Democracy,
Pluralism and Minority Rights (Part II)
By Professor Nazeer
Ahmed CA
Democracy
is the battle cry of our times. It is played to
the accompaniment of different drumbeats: capitalist,
socialist, nationalist, internationalist, Islamic,
Western, Eastern, Mid-Eastern, and plain old mumbo
jumbo. As a slogan it is old and it is new. The
Greeks invented it. The Arabs expanded on it.
The French developed it. And today, just about
everyone talks about it. It is at once the political
shield and the political dagger of our times.
Some nations that cry out the loudest for democracy
practice something less that what they preach.
The British constitution, for instance, stipulates
that the head of the British state be a Christian.
As for the French, their historical claims to
raising the banner of liberty and equality during
the French Revolution did not prevent them from
butchering more than a million Algerians during
the war of Algerian independence in the early
1960s.
In the first part of this article we pointed out
that the issue here is representative and responsive
government. In a shrinking planet, the issue becomes
even more acute as nations yield their traditional
powers to multinational corporations and international
banks. The Islamic world, in particular has been
taken to the docks for its poor record on the
democratic front. This article is an attempt to
take a historical look at how Muslims through
the ages have tried to live up to the ideals of
representative and responsive government in pluralistic
frameworks. It is our hope that this brief effort
may shed some light on the contemporary state
of the Islamic world.
Omar ibn al Khattab (r)
No other person after the Prophet influenced Islamic
history as much as did Omar ibn al Khattab (r).
He was the historical figure who institutionalized
Islam and determined the manner in which Muslims
would relate to each other and to non-Muslims.
What the Muslims did, and did not do in later
centuries, was largely shaped by this giant among
the Companions of the Prophet. Omar (r), elected
by consultations among the people of Medina after
the death of Abu Bakr (r), inherited an ongoing
conflict with the Byzantine and the Persian Empires.
When the test of arms was over, both of these
mighty empires had been vanquished and the Arabs
were the masters of territories extending from
the Nile to the Amu Darya.
This vast region was inhabited by Copts, Christians,
Zoroastrians, Buddhists and polytheists. There
was the urgent need to govern these diverse people
and Omar (r) was more than match for the challenge.
Omar (r) treated the conquered people with unsurpassed
magnanimity. The surrender document signed with
the Christians upon the conquest of Jerusalem
provides an example: "This is the safety given
by the servant of God, the leader of the faithful,
Omar ibn al Khattab to the people of Ilia.
Their safety is for their life, property, church
and cross, for the healthy and the sick and for
all their co-religionists. Their churches shall
neither be used in residence nor shall they be
demolished. No harm be done to their churches
or their boundaries. There shall be no decrease
in their crosses or riches. There shall neither
be any compulsion in religion nor shall they be
harmed". The document speaks for itself and the
cordial relations between Christians and Muslims
in Jerusalem even to this day are a testimony
to the legacy of Omar (r).
It was during the Caliphate of Omar (r) that Islamic
jurisprudence and its methodologies were fully
established. The edicts of Omar (r), often given
by Ali ibn Abu Talib (r), but always reflecting
the consensus of the Companions, provided the
foundation for the Maliki School of fiqh that
emerged a hundred years later. Omar(r) followed
the example of the Prophet in his administration
of a pluralistic empire. The Prophet had established
the principle of autonomy in his interactions
with the Christians and the Jews of Medina. Omar
(r) extended this principle to include the Copts,
the Zoroastrians and the Buddhists. Each community
was accorded full autonomy within the laws of
that community.
Thus the Copts were judged by their own laws and
the Zoroastrians by their own. When there was
a dispute between members of different communities,
then the Islamic law was applied. The non-Muslims
were considered the responsibility (dhimma or
zimma) of the Muslims for their protection and
their well-being. The Muslims took their responsibility
under the principle of dhimmi seriously.
