“Woe upon you, O Uthman, did you not see the Messenger of Allah
(s.a.w.a.), Abu Bakr and Umar; was their practice as such? Indeed, you have cast
me into hardships like an oppressor.”
He also said: “Follow the practice of your two friends, so that no one might
pick faults with you.”
Uthman said: “What do you have to do with this. O one without mother.”
Abu Zar said: “By God, I don’t find any excuse for myself, except that I
should enjoin good and forbid evil.”
At this point, you will find Abu Zar calling the attention to time of Prophet
and then to the times of Abu Bakr and Umar and he wants him to follow those
practices. But special ownership was fully apparent in these periods and there
existed wealthy and rich people, who were free to spend in any way they liked;
and every wealth, including gold, silver, houses, agricultural lands, habitations
and provisions were restricted for their owners. It is mentioned in Holy Quran:
يَأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُمْ بَيْنَكُمْ بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلَّا أَنْ تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَنْ تراض
“O you who believe! do not devour your property among
yourselves falsely, except that it be trading by your mutual
consent.”1
…and this verse has attributed wealth to its owners and spending from them
by foul is regarded as unlawful, except that it should be lawful trading with
permission of its owner; then this discretion would be lawful. And in more than
twenty verses, wealth is related to their owners.2
So, Abu Zar’s call was to the opposite of socialism, which removed private
ownership. And he regarded opposition to this school [opposite of socialism] as
evil; which should be prohibited, and the following statement of Uthman to him:
“What have you got to do with this? O motherless,” did not restrain him.
His statement to Muawiyah, when he constructed the Green Palace was:
“This Green Palace you constructed is either from Public Treasury, in that case,
you committed dishonesty and if it is from your personal wealth, it is
prodigality.”
In this statement, Abu Zar has divided wealth into two parts: wealth of God
and wealth of man; and to the first he has attributed dishonesty and to the second,
prodigality. He did not regard discretion of Muawiyah over wealth a blemish; on
the contrary regarded dishonesty or prodigality as faults. If he had regarded ownership as defect, he should have condemned its actual ownership. But you see
that property of Muslims like war booties, which fell to the Muslims without
fighting (Fayy), taxes and booties, which come through fighting; are named
property of Allah.
He also quoted this nomenclature of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to Uthman,
saying: “I testify that I heard Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) say: When the
descendants of Abul Aas reach upto thirty, they would transfer the wealth of God
among their hands and enslave servants of God and deem the religion of God as a
source of deceit.”
Maula Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) testified for him in this tradition. And this
nomenclature was not restricted to the times of Abu Zar and Muawiyah, on the
contrary it was used before and after that as well. Whenever Umar passed by
Khalid, he said: “O Khalid, remove the wealth of Allah from your house.”
Maula Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) said: “If these properties had been my
personal property I would have distributed them equally; what to say when it is
the property of Allah? Indeed, giving away of wealth other than what is its right,
is prodigality.”3
Thus the nomenclature of ‘property of Muslims’ was customary before and
after that period also. Umar bin Khattab said to Abdullah bin Arqam: “I distribute
the public treasury once a month…”4
and Maula Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) said:
“Indeed, this wealth is not your or mine personal property. It is only the booty of
Muslims.”5
It is mentioned in his letter to Ziyad bin Abih: “I swear by Allah that if I find
you misappropriating the wealth of Muslims, I will punish you in such a way that
you will be left poor.”6
None of these two nomenclatures have proper justification, but naming it as
‘property of God’ is due to the fact that it is the property of Allah, Mighty and
High and that is He has ordered removing from it a fixed minimum amount to be
paid as tax and also specified the ways in which it can be spent. As for it being
named as ‘property of Muslims’ is that they are its spenders.
Among the statements of Abu Zar is his statement to Muawiyah when he
sent three hundred dinars to him: “If it is my share, which you deprived me of
this year, I will accept it and if it is a gift, I don’t need it.”
You can see that Abu Zar divided wealth into two parts: obligatory
bestowal, which was denied to him that year – due to enjoining good and
forbidding evil – and wealth owned by one person, and which is gifted; because,
benevolence takes the shape of personal wealth and not from the rights of God
and usurped property. What is the connection between this and ending ownership under socialist viewpoint? In addition to that those things are not named as
bestowal and rights of human beings, and they only are recompense according to
the cost of labor.