4.7. THE ISLAMIC MOVEMENT AND ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS MINORITIES
The Islamic Movement must take a decisive attitude towards ethnic and religious minorities in the Arab and Muslim Worlds.
The Problem of Ethnic Minorities is Solved in Islam
Ethnic minorities do not constitute a problem in the Islamic system that the movement advocates, for Islam embraces all races under one creed, on qibla [direction of prayers] and close brotherhood.
Islam regards Muslims as one nation, regardless of their origin, color, tongue or homeland. It sees as equal all Muslims, be the Arabs, Persians, Berbers, Kurds, Turks, Indians or members of any other race; the lowest among them in rank is as entitled to speak in their name as the highest, and they stand as one man against their enemies. They are as Allah the Almighty describes them: (The Believers are but one brotherhood) [Surat AlHujurat: 10].
No Arab is better than a nonArab, and no nonArab is better than an Arab; no white man is better than a black man, and no black man is better than a white man, unless by virtue of piety and righteousness (The most honored of you in the sight of Allah is [he who is] the most righteous of you) [Surat AlHujurat: 13].
The [esteemed] position of Sulayman the Persian, Bilal the Abyssinian and Suhayb the Roman in the eyes of all Muslims in all ages is known to everybody.
The position enjoyed by nonArab scholars who served Islam and Arabic language cannot be denied by any scholar of Islam, either. The history of Islam is full of numerous examples of prominent scholars and geniuses of Islam, such as AlHassan AlBasri, IbnSirin, Ata, Said IbnJubayr, AbuHanifa, AlBukhari, Muslim, AbuDawad, AlTirmidhi, AlNisa’e, IbnMajah, Sibaway and others.
Although all of them were originally nonArabs, Islam made them Arabs when it made Arabic their language, so that they spoke, wrote and researched in the language of the Quran. A hadith, reported by Ibn Asakir said, ( Being an Arab is neither father nor mother: it is the tongue. He who speaks Arabic is an Arab ).
Those who did not take Arabic as their mother tongue when they adopted Islam, such as the Kurds, the Berbers, the Persians, the Malaysians and other nonArabs, were Arabized in their hearts and minds through Islamic culture and through Islam itself that was carried to their lands by the Arabs many centuries ago to guide them to the straight path through the Guidance of Allah.
Every Muslim loves Arabic because it is the language of the Quran, Sunna and worship. Every Muslim loves the Land of Arabs, because that is where the Ka’ba and the Prophet’s Mosque and Grave are. Every Muslim loves Arabs, because they are the defenders of the Prophet and Islam and have spread Islam all over the world. It is therefore said in the sayings handed down to us by past generations, “If the Arabs become strong, so will Islam; and they become weak, so will Islam!”
There is no ethnic problem in the Islamic perspective, then. The Islamic outlook is even the infallible remedy to the ethnic problem.
But if the Arabs call for an Arab nationalism that is separate from Islam, the Kurds will also claim their own Kurdish nationalism, and the Berbers will call for a Berber nationalism, and so on, which will certainly tear the one Nation, even individual countries, apart among these ethnic sympathies that were a characteristic of the Age of Ignorance that was replaced with the Islam brotherhood by Islam. Our noble Prophet has disowned anyone who advocates, fights for or dies while believing in a fanatic nationalism or tribalism.
How to Solve the Problem of Religious Minorities?
The problem that should be addressed is the problem of religious minorities, or what I called in a previous study the “nonMuslims in the Muslim community”.
This problem should be solved within a context of frankness and openness, not through political maneuvers and hypocrisy.
I have discussed the attitude of the Islamic solution towards these minorities in the third volume of the “Inevitability of the Islamic Solution” study, and I cannot repeat all that I wrote there once again. However, what I want to say here can be summarized in the following points:
There are no grounds for the allegations by some people, most of whom are secularists who have no loyalty to either Islam or Christianity, that the tendency for Islamic solutions and Islamic laws is against the principle of freedom for nonMuslims a principle that has been established at both international and Islamic levels. For those people forget, or ignore, a more serious and more significant point: that abandoning. Islamic laws and Islamic solutions for the sake of non Muslims, who are minority, runs against the principle of freedom for Muslims, who are a majority, to do as their religion orders them.
When the right of the minority runs against the right of the majority, which right should we put first?
The logic of democracy, which those people advocate, says that the right of the majority should be given precedence over that of the minority.
This is what goes on in all countries of the world. the system that can gain the approval of everybody is yet to be invented, for people were created different and can never be brought to accept the same thing. It should be enough for any given system to gain the acceptance of the majority, provided that it does not do wrong or injustice to the minority or transgress on the minority’s sanctities. Christians and other religious groups will not come to any harm if they give up their right so that their Muslim compatriots may rule themselves by their religion and effect the laws of Allah in order to gain His Grace.
If the religious minority does not do so, insisting that the majority relinquish what it, the majority, believes to be a religion whose relinquishing is punished with the Fire by Allah, then the minority will be imposing a dictatorship on the majority, with three million, for instance, controlling over forty million. Such a situation would not be acceptable to either religious or secular logic.
All the above is said on the assumption that there is a contradiction between the right of the Muslim majority and the right of the nonMuslim minority. In fact, there is no contradiction between the two of them.
