Muslim as Minorities in the Secular Nation-States
Paper read at the two-day national seminar on ‘Minority Rights and
Islamophobia: Limits on Freedoms’ under the aegis of Islamic Fiqh Academy
(India) on January 2-3, 2010 at Hamdard Convention Centre, Hamdard Nagar, New
Delhi.
By Maqbool Ahmed Siraj
The world we live in today is no longer a combination of regions or states that
are culturally or faithwise pure. During the last 200 years, the political
geography has altered the map of the world in that nation-states have replaced
empires and sultanates. There are over 1.57 million Muslims in the contemporary
world*. In nearly 56 countries they are in majority and are masters of their
own destiny. But nearly a third of the total Muslims reside as minorities in
large number of countries outside the Muslim world, be it for historical
reasons, as economic migrant or dislocated for political reasons hence
refugees. Besides, several Muslim countries have sizeable non-Muslims living as
minorities within their political domain. Even the vast swathe of land
constituting the Middle East (where Muslims share Arabic and Islam as integral
elements of their identity), is divided into as many as 22 Arab nation-states.
Neither all Arabs are Muslims, nor all
Muslims are Arabs. This in itself is a testimony to the fact that universal
brotherhood of Muslim ummah is largely notional and nation-states are a reality
that simply cannot be wished away. The term Ummah is of course invoked
emotionally every time Muslims make a common cause or face certain issues
maligning their faith e.g., publication of sacrilegious cartoons by the Danish
Daily or Salman Rushdie’s book derogatory of the Holy Prophet. It also becomes
a rallying point if the issue is Islam-specific and support has to be generated
on the basis of faith. But national borders restrict its applicability inasmuch
as Muslims in all nation-states have to be governed in conformity to their own
Constitutions rather than a universal code. Common elements of faith, religion
and culture do define the contours of their states as a whole, but ethnicity,
languages they speak, the collective memory of the past (i.e., history), come
into play when it comes to
laying down the rules of governance. And every state is guided by its security
or economic interest in such matters. It is why bodies like the Organisation of
Islamic Conference (OIC) have remained more of a forum of discussion of common
issues. In fact, its relevance to the life of an average citizen of Muslim
nations pales into insignificance when compared to European Union (EU) which is
a forum of culturally disparate and historically mutually squabbling nations of
Europe . While OIC remains a non-entity even in matters of a common currency,
EU has successfully put in place a common market, common currency i.e., Euro
and security blocks.
Issue of nation-state has hardly ever received the scholastic attention among
Muslims as it ought to have deserved. The question of religious minorities is
essentially an adjunct to such a discussion. Even here the question of
non-Muslim minorities in Muslim nation-states has received greater focus as it
draws some legitimacy owing to its mention in the Holy Quran and Hadith wherein
non-Muslims are described as Zimmi. But the status of Muslim minorities in
non-Muslim nation-states such as those in India , Russia , China , or United
States and the countries of Europe has hardly ever been discussed threadbare.
Mercifully, Muslims in these nation-states had had the advantage of a
democratic set-up and have developed religious and cultural institutions
commensurate with the demands of their faith. They are well integrated into
those societies and doing well for themselves. In fact, some of these
minorities have enjoyed more civil liberties than their
counterparts in the so-called Muslim nation-states. Occasionally, issues such
as headscarves, growing of beard while serving in armed forces, or Ramazan
rigmarole, or sacrilege of religious figures do crop in. They are also
subjected to racial profiling, discrimination and hostility from extreme
nationalist forces. But overall liberal humanism that guides these states
provides the necessary legal and constitutional framework for the resolution of
these issues. What is obvious is that much of the issues pertaining to Muslim
minorities find solution in the liberal-humanistic set up they have opted for,
rather than any intellectual initiative from the Muslim minority itself.
