دور مصادرة الممتلكات في تعويض نقص المیزانیة وتنظيم أموال المكلفین دافعي الضرائب في عهد الخلافة العباسية حتى انتهاء حكم المقتدربالله(320-132ق)

Property confiscation has a long history, just like that of governments. Sometimes, it was carried out for false motives and pretexts. Historical data shows that property confiscation was used in some regimes as a tool of control by the authorities due to the illegal or legitimate accumulation of assets by agents. On the other hand, when governments faced a financial crisis, they resorted to confiscating the assets of officials and ministers to compensate for budget shortfalls. This research aims to answer the following question: What were the main motives for property confiscation by the Abbasid Caliphs? The research hypothesis is based on the fact that property confiscation was sometimes used as a governmental tool to discipline officials or opponents, particularly to compensate for deficits in government budget revenues. The results of this research, which was organized using the historical interpretation method (preparing statistical tables and analyzing the data), indicate two main reasons for the confiscation of property during the Abbasid Caliphate: First, to prevent the financial capacity of tax collectors or some government departments involved in the tax collection system from increasing, and to compensate for budget shortfalls that were used during certain periods. The random and unorganized confiscation of property, which was often not implemented to regulate and control unregistered and illegal properties, weakened the economic foundations of the Abbasid Caliphate and is one of the reasons for its weakness.
Keywords: confiscation, confiscation office, budget shortfall, taxpayers, Abbasids, disciplining agents.
Introduction:
The confiscation of property has a long history and has been implemented by several governments for various reasons or pretexts. Historical studies indicate that property confiscation was sometimes used as a tool to illegally collect funds from ministers and officials. The significant financial influence of ministers or other powerful individuals led to political disobedience against the caliph. According to numerous historical evidences, this has occurred repeatedly since the beginning of the rule of the Muslim caliphs. Perhaps one of the most important reasons for confiscating the property of officials was to make up for a deficit in the Islamic government's budget. Ibn Khaldun believed that when a government reaches a stage of stability and controls its subordinates, it resorts to illegal and dubious methods of collecting taxes to collect public funds and raise taxes. During this period, to appease government forces and prevent disobedience, the government increases the salaries of its personnel. At this stage, agents and government officials collect taxes; they receive enormous income, which they usually avoid spending. As a result of this obscene wealth, gossip and backbiting spread among them, leading to the confiscation of their property and the destruction of the lives of capable individuals, thus gradually leading to the decline of the state . Since, in the past, as in our time, there was no systematic and effective means to identify and monitor the collection or embezzlement of government funds, the caliphs resorted to arresting and confiscating the assets of those suspected of embezzling government funds to compensate for this lack of oversight. The confiscation of the properties of agents was one of the causes of weak administration and economic instability in governments, which ultimately led to their weakness or collapse. Statistics and figures obtained indicate that the amounts collected from the confiscation of the properties of sheikhs and officials were sometimes equivalent to the taxation of some Islamic lands. On the other hand, it can be said that one of the ways to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands of certain individuals and one of the criteria for monitoring the funds of agents was this method of confiscating funds.
Materials and Methods:
The confiscation of the governors' properties dates back to the reign of the second caliph. Due to the expansion of conquests and the acquisition of abundant spoils, a number of governors began to amass enormous wealth in their areas of control through various means. The caliph's harsh approach to preventing them from leaving the city was unsuccessful. The second caliph confiscated half of their property for the benefit of the treasury. For example, the second caliph confiscated "half the property of his agents," such as Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas in Kufa, Amr ibn al-'As in Egypt, Abu Hurairah in Bahrain, Nu'man ibn 'Adi ibn Harthan in Maysan, Nafi' ibn 'Amr al-Khuza'i in Mecca, and Ya'la ibn Munyah in Yemen, for the benefit of the treasury. After the second caliph, Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, the ruler of the Levant (40-60 AH), began confiscating funds using a different formula and method, this method was, of course, very different from the method of the second caliph. In order to strengthen the financial authority of his government, Mu'awiyah began confiscating half the property of senior government officials after their death or resignation. This method is called "extraction" in Islamic history. Based on this method, Mu'awiyah and the remaining Umayyad caliphs were allowed to divide the property of senior government officials among their heirs. To implement this policy, Muawiyah ordered the division and confiscation of the property of Amr ibn al-As, who died in 43 AH. Amr ibn al-As saw this at the end of his life and said: “I have reformed Muawiyah’s worldly life and corrupted my religion until I died. It is as if I see Muawiyah seizing my money” Muawiyah continued on this path, imprisoning Ziyad ibn Nafi’ ibn Khalid al-Tahi, the governor of Herat and Badghis, after his dismissal. He then seized one hundred thousand, or in other words, eight hundred thousand dirhams of his money. To collect the money, Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad ordered Qais ibn Maytham to arrest Aslam ibn Zur’ah, imprison him, and confiscate his money, which amounted to three hundred thousand dirhams (Tabari, ibid., vol. Al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik also confiscated the money of Yazid ibn al-Muhallab, which amounted to three million dirhams . Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik also seized the property of Musa ibn Nasir al-Nakha’i, his agent in Africa, which amounted to one hundred thousand dinars. In this study, a descriptive analytical method was used.
Discussion & Result:
Confiscation was one of the tools used by the authorities to control the property of agents. In the Islamic era, the confiscation of agents' property dates back to the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab (23-13 AH). This confiscation was not used to fill budget gaps, but rather to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands of specific individuals, including agents. After the second caliph, Muawiyah resumed confiscation of property to strengthen the government's financial power. He employed a new method to confiscate the property of his agents. This method, known in historiography as "expropriation," allowed Muawiyah to divide even the property and inheritance of his senior officials with their heirs. The confiscation of property during the Abbasid caliphate was initially intended to alienate and punish officials, but with the growing financial deficit in the caliphate's vast and long-standing apparatus, it was used to compensate for the shortfall in the caliphate's budget. The process of confiscation and its planning were established during the reign of al-Waqi'ah, intensified during the reigns of al-Mutawakkil and al-Muhtadi, and reached its peak during the reign of al-Muqtadir.
conclusion:
 The result of this trend toward increasing property confiscation was the establishment of a special court to confiscate and facilitate oversight of property, called the "Diwan of Confiscation." During the reign of the established Caliphate, with the increasing arbitrary confiscation of the property of officials, and even the property of some merchants and private sector owners, and the escalation of torture, injustice, and repression against them, his minister, Abu Ali ibn Muqla, issued a decree prohibiting any force or brutality in tax collection and the confiscation of the funds of employees, clerks, and the state diwan. However, this situation did not last long. Finally, it can be said that the arbitrary confiscation of funds gradually became a sign of economic, political, and administrative corruption in Islamic governments, and can be considered one of the factors that led to their downfall.