Marrakesh declaration on Minority rights: has Islam actually been applied?
- Apr 9, 2016
- 15 min read
Recall the day when a hate-mongering Muslim man slit open the womb of a helpless Hindu woman with a sword, removed her foetus and held it up proudly? Or the day when a 12 year old Buddhist boy watched a group of Muslim men beat his father’s head with bricks and slaughter him with a knife? Or when Muslim soldiers gang-raped Christian women before their kids?... and before their helpless fathers in another instance? Or the day when a Muslim soldier shot a 13 year old Jewish girl 17 times?
You probably cannot, because these instances never happened. Now, swap the religions of the oppressor and the oppressed and these fictional incidents will turn into facts.1 2 3 4 5
Muslims were oppressed at the time of Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) and they are oppressed today across the globe and the instances stated above are just a tip of the iceberg. Yet, we do not hear of conferences or meetings by the Muslim leaders to protect their rights. So, when “more than 250 Muslim religious leaders, heads of state, and scholars got together to hold a three day summit (25-27 Jan ’16) in Marrakesh, Morocco”, to discuss how to protect non-Muslims living in their midst, it makes you wonder, that when the same leaders care two cents about the oppression of their own Muslim brethren around the world, do they then really care about the non-Muslims’ conditions in their lands?6
Anyhow, the conference is not unwarranted, but that it’s a farce. That’s because had the Muslim rulers really been concerned about the welfare of their non-Muslim citizens, they would set up the Charter of Medina fully, which, ironically was the basis for calling the conference. Non-Muslims face persecution in many Muslim lands, be it the persecution of Christians in Egypt or of Hindus in Bangladesh.7 8
The middle-eastern Muslim countries cannot brag about the fact that they are better off in treating religious minorities than the non-Muslim countries. In Islam, there is no relative measure of success, there’s only an objective one. And that is giving the non-Muslim citizens absolute rights granted to them by the Shariah. Not cherry-picking the rights towards one’s own benefit.
This is irrespective of how the Muslims are treated in non-Muslim majority countries. To persecute innocent non-Muslims living in the Muslim lands is absolutely unislamic ("…and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just." [TMQ Al Mai’dah:8]) and in the case of pseudo-Islamic groups like ISIS, cowardice. Bravery in Islam is not displayed by killing innocent non-Muslims living amongst Muslims for crimes committed by non-Muslim governments against Muslims. It is not even so by killing innocent civilians in non-Muslim lands.
The middle-eastern countries, far from treating the non-Muslim citizens equally, do not even treat non-Arab Muslims equally. The aggressive “Emiratisation” policy, for instance, blatantly challenges the final instructions given by Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) to the Muslims in his Hajjatul-Wida speech. And they quite hypocritically quote from the Charter of Medina in their conference!
Charter of Medina
The Charter of Medina (Sahifat-al-Madina) is arguably the oldest written constitution in history. It was drafted by Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) when he migrated to Medina as the arbiter and ruler of Yathrib (Medina) over the warring tribes who pledged their allegiance to him. These tribes were at fighting odds with each for over a hundred years. Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) set clear terms regulating each of these tribes and effectively ending the bloody conflict between these tribes. It also gave the Jews who were referred as Dhimmis (non-Muslims living in an Islamic state), their rights by mentioning each of their tribes by name, just as the rules and rights for other tribes were mentioned. It did not refer to them as “minorities” as the word “minority” has an alienating connotation to it. As Adnan Khan puts it “Islam does not recognize the term minorities with regards to non-Muslim in the Khilafah. Islam has detailed its stance regarding religious groupings and non-Muslims and has the concept of “ahl-udh-dhimmah”” (people of the covenant), which carries a moral significance not reflected in the term minorities. The word dhimmah means protection..”9
One of the clauses mentioned in the Charter of Medina is- “To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.“ [Seerah Rasulullah, Ibn Ishaq]
The charter, understood in its ancient context is revolutionary in that it sought to establish a unified society with social, economic and legal rights meted out equally to all citizens irrespective of their religion, race or class.
The Quran and Ahadith further elaborate and stress on this subject.
