Backed up by
reference to texts and historical events, there is an analysis common in
western political and cultural circles of the Muslim relationship with the
modern state. It argues that most Muslims reject the state and the demands of
citizenship. The argument further asserts that Muslims reject the equality of
others and the need to find a modus vivendi with them, be that within societies
whose majority is Muslim or any other. This assertion rests upon the perception
that ‘citizenship’ in Islam is still a matter for debate at least with respect
to how it is defined and whether it really belongs within the Muslim frame of
reference.
Hamilton Gibb who
first put forward the thesis that Islam has no notion of ‘state’. State
structures that came into being under Islam bore the names of the families who
ruled them — the Umayyads, the ‘Abbâsids, the Fâtimids, the Ottomans, etc.
Frontiers were not seen as defining sovereignty or nation; borders were used to
define land tax (kharâj) and the alms tax (zakât) that could be
collected. The land area of the state and its sovereign control, therefore, did
not define a legally recognized citizenry. Furthermore, the interaction between
those living within it was governed by religious and denominational distinctions.
Therefore [non-Muslims] were subject to the religious head tax (jizyah).
People’s loyalty was not attached to the state so much as it was governed by
emotional and sectarian considerations.
Sometimes this debate
is blatant and at other times subtle, but Islamic revivalism has latched onto
these principles elevating them to the level of theological teaching and dogma.
Once the idea of the Caliphate was accepted and agreed upon as a political
structure it was transformed into a matter fundamental to religion. Other ideas
of the early Islamic periods, like the Muslim ‘commonwealth’ (ummah) and
jihâd and others, have received a religious patina and been given
ideological status at least among certain Islamic political parties.
Clearly this has had
an ongoing negative impact particularly upon Muslims who emigrate. They find
themselves compromised with respect to their loyalties to the countries to
which they have emigrated. Their sense of citizenship is rendered unstable by
reason of their distressed perspective on the world and the people around them.
God Almighty has said, “Whoever slaughters a soul save in response to murder or
for sowing the earth with corruption, it is as though that person had killed
all people; whoever saves a life, it is as though he gave life to all people.”
(Qur’ân, Sûrah 5:32)
In the first instance
we note that the issue of citizenship, be that from a constitutional or a legal
perspective, is a modern conundrum introduced by the nation state in its
current international guise. But the principles it promotes — equality, rights,
and reciprocal responsibilities that pay no attention to religion, or race, or
doctrine, or political affiliation — these are bedrock Islamic principles
supported by texts and the historical record. The word of God Almighty, as
recorded in the Holy Qur’ân, speaks of truth and justice. The Holy Qur’ân
reports that the Almighty created the human being as one soul and, from that
soul, created its partner. Equality, therefore, is the rule governing human
origins and human values, not least of all between man and woman. In Muslim
society, as in all human societies, there are social, political and economic
gradations. But there is no pyramid! There is no distinction in dignity or in
justice. Human dignity is anchored in what the Holy Qur’ân says about
the roots of the human person. This applies also to the innate value of the
human being and to human rights. When the hypocrites said to the Muslims, their
compatriots in the city of Madînah, ‘If we come back to Madînah, the strong
will drive out the weak!’ the Holy Qur’ân answered that strength belongs
to God, to his Prophet, and to the faithful. These are those, according to the
Holy Qur’ân and according to the Prophet’s own witness, committed to
upholding dignity and freedom.
Human equality, so
dignified by the text of the Holy Qur’ân, has been a powerful force in
Islam’s worldwide mission. The folk of religious insight (fuquhâ’) see
the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] as belonging to ‘the Muslim fold’
(dâr-ul-islâm). In modern terms that might be rendered, they have the
rights of citizens. It is a recurring refrain, with regard to the people of the
covenant (ahl-ud-dhimmah) in the peace treaties following conquests,
‘They have what we have; they are held to account in the same way we are.’ The
experience of the Muslim state expanded to include within its embrace people
other than the People of the Book — Zoroastrians, Buddhists, and Hindus. Most
of the religious scholars entered them into the lists of Peoples of the Book as
regards rights and responsibilities.
