally among people, but of them are there not those who are entitled to more because of their worth, good precedence, and seniority?" He replied, "Truly, I have not been informed of what you have mentioned of good precedence, seniority, and worth; that is something for Allah to reward. This equating is a means of subsistence, and equality in it is better than preference."

      Under `Umar, the caliph after Abu-Bakr, the conquests of Syria and Iraq took place. `Umar decided upon varied wages and declared, "I will not equate between him who fought the Prophet and him who fought with him," and on that premise he organized the bureau (diwan) of the army. `Umar, who did not follow the view that equality in subsistence is better than preference, nevertheless had his own interpretation of the Koranic verse concerning spoils (ghana'im); he replied to those who wanted to divide the land among its conquerors and retain only the khums  10  for the general welfare, "How will it be with those Muslims who are to follow when they discover that the land, together with its `uluj, 11 has been divided and inherited for generations? This is not a fair law." `Abd-al-Rahman ibn-'Awf, a respected Companion of the Prophet, then said to him, "What is the just procedure? The land and its `uluj are but what Allah has bestowed upon the Muslims." `Umar replied, "There is truth in what you say, but I do not see it [this way]. By Allah, no conquest will take place hereafter in which such great gains are to be had, and future conquests may even be a liability on all Muslims. Now, if the land of Iraq and the land of Syria should be divided together with their `uluj, then what will be left to guard the thughur?  12 What will become of the progenies and widows of the people of Iraq and Syria in this and other towns?" Yet they kept pressing `Umar, saying, "Will you grant to a people that neither was present at nor witnessed battle and to the sons of a people and the sons of their sons who were not present what Allah has bestowed upon us by our swords?" But `Umar would not add to his words, and said only, "This is my view.

     `Umar was then asked to seek counsel, and he consulted the early Immigrants (Muhajirun), but they differed. As for `Abd-al-Rahman ibn-'Awf, he suggested that their rights be divided among them; the opinions of `Uthman, `Ali, Talhah, and the son of `Umar were identical with `Umar's. `Umar then sent for ten of the elders and notables of the Ansar, five from the Aws and five from the Khazraj; once they had convened, he addressed them, saying, "I have disturbed you only that you may share in this trust over your affairs which I have been made to shoulder. I am like one of you, and today you will affirm the right. Disagree with me, whoever will, and agree with me, whoever will. And I do not desire that you follow what I desire. You have from Allah a Book which bespeaks the truth. By Allah, if I have stated something I desire, I desire not but the right."

      The Ansar then said, "Speak and we shall listen, O Commander of the Believers." He then described to them the nature of the dispute, and they confirmed his view, whereupon he decided to keep the land in the hands of its owners but to place on it the land tax (kharaj); and the dissenters were silent out of respect for the dominant view.  13 

     This is an example of the conduct of a disciple and successor of the Prophet in a matter which ended in the issuance of a major decree, which `Umar steadfastly upheld. `Umar made the view prevail which was demanded for the general welfare and upon which he and the majority of the sages and men of counsel (ahl al-shura) of Islam agreed.

      The Islamic Shari'ah does not stand as an obstacle once the general welfare becomes known, for the Shari'ah will not controvert the aims of welfare and justice.
The establishment of a social balance to insure that the burden of privation is lifted from the needy and that justice and social security prevail is one of the most important duties of the Islamic state. The responsibility of the imam and ahl al-shura in this matter is clear.

     The propagator of the Message and his followers did not hesitate to set up the balance of social justice on the basis of the general welfare, for the Message permits of no contention among its adherents over worldly sectarian interests. It recognizes that the general welfare is indivisible, and that sects and classes are nonexistent when all are the servants of God and thus equal; in sum, the welfare of all is above the welfare of any class.

      It could be ascertained that most differences are based on the claim that each represents the general welfare. Preponderant support for the general welfare, as preached in the Message of Muhammad, is not sufficient to prevent dissension; the word justice does not convey the same meaning to all people so that a fixed measure exists. It would constitute a justified objection if this welfare were left free and uncontrolled and if this justice were abandoned to untested opinion. The Message of Muhammad does not cater to irresponsible desires.

      The Islamic Shari'ah draws its instructions from belief in the Lord of all peoples, Who knows what deceives the eye and what hearts conceal, and from the right-doing (ihsan) that cannot be questioned and through which the blessings of Allah are sought. Believers cannot depend on their private wishes, therefore; to them, the general welfare is of singular importance and thrives on deeds satisfactory to the Creator, namely, deeds sanctioned by His Islamic Law. Believers also enjoy a discipline in the exercise of their pure and guileless conscience. The general welfare is adjudged in terms of the brotherhood that religion has decreed and has made a condition for the perfection of faith: "Truly, none of you believes if he does not desire for his brother what he desires for himself." And "You are all of Adam, and Adam is of dust," says the Prophet. For this reason, discrimination of any sort is nullified in belief, and in belief lies the greatest guarantee of the public good.

        The general welfare likewise is not entrusted to chance be cause there is an account for deeds that is adjudicated by a God Who has the knowledge of this world and the next. He will punish the nations that squander and indulge in excesses in this world and will award men their just due for their deeds on the Day of Judgment. Justice consists of dealing equitably and rightly, with actions weighed in terms of brotherhood and equality. That which disagrees with brother hood and equality does not constitute justice.

       Accordingly, the Islamic state, in which the imam guarantees a social balance based on the words of the Almighty, "And weigh with a right balance," 14 and in which the view of `Umar, accepted under a specific set of circumstances, formed the basis of a decree enunciated in the interests of the general welfare and within the spirit as well as the meaning of the law, permits no room or access for class struggle.

      It might be said that this understanding would apply as long as fear of and obedience to God are basic to the consideration of the general welfare; but what can be said when faith is lost and conscience becomes corrupt? The answer lies in the fact that this tragedy, which has come to pass, has upset the world and imposed calamities on European civilization and, of course, on Muslims and Orientals as well. Because of its broad horizon and careful evaluation, the Islamic Shari'ah also takes into account the possibility of this condition of corruption. It provides for reprimand and compulsion as means of leading people back to the right path, and it even sanctions combat to assist the oppressed, entrusting the head of state with the power to establish the right by force if necessary. When upon the death of the Prophet some Arabs apostatized and refused to render to the poor their rights, Abu-Bakr declared, "May Allah be my witness, if they should withhold from me even the tether of a camel which they used to render to the Prophet, I would fight them for it!" He did not relegate the question of the poor to the conscience of men but took up arms instead.

      Because the Islamic Shari'ah, following the decree of the Koran, stipulated the levy of the alms tax (sadaqah) to in- sure social security against diverse needs, the community did not have to depend on the conscience of the imam or the nation. In addition, it empowered the imam to levy taxes in the amount considered necessary to insure against needs, and placed unavoidable obligations on him toward every inflicted segment of society referred to in the Koran. Through analogical deduction (qiyas), which is the fourth source of Muslim law, one might add to the list in the Koran of the categories of those in need; for example, the imam is responsible for providing medication to the destitute patient, nourishment to a child whose mother cannot provide it, a home to the homeless, and food and the opportunity to work to the man who is capable of working but unemployed.

       To sum up, the sadaqah is an instrument for resisting poverty and consequently a cure for social ills. The imam has the right to sponsor legislation and to further interpret the law upon consultation with wise, learned jurists and distinguished men of judgment (ahl al-ra'y). It is his duty to act in behalf of the general welfare and to intercede in disputes
among classes and sects, seeking to prevent dissension, envy, and hatred.

     The Message places a great deal of stress on conscience and makes Paradise the reward of right-doers. One discovers that the expenditure of resources for those who need them is urged in the verses of the Koran upon every suitable occasion as well as in the sayings of the Prophet. This is no place to recite dozens of Koranic verses and hadith; it suffices to relate Allah's saying: "Tell My bondsmen who believe to establish worship and spend of that which We have given them, secretly and publicly, before a day cometh wherein there will be neither traffic nor befriending."  15 

     The Muslim ethic is based on social cooperation and makes beneficence the goal of work and life. "Lo! Allah enjoineth justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk " 16  Every person who is properly brought up is thoroughly prepared for social service; this preparation is the most effective method for resisting social ills and for bringing people together and preventing strife.

     If we consider the methods discussed for combating social problems as positive factors in preventing class warfare, then taken in the same context, the negative factors are of no less significance. It can be seen that the Islamic state, led by the imam and guided by a consultative body, which acts like a board of directors, is the greatest institution for insuring social security; it can also be seen that this state acts to raise the standard of living of the deprived class. At the same time, the Message of Muhammad resists extravagance with the weapons of piety, faith, and religion in order to reduce false pride and luxury to a level where they will not excite envy and malice. It also conveys a death message to those who are given to extravagance and lustful indulgence, warning them that they will meet an ill journey's end, suffer the tortures of Allah, be barred from entrance into the next and better world. The Message, moreover, warns the whole of society of catastrophes for not admonishing and restraining its prodigals and those given to profligacy:

       "And guard yourselves against a chastisement [in this world] which cannot fall exclusively on those of you who are wrong doers . . . .  17 and eat and drink, but be not prodigal. Lo! He loveth not the prodigals " 18

     "And how many a community have We destroyed that was thankless for its means of livelihood! And yonder are their dwellings, which have not been inhabited after them save a little. And We, even We, were the inheritors. "  19 

     At the root of social ruin is abundance in a nation softened by ease: "And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease [in luxury], and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word [of doom] hath effect for it, and We annihilate it with complete annihilation."  20

     The Message permitted enjoyment of the niceties of property and life, but prohibited men from wearing silk and gold as a sign of its disapproval of luxury and false ornament; it permitted women to wear ornaments (silk, gold, jewels, and so forth), but curtailed their tendencies to excess by granting authority in such questions to their husbands and by prohibiting them from appearing in public dressed or acting in a provocative manner.

