The Status of Non-Muslim in an Islamic State

The Non-Muslims in an Islamic State

By Eliseo ‘Jun’ Mercado, OMI

1. Introduction:

            This write-up is meant to contextualize the debates on the status of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule. To begin with, Islamic rule is understood as the complete implementation of the Shari’a on both individuals and society as well. With the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)’s insistence in Islamic Rule and government, it is necessary to determine the status of non-Muslims in such a situation.

            The articulated MILF position is that the Islamic government shall ensure that the citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims, enjoy freedom, justice, equality and democracy and their human rights (Salamat Hashim’s Concept of Bangsamoro State and Government by A.S. Mansur Lingga). The MILF points to the fact that the people of the book are considered “protected people” (ahl-dhimma). But a simple reference to the concept of dhimma does not capture the essence of the concept and the praxis of the dhimma through the centuries.

            What we try to do is to research on the concept of dhimma as understood and practiced though the centuries and codified in variety of caliphal decrees and legal texts that contribute to the present corpus on the concept and praxis of dhimma.

1. Concept:

              The concept of Dhimma evoked the idea of protection/covenant during the time of the prophet.   The prophet took upon himself and the Islamic government the “protection” of the people of the book beginning with the Christians of Najran.

                The people of the book (ahl - ad - kitab) are the Christians, Jews and Sabaeans. They are guaranteed life, liberty and, in a modified sense, property. They are called dhimmi (ahl - dhimma) or protected/covenant people.

                  In return for the “protection” accorded the people of the book, they have to accomplish the following:

1. Each adult ‘sane’ male must pay a poll-tax (djizya).

2. Non-Muslims must distinguish themselves from believers by dress, not riding on horseback or carrying weapons.

3. Non-Muslims are not allowed to join the Islamic armies but they pay for the maintenance of Islamic armies.

4. They must always have a respectful attitude towards Muslims.

5. They are also under certain legal disabilities with regard to testimony in courts.

                     

The Praxis of Dhimma

               On the praxis of Dhimma, one can only study as far back as the praxis during the times of the Caliphs and Sultans from the 7^th century to the time of the Ottamans.

               The first example of Dhimma praxis is handed over by “Umar ibn Khattab, the second Caliph and companion of the prophet after Abu Bakr. The 7^th Century Pact of Umar is still extant.

                The 7^th Century Pact of Umar showed what the non-Muslims should do in exchange for the “protection” to be accorded to them by the Islamic State. This consisted in the following:

1. They must not build new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks’ cells. No repairs in the existing ones if they fall in ruins.

2. There shall be no public manifestation of religion nor convert anyone to it.

3. They must always show respect towards the Muslims and seats must be given to them.

4. They shall not mount on horseback, nor shall they gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on their persons.

5. There shall be no selling of fermented drinks nor forbidden food.

6. There shall be no public display of crosses.

                        

                  This pact was further refined in the 8^th and 9^th centuries as written in al-Shafi ‘ i ’s Kitab al Umm. Briefly the refinements are summarized in the following principles:

1. The non-Muslims shall be subject to the authority of Islam and to no contrary authority.

2. They shall not refuse to carry out any obligation that the Islamic State sees fit to impose upon them by virtue of this authority.

3. If anyone of them speaks improperly of Muhammad, may God bless and save him, the Book of God or of his religion, he forfeits the dhimma (note: This is the basis of the Blasphemy Law of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran).

Modern Islamic Political Thought

               The status of non-Muslims in an Islamic State has remained the same until the coming of modern Islamic political thought during the 18^th and 19^th centuries reform by the so-called “Young Turks” Revolution of 1908.   The idea of freedom came into the scene in the 18^th and early 19^th century Ottoman Empire patently due to European influence.

                 Similarly, General Napoleon Bonaparte upon his arrival in Egypt introduced the French understanding of freedom on the basis of the French revolution’s slogan “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”.

                All these movements led to the reform edict of 1839, the first Ottoman Constitution in 1878 and the Young Turks Revolution of 1908. Freedom took roots during that period. This referred to individual as well as societal, political, social, economic and religious freedom. The people of the land, Muslims and non-Muslims, became co-citizens enjoying the same rights and privileges.   Nationality became the basis of unity and nationhood. Practically the entire Muslim world adopted this model with few exceptions. 

                  The dhimma was totally rejected since its concept and praxis put the non-Muslims in inferior positions. As a matter of fact, the Dhimmis were never considered citizens. The reform and the subsequent struggles for national freedom participated in by all citizens (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) gave birth to a new nation of citizens on the basis constitution or charter.

“Back” to Islam

                 There is an often-repeated Qur’anic obligation imposed on Muslims “to enjoin good and forbid evil” (al-amr bi’l - ma’ruf wa’l ‘an al-munkar).   By this injunction, a Muslim is required not merely to do good and avoid evil but also to enjoin good and forbid evil.   To fulfill this obligation, it requires the exercise of authority. And this has become the basis of the necessity that a Muslim has to be the head/chief of a community/state and the enforcement of Islamic Law. In short, it has to be an Islamic State! This movement is often labeled as “Fundamentalism”. Adherents of this movement struggle for the restoration of a truly Islamic society governed by Islamic Law and ruled by a Muslim leader. To them, this is the only true path to salvation and God.

                 The Islamic State is a community of believers.   Allah is the Sovereign of the state, the Qur’an is the Constitution and the Shari’a is the law of the land. The political and religious leadership was vested in God’s messenger who served as prophet and political leader of the Islamic community/state. Upon Muhammad’s death, his successors (Caliphs or Imam) assumed both the religious as well as the political leadership in the community.

                  The Shari’a or Islamic Law is based on the Divine Revelation (the Qur’an) and the Sunnah of the prophet. It provides a comprehensive code of life that included laws that regulate prayer, family, criminal, commercial and international law. The religious scholars (ulama) serve as the guardians of the Shari’a.     

                    The “return” to Islam movement is the paramount “cry” of the MILF. This movement holds that Islam is the ultimate norm in regulating the public, social and individual life of both the individuals and community. Islam under the MILF rule shall, once again (as in Medina), be the organizing principle of society. How this is to be done remains to be seen, since the MILF does not give a “model” of what they want as an Islamic State.

                    There are two elements/ingredients in their version of Islamic State. First is the rule of Shari’a in all things and second is the principle that leadership in an Islamic State is in the hands of Muslims. What needs to be discussed in the said Islamic agenda are the role and status of non-Muslims in governance, civil society and the religious practices.   No doubt, the dhimma is not acceptable to non-Muslims. The concept and the praxis of dhimma put the non-Muslims in an inferior status.

                       In modern social praxis, this is reverse discrimination. The dhimma is an anachronism today. No one, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, can accept nor tolerate the praxis of the dhimma.   It might have been good in the 7^th and the 8^th centuries, during the period of feudalism, but certainly people and citizens in this day and age cannot accept and tolerate inequality and denial of access to political power on account of religion and race. If the MILF position is to gain wide acceptance and support, it has to re-define its stance on governance, Shari’a applications and on the role and status of non-Muslims. (ERM 4/30/16)