This has implied
several things. First, ‘there is no compulsion in religion.’ They are free to
hold to their religion, pray and conduct their religious observances. These are
guaranteed under the law of Muslim society. Second, human freedom will be protected,
including the freedom of expression and action. Third, there is the right to
own property and to travel. Fourth, social security in the Muslim state
embraces even the non-Muslim poor. They all benefit from the proceeds of the
alms tax (not just from the treasury of the state as such). It is unreasonable
to expect, in the long course of history, that everything will have conformed
to the ideal, but through most of our normative history there were no policies
laid down to discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims. True, there remain
issues outstanding that have to do with laws of personal status, evangelistic
witness and payment the head tax (jizyah). We do not think these will
prevail against the principle of citizenship so long as freedoms, commitments,
and mutual bonds remain intact.
All of this means
that the state in the Muslim social context is an administrative and political
instrument for a society that is pluralistic in religion and also with regard
to the whole gamut of political, social and cultural tastes. The state, therefore,
looks upon its constituents with a watchful eye toward equality and commitment.
Neutrality in this regard does not mean that the state pays no attention to
religion (as may be the case in some of Europe’s systems). On the contrary, it
means that it is committed — as is required by its position of Islamic trust —
to preserve religious freedom, to strengthen that which is ethical and those
values that sustain social stability, security, well-being, accountability, and
the rights of its individuals and groups.
The notion of
citizenship has a specific and individual dimension that is the person’s own.
But that personal significance is incarnated within society, a body politic and
a state that has the responsibility to care for its citizens. It begins with a
sense of neighborhood and a willingness to show respect. Within the dynamic of
social interaction through civil society, it funnels into the effort to develop
cooperation that is founded upon equality and universal justice. This all is
rationalized under the umbrella of the state, its executive agencies, and its
benign oversight. You cannot pull apart these interlocking circles, individual
tribal, provincial, ideological or religious predilections notwithstanding.
This is because citizenship is founded upon a shared language and history that
conspires to defend the homeland and shoulder the responsibility to protect it.
Citizenship is not
established through rendering the people docile. It must cross-pollinate with
the identity the migrants in the cause of coexistence. Diversity and pluralism
are the hallmarks of civilized society. But all of that returns to a sense of
common direction.
As for interaction
with non-citizens or those not subject to the regulations of the state, the
well-known qur’ânic verse in the Sûrah of ‘The Stones’ applies:
“O people, we created you, male and female, and formed you into peoples and
tribes so that you might come to know each other.” (Qur’ân, Sûrah 49:13)
This brings us back to the common root of humankind. Each person has the same
value. Subsequent differentiations on the basis of gender or social status do
not contradict that common root but, perversely, confirm it. In the end we will
come to know one another. What that means is that we will recognize each other
as individuals, as people with opinions, beliefs, predilections and personal
interests. First and foremost, we will recognize each other under the rubric of
the one notion of human dignity. If human relations within Muslim society and
beyond rest upon reciprocal knowledge and recognition, there remains no space
for major conflicts except on the basis of two conditions that the Holy Qur’ân
defines: “God does not restrict relations between you and those who show you no
violence because of your religion or who do not drive you from you homes. You
may declare them innocent and deal fairly with them.” (Qur’ân, Sûrah 60:8)
Therefore there are two main threats to Islam throughout the world. They are,
on the one hand, oppression and imperialism and, on the other, discrimination
and religious, cultural and racial persecution. These are two things that, in
dignity, honorable and lofty-minded human nature must reject. No Muslim and not
any person with a sense of his or her worth can tolerate them. Events in our
new and modern world and all its institutions seem founded upon these two
problems: the usurpation of property (imperialism) and religious, racial and
gender discrimination.
If this is the
situation, then why are Muslims so concerned about the issue of citizenship?
Indeed, why does this issue so preoccupy others throughout the world? The
problem does not have only one source. The world at large has to bear much of
the responsibility for what we suffer in our land, as well as for the emergence
of extremism. We, ourselves, must bear a great deal of responsibility for
misunderstanding how we relate to others and to each other. Ours alone is the
responsibility for those extremist expressions that deny the ‘other’. And
that’s not just limited to calumnies against Muslims and non-Muslims. After all
we have both rights and responsibilities. What we want for ourselves, for our
societies and for our world at large is that we may, competently and
responsibly, be enabled to rise to the challenges of accountability and move
forward so that we may claim our rights.
Reference:
Concept and Historical
Process, by: Abdullah bin Muhammad al Salimi, Al-Tafahom Magazine, issue number
03/2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment