Work ethic among Muslims

Muslim statesmen and thinkers maintained that in addition to being learned in the law, a judge should be a good listener, willing to bear with detail, patient and persevering in examining the facts and arguments placed before him, and that he should settle issues without fear or favour. Such men were hard to find, and they should therefore be paid well if they were to be retained in service. In terms of protocol, they should be placed high enough so that other officials could not intimidate them.

Let the judges be above every kind of pressure or influence, beyond intrigue or corruption, wrote Ali ibn Abu Talib, the fourth pious caliph, in his massive (over 8,000 word) and celebrated letter of directives to Malik bin Ashtar. In his well-known work on governance and politics, Siyasat Nama, Nizam al-Mulk also spoke of the judiciary's exalted station. Judges, he wrote, were the caliph's deputies and "standard bearers."

Their prestige and their reputation should be high, and all other public officials must aid them and uphold the dignity of their courts. If anyone ignored summon to appear in court, he should be compelled to attend, however high of rank he might be.

Needless to say, graft among public officials is condemned, and so is nepotism. They are urged to accept an ascetic discipline, keep their "extravagant and inordinate yearnings" under control. They are not to keep for themselves "anything which is the common property of all."

It may be recalled that Umar bin Khattab, the second pious caliph, confiscated one half of the property of Amr ibn al-Ass (governor of Egypt at the time) on the ground that some of it might have been acquired or retained improperly. Even if no misappropriation was involved, wrote Umar, the governor should have spent a larger proportion of his acquisitions in the way of God instead of accumulating them.

In his biography of Umar (Al Faruq), Maulana Shibli Nomani wrote that under Umar's rule every official (amil) filed a declaration of his assets upon taking office, and if his financial status improved noticeably during his employment, he was asked to account for it. The appointees also pledged to shun "Turkish horses, fine clothes, and fine flour."

A public official is not to let his personal interest intrude upon his duty to safeguard the "rights of mankind." Nor is he to confer benefits upon undeserving men and, thus, incite jealousies among others. In making appointments, he should scrutinize the capabilities and the character of candidates and make decisions without allowing "external influences" to bear on his consideration.

Friends and relatives do tend to surround a ruler and attempt to misdirect his actions. "If you find such men around you," said Ali to one of his governors, "do away with them and bring this scandalous situation to an end." Nizam al-Mulk counsels that public officials should not be admitted into the circle of the king's "boon companions", and the latter should not be appointed to public offices. Business and pleasure should be kept apart.

Once Umar's sons went to Egypt for a visit, and in that connection he wrote to the governor, saying: "If a member of my family sees you, you must not give him any gifts or otherwise treat with him in a preferential manner. If you do, suitable action will be taken against you."

Nizam al-Mulk advises that the king must maintain an efficient system of surveillance and reporting. He should keep himself posted on the condition of the peasantry, state of law enforcement, and the conduct of public officials. Overseers should send him situation reports regularly and promptly.

If he does not find and punish the wrongs his agents are committing, the people will feel that if he knows of them and does not prevent them, he is an oppressor like them, and if he does not know, he is negligent and ignorant. It is, therefore, vital to have ministers and officials who will tell the ruler the "bitter truth" unreservedly, without embellishing it merely to make it sound good. Umar and Ali voice the same concern in their official correspondence.

Nizam al-Mulk observes that persons should be appointed to watch the conduct of judges, tax collectors, police officers, and inspectors of weights and measures. Those found to be dishonest should be dismissed, and barred from future employment. Their assets should be seized, their victims compensated, and the remainder of their ill-gotten possessions confiscated.

Earlier Ali had given Malik the same advice.

Find the best available person for the job to be done. Nizam al-Mulk quotes the Prophet (PBUH) to the effect that he who appoints a man to a position, knowing that a better man is present in the community, has betrayed God, his Prophet, and the entire body of Muslims.

Much to the reader's pleasant surprise, he stresses another administrative principle, to wit, that no official should be allowed to hold two posts at the same time, for he will perform one of them poorly, and quite likely fail in both. Likewise, a single function should not be placed in the charge of two or more officials. Such sharing would generate irresponsibility, for each incumbent will reason that any work he does might go unacknowledged and unrewarded.

"The master will suppose that my partner has done the work." Apparently, the desire on the part of some officials to grab as many positions of power as possible was even stronger than it is in our own time. Nizam al-Mulk lamented that "there are men, utterly incapable, who hold 10 posts, and if another were to turn up, they would spend their efforts and money to get it; and nobody would consider whether such people have the requisite ability... and whether they can fulfil the numerous tasks they have already accepted."

We have seen Nizam al-Mulk's emphasis on competence and diligence. Public servants should do the day's work on the same day and, as we say now, clean up their desks before they go home. Writing to Abu Musa, Umar observes: "Let it be understood clearly that, for successful completion of a job, it is necessary that today's work is not put off to the next day. If it is, work will accumulate... and many things will remain undone."