      The Shari'ah placed further limitations on extravagance, ease, and the display of pride, and people came to think that there was no way for the wealthy to enter the Kingdom of Heaven without parting with their wealth. Austerity thus became the symbol of piety. The Apostle of Allah himself, despite the authority he was given, was one of the greatest ascetics. Says Ibn-Mas’ud:  21

       I entered upon the Apostle of Allah while he lay on a mat that had left its marks on his side, and I said to him: "O Messenger of Allah, what would you say if we secured a carpet for you and placed it between you and the mat, protecting you from it?" And the Prophet answered: "What need I of this world! I am to the world but a rider who rests in the shade of a tree, then departs and leaves it."

Ibn-Hisham,  22  citing Zayd ibn-Aslam,  23   relates:

     When the Prophet made `Attab ibn-Asid governor of Mecca, he granted him a dirham every day. Ibn-Asid stood up and ad dressed the gathering: "O people, Allah starves a belly that hungers for a dirham! The Prophet of Allah has bestowed upon me a dirham each day, and I am therefore in need of no one."

     It has been told that Muhammad came upon his daughter Fatimah holding in her hand a golden chain which she had been displaying to a woman in her company, saying, "This was presented to me by Abu-al-Hasan"-meaning `Ali, her husband. The Prophet thereupon said, "O Fatimah, will it please you if people say the daughter of the Prophet displays a chain of fire!" He then went out depressed. Fatimah disposed of the chain by having it sold and purchased with its price a slave, whom she then freed. When the Prophet learned about it, he declared, "Praise be to Allah Who has saved Fatimah from fire."

     The Prophet's invocation was, "O Allah, grant the family of Muhammad what suffices it," that is, what does not exceed its needs.

      The Message of Muhammad has resisted poverty and luxury, hatred and envy, and with it class struggle has become impossible. It has debased pride in wealth and ancestry and elevated the worth of piety and contentment, and it has redeemed many of the worldly belongings of people with spiritual ones. There is no doubt that Fatimah, having sold the chain and freed the slave, experienced a greater feeling of happiness and joy every time she remembered what she had done than if she had kept possession of the golden chain. And was `Umar, in his patched garment, the conqueror of the Khosraus and the Caesars, of lesser possessions with his contented self than the mighty ones who were given to ease in the palaces of the Caesars and Khosraus?

       The Message of Muhammad achieved greater success in remedying social problems with methods based on self-denial and on conscience than with its positive methods utilizing sadaqah and state guarantees for the needy. And the Message was capable of bringing together law and conscience in order that both might rule at the same time and follow one course toward one objective. The call to struggle against the ills of society will endure throughout the ages.

                                  Racial and National Strife

      Let us now consider another cause of world disturbance, namely, indulgence in racial and national strife. The resulting discrimination, conscienceless pursuit of glory and power, and disregard for the rights of others lead to arming and war.

      Men in earlier ages competed with each other as tribes, envied each other as rulers, and differed over their concepts of God and the ways of God, but neither obsession for national homeland nor pride of race formed a decisive barrier between groups, as is the case with modern culture and civilization. The history of the Arabs, Turks, Berbers, and other Muslim peoples is replete with tribal strife, but all were innocent of racial strife; and such was the situation in Europe, for the ruling dynasties gathered under their standards in the name of loyalty either to the monarch or to religion various races, tribes, and nations which differed in origin and language and sometimes also beliefs. Quite often this ruling family would be of foreign origin or of a national minority from within the state. Under its banner would be organized an aggregation of peoples bound to each other by ties of law and incorporating numerous minorities, all partaking of the sorrows and happiness that befell all alike; very often these minorities were more enthusiastic and loyal toward this banner than the peoples and elements closest to them racially and linguistically who followed a different leader.

      This was the situation in many of the states we have known in our century, such as the Austro-Hungarian state under the Hapsburgs; and we have seen Arab peoples more loyal and faithful to the Ottomans than to their own Arab rulers. Such was the case also in ancient states and in those of the Middle Ages, as the `Abbasid, Holy Roman, and Byzantine Empires. And we know of like situations in which Slavs under Austrian rule, for example, were more loyal to the Austrian ruler than to their Russian cousins.

      All were equal under the triumphant monarch, who was supreme over all. And those who through talent or proper attributes climbed the ladder of rank were loyal to that monarch, not to the race or nation. Thus you find the Persian Barmakids  24  and Tahirites 25 occupying the highest positions during the caliphates of the Arabian Hashimities (`Abbasids); so did the Koprulu family,  26 which came from the Albanian highlands during the caliphates of the Ottoman Turks. More slaves have climbed this ladder, moreover, than their numerical proportion would indicate. Dozens of Mamluks  27  reached the height of power in Islamic states stretching from Egypt to India; they have been immortalized in monuments in Delhi and Cairo, and throughout that great Islamic territory reaching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

       People did not ask about race or origin but about deeds, character, and religiousness. Among the Mamluks who attained the highest state positions we find Armenian, Russian, Sicilian, Georgian, Circassian, Tartar, Turks, Frank, Sudanese, and Ethiopian. If we should trace their pedigrees, we would discover that they represented all the colors of mankind.

