Sin of the Publican

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله رب العلمين

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

A curiosity in the New Testament is that the publican or tax-collector was considered sinful: “And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” (Matthew 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30), “The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children” (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34), “Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:10-13)

Muslims can understand this point because the Islamic Shari’ah has forbidden oppressive taxation. The Holy Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله والسلام عليه said concerning the adulteress who became pregnant but confessed her adultery to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم because she wanted to sincerely repent, thereby accepting the death penalty by stoning for her sin after delivering her illegitimate child:

فَوَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَقَدْ تَابَتْ تَوْبَةً لَوْ تَابَهَا صَاحِبُ مَكْسٍ لَغُفِرَ لَهُ

By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, she has repented with (such) a repentance that if the tax-collector repented with it he would be forgiven (Sahih Muslim)

The Hadith actually illustrates just how grave the sin of the sahib maks (publican or tax-collector) is, and is a proof that levying mukus or taxes oppressively upon the people is extremely evil and forbidden. The time we are living in now is that of the modern nation state. The modern state is an almost omnipresent institution that leaves little liberty and privacy for the citizenry. It had levied all sorts of oppressive taxes upon the common man, such as income tax, property tax, sales tax and customs duties. If such taxation is burdensome upon the Muslim, he is surely justified, in the sight of God, in committing tax evasion. But before doing so one must consult with a qualified and God-fearing Islamic scholar or mufti, for Islamic Fiqh may allow taxation in certain circumstances in which it is a necessity to run the essential functions of the government, especially defense while not being burdensome upon the Muslims. So it is mentioned that when some publicans approached the Prophet Yahya—John the Baptist—he instructed them: “Exact no more than that which is appointed you” (Luke 3:13)

Ibn Taymiyyah أسأل الله أن يغفر له was asked:

عن رجل متول ولايات ومقطع إقطاعات وعليها من الكلف السلطانية ما جرت به العادة وهو يختار أن يسقط الظلم كله ويجتهد في ذلك بحسب ما قدر عليه وهو يعلم أنه إن ترك ذلك وأقطعها غيره وولى غيره فإن الظلم لا يترك منه شيء بل ربما يزداد وهو يمكنه أن يخفف تلك المكوس التي في إقطاعه فيسقط النصف والنصف الآخر جهة مصارف لا يمكنه إسقاطه فإنه يطلب منه لتلك المصارف عوضها وهو عاجز عن ذلك لا يمكنه ردها فهل يجوز لمثل هذا بقاؤه على ولايته وإقطاعه وقد عرفت نيته واجتهاده وما رفعه من الظلم بحسب إمكانه أم عليه أن يرفع يده عن هذه الولاية والإقطاع وهو إذا رفع يده لا يزول الظلم بل يبقى ويزداد فهل يجوز له البقاء على الولاية والإقطاع كما ذكر وهل عليه إثم في هذا الفعل أم لا وإذا لم يكن عليه إثم فهل يطالب على ذلك أم لا وأي الأمرين خير له أن يستمر مع اجتهاده في رفع الظلم وتقليله أم رفع يده مع بقاء الظلم وزيادة وإذا كانت الرعية تختار بقاء يده لما لها في ذلك من المنفعة به ورفع ما رفعه من الظلم فهل الأولى له أن يوافق الرعية أم يرفع يده والرعية تكره ذلك لعلمها أن الظلم يبقى ويزداد برفع يده

A man who is in charge of provinces and fiefs and has the usual amount of royal duties imposed on him, and he chooses to eliminate all injustice and strives to do so to the best of his ability, knowing that if he abandons that and assigns them to someone else and appoints someone else, the injustice will not be left behind; rather, it may increase. He can reduce the taxes in his fief, eliminating half of them, and the other half will be for expenses that he cannot eliminate. He will be asked to compensate for those expenses, and he is unable to do so and cannot return them. Is it permissible for such a person to remain in his governorship and fief? You have known his intention and his efforts, and what injustice he eliminated to the best of his ability. Or must he withdraw his hand from this governorship and fief, since if he withdraws his hand, the injustice will not go away, but will remain and increase. Is it permissible for him to remain in the governorship and fief, as mentioned? Is there a sin on him for this action? Or not? If there is no sin on him, is he required to do so? Or not? Which of the two is better for him: to continue with his efforts to eliminate and reduce the injustice, or to withdraw his hand while the injustice remains and increases. If the subjects choose to keep him in power because of the benefit he brings to them and the removal of the injustice he has removed, is it better for him to agree with the subjects or to withdraw his hand? The subjects would hate that because they know that injustice will remain and increase if he withdraws his hand.

Ibn Taymiyyah answered:

الحمد لله نعم إذا كان مجتهدا في العدل ورفع الظلم بحسب إمكانه وولايته خير وأصلح للمسلمين من ولاية غيره واستيلاؤه على الإقطاع خير من استيلاء غيره كما قد ذكر فإنه يجوز له البقاء على الولاية والإقطاع ولا إثم عليه في ذلك

Praise be to Allah. Yes, if he strives for justice and removing injustice according to his ability, and his authority is better and more beneficial for the Muslims than the authority of someone else, and his taking over the fief is better than someone else taking over, as has been mentioned, then it is permissible for him to remain in the authority and fief, and there is no sin on him for that (Majmu al-Fatawa, v.30, p.357)