In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

O Allah, send abundant peace, benedictions and salutations on our Master, Muhammad, his family, his companions and on all his brethren from among the Noble Prophets.

Inclusive Citizenship: A topic for research

By His Excellency the Illustrious and Erudite Scholar Abdullah Bin Bayyah

President of the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies

Chairman of the Emirates Council for Issuing Shar??ah Responsa (Fatwas)

Distinguished Gentlemen,

Mr. Chairman,

Your Excellencies, Honorable Guests, Distinguished Delegates,

Respected Participants,

I greet you with the universal Islamic greeting of: Assalamu ‘alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh (may Allah’s Peace, mercy and blessings be upon all of you)

I shall attempt to contribute to the opening of our convention by way of a few remarks and brief messages,

The first remark is about explaining the platform from which participation of the Forum for Promoting Peace proceeds and introducing the Marrakesh Declaration, the second remark is about the components of citizenship in the Marrakesh Declaration, the third remark is about the principles that serve as a framework for the rights of citizenship, the fourth remark is about insulting sacred and religious symbols and the need to review the concept of freedom of expression.

But let me first welcome the respected participants in this convention and thank the organizers of this esteemed event. It is an important convention relating to a vital and sensitive topic, namely, inclusive citizenship. I would like to express my pleasure at the presence of this elite group of participants and by having Wilton Park as a guest visiting the United Arab Emirates.

Through these conventions, we envisage to emerge with a fully rooted and completely grounded conceptualization of inclusive citizenship, which is derived from religious texts and which keeps abreast of the contemporary cultural context as exemplified in national constitutions and international covenants and charters.

We will also identify and diagnose the obstacles and challenges to the realization of this inclusive concept of citizenship and the impediments it faces in the countries of the Middle East.

Our interest in citizenship in the Forum for Promoting Peace is not something that was conceived on the spur of the moment, rather it goes back several years, when we first embarked on a project comprised of numerous ideation workshops that focused on the study of the issue of minorities and its general framework that is exemplified in the concept of citizenship. We began this process during the height of the protest movement in some Arab countries and during the highly deteriorating circumstances and disturbed and unsettled reality that followed in which lots of blood was spilled, flames of hatred stoked and the voice of violence reigned supreme. In some troubled Muslim countries, religious minorities suffered and experienced their share of getting killed, enslavement, displacement, marginalization and various forms of dehumanization and the violation of human dignity. Even though the harm and violence affected all and sundry, it may well be that some Muslim majority communities suffered a larger share of the violence and received a greater blow (compared to the non-Muslim minorities).

Following the establishment of the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies in 2014, preparations were initiated here in Abu Dhabi, where a series of ideation workshops culminated in the conference entitled: “The Rights of Religious Minorities in Predominantly Muslim Majority Communities: Legal Framework and a Call to Action” which was held in Marrakesh on 25 January 2016 in partnership with the Ministry of Endowments (Awqaf) and Islamic Affairs in the Kingdom of Morocco. This conference brought together a considerable number of Muslim scholars and people in official capacities representing most countries of the Islamic world.

The conference issued the historical Marrakesh Declaration on the Rights of Minorities, agreed to and endorsed by all the Muslim scholars present and blessed by the non-Muslim religious leaders who were witnesses, including representatives from the Copts, Yazidis, Sabeans, Mandaeans, Christians, Assyrians and others.

The Conference was keen to point out strongly and emphatically that the persecution of religious minorities and all forms of aggression perpetrated against them by terrorists are contrary to the values ??of Islam which recognized (and continues to recognize) the religious, cultural and political rights of religious minorities at a time when humanity had not known this kind of tolerance, as was codified in and attested to by the Charter of Madina (?a??fat al-Mad?nah), issued by the Seal of the Prophets (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) as confirmed by the primary historical sources that have documented the Life of Prophet Muhammad (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him).

The Declaration serves to reflect the Islamic values ??and the methodological foundations underlying the obligation of joyful and happy coexistence and good and kind treatment of adherents of other faiths and religious traditions. Moreover, it serves to stimulate Muslim societies and communities to direct their activities towards creating a broad-based communal current and societal movement to protect religious minorities in Muslim countries. The Declaration also seeks, through its societal influence, to urge individuals, groups and countries to create and innovate formulas and initiatives that promote a culture of coexistence and protection of minorities.

