|
Khalid Samad First, I would like thank Aloysious for his speedy response given to my earlier post: The Medina Charter as a Basis of Nation Building.
I apologise for the fact that I am unable to respond as quickly due to other commitments. Secondly, I would like to say that I have read the text of the Charter, all be it about 16 years ago. I think it is a little presumptuous on the part of Aloysious to conclude that I have yet to read it; although I do admit that I did depend on memory when responding to his article.
Thirdly, I do not think that we are encumbered by ‘the weight of the Muslim past’ as Aloysious puts it. Rather we find much to be proud of and many lessons which are still very relevant to our needs.
In responding to Aloysious’s article, I made the assumption that the tribes mentioned were polytheists and not Jews. This, Aloysious has stated as being incorrect and I stand corrected. The reason why I assumed they were polytheists was because I know for a fact that when The Holy Prophet migrated to Medina and made the Charter, there were Muslims, Jews and Polytheists (Mushrikiin) making up the Medinan society. Since the Jews were mentioned collectively as Jews and at the same time there was mention of the tribes in Aloysious’s article, I wrongly assumed that the tribes were non-Jews and therefore polytheists. This error on my part however does not negate the fact that the Medina Charter was an “agreement between ALL members of the Medinan Society”.
This is not a ‘fantasy’ on my part as it has been so described by many, Muslim and non-Muslim researchers alike, including western scholars like Montgomery Watt. However, I note that there exist two different interpretations to certain clauses particularly that at the very beginning of the Charter, the text of which reads;
“This is the kitab (written document) from Muhammad the Prophet (of God) between the Believers and Muslims from Quraish and Yathrib (Medina) and those who follow them thereby becoming part of them and fight together with them”.
One interpretation of the clause takes the phrase “between the Believers and Muslims from Quraish and Yathrib”, as the Muslims of Quraish and the Muslims of Yathrib, making it solely between the Muslims. The second interpretation, which to my opinion is the more accurate, states that the term ‘Yathrib’ refers to ‘the people of Yathrib’ instead of just the Believers and Muslims of Yathrib. The reason why it is the more accurate interpretation is, as was stated earlier, the Medinan society was then made up of three components, namely, Muslim, Jews and Polytheists. Any agreement leaving out any of the three components would have been ineffective.
Incidentally this interpretation would mean that the following clause stating all the three parties to the agreement as being one ‘ummah’ or ‘one nation’ would make the Charter a declaration of the oneness of all the members of the city state. It would be similar to the concept of nationality of the modern day nation states.
It is based on this interpretation that present day writers present the Medina Charter as being a basis for nation building.
Proof of the inclusion of the Polytheists in this agreement is further enforced by the reference to the polytheists in the clause 20(B) which states:-
“And it is not allowed for any of the polytheists to protect the property of the (Meccan) Quraish nor their lives and to prevent the Believer from attaining his rights (with respect to the property or life)”.
This clause becomes somewhat meaningless if the polytheists are not a party to the Charter.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, (is it even possible?) my first response to Aloysius’s first article put forward three main points as follows:-
1. The Medina Charter was an agreement between all members of the Medinan Society which I still hold to be true as per the arguments above.
2. That there is a difference between the Medina Charter and the treaties with other religionists in lands later liberated by the Muslims. This point I assume is not an issue.
3. That the treatment of the non-Muslims in the case of the latter were based on the principles of ‘Siyasah Syariiyah’ which has to principally conform to Islam’s demand for justice for all but the details of which were influenced by the circumstances and practices of that time.
I will now concentrate on the third point and argue it out as follows:-
1. The Jizyah is not a ‘humiliation’ of the ahlul-dhimmah On the question of surrender and submission and humiliation, Aloysious states that there is little difference between these terms. If that is so, then no government can be free of an intention to humiliate as every government will need the citizens to surrender to its authority, unless of course if you are an anarchist.
When the previously non-Muslim government falls to the Muslim army, allegiances have to change, as there is now a new government in place.