So unto this then invite (people), and stand firm as you are commanded, and follow not their desires but say: "I believe in whatsoever Allah has sent down of the Book and I am commanded to do justice among you. [TMQ Shuurah:15]
Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. [TMQ Mum'taḥanah:8]
"There is no compulsion in religion…" [TMQ Baqarah:256]
The Prophet (s.a.w.s) said, “Whoever hurts a Dhimmi (non Muslim citizen), I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection.” [Al-Khatib]
In another narration He (s.a.w.s) said “He who hurts a Dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.” [At–Tabarani]
He (s.a.w.s) also said, “On the Day of Judgment I will dispute with anyone who oppresses a person from among the People of the Covenant, or infringes upon his right, or puts a responsibility on him which is beyond his strength, or takes something from him against his will.” [Abu Dawud]
Draft Constitution
Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabahani (rh) codified a draft constitution for the Islamic state from the sources of Shariah.10 Some select articles from his draft suiting the context of this subject are reproduced below:
Article 5
‘All citizens of the Islamic State are entitled to enjoy the divine rights and duties.’
Article 6
‘All citizens of the State shall be treated equally regardless of religion, race, colour or any other matter. The State is forbidden to discriminate among its citizens in all matters, be it ruling or judicial, or caring of affairs.’
Article 7
‘The State implements the divine law on all citizens who hold citizenship of the
Islamic State, whether Muslims or not, in the following manner:
a. The divine law is implemented in its entirety, without exception, on all Muslims;
b. Non-Muslims are allowed to follow their own beliefs and worships.
c. Those who are guilty of apostasy (murtad) from Islam are to be executed according
to the rule of apostasy, provided they have themselves renounced Islam. If they are born as non-Muslims, i.e., if they are the sons of apostates, then they are treated as non-Muslims according to their status as being either polytheists (mushriks) or People of the Book.
d. In matters of food and clothing the non-Muslims are treated according to their religions within the limits allowed by AHkam Shara’iah.
e. Marital affairs, including divorce, among non-Muslims are settled in accordance with their religions, but between non-Muslims and Muslims they are settled according to the divine law.
f. All the remaining Shara'iah matters and rules, such as: the application of transactions, punishments and evidences (at court), the system of ruling and economics are implemented by the State upon everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. This includes the people of treaties (muâaahid), the protected subjects (ahlu zimmah) and all who submit to the authority of Islam. The implementation on these people is the same as the implementation on the subjects of the State. Ambassadors and envoys enjoy diplomatic immunity.’
[An example from the al-ʿUhda al-ʿUmariyya (or Umar's (r.a) Assurance) to the Christians of Aelia, Jerusalem is noteworthy: ‘In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the assurance of safety which the servant of God, Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, has given to the people of Jerusalem. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and healthy of the city and for all the rituals which belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabited by Muslims and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will be damaged. They will not be forcibly converted. No Jew will live with them in Jerusalem. (Tarikh at-Tabari)]
Article 13
‘Every individual is innocent until proven guilty. No person shall be punished without a court sentence. Torturing is absolutely forbidden and whoever inflicts torture on anyone shall be punished.’
[One of the many outstanding examples of justice meted out by Muslims towards non-Muslims: A man named Ta’ima stole a suit of armor from Qataada, his neighbor. Qataada had hidden the armor inside a sack of flour so, when Ta’ima took it, the flour leaked out of the sack through a hole, leaving a trail up to his house. Ta’ima then left the armor in the care of a Jewish man named Zayed, who kept it in his house, in order to conceal his crime. Thus, when the people searched for the stolen armor, they followed the trail of flour to Ta’ima’s house but did not find it there. When confronted, he swore to them he had not taken it and knew nothing about it. The people helping the owner also swore that they had seen him breaking into Qataada’s house at night, and had subsequently followed the tell-tale trail of flour, which had led them to his house. Nevertheless, after hearing Ta’ima swearing he was innocent, they left him alone and looked for further clues, finally finding a thinner trail of flour leading to the house of Zayed, and so arrested him.