With most Muslim states today being nominally Islamic, definition of ‘Zimmi’
does not seem to be applicable to the non-Muslim minorities residing within
their borders. For instance, Coptic Christians (who make up six per cent of
Egypt ’s population) hardly fit into this description. They are as much
nationals of Egypt as anyone across the religious dividing line. No Muslim
state imposes Jizya on its non-Muslim subjects merely because the basis of
nationality is ethnicity, origin, birth and linguistic identity rather than
faith of the individual . So also with Christians in Indonesia and Chinese in
Malaysia or Hindus in Pakistan . Even more orthodox Islamic states such as Iran
and Saudi Arabia refuse to unduly tax their non-Muslim subjects. Saudi Arabia
even does not collect income tax from the expats, be they Muslims, Hindus or
Christians. What could be concluded from this is that the concept of zimmi is
passe just as several other laws enshrined
in the sacred code are not applicable today. No Islamic / Muslim state today
can levy jizya on non-Muslims under the pretext of exempting them from the
military service. Even exemption from military service cannot be claimed as
privilege being offered to non-Muslim citizens, nor can the levying of jizya be
legitimised under the international covenants. The loyalty to Constitution of
the country is the foremost prerequisite for being a citizen rather than
swearing allegiance to God or a particular faith.
Most issues pertaining to the Muslim minorities in non-Muslim nation-states
arise mainly because Muslims there consider themselves part of the ummah and
expect, insist or demand that they be governed by Islamic laws and that the
home countries should offer them all political, legal framework to live
Islamically. This is quite problematic as it presumes that their presence there
is transitory and that they cannot be imagined to be a permanent part of the
non-Muslim states. It also implies that these communities are part of the
larger Muslim ummah and should be considered colonies of the Muslim countries
in the non-Muslim countries. Certain fatwas (religious edicts) emanating from
seats of jurists in the Islamic world do reinforce such perceptions. **
The changed context makes us question some of the presumptions. For instance,
Muslim minorities are neither subjects in these countries (such as the UK , the
US , Russia , China , Australia , India or some of the West European nations)
nor can the non-Muslim majorities be termed rulers. Most of these nation-states
being democracies have chosen for themselves the policy of secularism where the
State is either indifferent (without being irreligious) towards faith or treats
them all equally. Under this system the people are citizens and neither ruler
nor ruled. All citizens are participants in the system and equal in the sight
of the law and the Constitution. Of course, the sovereignty belongs to the
people in this system (quite contrary to an Islamic state where, according to
some theologians, sovereignty belongs to God). But the fact that such a system
ensures equal participation in law-making and that the state remains
faith-neutral, there seems to be no
scope for legislation of any such laws that interfere with an individual’s
faith. However, this does not rule out the possibility of all religious
provisions that tend to discriminate on the basis of gender or the ones
contrary to contemporary concept of human rights coming in for scrutiny,
criticism or amendment and modification.
For the last three decades, media in the Muslim world has been awash with
positive news items about Islam gaining acceptance in the Western societies.
There has been jubilation about mosques coming up in Brussels, Madrid or
Dayton; Islamic faith finding a place in the school curriculum; Muslim
chaplains being appointed in the US Army or Navy; a stamp being issued on the
eve of Eidul Fitr by US Postal Department; a crescent symbol being planted in
the garden opposite the White House; US House of Representatives opening its
session with recitation of the Koran; the first Muslim Member being elected to
the US House of Representatives; An Islamic Centre being inaugurated in Rio de
Janeiro; or a Spanish court invoking a provision of the Islamic sharia in
adjudication of some odd case.
But little attention has been paid to aspects where Muslim existence has come
in conflict with issues pertaining to law, ethics, family issues, conflict of
nation-state with Islamic doctrine et al. Muslim integration into these
societies oscillates between fears of assimilation to phobia of isolation. For
instance, a Muslim feels inhibited in joining armed forces in secular states.
Apprehensions with regard to fighting against Muslim armies (nay Muslim states)
and warning of divine retribution for dying in such a war urges evasion of
draft laws. Issues of gender equity such as differential shares in inheritance
for two genders, Islamic divorce laws (conferring right to utter divorce on
husbands, but requiring women to access the same through agency of courts), two
women witnesses being equal to a man; Muslim men being at liberty to marry
Christian and Jewish women but same right not being extended to Muslim women;
and some interpreting sharia provision
of only Muslim judges (qazis) adjudicating family disputes; even provisions
like prohibition of women being judges; are a few instance to be cited in
proof of the discriminatory treatment. Then there are aspects such as
non-Muslim being barred from burning corpses (as it happens with Hindus in the
Gulf nations), encouragement of non-Muslims to join the fold of Islam but
prohibition on a Muslim abandoning his faith (and in extreme cases death
penalty for apostates) also militate against the human rights which are
inherently reciprocal in nature. Similarly, religious opposition to accept
state policies such as birth control by Muslim minorities also complicate
matters$. This easily gets interpreted in terms of a grand conspiracy by
Muslims to attain demographic advantage on a long term in democracies where
ultimately majority rules. Muslim minorities can expect this kind of fair
treatment from non-Muslim states only if the latter are prepared to offer
a system of treatment similar to what is the case in Islam with respect
minority treatment. History shows that, in the absence of such a system, good
or bad treatment of Muslim minorities depended more on the unpredictable whims
of the rulers of non-Muslim governments.