Payment of the Jizyah forms an act of acceptance of the new government by the non-Muslim citizens and does not necessarily denote humiliation. The payment denotes acceptance of the new status quo while implying that there will be no attempt to oppose it by force of arms. Those citizens who become Muslims pay the zakat and will be at the beck and call of the Muslim army in the event an need arises.
Any government will insist on the acceptance of its sovereignty. What makes the government just or otherwise are the policies, which it implements concerning its people, and not the fact that it demands loyalty and allegiance from its subjects. In this case, the non-Muslims are allowed to keep and practice their religion; their honor will be protected, as will be their lives and property. They will be allowed to partake of the developments in society and even progress in status and position based on merit. Maimonides himself being a case in point.
However, there should be no intention of challenging the authority of the government.
In the case of the Banu Taghlib, their refusal to pay the Jizyah denotes unwillingness to give allegiance and submit to the new government. The reasons for their feeling humiliated and refusing to pay jizyah may simply be to their unwillingness to be a ‘protected people’ insisting that they are capable of protecting themselves. They consider themselves free and autonomous and any acceptance or submission to the new authority would be a humiliation. This unwillingness to submit to the new order is therefore interpreted as an act of defiance and would therefore be met with force as would be natural for any government, even in this day and age, would do.
It is most likely that as a result they were ‘punished’ for their defiance by having tighter and more restrictive terms included in their eventual surrender. This was intended to ensure that no other tribe would follow their example of defiance. That may well be the reason for the terms during the time of Umar Abdul Aziz.
2. The Dress code and accepting Islam’s position of authority In the case of the treaty of Umar, what I mentioned was that it was normal for the various tribes and peoples to dress in a particular manner, identifying their faiths, allegiances and area from which they came. It is safe to assume that the code was based on what was already practiced by the various tribes and religionists.
Why was this necessary? As I explained, it is in order to distinguish the people as after the ‘liberation’ or ‘opening’ of a new territory; the allegiances were still in doubt. I mentioned that there might still be belligerent and combative elements; I did not say ‘difficult times’. Distinguishing the different tribes was a necessary tool for security and control. Also, the way the society was then with the different tribes each having their own tribal leaders etc. would have made the dress code a useful tool for identifying who comes from where and the party they report to.
I did not go into the other details as I thought it was clear based on the same line of logic that the state needs to be in control. As allegiances were suspect, there is a need to ensure that there would not be an attempt to challenge the status quo. The restriction with respect to riding horses and bearing of swords was explained. With respect to the churches, it is in recognition of the fact that it was a Muslim government and although the other religionists were allowed to practice their faiths, it should not be done in a manner seen as a challenge to the authority of Islam, which had just been established. This was more a politically motivated policy rather than a religious edict.
The repair of the Churches falling into disrepair would have meant those Churches abandoned by the people due to their conversion to Islam. These Churches would be left unattended as they were no longer in use and it would be a useful propaganda for the new Government. This again, is a purely ‘political’ action and not one based on a religious edict.
As is proven in other periods, Churches were allowed to be built. Below is an extract from Islamonline which summarised the points written by Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi in his book Ghayr al-Muslmein fi el-Mujtama` al-Islami; Wahbah Pub., Cairo, 1997. in reference to this fact.
“Permitting non-Muslims to build their own houses of worship in towns mainly populated by Muslims also falls under this scope, where early in Muslim history several churches were built in Egypt during the first Hijri century. An example of this is the construction of the Mar Marcus Church in Alexandria (between AH 39 and 56), and the construction of the first church in Fustat in the Roman Alley during the reign of Maslamah ibn Mikhled (between the years AH 47 and 68). Ruler Abdul `Aziz ibn Marwan also authorized constructing a church in Helwan while founding the city, besides allowing a number of bishops to erect hermitage cells.
Historian Al-Maqrizi once said, “All modern day Cairo churches were undoubtedly restored in Islam.”
