In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, Most Compassionate
O Allah send salutations and peace upon Muhammad, his Family, all his Brethren from among the Prophets and Messengers, and his righteous and honorable Companions
Citizenship Between the Absolutism of Principles and Relativism of Applications
Citizenship Between the Absolute (Timeless) Principles and Relative (Time-Bound) Applications
Respected Ladies and Gentlemen,
Honorable Chair
Dear Participants, addressing each by his name and esteemed designation
Assalamu ‘alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh
It gives us great pleasure to renew our meeting today, here at Wilton Park, in order to resume what we have started in the previous interchanges and discussion panels in Rome and Abu Dhabi; that is to say, to resume exploring and contemplating the topic of citizenship and to make every effort to develop a conception (of citizenship) which is authentically grounded, which is extrapolated from the religious and sacred texts and which gives due consideration to the contemporary cultural context embodied in national constitutions and international covenants and agreements.
I endeavored, in my framework speech at the Abu Dhabi forum, to outline some of the methodological principles and parameters for defining citizenship in its modern sense. It is thus defined as a free association (voluntary bond) which is formed within a national framework and governed by the constitution. In this regard, I have devoted most of my attention to highlighting the components of citizenship in the Marrakesh Declaration as a model charter (constitution) and an ijtihad-based effort that is capable of authentically grounding contractual citizenship in Muslim societies. I have also made sure to link this conceptualization to its organizing framework as manifested and embodied in the (dual) purpose of peace and the maintenance of public order, in so far as this (dual) purpose constitutes the basic context and framework within which all our theoretical conceptualizations and tangible measures on the ground must operate to achieve and strengthen citizenship.
It is my hope that all of us have the opportunity to reflect and ponder deeply over the contents of this paper, in order to achieve its goal of enriching the dialogue and interchange and pushing our work towards increased precision and greater perfection in terms of its authentic Islamic grounding (ta’sil) and its realization of the intended wisdom during application (tanzil).
For the purpose of consolidating all the disparate parts and building the subsequent work on the previous work, I will suffice in my speech today with summarizing the detailed results to which the first speech served as the theoretical introduction, by referring to the more relevant aspects of the subject, namely the drafting of an inclusive citizenship charter. At the same time bearing in mind that the importance and sensitivity of the topic inevitably calls for greater inquiry, reflection and dialogue, which these swift remarks aimed to stimulate and elicit discussion will not be able to exhaust.
Citizenship, throughout the ages and across different geographical regions, never took a single monolithic shape or form, nor a single model, in its core essence and various constituent components. Rather, it might be more correct to talk about citizenships, broadly or narrowly construed, according to the respective contexts.
The origin of citizenship – as noted from its Latin root [civitas = city] – derives from ‘city’ being the political organization of human existence in society. It is a special condition or legal validity in a person’s relationship with the homeland and with the other inhabitants of the homeland. It is an extra component and additional bond that assumes a relationship between citizens and homeland, and a shared living based essentially on the common affiliation to race, religion, common history or purity of descent.
This old conception of citizenship has historically dominated human societies, but it has not been the only one. Some environments of a pluralistic nature have seen the evolution of a different form of citizenship that tends to be contractual, and not based on common affiliation or unified historical memory, or single religion, but rather on contracting a truce pact (muwada‘ah) and a voluntary agreement which frames shared existence in the form of laws and regulations that define the duties and rights of the members of the group.
This contractual-cum-constitutional conception of citizenship has become widespread in modern times in the context of the intermingling, intercommunication and predominance of pluralism that humanity is witnessing all over the world. It is a conception based on recourse to a common value reference (source) recognized by society, through which it gets to know its identity, and through which its members in turn get to know one another.
What then is the value reference or source that we want to offer as a basis for citizenship, since there is no single model suitable for all contexts and environments. Is every consensual (mutually agreed) contract in itself a sufficient value reference or source, or is there need for a model (standard) system?
