In the verse describing Qarun, Allah says: “And We had given him of the treasures whose keys would burden a band of strong men” (Qur’an 28:76)[1]. This verse, when read with an imaginative yet theologically serious lens, stirs a debate within me, between mind and heart, as I witness the state granting mining concessions to Islamic organizations. Is this an act of trust, or is it a Qarunic trap wrapped in the robe of piety?

My mind, trained in normative reasoning, whispers that Islamic organizations, entrusted with the mission of da‘wah, deserve access to resources to strengthen the economic foundation of the ummah. Within the logic of siyāsah shar‘iyyah, the state is permitted to grant i‘ṭā’ (allocations) to entities deemed capable of upholding public interest[2]. Ibn Taymiyyah in al-Siyāsah al-Shar‘iyyah asserts that a ruler may manage and distribute public wealth insofar as it serves the public welfare and averts harm[3]. If such organizations are deemed trustworthy and capable, why not?

Yet my heart, tutored in the stillness of zuhd and the legacy of the pious predecessors (salaf), protests. Did not the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) say, as narrated by Ahmad: “By Allah, I do not fear that you will commit shirk after me, but I fear that the world will be opened to you as it was to those before you, and you will compete for it as they did”[4]? Imam al-Ghazālī in Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn offered a searing critique of religious scholars and leaders who became servants of worldly power, exploiting religion for material gain[5]. So, if mining wealth is a tribulation (fitnah), will Islamic organizations guard it faithfully or become Qarun in the cloak of a movement?

My mind tries to reassure my heart with classical fiqh. In the Hanafi and Maliki schools, natural resources like minerals are classified as māl mubāḥ, resources open for management by the state and distribution to those who serve the public good, within the bounds of justice[6]. Yet my heart recalls Ibn Qudāmah in al-Mughnī, warning of the danger of monopolizing public wealth, especially if done without shūrā (consultative governance) involving the community[7].

So, should Islamic organizations accept or reject these mining concessions? My mind says, “Accept them, if they are used transparently and for empowering the ummah.” But my heart replies, “Reject them, lest you lose the spirit of da‘wah that gives without condition.” And in the midst of this inner struggle, I can only pray: “Rabbana hablana min ladunka basîrah”, so that what we manage is not the treasure of Qarun, but a trust like the hand of Abu Dharr, who refused power for the sake of sincerity[8].

 

Footnotes

1. Qur’an 28:76, According to al-Ṭabarī, the term kunūz (treasures) refers to immense wealth that can breed arrogance if not restrained by piety.
2. See al-Māwardī’s al-Aḥkām al-Sulṭāniyyah, where he argues that governance entails discretion over resources in the pursuit of public interest (maṣlaḥah).
3. Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Siyāsah al-Sharʿiyyah fī Iṣlāḥ al-Rāʿī wa al-Raʿiyyah, ed. ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad (Riyadh: Dār al-ʿĀṣimah, 1998), pp. 100–103.
4. Musnad Aḥmad, no. 22836. Scholars interpret this hadith as a warning about the corruptive potential of wealth more than theological deviance.
5. al-Ghazālī, Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn, Vol. 1, Book of Knowledge. He strongly criticized scholars who sought the favor of rulers and neglected their ethical responsibilities.
6. See Wahbah al-Zuḥaylī, al-Fiqh al-Islāmī wa Adillatuhu, Vol. 4, pp. 2620–2625. Natural resources are discussed as māl mubāḥ under state authority with ethical obligations.
7. Ibn Qudāmah, al-Mughnī, Vol. 5, in the section on ghanīmah (war booty) and public wealth. He stresses the importance of communal consultation and transparency.
8. See the narration of Abu Dharr al-Ghifārī’s refusal of leadership, in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Book of Imarah, no. 1826. His stance exemplifies detachment from worldly authority for spiritual integrity.

---