In order to retain honest and competent officials, one must give them the highest consideration when merited. Speak well of them when they deserve praise, let their accomplishments be appreciated and made known. Recognition will increase their dedication to public service. Muslim administrative prescription tends to be generous in the matter of compensation. In the thinking of Umar and Ali, the state is obligated to provide every citizen the basic necessities of life.

The idea of a minimum wage is clearly implicit in this persuasion. One encounters the observation repeatedly that public officials should be paid well so as to keep them from temptation to corruption. But not so highly that they can adopt ostentatious lifestyles.

In his letter to Malik, the fourth pious caliph has contributed another interesting concept. The various levels in government, and in society at large, depend upon one another for their well-being. The government as a whole is like a "closely woven net" so that one class of officials cannot work satisfactorily without the support of others.

Judges, police officers, secretaries of state, and officials in all other departments perform roles essential for good government. They all have rights which the "Merciful Lord has fixed." The implication here seems to be that the various elements in this seamless web should be so placed as to keep them from overawing one another.

In sum Muslim administrative ethic would seem to include the following emphases: a service role and orientation; exclusion of arbitrariness, rule of law, and equality of all citizens before the law; facility of access to officials; arrangements for handling grievances against officials, including those of the highest rank; a reliable reporting system; unequivocal condemnation of graft, nepotism, and favouritism; selection of the right man for the right job; caution against excessive concentration of functions and power in a single individual; caution against "backlogs"; "human relations"; and balance within the public service system.

These emphases and principles appear to be eminently suitable for a state that wants to modernize its public administration. If Pakistan's administration were Islamic, it would ipso facto be modern. But it is not Islamic. In its actual functioning it violates every one of the concerns explained above.

The vast majority of the Pakistani public servants are Muslim. It is a fair assumption that they bear some degree of attachment to Islam. What keeps them from following its ethic pertaining to their craft? It cannot be ignorance. Islam is a required subject of study in most of the Pakistani schools and a fairly popular elective in college. It is also taught in the academies and institutes that train public servants. But apparently all this exposure is making no impact.

It may be argued that the bureaucracy, other organizations, and indeed the community at large will not turn to the Islamic ethic until the Islamic establishment (the professional ulema) turns its focus on mutual rights and obligations in societal interaction, concerns of the "earthly city," or what we call "haqooq al-ibad." Not until the individual Muslim begins to understand that, beyond attaining eternal bliss in the hereafter, Islam has an ameliorative relevance to his needs and aspirations, his longing for fulfilment, his pursuit of happiness, will the Islamic ethic have a significant number of adherents in actual practice.

Let it be remembered that the pious caliphs and the Muslim thinkers, referred to above, were addressing themselves to, and bringing Islam to bear upon, issues and problems relating to the well-being of the people here and now, not in some other life and in some other world.

Salaam Alaykum everyone,
This is something i came across which I thought would make us all laugh a bit. It really had me laughing for a while. Its a quote from Saturday Night Live(SNL) by Tina Fey. I hope you all enjoy it.

"President Bush has clarified his world view saying 'You`re either with us or... you`re with the terrorists but you have oil [Iraq]. Or you`re with us but you hate us [Egypt]. Or you`re with us, but you fund all the terrorism in the world[Saudi Arabia]. Or you`re a hundred percent with the terrorists except for on little guy in charge[Pakistan]. Or you `re with us but you cann't really help us[Iceland]. Or you`re with the terrorists with each other and against us even though you really hate each other[Iran, Iraq]."

This is something I came across and felt like sharing it with my brothers and Sister in Islam. I hope everyone learns from it and realize the truth behind this so called moderate Islam movement these days. May Allah guide us to the True Path(ISLAM) and help us achieve the real goal(JENNAH).Ameen!

Enlightened and moderate Islam

Dr Muzaffar Iqbal



The Quraan and Sunnah, the twin sources of Islam, are unalterable. This means that all efforts to change Islam would have to rely on interpretation of these sources. Everyone knows this, including those who are now attempting to erect a "moderate and enlightened" version of a faith that by its own definition is a middle path. Given this self-definition of Islam, rooted in the Qur’aan itself, one wonders what the meaning of the new slogan of an "enlightened" and "moderate" Islam could be. What are its basic contours, and how does it differ from the Islam revealed fourteen hundred years ago?

These pertinent questions never seem to arise in the minds of those who call for this new moderate and enlightened Islam, whether they live in Washington, DC or Islamabad. To be sure, their demand is well understood. What they mean is simple enough: they would like to see an Islam that is primarily the concern of individual lives; that is to say, a religion practiced by individual believers in their homes or in mosques solely as the means to attain personal salvation. This version of Islam would have little to do with the collective life of the community of believers (the Ummah) and would certainly be indifferent to the brazen acts of cruelty and gross injustice upon which a new social, political and economic order has been built.