It might be that the reference point for human rights – as embodied in the Declaration of Human Rights and the Citizen, which emerged from the French Revolution in 1789, the subsequent national charters and national declarations, and the subsequent generations of rights – is held as the valid and authorized basis according to modern theorists.
However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights published by the United Nations, which is considered the highest international document, is itself inconclusive in this regard. This is due to the fact that it is characterized by a duality that reflects the authors’ awareness of the impossibility of combining the universality of principles with the relativity of application. In the initial articles of the Declaration, the rights follow successively in detail and in an absolute sense. Then comes Article 29 that serves the function of the qualifying article restricting the absolute and unqualified meaning of all that preceded it, restoring the balance between rights and duties, between the individual and the group, and between freedoms and public order. The text of this article is as follows:
“1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
- In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”
These restrictions and qualifications restore some form of governance to local authority and impose upon us, when talking about a universal conception of citizenship, a great deal of relativism and to think carefully about employing concepts and terminology. It also obliges us to be aware of the continuous need for dialogue made mandatory by the different cultural attitudes and civilizational proclivities until we reach firm and solid conceptual ground, away from the approach of imposition from the outside or from the top via the power of strength, which historical experience proves that its consequences are always counterproductive.
Thus, there also arises the need to follow a gradualist (progressive) approach by distinguishing between the level of initial recognition and the level of activation, and by differentiating between the levels of the rights of citizenship, between its primary components and between its secondary components, which vary from environment to environment and which must be gradually acquired through the strategy of maintaining communal peace. This is in order that these supplementary components not render the original components null and void. Hence, we cannot remove from a social contract in a particular country the property of citizenship on the grounds that certain secondary or organizational requirements are lagging behind in the ideal conception of citizenship. Therefore, I would like to replace the property of inclusiveness (in inclusive citizenship) with diversity-based citizenship, which is clearer and more appropriate for the needs of the real-life context (lived reality).
Likewise, it also forces us to ignore societal differences, historical and cultural disparities, and local particularities. Thus, we cannot establish a solid citizenship rooted in the fabric of society, except by ensuring that its concepts are linked to its inherited culture, so that people will not be alienated from their heritage, and in the process the concepts become confusing to them.
This is what we do by way of translating the language of religion into the language of the city (polis) and public space, the language of life and law, such that we borrow from the texts of history with the aim of applying them to the current era while retaining for every era its (particular) language and (specific) time and space context.
Through this interpretive approach we were able in the Marrakesh Declaration to put forward a reconciliation between religious identity and national identity, and to remove the supposed contradiction between them. That was achieved through authentically grounding this new concept of citizenship proceeding from the Charter of Madinah by characterizing it as a firm basis for contractual citizenship in Islamic societies, and as an option availed by the time (in which we live) and the values (that we espouse), in order to deal with the universal of this age [universal principle(s) prevalent in this age] and to activate what is common and shared in humanity, and neutralize the elements of exclusion and expulsion. Moreover, it is an agreement that originally came about without war, fighting, violence or coercion – an agreement which its parties have willingly and voluntarily called towards in order to rally around the principles that it incorporates within the domain of positive interaction among the various components of the society of Madinah, in order to achieve social peace based on the mutual recognition of rights and duties and acceptance of what diversity has imposed upon society in terms of differing beliefs, interests and lifestyles together with a governing authority to which all can take recourse in the event of conflict and disagreement.
Islam laid down the legal foundations for the protection of religious pluralism, since the existence of this pluralism is considered a Shari‘ah objective and decreed will, for pluralism is often mentioned in the Qur’an, such as in the verse: (Had it not been that God checked and curbed one set of people by means of another, then monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the Name of God is commemorated abundantly, would sure have been demolished and pulled down.) [Qur’an 22:40].