       Patriotism and nationalism in their present-day connotations have not helped maintain stability, unfortunately, but have rather increased world disturbance and served as a new cause for additional disputes, broader in scope and more difficult to solve. In its geographical aspect, the concept of the fatherland as an abode for a given nation has failed to define boundaries; nations overlap the territory of other nations and collide with their expansion. Nature has very rarely assisted in defining a specific area for a specific people: in the whole of Europe, only the British Isles enjoy a boundary surrounded by water-and even so, Ireland has disputed with England over the province of Ulster in the north. In places where nature did not accidentally decide the matter by an untraversable ocean or an impassable mountain range, such as the Himalayas between India and China, disputes have inevitably arisen.

       At least two centuries have elapsed since Europe began drowning itself in its own blood as a result of wars aimed at regulating boundaries and liberating minorities-wars between the French and Germans and the Germans and Austrians; the Austrians, Germans, and Slavs, and the Austrians and Italians; wars between all the Balkan states; the Otto man state and the European states; Russia and her neighbors to the west, the east, and the south; the Czechs and the Poles and the Magyars and Romanians. Thus, we find that disputes over what is termed the fatherland and its boundaries are ever rampant. They do not subside but increase over the years in proportion to the intensity of racism and nationalism.

      This defiant European trouble, with its concomitant struggles over boundaries and race and minority questions, soon began to spread to the East from the West; when the East became indoctrinated with Western culture, it adopted Western concepts of fatherland and nationalism. The resulting problems that have arisen in recent years in the province of Alexandretta between Syria and Turkey and along the Shatt-al-'Arab River and the rest of the boundary between Iraq and Iran have resembled those of the Balkans. Because of their Muhammadan training, Muslims did not quarrel over racial and nationalistic questions in the past, but these are now becoming the cause of calamities in the East, even as they have precipitated bloody wars in the West. Disputes of such a nature are coming to dominate the relationships of Arabs and Turks, Kurds and Circassians, Azerbaidzhanians and Iranians, Afghans and Indians, 28 Uzbeks and Chinese, Mongols, and others; it seems that all will quarrel over boundaries and minorities until the East enters the pit of hatred which the West has so long occupied.

      In its modern form, nationalism is a new evil, and racism is worse still; and there is no cure for either except to up root tens of millions from their present places of residence and confine them to specific geographic areas.

      Some Europeans recently became so ardent in their particular brand of racism that they laid claims to membership in one master race of pure blood. This is an empty, unfounded assumption that serves only to increase disturbances and contentions in the world. 29 Who is capable of distinguishing between nations by analyzing their blood? It is sufficient that a people be plagued by the evils of extremist ideologies, prejudicial treatment of linguistic and national minorities, and calamities over boundaries that neither belief nor understanding comprehends.

       Both the Turks and the Greeks have attempted compulsory repatriation, 30 and neither people has benefited therefrom; we need not even mention what both have experienced in the uprooting of people from their homes and places of birth. However, this example of repatriation, which was both circumscribed and assisted by special circumstances, cannot be expanded into a general rule. Moreover, let us assume that we were able to guarantee a generation of people this change in peace; coming generations are certain to break the peace, for the nature of living necessitates mobility-interests change, nations grow and become extinct, new fusions and expansions are inevitable, and, consequently, there follows a return to cruelty and forcible expatriation.

     The League of Nations attempted to solve the problems of minorities. Did it succeed? Was not this problem in the Sudetenland, Lorraine, Danzig, Transylvania, and Bessarabia one of the causes and magnifying factors of the last world war?

       Extremism in patriotism or national loyalty has been a basic cause of the increase of world disturbances and the gradual expansion of wars from local struggles to universal holocausts; no corner of the globe is secure from war's dreadful reach: its growth in scope, in other words, has been consonant, along with the great expansion of nations and the modern facility of movement, with the exaggeration of the ideas of nationalism and patriotism.

      The Message of Muhammad recognizes neither nationalism nor racism in their modern contexts; the fatherland of the Muslim admits of no geographic delimitations-it coextends
with the faith. 31 In reality, it is a spiritual  fatherland, just as religion is a spiritual matter. "O my  bondsmen who believe! Lo! My earth is spacious.  Therefore serve Me only." 32 And the Muslim is  brother to the Muslim wherever he may be, in his  own neighborhood or in the most distant parts of the  earth. Wherever the Muslim settles in an Islamic state, he settles in his fatherland; and if he should  find himself in a belligerent land (dar al-harb) 33 among a people inimical to  Muslims and consequently be relieved of certain  responsibilities or rights, he resumes all his rights and obligations upon his departure from this territory or when, should circumstances change, its inhabitants enter a truce or a pact with the Muslims.

     Racism, or a fanatic attachment to tribe, nation, color, language, or culture, is rejected by the Message as a product of pre-Islamic idolatry. The Prophet declares, "He is not of us who preaches bigotry." Islam rejects every form of bigotry. All loyalties are directed to the word of God, and no relation above the spiritual is recognized.

      We . . . have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another [and be friends]. Lo! The noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. 34

      Say: If your fathers, and your sons, and your brethren, and your wives, and your tribe, and the wealth ye have acquired, and merchandise for which ye fear that there will be no sale, and dwellings ye desire are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger and striving in His way: then wait till Allah bringeth "is command to pass. Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. 35

     This is a concept that has laid the foundation of human relations on unity of thought and spiritual goals; it is with out doubt nobler than the modern philosophy, which has made nationality and materialistic interests and ideologies the bases of human relations. The Islamic view elevates humanity and honors it with mind and spirit, while the modern view reduces it to the level of materialism and emphasizes its animalistic side. Concern for spiritual necesssities is more conducive to peace, stability, and the exercise of mercy than is concern for bodily needs.

     It might be argued that in effect this assertion tacitly admits that there is strife among people over beliefs and opinions as well as over petroleum and cotton, but this scarcely would alter the fact that strife exists or minimize the consequent evils or disturbances that lead to world wars. This distinction between causes of disagreement might appear valid at first glance, but an insight into human nature reveals to us that people react more readily and are more inclined toward violence when discordant situations involve tangible objects and physical needs. The peasant might kill his neighbor over water for the irrigation of his field, or over its boundaries, but he would not be inclined to contend with this neighbor over differences of faith. Further, I have not heard of a case in which such disagreements led to assassination; if this does happen, it is rare and exceptional.  36

      Ideological missions may be accompanied by severe suppressions in the beginning, but they usually end in stability, the triumph of reason, and the prevalence of tolerance, because human beings cannot bring themselves to attack and injure others except in response to a constant incitement, an inducement related to a daily need tied to materialistic demands. And very often their enthusiasm, followed by their cruel acts, results from the pursuit of a noble idea mingled with a hidden material desire.

    Nevertheless, the Message of Muhammad has taken precautionary measures against such evils, for it forbids its partisans to use force in disseminating the Message. The Al- mighty decrees, "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error."  37  Islam does not sanction the employment of force except to guarantee freedom in the expression and practice of faith to all people.

     Therefore, we may conclude that world disturbances based on nationalistic and racist claims and on demands for material advantage for a nation, class, or race would be minimized if we adopted the principles of the Message of Muhammad in human relations by assuring the triumph of the spirit which Islam, with the other revealed religions, preaches.

      Perhaps mankind will find guidance in these principles; perhaps in the organization of the world following this latest terrible world war man will discover a philosophy of brother- hood, that noble, far-reaching concept that made `Umar ibn al-Khattab say, after he had shed his narrow pre-Islamic loyalties and had become indoctrinated in the Muhammadan school, "Were Salim, the slave of Abu-Hudhayfah, alive, a successor would I make of him."  38  This concept the Prophet expressed in these moving words: "Truly, I am the brother of every pious man, even if he is a slave from Abyssinia, and opposed to every villain, even if he is a noble Qurayshi."

                             The Defeat of Spiritual Forces

       Another cause of world disturbance is the failure of spiritual forces to counterbalance the sudden rise to prominence of materialistic life.

    In the beginning, man exercised only limited control over matter; he coveted the conquest of nature far less than in the period following the discovery of steam and electricity, the uses of the atom, and the very elements that constitute matter and the transformation of their composition. When he became skillful in the application of chemical and mechanical forces, he turned his back on the metaphysical and spiritual; the investigation of nature and its rewarding victories attracted his attention over every other field of endeavor.

     Within a few generations, the physical world has changed and ways of thinking have reversed themselves; if our ancestors should rise from their tombs, they would repudiate the life of modern civilization in the same manner as cave dwellers would repudiate the very notion of skyscrapers. The modes and aims of living have changed, and man has turned to the speed he seeks and the perpetual motion he enjoys,shunning stability and tranquillity as much as his ancestors shunned clatter and speed.

     The modes of life have changed suddenly, and they have yet to become stabilized; life is in perpetual flux. The gap between my father and myself is one generation, but the differences between us are greater than between my father and his forefathers dozens of generations before him.

    This continual material change and this speed, which continue to multiply without finding their ultimate limitations, have caused man, in his pursuit of the new materialistic life, to be unmindful or incapable of sustaining a suitable spiritual life. He is unable to keep pace with the explosion of ideas and new concepts, which resembles the explosion of matter, to the extent necessary to preserve his spiritual heritage. The spiritual life which man has gained from the trials of thousands of years has lagged behind the new materialistic life he has acquired in one century. As this life accelerated, man felt himself weighed down with a huge spiritual inheritance that would not move with him, and so he abandoned it.

      People living in various lands differ greatly in their ways of life today, while previously they were bound by spiritual and traditional ties through their attitudes toward life and their manner of personal conduct. Material and intellectual differences between members of the same generation, even the same family, in many parts of the world are greater today than they were between a man in Northern Europe and another in Central Asia several centuries ago. When Ibn Battutah  39  made his famous travels around the world, I do not think that the differences among human beings whom he visited in the fourteenth century were so great as those encountered today by a peasant from Upper Egypt when visiting Cairo for the first time. In the same nation, there are diverse communities whose ideas, customs, and characteristics vary in direct relation to their ability to pursue the new materialistic life: there are those who ride on the bandwagon of the new way, those who hang on to it tenaciously, those who run after it, those who look on in bewilderment, and those who have despaired, conceded defeat, and been left stranded.

      Countries that have been affected by material civilization display an external homogeneity, although their spiritual ties are much weaker than they used to be; and they are quite different from those countries that are called underdeveloped. Every nation has seen the development of unrelated classes of people; human beings have been dispersed in a world which does not recognize its members and in which classes, sects, and peoples have disavowed one another. Thoughts have become troubled, human laws adulterated, the colors of material life diversified, new ideas more numerous. The different ways of living have become remote from each other, and man's goals have increased in number and diversity. If this transition period continues, it will become increasingly difficult for men to return to a form of life acceptable to everyone or at least to the large groups, the hundreds of millions of human beings, who once were united by strong spiritual ties and shared common religious outlooks.

       The belief that a materialistic life based on speed can serve as a unified concept of life, an ideological foundation acceptable to all, as hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians accept their ancient law and religion, may perhaps be realized, though the goal remains very far off. The world will continue to face the terrors of change and instability, and people cannot cast off their spiritual and mental inheritance as they would their clothes. In the resulting confusion and indecision we first witness the diversity of thoughts, views, and ideologies, and the insistent disturbances of life.

    It is imperative that we think quickly and act rapidly in order to harmonize as completely as possible our inherited spiritual life with the sudden growth in importance of materialistic life, for without this harmony the world will continue to suffer from the friction and strife that generate dreadful explosions among nations and between classes within a nation. We must, if we are to enjoy the fruits of machine civilization and exploit its benefits to the fullest, resurrect the spiritual life in consonance with the new materialistic life. There are unlimited bounties in this material civilization, for man has triumphed through the machine over many difficulties and mishaps. He has increased his products, facilitated his movements, overcome the terrors of many diseases, and learned to guard against drought. The sources of his pleasures and amusements have become numerous; and he has made the earth appear gayer, and its embellishments have proved captivating. In one century, he has progressed materially to an extent unequaled in former centuries. But also in one century, he has come close to discarding entirely the spiritual heritage that he has gained over thousands of years.

    The Koran says,"They have forgotten God and God caused them to forget themselves." 40  In a few generations, spiritual life has been dealt a formidable defeat by the forces of materialistic life, aided by the deaf machine which has come to dominate man; and man has wrought havoc aimlessly, unrestrained by religion, moral character, or law. Mankind's spiritual heritage has been of no avail. People question its value and look upon it skeptically. Some are sympathetic, with the sympathy of the living toward the dead; others rejoice over its misfortune as a conqueror rejoices over the misfortune of the conquered; still others are faithful to it, but since they are preoccupied with themselves, they have lagged behind the procession of civilization, which advances with the glory and splendor of the victor.

      Without any apparent reflection, we seem to have adopted a course that has turned the benefits we enjoy into tools of destruction for ourselves and our civilization. Rather than supporting spiritual forces by giving them the zeal and energy we give materialistic forces, we undertake to forge new opinions and to invent new theories and concepts to give them value. As we advocate and implement such dangerous ideas, we march on to ruin.

      In the name of freedom for women, we destroy the serenity of the home; in the name of freedom for the fatherland, we tear nations asunder. In the name of freedom for labor or capital, we shall wipe out capitalism and oppress all classes; and on the contrary, in the name of resistance to abuse of these freedoms, we shall lose the freedom of the individual and the group as well as freedom of opinion. Men of judgment and intelligence, scholars and philosophers, have never exercised less influence on human society than in the age of the triumphant machine, the age in which we live today. Yet the complete defeat of religion and the traditional law and ethics based on the trials of thousands of years has not been achieved. If they disappear without being replaced by something to bolster spiritual life and ethical standards, what restraint will then remain upon these exploding forces released from nature and these ungovernable machines which man has failed to direct exclusively toward the public good? The thinking of sane minds must not be drowned out by the noise of the machine; men must be patient and strive on behalf of the spiritual life to keep spiritual values abreast of material values so that both will unite as one family and not contest each other.

    The view of Islam was farsighted when it called for the marriage of both conditions, thereby enhancing its heritage, in this saying: "Build for yourself in this world as if you would live forever, and build for your afterlife as if you would die tomorrow." This world is but the means (matiyah) to the next. 41 Let materialistic life, which has taken on so many forms in one century, serve as a vehicle (matiyah) to the eternal life that remains, the life of virtue, the merciful life.

     It may appear that I am denying the ethical and spiritual exaltation that has accompanied this sudden prevalence of materialism and I am condemning the favors of this new civilization. Regarding the latter, I do not reject these favors, although one worries about the ground lost by intelligence before the progress of the deaf machine, which seems to carry us with it; the value of things lies in how men use them and in what men accomplish with them. Regarding the spiritual "gains" of the machine age, we who have witnessed the horror of world war twice within a quarter of a century are most entitled to question the true value of a civilization encompassing these wars as part of its manifestation; and we have every right to stop, reflect, and reconsider the spiritual force of religion. Perhaps we may draw from it the weapon of human conscience to use against the tyranny of the deaf machine. Let us return to that spiritual force which used to direct us toward the common welfare with the words of the Almighty, "Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency . . . .   42  and which restricted the aims of life to right-doing and resistance of evil.