The Declaration, furthermore, calls upon Muslim scholars and intellectuals to work to consolidate and authentically ground the principle of citizenship which accommodates various affiliations by way of correctly understanding and properly evaluating the Islamic legal and jurisprudential heritage and historical practices and by way of accommodating the changes that have taken place in the world – changes that involve the Imperial era having come to an end and Muslim societies having entered into the system and order of what has become known as the nation state.

In addition, loyalties today are no longer exclusively religious, but have instead become complex and complicated loyalties controlled and governed by intertwined and inseparable factors. Likewise, individualism has emerged, so that the group no longer frames the actions of the individual in certain environments. The existence of international charters and international law frames relations with the other. Similarly, cultural, ethnic and religious pluralism exists in every country because of globalization.  The emergence of a culture of freedom has become an influential and effective factor in the practical lived reality, and the forging of the human rights system has made it possible for minorities to live in the midst of a majority.

All these changes have elevated citizenship to the status of a universal of time (time-related universal), where it has become exemplified in two charters that govern lived reality, an internal (domestic) charter, the country’s constitution, which represents a contract between all citizens, and an international (universal) charter, the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) and related documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Treaties.

What are the elements/components of inclusive citizenship in the Marrakesh Declaration?

In its historical sense, citizenship was based on race, religion, common history or on the element of purity of descent, which leads to the division of citizens into classes as was the case with the Romans or the Arabs in the Age of Ignorance.

Contrary to this sense, in the contemporary context, citizenship has moved in a contractual direction within a pluralistic framework, or what Habermas calls “constitutional citizenship”, that is, the sense of belonging to a civil society based on a citizenship contract that renders all (citizens) equal.

Citizenship in this sense is a new concept which is a mutual and reciprocal relationship between members of a human group living on one land, not necessarily belonging to a single grandfather, or to a single historical memory or a single religion. The context or framework within which it operates is a constitution, regulations and laws that define the duties and rights of its members. It is similar to a cooperative society to which its members voluntarily belong to each other in a contractual manner. The one who joins today has the same rights as the oldest member, such that there is no difference between the first and the last and the original insider and the incoming outsider.

In general, citizenship is an optional bond or association that is formed on a national horizon governed by the constitution, and citizenship transcends class (factionalism) but does not abolish it. What is necessary is to live within it in harmony and happy coexistence.

Through the Marrakesh Declaration, we sought to authentically ground this new concept of citizenship proceeding from the Charter of Madinah by characterizing it as a valid basis for contractual citizenship in Islamic societies and 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 with the aim of activating what is common and shared in humanity, and neutralize elements of exclusion and expulsion. Moreover, it is an agreement that originally came about without war, fighting, violence or coercion. It is an agreement which its parties have willingly and voluntarily called towards in order to unite around the principles that it incorporates within the domain of positive interaction with the lived reality and with the components and constituents 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 forced upon society in terms of differing beliefs, interests and lifestyles while at the same time a governing authority to which all can take recourse in the event of conflict and disagreement.

We thereby translate the language of religion into the language of public space in the words of Habermas, the language of civil life and the law. We borrow from the texts of history to apply them to the present era, while preserving for each era its own language and its own temporal and spatial context. We examine religious texts and bring together those of them that are disparate and separate. We delve into the wisdom and higher objectives (behind them) and interpret them in accordance with the rules and regulations of extrapolation and the methods and pathways of interpretation. Moreover, we compare between these sacred texts and the viewpoints and principles which humanity has arrived at and which serve and promote human interest and welfare and safeguard the five universals. This is our method of research (refer to the Declaration).

The most important components of citizenship in the Marrakesh Declaration are:

–  The principle of recognizing pluralism and the acknowledging religious freedom: It is stated in Article 2 of the Declaration in the context of recalling the universal principles and all-inclusive values of Islam that “honoring the human being necessitates granting him the freedom to choose”: (there is no compulsion in religion) [Qur’an 2:256] (Had your Lord so willed, then all those who are on the earth would have believed. Will you, then, force people until they believe?) [Qur’an 10:99]. It is stated in Article 13 in the context of mentioning the authoritative principles of citizenship that are articulated in the Charter of Madinah that “the contemporary cultural context is compatible with the Charter of Madinah because it provides the Muslims with an authoritative and fundamental basis for citizenship. It is a formulation of contractual citizenship and a just and fair constitution for an ethnically, religiously, and linguistically pluralistic society united in solidarity and whose members enjoy the same rights, bear the same duties, and despite their differences, belong to one nation.”