In the final analysis it could be said that while the Western democracies have
generally grown tolerant of the dictates of the diverse faiths and turned
themselves into multicultural societies, Muslim nation-states refuse to accord
privileges to non-Muslim citizens on par with their Muslim citizens.
Some of these questions are certainly more intense and urgent for Muslims in
the West, but ultimately the whole Muslim world has to respond to them. The
West is no longer a territorial concept; it is a global and cultural notion
that is very much present in the non-Western world also through the extension
of Western education, Western law, Western media programmes, Western medicine
etc.
Notes and References
· World Muslim population now stands at 1.57 billion according to the
Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of
the World's Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center 's Forum
on Religion & Public Life , Washington D.C.,
** An example of this perception is Muslim Minorities, Fatwa Regarding
Muslims Living as Minorities1 by the late Sheikh Ibn Baz and Sheikh Uthaymeen,
two influential Saudi muftis. The book explains that preservation of faith and
strict obedience to the laws of Islam are the foremost duties of all Muslims,
including those living as minorities.
Muslim Minorities shows awareness of the difficulties of Muslims living as
minorities and advises them to be patient. However, “if it is not possible to
gain a livelihood except by what Allah has forbidden, namely through the mixing
of men and women, then this livelihood must be abandoned.”2 It discourages
Muslims from marrying non-Muslim women,3 forbids them to greet Christians at
Christmas or other religious festivals,4 and allows them to go to non-Muslim
courts (for registration of divorce) only if it is done according to Islamic
law.5 Muslim Minorities generally does not allow a departure from the old laws.
In some circumstances, where some concessions are suggested, they are only
transitory and subject to general provisions of Islamic law, for example,
transmission of pictures and service in non-Muslim armies. Obedience to Islamic
law in this sense necessarily requires community organization in a particular
manner and the services of legal
experts for that purpose. This is often not possible without the help of the
majority Muslim countries. The book, therefore, repeatedly appeals to scholars
and preachers to visit Muslim minorities, even though, in the words of one
inquirer, “visiting countries of disbelief is prohibited.” Ibn Baz advises the
Muslim rulers and the wealthy, “to do what they can to save the Muslim
minorities with both money and words. This is their duty.” The two muftis are
quite obviously restrained by the methodology as well as the worldview of the
old laws to the extent that they still use the term ‘enemy countries’6 for the
abode of Muslim minorities. Certainly Ibn Baz was not using the term in the
literal sense. It is the compulsion of analogical reasoning to measure the
modern situation in terms of the old categories of ‘House of Islam’ and ‘House
of War’. (Ref: Sheikh Ibn Baz and Sheikh Uthaymeen, Muslim Minorities, Fatawa
Regarding Muslims
Living as Minorities (London: Message of Islam, 1998).)
$ - While birth control is a state policy in Muslim majority nations such as
Turkey, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Iran, the Muslims in India
have been resisting it on religious grounds.
Abdul Malik Mujahid of soundvision. com pleads for Christmas holiday in Muslim
countries where sizeable Christian population lives such as Indonesia and Egypt
or a day off for Christian employees in places where they do not have sizeable
numbers such as Pakistan .
Copts make up six per cent of Egypt ’s population and speak Coptic, the
language of Egypt dating back to Roman times. However, due to the Arabisation
of Egypt, service in churches has witnessed an increased use of Arabic. Copts
celebrate Christmas on the January 7th, which is an official national holiday
in Egypt . There has been an increase in violence and oppression against the
Copts by Muslim fundamentalists. Copts also complain that religious
intermarriage is not allowed in Egypt and that Copts are forced to convert to
Islam if they want to marry a Muslim. But at the same time, it is illegal in
Egypt for a Muslim to convert and become a Copt.
Maqbool Ahmed Siraj is a Bangalore-based journalist. He can be contacted on
maqsi...@gmail. com
Your Mail works best with the New Yahoo Optimized IE8. Get it NOW!
http://downloads.yahoo.com/in/internetexplorer/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