     When life is aimed at struggling over markets for the distribution of the products of the machine and wringing new or artificial markets out of nations for new products, opening the land for its buried ores and then fighting over the raw materials in order that the machine may continue to run, turning men into slaves of the machine who strive to out race each other in catering to its demands, and finally instigating world wars in which the entire forces of the machine prevail for its self-destruction and that of human civilization, we have a situation that cannot last. It appears to result from the lack of development of moral strength and men's failure to support the moral good because they are giving their full attention to material things.

     Let there be a return to religious guidance, and let there be harmony among religions that man can derive strength from them. The spiritual and material forces of life must achieve an equilibrium in which the former directs the latter toward the general welfare in accordance with the duty laid upon man by the Almighty: "He hath ordained for you that religion which He commended unto Noah, and that which We revealed unto thee [Muhammad], and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion, and be not divided therein."  43

     The present-day domination of materialism threatens the defeat of the spiritual forces of intelligence, manly virtue, faithfulness, chivalry, piety, mercy, and contentment. And if these qualities are defeated, then ignorance, faithlessness, treachery, selfishness, deception, and cruelty will take their place, nourishing the sources of disturbance in the world order.

     Because the Message of Muhammad expresses concern for the spirit and its purification, because it strikes a balance between the demands of this world and those of the next and sets the Shari'ah upon the scales of justice, weighing the needs of the spirit against the needs of the body, it resists materialistic tyranny and stands strong against that cause of world disturbance. "[He] who perfected [a soul] inspired it [with conscience of] what is wrong for it and [what is] right for it. He is indeed successful who causeth it to grow, and he is indeed a failure who stunteth it."  44

                            The Triangular Forces of Corruption

      Besides those discussed, other causes of world disturbance exist, less significant perhaps but still important, particularly as they concern the achievement of a durable peace and good relations between peoples and nations.

      Of the many causes related to world disorder, treachery, deception, and hypocrisy, which disturb man's moral character, have left the worst marks on human society. While introducing evil and harm into the lives of individuals, these forces have also had far-  reaching consequences, damaging relations among nations. For this reason, the Message of Muhammad urges men repeatedly to resist the manifestations of such forces in their manners and relationships. Most regrettably, blameworthy traits like these have flourished to a degree that reflects the weakening of spiritual life and the growing strength of materialism; and men today resort to evil behavior that would have been shunned by their forefathers as out of keeping with honor and dignity. Many men have begun to look upon a traitor as they would upon a man of in telligence who excels in good conduct and to measure his worth in terms of his success, while they remain unconcerned by the methods he has utilized, however debased they may be. When self-respect and the honor accorded to virtue weaken, treachery thrives in international relations and international ties become seriously endangered.

      Anyone who has followed closely the course of world politics during the past half-century can point to countless treacherous actions, and very rarely will he find a pure link in the chain of repugnant double-dealing. Unanticipated at tacks and the violation of pacts have become almost the rule, whereas formerly, as following the introduction of the etiquette of chivalry in the Middle Ages by the Arabs when Islam was expanding, and even in the days of the Jahiliyah, such acts were looked upon as debasing the value of individuals and nations and were generally disapproved of.
 
      The venerable Book constantly excoriates traitors and in cites men to faithfulness, and the sanctity of an agreement is placed above that of religion: ". . . but if they seek help from you in the matter of religion then it is your duty to help [them] except against a folk between whom and you there is a treaty."  44  To honor an agreement and sanctify fidelity has been a matter of pride to Muslims throughout the ages. The Koran disparages traitors in the words of the Almighty:

       Fulfill the covenant of Allah when ye have covenanted, and break not your oaths [pacts] after the asseveration of them, and after ye have made Allah surety over you. Lo! Allah knoweth what ye do. And be not like unto her who unraveleth the thread, after she hath made it strong, to thin filaments, making your oaths a deceit between you because of a nation being more numerous [and dominant] than [another] nation. Allah only trieth you thereby  46

      The likening of the traitor to a woman who unravels the thread after she has spun it is of significance to those who toy with their pledges, hurling them into the abyss of
imprudence; when treachery replaces the fulfillment of pacts and pledges, it results in universal discontent. "Truly, for every traitor a standard will be established on the day of resurrection in proportion to his treachery, and no treachery is greater than that committed by an imam," says the Apostle of God.

       During his entire life, the Prophet himself set the highest example of loyalty in his relationships with individuals and groups. An example is found in the history of his long regard for a pagan enemy, the Quraysh nobleman al-Mut'im ibn-'Adiy, the same man who safeguarded Muhammad's entry into Mecca on his return from al-Ta’if. Al-Mut'im was among the enemy's dead at the Battle of Badr. Though he was a polytheist who lost his life while fighting against the Prophet, he was eulogized in a poem composed by the Prophet's poet, Hassan Ibn-Thabit, who recited it in the presence of Muhammad himself. The Prophet listened without voicing an objection. This is strong evidence of the value of loyalty in the eyes of the Messenger of Allah, a value unmarred by religious differences or war.