The Jewish man told them that Ta’ima had left the armor with him, and some Jewish people confirmed his statement. The tribe to which Ta’ima belonged sent some of their men to the Messenger of God to present his side of the story, and asked them to defend him. The delegation was told, ‘If you do not defend our clansman, Ta’ima, he will lose his reputation and be punished severely, and the Jew will go free.’ The Prophet was subsequently inclined to believe them, and was about to punish the Jewish man when God revealed the following verses of the Quran to vindicate the Jew. The verse continues to be recited by Muslims today as a reminder that justice must be served for all:
"Indeed, We have revealed to you, (O Muhammad), the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you. And do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of God. Indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, God loves not one who is a habitually sinful deceiver. They conceal [their evil intentions and deeds] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from God, and He is with them (in His knowledge) when they spend the night in such as He does not accept of speech. And God ever is encompassing of what they do. Here you are – those who argue on their behalf in [this] worldly life – but who will argue with God for them on the Day of Resurrection, or who will [then] be their representative?" (TMQ An-Nisa:105-109), (Tafsir ibn Kathir, Jalalayn, Qurtubi and Tabari)]
Article 66
Judgeship is the pronouncement of the verdict in a binding way. It settles the disputes among people, prevents that which harms the community's rights and eliminates the disputes arising between people and members of the ruling apparatus - rulers and employees - including the Khaleefah and those of lesser rank.’
[Would the corrupt leaders of today ever be free from judicial immunity like Ali (r.a) the Khalifah of the Muslims, was?-
Once, a dispute arouse between Ali ibn Ali Talib, when he was the Caliph, and a Jewish man who went to Judge Shurayh al-Kindi. Shuray tells the details of what happened:
"Ali found he was missing his coat of mail, so he went back to Kufa and found it in the hands of a Jewish man who was selling it in the market. He said, ‘O Jew! That coat of mail is mine! I did not give it away or sell it!’ The Jew responded ‘It is mine. It is in my possession.’ Ali said, ‘We will have the judge rule on this for us.’
So they came to me and Ali sat next to me and said, ‘That coat of mail is mine; I did not give it away or sell it.’ The Jew sat in front of me and said, ‘That is my coat of mail. It is in my possession.’ I asked, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, do you have any proof?’ ‘Yes,’ Ali said. ‘My son Hasan and Qanbarah can testify that it is my coat of mail.’
I said, ‘Commander of the Faithful, the testimony of a son in his father’s favor is not admissible in court.’
Ali exclaimed, ‘How Perfect is God! You cannot accept the testimony of a man who has been promised Paradise? I heard the Messenger of God saying that Hasan and Husain are the princes of the youth in Paradise.’ (At-Tirmidhi)
The Jewish man said, ‘The Commander of the Faithful takes me before his own judge and the judge rules in my favor against him! I bear witness that no one deserves worship except God and that Muhammad is His Messenger [the Jewish man accepted Islam], and that the coat of armor is yours, Commander of the Faithful. You dropped it at night and I found it.’ (Tarikh al-Qudat)]
Article 94
‘The Khaleefah must exercise strict control over the walis and continually assess their performance. He must deputise people to monitor them and enquire about them. He has to periodically gather the walis , or some of them, and listen to the complaints of the ummah of them.’
[This brings to mind the incident of a Christian and the son of Amr Ibn Al-'As (r.a), the Wali of Egypt. The ruler's son, boasting about his nobility, hit the Christian with a whip. The Copt complained to Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (r.a), who then summoned Amr and his son to Madinah. Umar gave the whip to the Copt’s son and said, “Whip this son of a noble man” After he had done so, Umar said, “Now whip the bald head of Amr, because his son beat you on account of his father's authority.” The Copt replied, “I have already whipped the person who whipped me.” Then 'Umar turned his face to Amr and uttered his everlasting words, “O Amr, since when do you treat as slaves those who were born as free men?” (Al Wilayah ‘ala al Buldan)]
Article 101
‘The members of the Majlis al-Ummah are those people who represent the Muslims in respect of expressing their views to the Khaleefah when consulted. Non-Muslims are allowed to be members of the Majlis al-Ummah so that they can voice their complaints in respect to unjust acts performed by the rulers or the misapplication of the Islamic laws.’
Article 152
‘The State is to guarantee the living expenses of the one who has no money, no work and no relatives responsible for his financial maintenance. The State is responsible for housing and maintaining the disabled and handicapped people.’