A Christian who accepts to be a subject to a secular, not religious, rule, would not mind being under an Islamic rule. Moreover, a Christian who understands his religion right should welcome the rule of Islam, as such a rule is based on belief in Allah, the Messages of Heaven and the reward in the Hereafter. Such a rule also seeks to reinforce the values of faith and morals that were called for by all Prophets. It also reveres Christ, Mary and the Injil, and has a special regard for the people of the Book. So, how could such a rule, with its heavenly, moral and humanitarian nature, be a source of concern or fear for a believer in a religion that recognizes Allah, His Messengers and the Hereafter, while that believer is not concerned or afraid of nonreligious, secular rule that despises all religions and allows them, if it ever does, only a small corner in life?!
It would be good for faithful Christians to accept the rule and system of Islam, looking at them as a rule and system like all rules and systems, while Muslims look at them as a religion that pleases their Lord and brings them closer to Him.
It would also be good for Christians, as Hassan AlHudaibi once said, if Muslims look at Muslim rule as a religion, as such a perception would make them guard against mistake in its enforcement, because they will feel that they are under the watchful eye of Allah, not fear of the ruler that can be shaken off in most cases.
Therefore, wise, broadminded Christians have welcomed’ the Islamic rule as a formidable barrier that can stop the advance of horrid materialism that threatens all religions at the hands of world Communism, as the prominent scholar Faris AlKhouri said I would like here to put right a mistake that many people make: that is believing that the manmade laws imported from the Christian West are related to Christianity. This is a mistake beyond doubt, and those who study the origins and historical sources of laws certainly know this. It is a fact that stands to any argument that Islamic fiqh [jurisprudence] is nearer to Christianity and Christians of our countries than these laws because of its religious origins on the one hand and because it is affected by the surrounding environment, of which they are part.
The allegation that applying a Muslim regime would involve forcing nonMuslims to do things that run against their creed is also false. Islam has four branches: creed, worship, morals and laws[Shari’ah]. It does not impose its creed or its worship on nonMuslims in any way.
There are two decisive Quranic verses to this effect, one Meccan and the other Medinan. In the first, Allah addresses His Messenger saying, (Will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!) [Surat Yunus: 99].
In the second, Allah says in a decisive manner, (Let there be no compulsion in religion) [Surat AlBaqarah: 256].
The Prophet’s companions used to say about Ahl alDhimmah, leave them and their religion”.
Since the time of the Rightlyguided Caliphs, Jews and Christians have worshipped and performed their religious rights unmolested, as testified to by the documents of treaties between them and Muslims during the eras of AbuBakr and Omar, such as the treaty of reconciliation between Omar and the people of Jerusalem.
Islam is so considerate that it does not require nonMuslims to pay zakat [alms] or perform jihad, as these are major Islamic worships; zakat being a financial tax and jihad a military service. Instead, Islam requires nonMuslims to pay another head tax, of which women, children and poor and disabled men are exempted, that is jizya (polltax).
If some people cannot bring themselves to accept the term jizya, then let them call it whatever they like. The Arab Christians of Banu Taghlib [banu, pl. ibn, means sons of] asked Omar Ibn AlKhattab to allow them to pay double zakat like Muslims and not pay the jizya, and Omar agreed and signed an agreement with them to that effect. He commented on that, saying, “These people are fools. They accept the meaning, but refuse the name!”
As for the morals branch of Islam, it is not different from its counterparts in other religions in its origins, for morals are the same in the eyes of religions.
This leaves Shari’ah in its particular meaning, i.e. the laws that regulate the interrelations among people. It governs the individual’s relations with his nation, his community and his State, and it governs the State’s relations with its subjects and with other states.
As for family relations and marital affairs, such as marriage and divorce etc., nonMuslims can choose between their religion and ours. They are not forced to accept the rules of Shari’ah. If they opt for the Islamic law in dividing estates for , as they do in some Arab countries, they have their wish. If they do not want to have Islamic laws applied to their affairs, then they are not subjected to them.
As for other domains, such as civil, commercial or administrative laws, nonMuslims are like others under any laws that are derived from East or West and are accepted by the majority.
That is why Ahl AlDhimmah have their own courts which they can go to; they can also resort to Islamic courts, as recorded by history.
So, we see that Islam has not forced nonMuslims to abandon anything that they regard as necessary under their religion, nor has it required them to do anything that they regard as forbidden in their creed, nor has it forced them to believe in anything against their religion. It is only that there are some things that are prohibited by Islam but deemed lawful by nonMuslims, such as wine and pig meat. Lawful things can be abandoned by individuals of their free will, so Christians may give up wine and not be guilty of any sin under their religion. I do not even think that any religion would encourage alcoholic drinking and bless the life of drinking and (the ensuing) running amok. All that the Bible says about wine is that a little of it cures the stomach, and that is why the Christians themselves are divided over drinking.
A Christian can also spend his whole life without taking a bite of pigmeat, because eating it is not a religious rite, nor is it a practice handed down the generations by prophets. Pig meat was even tabooed by Judaism before Islam. However, we have seen a number of Muslim ulema who have opined that Christians may eat pig meat and drink wine and trade in both amongst themselves and in their own villages, provided they do not spread them in Muslim communities or defy the feelings of Muslims with them. This is an unequalled tolerance.
Source: Islamic Basics by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
Comments
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.