Sheikh Al-­Islam Ibn Taymiya, May Allah grant him forgiveness, was asked about a man, who assumed public offices and undertook responsibility for certain fiefs whose inhabitants were required to pay the State ­ imposed taxes levied as per the practice of all governments. That man chose to lift all the injustice off people's shoulders, seeking to do so with all his effort, knowing that if he resigned his office the injustice would remain as it was, if it did not become worse. The man could alleviate the tax burdens of his subjects, dropping half the taxes but collecting the other half because that half should be collected as repayment for public expenses. Was that man to remain in his office, his intentions and efforts for lifting as much injustice as possible having been known, or should he resign his office and leave the fief for someone else to run, while he knew that his resignation would lift no injustice but could leave the injustice to proliferate? Would he be sinning if he remained in office? If not, would it be right to ask him to remain? Which would be better for him: to stay in office and try to alleviate the injustice as much as he could, or resign his office and let the injustice stay and increase? If the subjects in his fief chose to have him remain in office due to the benefit they gained from his stay through his lifting of injustice, should he stay?

The Sheikh answered:

"Praise be to Allah. Yes, he should stay in office if he is a good man who tries to lift as much injustice as he can, if his being in office is better than having another in his place, and if his control of his fief is better than its control by someone else. He may stay in office, and will not be committing a sin if he does so. His remaining in office is even better than leaving it unless he occupies himself with something better.

"This [stay in office] may even be a duty that such a man has to discharge if there is nobody else who can undertake it, for the establishment of justice and elimination of injustice as much as possible is a collective duty, and should be undertaken by any individual who finds in himself the ability to do so while others cannot undertake it, but he who does so should not be asked in this case to lift an injustice that he cannot cope with.

Such a man should not be asked to lift any taxes that the rulers levy on their subjects in his fief if he cannot lift such taxes. Besides, if the rulers and their representatives demand funds that cannot be paid unless some of these taxes are collected, so that if this man does not pay them what they want they will give his position and fief to someone else who will continue, or increase, the injustice, then the collection of some of these taxes on behalf of the rulers would be better than having all the taxes collected. For if this man tries to be as just as he can, then he is better than others, even if he gives evil persons some of what they demand to make it possible for him to avoid their evil. This man will be rewarded for collecting tax from Muslims if he has to collect it but does not do the injustice himself, and he will not be punished for collecting it if he is collecting it under the aforesaid conditions. He will not be punished in this life or in the Hereafter if he does his best to insure that justice is served as much as possible.

Such a man is like a guardian of orphans, a trustee of waqf (religious trust), a partner in commerce or any such individual who acts on behalf of others by virtue of his guardianship or by proxy: he is like them in their payment of some of the money of their principals of clients to an unjust ruler if this is the only way to serve the interests of their clients. This man will be doing right, not wrong, and what he gives the rulers includes what is given to tax collectors in real-estate tax and sales tax, as anyone who makes a transaction for himself or on behalf of others in these countries has to pay these taxes, and if he does not collect the tax, while he cannot see to the affairs of his subjects without it, the interests of his subjects, and his subjects themselves, will be harmed.

As for those who opine that such a situation should not be allowed to­ exist in order not to accept a little injustice, if they are followed by people, the injustice and corruption will certainly increase, for they are like travellers stopped by bandits: if they do not pacify the bandits with some of their money, the bandits will kill them and take all their money. if anyone says to these travellers, "It is illegal to give the bandits any of your money", he means to keep that little money he is advising them not to pay, but if they follow his advice they will lose that little money and all their money as well. Nobody in his right mind would give such advice, let alone that a religion has ordain it, for Allah the Almighty sent down His Messengers to establish, attain public interests and eliminate and curb evils as much as possible.

If such a man who tries to collect as little tax as possible, and spares the people much more evil by so doing, and can do nothing else, leaves his offices, he will be succeeded by someone else who will collect all the tax and spare the people nothing. Such a man will be rewarded for what he does, and will not be punished (for that) in this world or in the Hereafter.

Such as man is like orphan's guardians and waqfs' trustees who can do their duty only by payment of unjust tax imposed by the government, for if any of them abandons his job he will be replaced by someone who will aggravate the injustice. Therefore, their stay in office is permissible, and they will be committing no sin by paying such taxes. Their remaining in office may even be a duty they have to discharge.

This also applies to the soldier appointed to run a certain fief, who collects less tax from the people but cannot deliver all the tax he collects to the government because he is asked to provide weapons, horses and other things that he can acquire only by taking some of the tax. A well armed soldier serves Muslims well in war. If someone tells him that he has no right to take any of the money and has to leave the fief, and he leaves it to be run by someone else who increases the injustice and does nothing to serve Muslims, this someone will have spoken out of ignorance of the facts of religion. Even the presence of Turkish and Arabian soldiers, who are better than soldiers of others and are closer to justice with people, with the injustice alleviated as much as possible, is better for Muslims than having the fiefs run by others who are less useful and more unjust.

Any of these officials and agents who does his best to be just and charitable will be rewarded for what good they do, and will not be punished for not doing the good that is beyond their means, and they will not be called to account for what they collect or spend if there is noting else they can do, as not collecting the tax and not spending the money as they do will lead to greater evils.

One of the great scholars of Islam, actually many give him the title of Sheikh Al-­Islam Ibn Taymiya Rahim Allah (may Allah have mercy on him), while some people might consider him to be conservative on some issues, in fact he has been so open-minded to the point that he gave a verdict when he was asked.

He said suppose the enemies of Islam invade Muslim lands and rule according to their own law. In other words, they frustrate the application of Shariah, and they're ruling according to their own secular non-Islamic or maybe anti-Islamic type of laws. And then they go to a Muslim to serve as a judge. Should he accept the position or not? I would not tell you how Ibn Taymiya answered that question, but I can tell you what some people today might say. What do you think they would say?

They would say how come? If he accepts, he would be a Kaffir. He would be outside of Islam. Why? Because he accepts to be the implementer, as a judge, of a law other than the law of Allah, knowingly. He should refuse.
 
But do you know what Ibn Taymiya said? He said that he should accept. Do you know the reason he gave?

He said, all right, under the circumstances, the presence of a Muslim judge who fears Allah, even though he cannot control, of course, the law, that's beyond his ability, but his presence in his position, is more likely in comparative terms, to bring greater justice because you know any judge can use his own judicial discretion. There is some area of flexibility. He can use his judicial discretion to achieve the greatest amount of justice as compared to a non-Muslim or a person who does not believe in Shariah or does not fear Allah, he could be an oppressive judge following the system fully and wholeheartedly, who would even bring greater harm to people.
 
In fact, some scholars even refer to an interesting situation at the time of Prophet Joseph (peace be upon him). You know Prophet Joseph was in Egypt. He was not a lawmaker yet he was the one even who offered to be in charge of the distribution of food supplies before the famine started.
 
Some scholars comment and say there is no question that Joseph was occupying this high ministerial position in the state position of power under a system that was definitely contrary to the teaching of Allah. There's no question. He was ruling or taking authority and control in a system where he could not stop, for example, the Pharaoh and other chieftains from getting more than their fair share.

Yet, still, his fear of Allah, his wisdom and the position of power that he occupied enabled him to serve masses of people who otherwise could have starved from not doing that. That's basically the reasoning given by Sheikh Al­-Islam Ibn Taymiya on this issue.

{no-combomax}

---