This verse speaks of places of worship and advises, in fact, it orders that they be defended. The places mentioned (in the verse) do not belong to Muslims only, but to all monotheistic faith communities. The great Qur’anic exegetes and commentators from among the Prophet’s companions said that this verse makes obligatory upon Muslims to defend the churches of Christians and the synagogues of Jews as they would defend their own mosques. Islam was not merely content with respecting and upholding religious pluralism but called upon Muslims to protect and defend it.
This model shows that we need to go beyond the dismissive way of viewing religious contribution to building a creative model of citizenship that is consistent with the nature of the environments to which it is meant to be applied. These are revisions and reconsiderations that have been initiated by some of the greatest philosophers of the age, in light of the changes in social structure in Europe and North America, and what has become known as “the Return of Religion”. This has led to the development of new notions and conceptions of citizenship open to religious culture. I refer here to the position of Habermas whose reflection on the conditions of shared living in contemporary societies led him to call for the public sphere to open up and make room for religious contribution so every religion can present from its own specific heritage and sacred texts the moral and ethical proposals it considers appropriate.
Perhaps the religious contribution to the promotion of citizenship is also reflected in the educational dimension, as religion in many contexts is what already guides and directs the person and lays down for him a system of cognitive conceptions that govern the behavioral and normative order in his individual and collective life. Citizenship is more than knowledge that is learned or principles that are imparted. Citizenship is behavior and practice that are acquired through education, which is concerned with the refinement of behavior, rectification of conduct and improvement of ethical and moral action. Through education, a person acquires ways of living in a group and through education the values of citizenship become rooted in his personality.
By virtue of these values, citizenship advances and elevates to a sense of brotherliness, moving from shared existence to shared conscience and empathy, so that citizenship becomes a melting crucible, as it were, in which all affiliations are melted. In proportion to the degree of integration, harmony and regularity between these elements in the group, the citizen finds himself, and the group its place.
In conclusion, I renew my call to move forward with the series of community dialogues – serious and open dialogues in which all societal activities share and take part, especially the Islamic fiqh academies, fatwa councils and other key partners.
Citizenship is based on the great foundations of equality of rights and duties, the principles of freedom and acceptance of pluralism – foundations which are protected by constitutions, and should therefore not be a point of contention. Islam, like the rest of the religions of the Abrahamic family, is not at variance with what human experience has arrived at as regards this modern concept of citizenship, and even though it is the case that Islam has augmented and infused it with the spirit of ethics and morality, which the modern and contemporary formulations often lack.
Let us agree then that wherever there exist laws protecting these great foundations, there citizenship exists, no matter how relative it is with respect to interpretation or application in accordance with the cultural circumstances and historical contexts. These are natural differences that do not render the origin and basis of citizenship null and void.
We should not turn these dialogue forums of ours into platforms for instituting legal proceedings against states and stripping their social contracts of the quality of citizenship. Rather, dialogue should focus on issues beyond this – issues such as the problem of normativity and the purpose of improving citizenship.
What then is the ideal standard/criterion for measuring the quality of citizenship? How is this standard/criterion to be applied in every environment, taking into account its circumstances and its developmental and social conditions (requirements)? What are the quality indicators in this regard? What are the smart and intelligent measures that must be taken in order to advance and elevate it? How do we improve the conditions of citizenship and raise its indicators by achieving its supplementary (secondary) components within a framework that maintains civil peace and public order?
These are the central questions that need to be made the subject and topic of our dialogue and conversations on citizenship.
These are the principles that guide and direct the vision of our astute leadership in the UAE, a vision based on the values ??of innovation, quality and excellence. Every day, the living reality of positive citizenship is reinforced by innovative initiatives that support the quality indicators of citizenship and contribute to the advancement of the pledge of citizenship and reinforcement of loyalty and affiliation to the homeland. In fact, it also improves the quality of global citizenship through excellent care and attention given by the State to all residents of diverse cultures and religions.
‘Abdallah Bin Bayyah
Chairman of the United Arab Emirates Fatwa Council
President of the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