Through this principle, the Marrakesh Declaration aimed at reconciling religious identity with national identity, since there are some who believe that the power of belonging to a religious identity leads to the collapse of the spirit of citizenship, and thus assume a self-contradiction between loyalty to religion and loyalty to country. This, they believe, is especially the case in fragile communities characterized by multiple factions at a time when state authority is weak, and the authority of religious identity dominates.  Every faction thus returns to its particular religious carer and protector, which guarantees it a kind of psychological and even existential protection.

The concern in the Marrakesh Declaration was to reverse the equation such that religious affiliation would become an incentive for embodying citizenship and neutralizing the negative effects that the impact of religious disagreement has on it.

So, if loyalty to religion is already a given in the case of every religious person, then that does not necessarily mean that that he would shun and abandon loyalty to country in the sense of citizenship that we have referred to; therefore the two do not mutually negate each other.

– The principle of mutual duties and equal rights: which requires a positive attitude in relationships, avoidance of disagreement and conflict, and a sense of (shared) partnership in mutual interest and common good. It is stated in Article 15 that: “The Charter of Madinah contains many principles of contractual citizenship in its articles such as freedom of religion, freedom of movement and ownership, the principle of general solidarity, the principle of common defense, and the principle of justice and equality before the law.

The Jews of the Banu ‘Awf are one community with the believers. To the Jews their religion and to the Muslims their religion. [This applies] to their clients and to themselves with the exception of anyone who has done wrong or committed treachery, for he harms only himself and his family.), (The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims must bear their expenses. They help one another against those who make war against the people of this document (charter). Between them is good understanding, honorable dealing, and honesty, without treachery. No one is responsible for his confederate. Help [is to be given] to whoever is wronged.

Through this new approach, citizenship advances and elevates to a sense of brotherliness, moving from shared existence to shared conscience and emotion for one another, 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.

Based on the aforementioned, this approach strives to realize two objectives:

The First Objective: Social Peace

One of the strengths of this perspective highlighted in the Marrakesh Declaration is the firm link between citizenship and its governing framework as exemplified in the higher objective of peace.

Without peace there are no rights, because the loss of peace is a loss of all rights, including the right to citizenship. Peace is the primary right and the ultimate objective that governs all the particular and specific elements of rights. We cannot imagine citizenship in the sense we seek in a tense, anxious and troubled environment.

Through peace, psychological and spiritual tranquility and serenity prevail among the members of society to be reflected in the relations between individuals and groups. This is so that social peace is a state of harmony and agreement manifested in solidarity and cooperation in order to accrue benefit for all and prevent harm from all. It is manifested also in language, behavior and the treatment of others, such that there is no violence and abuse in language, no aggression and transgression in behavior and no oppression and wrongdoing in the treatment of others.

Peace produces an environment of love, happiness and belonging to the nation and homeland and engagement in its general welfare and common good. It is above all and before everything else being reconciled with one’s self before being reconciled with others.

There is thus no way of achieving inclusive citizenship except through the strategy of peace.

This principle, which we raise and elevate in the Forum for Promoting Peace, is a general principle that is true and valid in all environments. It is not specific to one environment at the exclusion of another, nor confined to one society at the exclusion of all other societies, but in our Arab and Muslim world, it is more apparent and evident, the need for it more dire and compelling and the awareness of it more urgent and persistent.

The Second Objective: Upholding and Maintaining Public Order

The rights established for citizenship during their application and appropriation, their spatial and temporal contexts and future outcomes and consequences (ma??l?t) must be taken into account, in order to ensure balance is maintained between the collective rights and the individual rights so as to preserve public order.