[Umar ibn Al Khattab (r.a) once saw an old Jewish beggar whom he found to be destitute. Ordering the state authorities to pay for his livelihood, he observed, "It is unjust if we collect the capitation tax from him in his youth and abandon him in his old age.” (Al-Kharaj, Abu Yusuf)
Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (r.a), as the Khalifah, ensured that those from the dhimmis who grew old and lost strength were provided with money from the treasury. (Al Amwaal, Volume 1)
Once when Umar (r.a) was on his way to Syria, he came across some Christian lepers at Jabia. He ordered the financial authorities to give them help from the Zakah funds and to provide for them. (Futuh Al-Buldan)]
Freedom of religion or freedom of belief?
The Muslims in the Muslim lands today are averse to a cohesive society not because they need to be lectured on tolerance from a secular perspective but because they are being subjected to a system that is different from their ideology. The Charter, the conference mentions about, was not a piece of philosophical guidelines for people to pick and choose what they like from, but was the bedrock of the Islamic state. Until that is implemented fully, rather than used merely as a reference book, rights of non-Muslims cannot be guaranteed. The Khaleefahs of the past, unlike the current Muslim rulers, secured the rights of the non-Muslims in the Khilafah not for personal political agenda but because the Shariah mandated them to. In modern day, the same sources of Shariah are twisted and interpreted by each insincere ruler or scholar towards their own ends. In this case, an attempt can be seen to use the freedom of belief granted by Islam to push for acceptance of freedom of religion by the Muslims. Freedom of religion is an alien concept. What it entails is that people have the right to NOT be ruled by Islam if they are not followers of Islam. The Western secular society propagates this as a “humane” and the most tolerant concept. They are promptly supported by the Muslim apologetics who desperately try to make Islam “look” good in the eyes of the Kuffar by reconciling Islam with the Western secular ideology.
The fact is most people in the world, especially in the contemporary world where almost half the world lives in poverty, care that a little over their basics be assured to them.11 Islam assures that and more in terms of their religious beliefs and practices. That would ensure the peace and happiness of all human beings living in the Khilafah. Even the unbiased non-Muslim historians confirm this in their books-
“At the time of the Umayyad caliphate, the people of the covenant, Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Sabians, all enjoyed degree of tolerance that we do not find even today in Christian countries. They were free to practice the rituals of their religion and their churches and temples were preserved. They enjoyed autonomy in that they were subject to the religious laws of the scholars and judges.” - Will Durant, ‘The Story Of Civilization.’
“The tolerance of Muhammad towards the Jews and Christians was truly grand; the founders of other religions that appeared before him, Judaism and Christianity in particular, did not prescribe such goodwill. His caliphs followed the same policy, and his tolerance has been acknowledged by skeptics and believers alike when they study the history of the Arabs in depth.” – Gustav LeBon, ‘Arab Civilization,’
‘We never heard of a report of any planned attempt to compel non-Muslim minorities to accept Islam, or any organized persecution aimed at uprooting the Christian religion. If any of the caliphs had chosen any of these policies, they would have overwhelmed Christianity with the same ease with which Ferdinand and Isabella exiled Islam from Spain, or with which Louis XIV made following Protestantism a punishable crime in France, or with which the Jews were exiled from England for 350 years. A that time Eastern churches were completely isolated from the rest of the Christian world. They had no supporters in the world as they were considered heretical sects of Christianity. Their very existence to this day is the strongest evidence of the policy of Islamic government’s tolerance towards them.’ – Sir Thomas Walker Arnold, ‘The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith’
“On July 30 of that year (1492), the entire Jewish community, some 200,000 people, were expelled from Spain. The most fortunate of the expelled Jews succeeded in escaping to Turkey. Sultan Bajazet (Bayezid II) welcomed them warmly. "How can you call Ferdinand of Aragon a wise king," he was fond of asking, "the same Ferdinand who impoverished his own land and enriched ours?" - Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Literacy.
That is Freedom of belief for you. Islam…. transparent and honest. Freedom of religion, on the other hand is a tool in the hands of the capitalists to sway people’s opinions in their favour by holding themselves out as the Messiah of the messed up world which in originality has been messed up by them. Has the Western world which claims to be the contemporary leaders of the world come even close to setting examples of tolerance and justice as we have seen in the rich Islamic history? Or have their puppet Muslim rulers? They may claim to have written up “inclusive” constitutional canons but their implementation falls way below their own standards. Rules such as torture being illegal are barely followed by any country. Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) under the guidance of Allah (s.w.t) not only set an example in setting up codes for a progressive society but also demonstrated it practically by adhering to his treaties to the letter.