As for the villages and areas which are not considered among the Muslim provinces, non-Muslims were not repressed against practicing and illustrating their religious rituals, including the renovation of old churches and cathedrals, and were free to expand building such houses of worship as their population grew”.
3. Details of treaties being ‘Circumstantial’ I also mentioned earlier that the details of treaties were also ‘circumstantial’.
I would like to highlight this point by referring to the personality mentioned by Aloysious when talking about Islamic Spain, namely the Jewish philosopher Maimonides. It is true that when the Al-Muwahiddun or the Al-Mohads, as the west calls them, came into Spain, the political scenario was in turmoil. The rule of the Al-Murabbitun was collapsing and it seemed as though Spain would return to the age of the ‘Muluk Al-Tawaif’ or ‘the kings of tribes’ wherein there would be many small kingdoms fighting one against the other. In the face of this political instability the Al-Muwahiddun moved in and took control of Spain. They stamped their leadership by the harshest of terms, part of it by making the Spanish Jews choose between Islam, migration or death.
The family of Maimonides, who was then in his early teens, after a while, opted to migrate. Strangely enough, they migrated to North Africa and then settled in Al-Maghribi or Morocco and went to Fez. Fez was the seat of the Al-Muwahiddun’s throne! The Al-Muwahiddun were based in Morocco as was the Al-Murabitun before them.
Maimonides then studied in the University of Fez, by some accounts, then moved on to Egypt where the Fatimids were initially in power only to be replaced shortly by the Seljuks. Maimonides was then made the personal physician to Salahuddin’s family, particularly to his son. Yes, THE Salahuddin Al-Ayubi.
Conditions in Spain were different, political policies were different. Conditions in Morocco and Egypt were different, political policies were different. However, I personally do not accept the practice of forced conversions, all be it for the sake of political expediency, as one sanctioned by Islam.
4. The issue of forced conversions Islam is very clear on this issue of forced conversions. In Surah Yunus, Verse 99 and 100 Allah SWT says :-
“If your Lord had enforced His will, surely all who are on the earth would have become believers (Muslims) all together. Will you then force men to become believers? And no soul will become a believer except by the permission of God. His wrath will descend on those who will not use their reasoning.”
In a nutshell; Who do you think you are to force people to become Believers when even God allows them this freedom of choice! And, God and God alone will decide who will receive the gift of His guidance and believe! And finally the wrath of God is promised for those who do not use their brains, i.e. those who do not acknowledge God’s decision on free choice and force people to convert AND those who do not choose belief when so many signs of His greatness is evident all around us.
Nonetheless, even the ‘forced’ conversions practiced by the Al-Muwaihiddun was explained by Maimonides in his later writings as something merely requiring verbal confession without any real enforcement or enthusiasm about it. No thumbscrews here. When brought to court after having been recognised by some one from Spain as having been a Muslim in Spain and then becoming an apostate in Egpyt, a Judge declared forced conversions as a farce and rejected the case when it was brought to court.
5. The issue of ‘liberating’ or otherwise and the issue of Spain I note Aloysious’s contention on the question of the expansion of Islam and its liberating nature. He says non-Muslim records belie this characterization (which I dispute). He even gives the Japanese expansion during WW II as fair comparison stating that “Conquerors and empire builders in history are apt to give pretty names to their acts of aggression. The Muslim conquerors needed to legitimize religiously their military adventures: hence the Muslim historians’ characterization of the conquests as liberation from impious regimes and an “opening” up of the people to the message of God”.
The same skepticism is employed when talking about Muslim Spain while however this time acknowledging that I am joining “a long and distinguished line of people in citing the so-called golden age of Islam in Spain, where Jews, Christians and Muslims are all supposed to have lived in glorious harmony”. He then states that there is a strain of amnesia affecting people when talking about Muslim Spain and “that there needs to be a moratorium on selective citations of Muslim Spain as the exemplar of tolerance and harmonious co-existence”.
