• Companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and their ranking :
A Hadith quotes the Prophet, peace be upon him, as saying to Khalid ibn Al-Waleed that should he be able to spend the weight of Mound Uhud in gold, he would not attain the merit of any of the Prophet's companions. Since Khalid himself was one of the Prophet's companions, does this Hadith mean that only some of the companions are considered as giving guidance which we should follow? The Hadith you have mentioned is authentic. It is related by Al-Bukhari and others. Its version in Al-Bukhari's Saheeh does not mention a particular incident which gave occasion to it. It simply quotes the Prophet, peace be upon him, as saying: "If one of you would spend in charity the weight of Mound Uhud, he would not attain the reward of one mudd spent by any of them, nor half of it." The term mudd refers to a measure used in Arabia at the time for any commodity which is bought and sold by volume. There is a particular incident which led to this statement by the Prophet, peace be upon him. It involved the renowned commander Khalid ibn Al-Waleed, and Abdurrahman ibn Auf — one of the ten companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, to whom he gave the happiest news of all that they would certainly be admitted into heaven. Apparently Khalid said something unpleasant to Abdurrahman, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, told him to quit that, adding this statement about the rank of his companions. Of course Khalid was one of the Prophet's companions. These are the ones mentioned in the Qur'an as having higher rank. God says: "Not equal are those of you who spent and fought (in God's cause) before the victory (and those who did not do so); they are of a higher degree than those who would spend and fight (only) after it — although God has promised the ultimate good to all. God is aware of all that you do." (57:10) In relation to the Prophet's companions, the state that separates the two groups is the victory which saw Makkah with its tribe that held the sway in Arabia, and the Quraish’s surrender to Islam. However, verse lays down a principle that applies to the relative merit of believers of all times who strive in God's cause before and/or after success has been achieved. Those who strive hard to help achieve that success are higher in rank than those who join the Islamic community after it has gained mastery. The first group are the ones who put in a real struggle, risking their lives and properly exposing themselves and their families to danger and risks of all kinds. Hence, they are identified more closely with the Islamic call. They are the ones who are ready to sacrifice their all again for their faith, should that be necessary. Of course Khalid ibn Al-Waleed was among those who accepted Islam before the surrender of Makkah. However, he only did so about a year earlier, while Abdurrahman ibn Auf was among those who accepted Islam in the very early period. He was a young man then, and he showed great determination to support the Islamic cause in all situations. Hence he earned a high rank among the Prophet's companions. Those who are among the pioneers always have an advantage over those who come later. As for guidance, the Prophet's companions provide for us an example of how to follow the teachings of Islam and the Prophet's guidance with determination and diligence. They do not provide guidance on their own behest. That is provided by God in the Qur'an and by the Prophet, peace be upon him, in the Hadith and Sunnah.
• Compulsion in religion and standard alternatives :
The Qur'an states very clearly that there is no compulsion with regard to faith. On the other hand, the Prophet, peace be upon him, offered the people of Najran that they should either accept Islam, or pay the jizyah, or else they should be ready to fight the Muslims. How is this to be reconciled with the Qur'anic statement?
The three alternatives offered by the Prophet, peace be upon him, to the people of Najran are the standard ones which Muslim states and rulers have always offered when they fought against any people who stood on a war footing with them. Whenever the Muslim armies were facing an enemy who had prepared to fight them, they offered that army, or the authority that were in control, those three alternatives: 1) To accept Islam and they would be part of the Muslim state, having all the rights and obligations of all Muslims without any discrimination; 2) To pay the jizyah; which is a tax that guaranteed them protection by Muslim state against any enemy in return for their being law-abiding citizens. They would also enjoy their religious freedom. If neither of these two options was accepted, then they would have to face the might of the Muslim army in battle.
This situation cannot be understood without looking at the events that brought those people face to face with the Muslim state. As you are aware, Islam is a message from God to all mankind. The Prophet, peace be upon him, was a messenger sent to all mankind. He is described in the Qur'an as having been sent as a "mercy to all worlds." Hence, it is his duty, and the duty of the advocates of Islam in all generations, and in all communities, to make Islam, God's message, known to all people, and to invite them to accept it as a faith. No pressure is to be brought on anyone to accept Islam. It is a matter for the individual to choose. However, Islam does not accept that any pressure be brought to bear on anyone to reject Islam, be that by a political or religious authority, or by social tradition. People must be free to choose. The advocates of Islam must have the freedom to address the people and to explain God's message to them.
The people of Najran were a Christian community, and authority among them belonged to their priest, who was helped by two influential people, known as As-Sayyid and Al-Aaqib. The Prophet, peace be upon him, addressed the three and advised them to accept God's message. He wanted them to give their people the freedom of choice and wanted to have access to the ordinary people in order to explain the message of Islam to them. They sent a delegation to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and there was a great deal of discussion between them. They did not wish to accept Islam. At one stage, after the delegation went back carrying a message from the Prophet to the priest, who wielded real power among them, the priest admitted that Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a messenger of God. His brother was furious with him for concealing the fact, and he immediately left for Madinah to meet the Prophet. Nevertheless, he did not accept Islam. The Prophet, peace be upon him, did not put any pressure on him to do so.