It would certainly be a religion that would not be the source of guidance and inspiration for resistance against aggression. In other words, the entire political foundation of Islam would be removed and the Qur’aanic terms like Jihad would be understood only in their limited sense as personal struggle against some nebulous inner conflict. It is also understood that the propagators of "moderate Islam" would like to see a radical recasting of the entire Muslim history in order to secure their formulation by eliminating or obscuring events and personalities which continue to inspire the contemporary men and women who defy the injustice inherent in the new world order built upon the wreckage of the colonies that emerged in the post-World War II era.

This "moderate Islam" calls for reconciliation, rather than defiance and opposition, as the route to resolving the problems imposed upon the Muslim world by the Western aggression. But if these words were to mean anything substantial, they need to specifically state what is meant by reconciliation in real terms. How can the aggrieved, the oppressed and the disempowered offer reconciliation?

There are two aspects of the contemporary conflict. The first has to do with Muslims and the second with their faith. However, just as they always blur the difference between science and technology, the empty rhetoric of OIC-brand institutions and generals and politicians of all hues and colours never keep the essential distinction between Islam and Muslims in view while formulating their half-baked versions of a new Islam. It should be clear to all that Muslims do not possess Islam; no one does. As a set of beliefs, revealed for all humanity, Islam remains a meta-historical faith with a definite worldview. This aspect of the conflict stems from the fact that this Islamic worldview is fundamentally opposed to the worldview that has emerged in the modern West during the last four centuries. Based on the ultimate triumph of human reason, the modern Western worldview differs from that of Islam in numerous foundational respects such as the origin, destiny and main concerns of human life on this planet.



This, however, should not have been the basis of conflict. After all, there have always been numerous philosophies and belief systems that have existed in human history, often side by side. The root of the present conflict is the fact that both modern Western civilisation and Islam have claims to universality, and the modern West has achieved the means to impose its claim on the rest of the world through naked aggression; this is the real root of the conflict: two opposing worldviews and belief systems equally insistent about their universality, with one of them attempting to impose itself on the rest of the world in the most aggressive manner ever witnessed in human history.

The champions of the new Islam would like to enter into some kind of bargain with the West on this aspect and accept some parts of their worldview in exchange for their acceptance of some parts of Islam. But this is precisely what is impossible. Recall that the Makkans had offered a similar deal to the Prophet of Islam, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. And it was rejected, not by the Prophet, but Allah Himself in the clearest manner. Ignoring this impossibility, the propagators of moderate Islam would like to achieve this reconciliation through Ta’wiil (interpretation) of the source material to suit their ends. This impossibility imposes certain inherent limitations on this enterprise, based on the fact that Islam is not a religion put together in a piecemeal fashion; rather, it is a complete belief system that accepts no foreign element. Its tightly knit set of beliefs weaves individual lives with that of the community in a seamless manner. This built-in mechanism, which has protected Islam from becoming a docile faith, cannot be destroyed simply by reinterpretation of the sources.

This is not to say that interpretation does not matter. After all, there is a large body of impressive literature on the two primary sources of Islam that is, in this particular sense, nothing but interpretation. Whether it is the Qur’aanic exegesis or works dealing with various aspects of the life of the Prophet of Islam, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, interpretation abounds in Islamic literature. This large body of literature has, however, never been able to replace the original sources; whenever a believer is faced with crucial choices, he or she always turns to the primary sources, rather than the interpretive corpus. These primary sources do not accept any reduction of faith to the sphere of the personal. This, then, is the cul-de-sac which all efforts to erect the dummy of a so-called "moderate and enlightened" Islam face?

This does not, however, mean that these efforts have no impact on the Muslim society. To be sure, these attempts have already produced tremendous results: restaurants selling pork chops in Kabul, wine shops in Karachi, gambling dens in the Gulf States and night clubs in Amman are indicators of the kind of polity that is being built through an "enlightened and moderate" Islam. Social implications of state policies have great impact on individual lives. Gambling dens, wine shops and nightclubs promote a particular kind of culture, just as mosques and madaris for learning Qur’aanic sciences promote a certain kind of culture. Of course, the argument being offered by the promoters of this culture is that no one is forcing any individual to patronise gambling dens or night clubs, but this is not a sufficient argument because in an Islamic polity, the state is responsible for promoting what is pleasing to the Creator and what has been revealed to humanity as the best way of life. When a state allows the opposite, it becomes a party to the promotion of something other than Islam.

The Unusual Suspects  

Me and Ali Bhai (We lost all our sponsers :( ) 

My Trip To Lake Saif-ul-Maluk (Summer 02)