All I can say in response is that the history is there for all to see and if one seeks the truth objectively then the facts will speak for themselves. I believe history is proof of the liberation, which was Islam. The justice with which the early Muslim rulers ruled is well documented and can in no way be compared to the rule of the Japanese armies in the Far East. The speed with which Islam was accepted by the ‘liberated’ communities was astounding to say the least, more so as it was achieved without the ‘Inquisitions’ or ‘Genocide’ and forced conversions which some wish us to believe.
The unopposed expansion of the Islamic empire into Egypt, freeing the Coptic Christians from the persecution of Byzantine as well as its expansion into Africa and finally into Spain was all achieved within 70 years of the death of the Holy Prophet (MPBUH). The exemplary character of the Muslims and their leaders won hearts and conversions occurred by the thousands. Wherever Islam expanded into, it brought illumination, growth and prosperity. Unknown towns such as ‘Timbuktu’ became centers of learning, visited and frequented by all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
I find great difficulty in drawing parallels with the ‘ubi kayu’ era which Aloysious refers to.
Similarly, in the west and north, Islam expanded into Iran, Palestine, Syria, went to the borders of China, and established formal diplomatic ties with the Tang dynasty in the same period. Muslim armies served the Tang dynasty well, saving its rule during the Anxi rebellion when the emperor was too busy with his Madam Yang.
Such speedy expansion could not have been achieved without the support of the locals who quickly joined the fold of Islam and became equal partners in its empire. Tariq Ibn Ziyad, known in Spanish history and legend as Taric el Tuerto (Taric the one-eyed), a Berber, the Muslim general leading the Muslim army into Spain at the request of Julian, a Christian aristocrat, was probably the first generation of Muslim himself.
With respect to Spain, the long and distinguished list of people referred to by Aloysious is made up of Muslim and non-Muslim historians and intellectuals. As a researcher, Aloysious should be more open to the facts. I am the first to acknowledge that there might be some deviations but lets "not miss the forest for the trees".
6. PAS and ‘Theocracy’ It is not true that PAS seeks to “replicate a medieval theocratic state in the 21st century” as claimed by Aloysious. First, we have to acknowledge that ‘theocracy’ is not something which came from Islam. Theocracy in the form of the unification of religious and political authority, or the subjugation of the political authority to the religious authority, while the religious authority holds absolute power and has the sole right to interpret religion, came from the west.
Islamic history, after the time of the Prophet (MPBUH), saw the separation of political and religious authority even in the time of the Rightly Guided caliphs. Even in the time of the Prophet, the Prophet had full authority on religious issues but on political policies, he held discussions with his Companions.
The second Caliph, Umar Al-Khattab, had no total authority on religious issues. He was reprimanded in one instance by a Muslimat on the issue of dowries which he ruled should have a limit set. After a short debate, he conceded defeat and admitted that the Muslimat was right. Religion is not the monopoly of anyone or any institution in Islam and many scholars in Islam’s history publicly criticsed the Muslim kings. The ulama’ in the past, was a diverse and independent institution which argues its case based on religious arguments hoping to convince the Muslim masses through persuasion rather than coercion. They were like current day NGOs only that they would have influence and following due to their religious knowledge and their ability in presenting and convincing the public.
The umara’ or the rulers of later years were consistently attempting to place the ulama’ under one body for ease of control. However, in most cases, they failed.
‘Theocracy’ has little to do with Islam and as such it is not within the political objectives of PAS. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of PAS. The party’s constitution and the way it is organised should be proof enough of this fact.
7. What we agree on I am glad that there is something that we agree on and what we agree on seems to be THE most important, namely that political policies in the past were based on circumstances then and need not have any kind of force for our time. Then it was a system of Monarchy, all be it based on some form of Islamic justification. Now it is a democracy and it is in recognition of this fact that the Medina Charter, as interpreted above, can be referred to by the Muslims as a basis of Nation building.
With respect to the question who then speaks for Islam, the correct answer would be the Quran and the Prophetic traditions and ALL who speak based on these. It is for this reason that the voice of Islam still sounds the same, be it when in power or otherwise.
WalLahu ‘Alam
 |
