Beginning with the first quarter of the 20th century, people in Arab countries started their struggle for independence. Their efforts were crowned with success and God restored their authority to them. This heralded the formation of the new Arab states where we live today. These states were the product of the struggle undertaken by all their populations against foreign occupation. Muslims and non-Muslims took part on equal basis in that struggle, suffered all types of oppression and sacrificed their lives together in order to make it impossible for the colonial powers to continue to rule over them. When they gained independence, they adopted ‘constitutions’ to regulate life in their new states.
A fundamental point in these constitutions is the equality of all ‘citizens’, which is a term previously unknown in our legal jargon. Indeed the very concept was unfamiliar. Most Arab constitutions prevent discrimination between citizens on the basis of religious belief. Both Muslims and non-Muslims endorsed that and lived under these constitutions when they were respected and implemented. Similarly, they suffered oppression together under dictatorial regimes that violated their provisions, and at times physically tore them. No question of discrimination was raised except with regard to matters of purely religious nature, marriage and the like.
With the inception of the contemporary Islamic revivalist movements, Muslim leaders began to speak about implementing Islamic law as their ultimate goal. Some non-Muslims began to express their concern that this might lead to the abandonment of the equality of all citizens that has become a reality. Some people who are hostile to Islam, even though they have Muslim names, also suggested that the purpose behind this Islamic revival was to re-instate the old treatment of non-Muslims as dhimmi, referring to the dhimmah contract that the early Muslims pledged to non-Muslims in the Islamic state. Such hostile people further suggested that this meant that non-Muslims would become second class citizens, having less than equal rights of citizenship, freedom and respect of their churches and temples, and lack of respect for their personal and family laws based on their religions. Needless to say, the dhimmah contract provides for nothing of the sort.
Muslim scholars have refuted all these allegations, explaining that dhimmah was a contract, not a situation. The contract is no longer valid since its two parties, or one of them at least, namely the Muslim state, is no longer in existence. It continued to be valid in the case of the heirs to that state up to the Ottoman Caliphate. The modern states in Arab countries are not heirs of that Islamic state so as to make that contract applicable to them. Moreover, the non-Muslims who were party to the dhimmah contract, accepting protection by the Islamic state provided that they were not required to fight, are no longer alive. The non-Muslims who are living with us today are different people who have fought with us against our enemies. They provide soldiers and officers in our armies. Indeed, they have participated in the formation of our states, sacrificing their property and blood in the process. Furthermore, when Western invaders took over large chunks of Muslim land, no one could assume that the dhimmah contract remained valid.
Scholars have also pointed out that when the Prophet established the first Muslim state in Madinah, he made the non-Muslims who were already there as citizens of that state. The treaty the Prophet made with them stipulated that “the Jews were required to support the believers,” and that “the Jews are required to share the expenses with believers as long as the latter are engaged in a war... The parties were all committed to helping one another on an equal basis...” Numerous other provisions in the treaty confirm this fact. The Prophet’s action provides guidance for us to follow. We will certainly be right to follow his practice.
Muslim scholars have also stated that the agreements which have given birth to modern states and have been approved by Muslims and non-Muslims are indeed these constitutions. All Muslims are required by Islam to fulfill their pledges and commitments. To violate these agreements constitutes harm suffered by non-Muslims. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) says: “Whoever harms a dhimmi causes me harm.” He also says: “Whoever quarrels with a person under a pledge will have me as his opponent.”
All this goes to show that Muslims and non-Muslims are equal with regards to the duties and privileges of citizenship. Their relation with the modern Muslim states is regulated in each case by the basic documents establishing these states. These documents must be followed and implemented as long as they do not order the doing of something forbidden or prohibit the doing of a duty established by an authentic religious statement of definitive import. Furthermore, a Muslim must try hard, using all peaceful means, to change the order requiring him to go against his faith. Should he succeed, then that is fine. If not, he has discharged his duty. All people, pious or not, will eventually return to God for judgment. It is up to Him to forgive or punish them.
Arab News Islam 12 May 2003