In Islam, it is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) unlike in other societies which propagate farcical concepts such as freedom of religion and democracy. What freedom of religion would one have if he is subjugated to man-made laws? The freedom to change faces?
If the non-Muslim attendees felt the need for a conference to solve the minority problem, shouldn’t they be returning to their respective countries and force their leaders into holding such a conference collectively? But then, the question arises, which of the non-Muslim countries would host it? Would it be Burma where Muslims citizens are stripped off their citizenship, tortured, killed or kicked out to head to no-man’s land? Or would it be India where on average about two communal incidents happen every day? Or would it be China where Muslims are force fed in Ramadan and fired for attending Friday prayers? Or North Korea where more than 50,000 Christians are locked in concentration camps? Or the Western world where Islamophobia rules the media space, Muslim women cannot wear the Burqa, Halal meat is banned and Mosques are shut down?12 13 14 15 16 17 18
There is no freedom of religion anywhere in the world. Yet, the Muslim leaders, barring EVERYTHING else that is in the Shariah, find it necessary to promote ‘freedom of religion’ in the Muslim lands by using the mention of ‘freedom of belief’ in the Shariah. They want to push their concepts and skewed view of the charter. That way they can justify implementation of a compromised solution. Democracy, capitalism, or even dictatorship is justified.
If they really considered the charter sacred why wouldn’t they implement it fully? Why wouldn’t the scholars call for the total implementation of the Shariah rather than microscopic view of select laws? In other words. Why not call for the Khilafah? In fact, the declaration (called Marrakesh declaration) made at the conference incudes a clause which reads-
“DECLARE HEREBY our firm commitment to the principles articulated in the Charter of Medina, whose provisions contained a number of the principles of constitutional contractual citizenship, such as freedom of movement, property ownership, mutual solidarity and defense, as well as principles of justice and equality before the law;”19
If they considered Prophet (s.a.w.s) as the best lawgiver why not take all of his laws and call for it? The king of Morocco was referred to as “amir al mumineen” in the conference by the committee heading scholar. Was he comparing him to the Khulafah of the past or was he impressing upon him for whatever reason?
Why cannot the sincere attendees of the conference and sincere followers of these sheikhs see this glaring contradiction? Why does the average Muslim get fooled into believing that Islamic law is just a bundle of philosophy and spiritual advice when all it takes is a simple check into his glorious history and rich texts? But then when you realise we live in a world where someone who spent 40% of his office time on vacation can be voted for US president… twice… the world begins to make sense again.20
2 Rajab, 1437 al-Hijri / 9 April, 2016 CE
References:
http://www.tehelka.com/2012/08/in-the-words-of-the-men-who-did-it/6/
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21654124-myanmars-muslim-minority-have-been-attacked-impunity-stripped-vote-and-driven
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/22/sarajevo.rape/index.html?eref=rss
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/woman-tells-gang-rape-soldiers-article-1.833332
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/israel2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/crisis-and-opportunity-in-muslim-world_b_9076930.html?section=india
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/05/05/outside-cairo-egypt-christians-face-persecution.html
http://www.clickittefaq.com/more-stories/attacks-minorities-continue/
www.khilafah.com/book-the-top-100-questions-on-khilafah/
The System of Islam, Taqiuddin an-Nabahani
United Nations Development Programme. "Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience." Human Development Report, 2014. Web Accessed February 25, 2015
http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/35290/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Communal-violence-shows-24-jump-in-first-five-months-of-2015-shows-govt-data/articleshow/48167102.cms
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ramadan-2014-china-force-feeds-muslim-students-break-fast-during-holy-month-1456367
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/feb/01/northkorea
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312016/Frances-Senate-bans-women-wearing-burka-public.html
http://time.com/3974498/denmark-ban-kosher-halal/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513388/Angola-bans-Islam-shuts-mosques.html
http://www.marrakeshdeclaration.org/marrakesh-declaration.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/12/usa.garyyounge
Comments