This is only one example showing us how authority, whether religious or secular, stood as a barrier preventing people from learning about Islam and believing in it, if they chose to do so. It is not acceptable to Islam that such a barrier should prevent people from following God's guidance. Hence, it makes its standard warning. If those in power would accept Islam and let their people accept it if they choose to do so, they would continue to be in power, under the overall authority of the Muslim state. This would ensure religious freedom for all, and make the new Muslims equal citizens. If not, then as a token of submission to the authority of the Muslim state, they would pay the jizyah, or the protection tax, and they would enjoy peace and safety, and their people would be free to join the Muslim ranks without any pressure.
When neither option is accepted, then that authority which stands as a barrier preventing people from choosing Islam must be destroyed. It is an authority that suppresses religious freedom. Therefore, it should be removed, and by war if necessary.
• Corrupt set-up: Following bad example in bribery & corruption :
In our part of the world there is so much corruption that it is practically impossible for anyone to get even what one is clearly entitled to without bribing the officials. This goes on all the time among the non-Muslim majority. The Muslim minority has always refrained from such practices. This has led to their deprivation. They are seldom able to rise in government hierarchy and they are economically underprivileged. Would it be permissible for Muslims in these circumstances to do like others in order to improve their status? [On the other hand, we see even the Muslim majority indulging in such practices.]
You may be aware that at the dawn of Islam, the Muslim armies were able to liberate vast areas of the world from tyrannical governments. Invariably, the Muslim armies were fighting against much superior forces. Yet neither greater numbers nor better armament could stem the Islamic tide. When we consider the reasons for such great victories, we find a revealing statement by Umar ibn Al-Khattab, the second caliph, when he was bidding farewell to one of his commanders who was at the head of an army dispatched to fight against the forces of the Persian Empire.
In his farewell advice, Umar stressed the importance that the commander and his army should always watch their actions and commit nothing that Islam does not approve. He told him: "Muslims are granted victory on account of their enemy's disobedience to God. Should we be at the same level of disobedience as they are, we would be no match to them."
I think you have your answer in this statement. If Muslims were to follow the same corrupt practices as others, what would distinguish them? How can they prove, even to themselves, that Islam is the religion of the truth which makes it imperative that every one should have their rights?
If Muslims were to take bribes and facilitate the business of only those who are ready to pay the larger bribe, how can they stand in prayer and address God by saying: "You alone do we worship and from You alone do we seek support." Would it not be true to say then that their actions belie their statements?
They would be worshipping money, putting it in the same position as God because they would be ready to abandon every principle in order to get money. They would also be seeking support from those who wield power in their society, not relying on God's support. For Muslims to do that is totally unacceptable.
Some people may try to justify resorting to such practices on account of its being the only way for Muslims to acquire wealth, influence and power. But this is a very short-sighted view. For one thing , they are talking about this life only when Islam always relates this present life to the life Hereafter and considers that only when we take the latter into account we have a proper perspective. This is certainly the right attitude to adopt. What use are power, influence and wealth if we are to lose our values and come on the day of judgment to stand in front of God carrying a long record of bribery and corruption?
Moreover, whatever we gain in this life will definitely be short-lived. Whatever comes through corrupt practices is bound to go in the same way as it came. A person may get money if he takes bribes, and he may be able to buy the silence or consent of his superiors by giving them a slice of what he gets. But there will always be someone who wishes him ill, and tries to take his position either by acquiring greater wealth and power through the same practices or by other means.
Many a corrupt official was made a scapegoat for the whole system which may be corrupt to the core. These systems must always portray an image of doing something against corruption. They normally get rid of the weaker in their midst, or those whose corruption has become public knowledge. What would the Muslim community be gaining if it joins the corrupt system for petty gains?
Besides, Islam never accepts the motto that the end justifies means. In this case, giving the Muslim community or individuals power and influence would be cited as the reason for doing away with important Islamic values and principles. Indeed Islam wants its followers to always show that their principles and values determine their behavior even when they may work to their apparent or immediate disadvantage. In the end things will be put to right and adherence to principles and values will prove to be very much in favor of the Muslims in the long-term.
What we must always remember is that Islam is a practical religion. It does not set ideals that relate to a superior type of life in an ideal world which has no real substance. Islam lays down principles that must be applied by human beings in human life. That is the only way to ensure happiness of human beings in this world and in the life to come.
Muslims who are able to do without power and influence because they would not sacrifice their values for a financial gain enjoy a kind of happiness here in this life which no corrupt official will ever experience. Do we want to deprive Muslims of that? If we do, we will only be doing Muslims a great disservice.