     At first glance, treachery may appear to be a means of at taining victory since men have long talked about war as justifying deception. However, there is a marked difference between treacbery, a surprise attack, and the betrayal of an oath on the one hand and deception in combat on the other. Deception in battle is a trick. The opponent realizes that he is being exposed to it, and that he has no promise that it will not be resorted to; consequently, it falls within the province of legitimate war. If you should lead your enemy to believe that you will approach him with all your forces from one direction and then send only a few, deploying most of your men in another direction, this does not constitute
treachery; it is merely the art of war, which is not incompatible with moral behavior as long as human beings regard war as consistent with manly virtue and ethical conduct.

      On the other hand, treachery is frowned upon even by villains. When a bedoum chief whom I once knew betrayed a criminal to the government after promising him help,
justifying himself with the saying "Al-khawn `awn," "To betray is to assist [oneself]," he was roundly condemned by his own men, although they had been engaged in a life of
feuding with the tribe of the betrayed man. The saying acquires a special significance and danger, furthermore, when we consider relationships among the great nations of the world.

      Betrayal, the use of surprise attacks, and the perpetration of cruel deeds on innocent victims who are unaware of what is happening, in complete disregard of pledges or of human virtue, are not uncommon. It is as true among contemporary nations as it was in ancient times that treachery is a source of constant turmoil and insecurity. Yet recourse to treachery as a means of obtaining victory scarcely yields any special benefits to traitors at any time; they may win the first battle, but inevitably they wind up as victims, for "Allah guideth not the snare of the betrayers."  47
 
       Treachery among nations leads ultimately to conspiracy and suspicion. Men are then deprived of the blessing of security in peace as in war. We behold the present generation seething in the midst of calamities from which it will graduate into an atmosphere of fear and preparation for new wars; indeed, such is the promise of punishment from Heaven. For this reason, Islam insists on the fulfillment of pledges, even when made to a betrayer-it is preferable that one carry out his pledge in exchange for treachery than that he return treachery for treachery.

      As regards laying and hypocrisy, it cannot be said that people are more inclined to veracity than they used to be; nor can it be said that lying is an ethical characteristic that has emerged in its worst form in the machine age. Honesty is no more respected today than in former times. What we lament in this age is prevarication in politics and international relations. We can assert that lying and deception do more to upset international relations today than they did in the past.

      In The Prince, for example, Machiavelli sets forth views that are deemed unacceptable in the light of standards of ethical character and virtuous behavior; although today people conform to Machiavelli's views, they do not display his honesty when declaring themselves. The Prince would appear to indicate that people in the Middle Ages showed greater veracity than do men today, who denounce Machiavellism while at the same time making use of it.

       Islam deplores and shuns lying and hypocrisy in politics, which people consider so justifiable and such necessary tools of diplomacy that they skillfully develop their use. The annals of early Islamic conquests are living testimony to the honesty and truth exercised in relationships between friends and foes alike. The biographies of the early caliphs who promulgated the Message of Muhammad are redolent with the simplicity of truth and the clarity of right-dealing; when they, their emissaries, or their representatives spoke, wrote, or gave pledges, it was with an explicitness entirely free of double meanings. Their words were lucid, unembellished, and simple. "I am host of a home in the suburbs of Paradise," said the Prophet, "for him who resorts not to disputation, even though he be right, and of a home in the middle of Paradise for him who resorts not to lying even in gesture, and of a home in the heights of Paradise for him whose moral character has been purified."

      Anyone reading the Book of Allah and learning the traditions of the Prophet will come to the conclusion that lying and hypocrisy are more debased than blasphemy, for Allah has cursed liars and placed hypocrites on the lowest level of the Inferno. At first one might not appreciate the wisdom of this strict attitude, but if he should consider the far-reaching general effects of hypocrisy, even ignoring for a moment its effects on the hypocrite, he would discover that it forms an essential element of the corruption prevalent in the world today. More specifically, on reflecting upon the turmoil that engulfs the modern world, would not one discover that hypocrisy is one of the primary causes of world disturbance? It the organizers of the League of Nations had established that organization on a foundation of honesty and fidelity, would it have collapsed as it did? Would its failure have led to the widespread corruption that manifested itself during World War II? If those who preach respect for the general welfare and the sanctity of human rights were sincere, truthful, and free of deception, would men dispute the meaning of such rights and of the general welfare as they do today? Indeed, hypocrisy has forged the pattern for men; if one utters the beloved expressions freedom, equality, and justice and speaks of the right of all to live in happiness and perpetual peace, men suspect an ulterior motive and think that truth has taken on the garb of falsehood.

      The effect of hypocrisy, however insignificant in the relationships of individuals, grows many times stronger, becoming a rampant evil, when nations and their rulers adopt it as a tool in domestic and foreign relations. Basing a policy on treachery, lying, and hypocrisy is forbidden by the Message of Muhammad and rejected by all the religions of God because it nourishes world conflict and contributes to the destruction of civilization.