In return for a nominal tax, the jizya, which
was often less than the zakat mandatory for the
Muslims, the non-Muslims were exempted from military
service if they so chose to, and were accorded
full protection of the state. If they served in
the armed forces, as did the Christian tribes
of Western Iraq during the Persian campaigns,
they were exempted from the jizya. The practice
of jizya was misapplied and misunderstood by later
generations and was often accused as discriminatory
to non-Muslims. In summary, at the onset of Islamic
history, the head of state, the Caliph, was elected
by mutual consultation. He was neither a monarch
nor a dictator but was subject to the law, namely,
the Shariah. The different communities enjoyed
complete autonomy and were governed by their own
laws. They were given full protection of the state
and were exempt from military service if they
so chose to, in return for the payment of a nominal
tax. This model was used by Muslim dynasties in
one form or the other until modern times.
Omar bin Abdel Azeez
Of all the Omayyads, Omar bin Abdel Azeez stands
out as the one who lived up to the ideals of the
Companions in reaching out to different groups
within the Islamic state. He became the Caliph
by a coincidence of history. When the Omayyad
Emir Sulaiman (714-717) lay on his death bed,
he was advised that he could earn the pleasure
of God by following the example of the early Caliphs,
by nominating someone other than his own sons
as the new Emir. He therefore dictated that Omar
bin Abdel Azeez, a distant cousin, was to succeed
him. Omar bin Abdel Azeez set to reform the entire
political, social and cultural edifice of the
empire.
Upon hearing of his nomination, he immediately
set his confirmation as subject to the will of
the people. "O People!" he declared, "the responsibilities
of the Caliphate have been thrust upon me without
my consent or your desire. If you chose to elect
someone else as the Caliph, I will immediately
step aside and will support your decision". He
was a democrat by disposition. The Omayyad emirs
had become accustomed to a lavish life style.
They had no accountability to the treasury. They
collected exorbitant taxes from Persia and Egypt
and compelled traders to sell them their merchandise
at discount prices. Political appointees received
gifts of gold and silver in return for favors.
Contrary to the injunctions of the Shariah, even
though some people in the territories had accepted
Islam, they continued to pay the jizya. Some provincial
governors had turned into local tyrants.
The case of Hajjaj bin Yusuf, the governor of
Basra, is a well-known one. Omar abolished such
practices, punished corrupt officials and established
strict accountability. Reaching out to the Copts
of Egypt and the Zoroastrians of Persia, he lowered
their taxes and brought them in line with those
paid by resident Arabs. The local population responded
with enthusiastic support of the new Caliph. Production
increased. Ibn Kathir records that thanks to the
reforms undertaken by Omar, the annual revenue
from Persia alone increased from 28 million dirham
to 124 million dirham. It was the just rule of
Omar bin Abdel Azeez that accelerated the conversion
process in Persia and Egypt and it was during
his rule that these pivotal parts of the Mid East
became Muslim.
When the officials complained that because of
conversions, the jizya revenues of the state had
experienced a step decline, Omar wrote back saying
that he had accepted the Caliphate to invite people
to the path of Islam and not to become a tax collector.
Omar's reach extended not just to non-Muslims
in the territories, but also to extremist groups
among the Muslims themselves. He even extended
his hand to the Kharijites. According to Ibn Kathir,
he wrote to the Kharijite leader Bostam, inviting
him to an open discussion about the Caliphate
of Othman (r) and Ali (r). He went so far as to
stipulate that should Bostam convince him, Omar
would willingly repent and change his ways.
Bostam sent two of his emissaries to the Caliph.
During the discussions, one of the emissaries
accepted that Omar was right and gave up Kharijite
extremism. The other went back unconvinced. Even
so, the Caliph did not persecute the man. Thus
the reign of Omar bin Abdel Azeez, cast in the
model of early Islam, was marked by fairness to
non-Arabs and non-Muslims and a dialogue with
dissenters, even with the extremists. (To be continued)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
