Now the question arises: why did Islām not forcefully make the division of wealth equal as well? In other words, just as Islām has established absolute and complete equality in legal affairs; and has established absolute and complete equality in the division of national offices; and has established a kind of brotherly equality in social interaction; and has declared all of mankind the progeny of one father; and all Muslims as brothers, why did it not institute a scheme whereby wealth could also be equally divided amongst all of mankind? The brief answer to this question is that Islām has not done so because this is injustice, and Islām came to eradicate injustice, not to institute it. The blind equal division of wealth means that firstly, all the acquired wealth of the people would be forcefully snatched from them and secondly, the power and right to produce wealth in the future would also be snatched from them and both of these things are unjust. No doubt, for the rights of the nation, reasonable restrictions can be placed on the rights of individuals, and no doubt, individuals can be demanded to offer necessary sacrifices for the well-being of the nation. However, to completely expunge the rights of individuals and fully usurp them in the name of the nation is injustice, which Islām does not permit. In addition to this, if one contemplates by treading this path, not only is individuality completely effaced, rather, eventually nationalism is also brought to an end. This is because the ‘nation’ is but a name for a collection of individuals and if individuals are deprived of the right to earn wealth and reap its fruits, its definite outcome shall be that the most powerful natural incentive for the production of wealth shall be lost. It is obvious that if this incentive is lost, they shall ultimately lose the strength to produce wealth as well, and slowly but surely their mental faculties shall deteriorate. No doubt, at the present time this danger seems to be conjectural, but every individual who possesses the ability to truly rationalise can understand that after a period in time, such national dangers become a reality.
Furthermore, in addition to this, the complete equal division of wealth is not even found in communist countries. For example, do Marshall Stalin and Mr. Molotov and other Russian lords eat the same food which a Russian labourer or farmer eats? Do they wear the same clothing which a Russian labourer or farmer wears? Do they reside in the same homes which a Russian labourer or farmer resides in? Do they travel in the same circumstances as does a Russian labourer or farmer? If not, and definitely such is the case, then where is the equality? The only difference is that one has looted the country’s wealth in the name of capitalism, while the other has erected the veil of communism, and in the guise of a servant to the community, has secured special luxuries for himself. The natural and instinctive method, is the one established by Islām. In other words, individual rights and individual struggle and effort should continue, while the phenomenon for uplifting the poor and fulfilling the needs of the poor from a portion of the wealth of the affluent should also prevail. Along with this, it should be ensured that the wealth of the country and nation is protected from being inequitably accumulated into the hands of a few.
In actuality, the entire delusion lies in the fact that the categories of human rights have not been analysed. Human rights are of two kinds. Firstly, those rights, the responsibility of which is upon the government, such as the establishment of equity and justice, or the division of national offices, etc. Secondly, those rights which are either inherently or naturally possessed, such as physical strengths or mental faculties, etc., or those which are acquired as a result of individual labour or individual struggle and effort, such as wealth, or procured knowledge, etc. Islām has very wisely maintained a fundamental difference between these two categories of rights. In other words, as far as those rights which the government is responsible for are concerned, as we have already seen, complete equality has been established, and a distinction between different nations and people has not been permitted at all. However, where the sphere of the second category of rights begins, which relate to natural faculties and individual struggle and effort, Islām has intervened to a reasonable extent and has undoubtedly endeavoured to distribute the difference between different classes and different people, but has not followed the course of uniformly expunging all differences by way of injustice and coercion. Furthermore, the truth is, it is impossible to remove all differences in this regard. For example, who can erase the difference of physical strengths or the difference of mental faculties? And if these differences cannot be removed, then it is obvious that the natural outcome of these differences cannot be erased either. Nonetheless, since man is a social creature and one aspect of his nature is that inasmuch as possible, he spends his life offering sacrifice for others, whilst maintaining the individualism of mankind, Islām has undoubtedly demanded that they offer various sacrifices for the needs of the nation. Moreover, it has taken this demand to the furthest possible extent required in uplifting the surrounding downtrodden people as much as possible, without effacing the individualism of man and following the course of injustice. This point is one that after comprehending it, the issue of Islāmic equality and communism is automatically solved, on the condition of course, that an individual is willing to understand it with integrity.