Question:
A speech by Mujahid of Sri Lanka from many years ago about the hadith that possessing agricultural tools is disgraceful is now being spread. What is your explanation for this?
Answer:
Abu Umamah al-Bahili came to someone’s house. He saw agricultural tools like a plough, shovel, etc. He said, “I heard the Prophetﷺ say: ‘If these tools enter a house, Allahﷻ will cause disgrace (Dhillah) to enter that house.'”
So, if agricultural tools are in a house, disgrace will come. If such a hadith is true, then it would mean one should not do farming. If having farming tools brings disgrace, then Islamic countries should abandon farming, considering it a lowly job. But there is much evidence in Islam praising agriculture.
Since this hadith would nullify agriculture, it is false hadith. We have written an article titled “Is possessing a plough a blameworthy, disgraceful act?” and also made a video. Mujahid gave a refutation of this hadith years ago. They are now bringing that video to our attention.
What is his refutation? He gives an example: Allahﷻ willed for a person to be a disbeliever, but He did not love that he became a disbeliever. Similarly, Allahﷻ willed for a person not to pray, but He did not love that he didn’t pray.
You need to understand the concept of Qadr (divine decree) properly. Regarding the phrase “Allahﷻ will cause disgrace to enter,” we need to see if this disgrace is religious or worldly. The word Dhillah (disgrace) has two types. Prophetﷺ was driven from Makkah to Medina; by worldly standards, that was disgrace, but with Allahﷻ, it was honor.
He lost the battle of Uhud; by worldly standards, that was disgrace, but with Allahﷻ, it was a lesson. Allahﷻ says He humiliates whom He wills and honors whom He wills. If someone is removed from power, they are humiliated worldly, but not necessarily in Allahﷻ’s sight. When someone loses something, they are humiliated worldly, but it doesn’t mean it’s a punishment from Allahﷻ.
We need to understand: Is Allahﷻ stating this as a punishment, or is it the natural law for farmers? Secondly, is the disgrace worldly or in the Hereafter? We can understand this beautifully. Farmers have always received disgrace as their lot. Do we see that in our society?
How many people say, “My son is a good farmer”? Are you ready to say it? I am not ready to say it, neither are you. Planting trees at home is fine. But buying a field and seeing your son work in it? We don’t desire that. Why don’t we desire it? We look down upon that state.
So, what is the beautiful way to understand what Prophetﷺ said? He said that the condition of the person into whose house this (agricultural tool) enters will be like this. Is the Prophetﷺ praising this or condemning it? Look at the context of the hadith, you will understand.
Looking at all agricultural subjects, you can understand. Prophetﷺ says that whenever this enters a house, it brings disgrace into that house. But what should it bring? It should bring honor. But Allahﷻ, as a decree, has placed it in this world. That is what the Prophetﷺ is stating. Looking at other hadiths related to agriculture, you can understand naturally.
When a country is conquered, who is humiliated first? The farmers. They are enslaved and degraded. Allahﷻ has decreed this until the Day of Judgment, says the Prophetﷺ . But above that disgrace, they have great benefits. Why? Because the whole world eats through their farming.
So, the refutation is that the disgrace is worldly disgrace. Is it a matter of pride today to be a farmer? Do you speak proudly of your son being a farmer? It is seen as disgraceful. Allahﷻ has arranged it that way in the world. The Prophetﷺ was not degrading farming; he was stating a reality. If someone engages in farming, he will lose respect and become humiliated. We see this with our own eyes. So, the Prophetﷺ ‘s statement is true in the world.
He doesn’t have knowledge of the world. The nature of the farmer in that era? The landowner (Mirasu) was the one who had status. During British rule, they were given voting rights. In 1909, the Indian Councils Act gave separate constituencies to landowners and high taxpayers. Landowners had the right to contest elections. It was not without respect.
In 1919, only landowners had the right to vote. He says farming is lowly. There is subsistence farming on half an acre, one acre. That person has no respect. But if you do it on 1000 acres, it is respectful. The person with half an acre or one acre, does he have respect? It’s like a small shopkeeper.
