Non-Muslims` rights

By Syed Imad-ud-Din Asad
Friday, 25 Feb, 2011


TO many westerners, Islamic law often seems problematic and puzzling. One of the main reasons for this is the variety of contradictory approaches in different Muslim countries regarding the nature of government, fundamental rights, rule of law, rights of non-Muslims, the concept of the welfare state, etc.

Various Muslim regimes, in order to maintain their hold on power, often enact laws and take measures that are inconsistent not only with the western notions of equity and justice, but, more importantly, with provisions given in the basic Islamic texts. Similarly, certain Muslim scholars, trying to gain quick popularity among ignorant Muslim masses in order to further their selfish political ambitions, often make statements that are contrary to Islamic values, as may be ascertained from the Quran and the Sunnah, the two primary sources of Islamic law.

All these factors create a negative image of Islam as people generally make an estimate of an ideology by looking at the behaviour of its adherents.

The status of non-Muslims in Islamic law is a frequently discussed topic. It is a general perception in the West that non-Muslims are second-rate citizens in an Islamic state. However, if we look at the Quran and the Sunnah, we find a different story. In the early and medieval Islamic state, except for the right to political equality, non-Muslims had the same rights as Muslims. Their life, respect and property were as sacred as those of their Muslim counterparts.

Non-Muslims living in an Islamic state were called ‘Dhimmis’. The word ‘dhimmah’ means ‘pledge’ or ‘guarantee’. ‘Dhimmi’, contrary to the prevalent misconception, is not a derogatory term; it signifies that these people were under the protection guaranteed by Allah and His Prophet (PBUH).

There are numerous sayings of the Prophet emphasising that non-Muslim citizens must be treated well and their rights must be protected by the state as well as Muslim members of the community. He once said, “Whoever hurts a Dhimmi, hurts me. And whoever hurts me, he annoys Allah.” (Bukhari) Similarly, “Beware! On the Day of Judgment, I shall myself be the complainant against one who wrongs a Dhimmi….” (Al-Mawardi)

Al-Qarafi, the Islamic scholar, while commenting on the responsibility of the Islamic state to Dhimmis said, “It is the responsibility of the Muslims to the people of the Dhimmah to care for their weak, fulfil the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, provide clothes, address them politely and even tolerate their harm…. The Muslims must also advise them sincerely on their affairs and protect them against anyone who
tries to hurt them or their family, steal their wealth, or violate their rights.”

At this point, it would be apt to discuss the controversial issue of jizyah. Zakat is a tax collected from Muslim citizens; jizyah was the tax collected from adult, male, non-Muslim citizens. The payment of jizyah entitled non-Muslims to state support and protection, and exemption from military service. If a non-Muslim voluntarily fought for the Islamic state, he was exempt from it. Most importantly, if non-Muslims were unable to pay jizyah, the state still looked after them and protected them just like Muslim citizens.

Thus, jizyah was only a tax and not meant to humiliate non-Muslims. If Muslim citizens paid zakat to the state, there was no harm in collecting jizyah from non-Muslim citizens. Do modern western states not impose taxes on their citizens? They do.

Similarly, lack of political equality between Muslims and non-Muslims is viewed as a huge deficiency in Islamic law by westerners. The fact is that a state based on a particular ideology, like Islam, should be governed by people who adhere to it. In other words, owing to its ideological nature, a non-Muslim cannot become the head of an Islamic state.

Simply speaking, religion and ideology are not that different from each other. Therefore, the requirement of allegiance to Islam is the same as the requirement that an American, in order to hold a public office, undertake an oath to a fundamentally bourgeois constitution. Just as the Sharia signifies certain values, the constitution of the US signifies certain values.

Unlike other beliefs and systems, Islam cannot be accused of conducting forced conversions, witch hunts, inquisitions and holocausts. In fact, Muslim territories often served as a refuge for non-Muslims facing oppression and persecution in other places. Spain, under Muslim rule, was the only place in Europe where Jews could live with safety and dignity. After the fall of Muslim Spain, Jews were expelled from there and they found a sanctuary in another Muslim realm, i.e., the Ottoman Empire.

Muslim India was another example. Despite centuries of Muslim rule, the majority of its population remained non-Muslim. It is a well-known fact that Muslim rulers even made generous donations to temples and other religious places of Hindus and others. It is also interesting to note that, according to Al-Maqrizi, all the famous churches of Cairo were built during Muslim rule. Considering all these historical facts, the destruction of two statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan, in 2001 by the Taliban government was totally un-Islamic. They did not act in accordance with Islam; it was a deplorable attempt to further their own political interests by manipulating the religious emotions of their ignorant Muslim population.

It is important not to confuse such despicable actions with Islamic values. For instance, if a Jew kills a man, it would be outrageous to say that Judaism makes murderers. Similarly, it would be utterly incorrect to say that the Spanish Inquisition was conducted because the Gospel instructed so.