Do you say a small shopkeeper has no respect, but a supermarket owner has respect? Farming itself was a determinant of status even during British rule in Sri Lanka. Large landowners existed. They were forces that determined politics. The Mirasdars had great power. In some areas, they were given the responsibility of tax collection and even village judge positions.
So, when he says farmers are disrespected, he is looking at subsistence farmers. Anyone who does anything on a small scale will have less respect. A tea stall owner on the roadside has less respect. But a big hotel owner has respect. If it is on a large scale, it generally has respect in any profession. If it’s small-scale, what will he earn? There will be less respect.
What he says is that there is no disgrace in farming itself. If you go to Japan, China, they farm thousands of acres and earn a lot. Today, Arabs have modern farms and become millionaires. They are engaged in industry. He says we see with our own eyes that farming is disgraceful.
What kind of farming is he looking at? He looks at subsistence farmers and asks if they have respect. That person has no respect. But did big landowners have respect or not? If someone had 1000 acres, didn’t he have respect? If he had 10,000 acres and farmed, didn’t he have respect? Those with large agricultural farms, isn’t that respect? He says disgrace. Who is in disgrace?
The disgrace is not because of farming itself. It’s because of doing it on a small scale. He looks at a village where people have one acre each. Their income isn’t even sufficient for food. If they don’t earn enough for food, what respect will they have?
That’s not due to farming. Even a small grocery shop or a vegetable stall on the street, that person has less respect. If you set up a big shop with AC, it will be respectful. Even barbers have become respectable today by setting up AC beauty parlours. So, is there no respect for those who do farming? Ask the people. Is the farmer you see doing subsistence farming the only type?
In China, a former actor went to America, bought massive lands, did various types of farming, and became a multi-millionaire industrialist. We read history. So, there is no disgrace in farming at all. It doesn’t exist practically. He tries to validate it by saying it is practical. He asks if the Prophetﷺ ‘s statement is true: does a farmer become humiliated? Does he have respect? The farmers he sees are the struggling ones. That is not the definition of a farmer. That’s a small level.
There were larger farmers like Uthman (RA) who had huge farms. Did he become humiliated? Many Sahabah had large gardens. Umar had a large garden. Abu Talhah had a garden. They were all farming. Were they considered degraded or honoured in society? They were honoured. Uthman (RA) gave charity from it.
So, farming has never been disgraceful in any era. If some have less respect, it’s because of the small scale of their earnings. The land is small, the person works himself, income is insufficient. In such a situation, people don’t value them. He gives this as an example, but the example is wrong.
The government even gave tax collection responsibilities to farmers. In the Legislative Assembly, only landowners (Mirasdars) could become MLAs. That was considered honorable. They didn’t give it to big businessmen. So, the term Mirasdar refers to people at a high level in farming. So, his reasoning is incorrect. Secondly, he talks about divine will (Iradah) and decree (Qadr).
He gives the example of a disbeliever. A disbeliever is so by Allahﷻ’s decree. But Allahﷻ does not love disbelief. He tries to apply this theological concept to this hadith. Allahﷻ does something only if He wills it. He doesn’t do anything unwillingly. Everything, including the sun revolving, is by His will and decree.
The distinction between will and decree applies only to humans, because Allahﷻ gave them free will. For the rest of creation, everything happens by Allahﷻ’s will and decree. He is trying to apply the exception (which is for human choices regarding faith) universally. For a disbeliever, Allahﷻ decrees disbelief, but He does not love it. That is for matters of faith.
For worldly matters, like a disbeliever opening a shop, Allahﷻ wills it and also loves it? He wills it as a decree. There is no separate ‘love’ or ‘dislike’ for such neutral acts. The hadith about agricultural tools is not about a matter of faith. It’s about a worldly cause and effect. Trying to apply the theological nuance of ‘will’ and ‘decree’ meant for disbelief to a mundane statement about tools is incorrect.
Therefore, the hadith is false. There is no alternative opinion. The idea that farming brings disgrace is false.