Public order as defined by legal experts is “something which relates to the realization of general welfare (whether) political, economic or social that is connected to the higher order of society”. Moreover, it is a principle that differs from one order to another and from one culture to another as a result of it returning (in the final analysis) to the higher order of society. It is for this reason that some jurists refer to it as an ambiguous principle and that this ambiguity is deliberate to allow the authorities concerned to assess the need for intervention, for example. Thus, it is an ambiguity that establishes the flexibility that the law-maker or law-codifier seeks, in order to achieve the intended benefit.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to public order in Article 29 which serves the function of a qualifying article restricting the absolute and unqualified meaning of the previous articles. The text of Article 29 is as follows:

“1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. 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 should be the subject of research, and should be taken into account when the alleged violation of human rights is based on national law and the applied law in the particular country. Is it possible, with this being the case, to consider laws issued in accordance with the legislation of a particular country from authorized judicial authorities without violating their procedures, to consider these laws as arbitrary? In other words, arbitrariness is established only in the case of the violation of those laws to the requirements of domestic law.

Freedom of Expression and Desecration of the Sacred

It is here that we emphasize the need to review many of the concepts related to citizenship, such as the concept of freedom of expression, in light of these two goals, by viewing them as framing the application and appropriation of these concepts in different contexts in such a way that does not invalidate and breach citizenship.

It is necessary to link the designation of religious freedoms to social peace and to link the principle of freedom of expression, which has become a sacred principle in the prevailing culture, to the principle of taking responsibility for the consequences of expression.

It is appropriate to work on the premise that laws are produced to address and deal with the context for which they are intended, and not reproduced from other situations that effectively nullify the particularities and disparity that exist between societies and ignore historical and societal accretions over time. Therefore, advocating for the freedom to desecrate the sacred belongs to this kind of freedom of expression that is dubious, misguided and incites violence and hatred, thus allowing for the abuse of public order in societies and the disruption of societal peace. Freedom of expression cannot be freedom to insult and offend the symbols of humanity through whom we believe the whole meaning and purpose of existence reached us (the prophets). Frederick Nietzsche, was this time more insightful in his book Beyond Good and Evil: “Those who created values in the life of mankind are few in history, and they include Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.”

Insulting the sacred cannot be considered as one of the aspects of freedom of expression, because the abuser only intends to harm and abuse others thereby and not to achieve good or benefit whether for himself or for others. While some attempt to problematize the issue from the perspective of relativizing the act of sanctification such that they do not see in insulting the sacred such as would necessitate criminalizing it. This is because we regard insulting symbols that are held sacred by some citizens as amounting in reality to insulting and abusing these citizens and to violating their right to have their beliefs respected.  It is a futile act emanating from a person of ill will and evil intention who may very well be looking for unworthy valor and heroism because it ends eventually in wars and strife, or who may very well be looking for the role of victim in order to show off.

Thus, despite the multitude of approaches that treat the concept of freedom of expression: legally, ethically and philosophically, it continuous to be a vague and nebulous concept that raises problems and question that require specialist and expert scholars to re-examine it, to define its boundaries and delineate its related matters and to remove the ambiguity that surrounds it by considering this principle’s relation to social peace and by considering the legal normativity exemplified in its relation to public order.

Examples of the restriction of freedoms via the principle of public order in Western judicial heritage are numerous. In 1995, the British government banned the screening of film director Wingrove’s film “Visions of Ecstasy” because it considered it a film that is blasphemous, slanderous and offensive to the person of our Master Jesus Christ (may Allah’s peace be upon him) which the courts of the United Kingdom confirmed and reiterated. In response the director of the film was filed a suit before the European Court of Human Rights by regarding the ban imposed by the British government as being contrary to the freedom of expression and the right to publish opinions.

After the court heard the case, it supported the British government’s position that the film was blasphemous and transgressed the limits permitted for dealing with a sacred subject in accordance with British law at the time.

The Court took into account in this decision numbered 19/1995/525/611 of 25 November 1996 its conception of public order which is the result of a specific cultural position in which our Master Jesus Christ (may Allah’s peace be upon him) is considered sacred and sanctified according to the religious values of Christians and Muslims as well.

In a similar case, the European Court affirmed in mid-October the soundness of the verdicts of the Austrian judiciary in the case of insulting our master, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him), furnishing as justification for this decision (numbered 360/2018) that abusive and offensive claims cannot fall within the scope of freedom of expression, as they infringe on the rights of other citizens in having their religious beliefs respected and threaten religious peace in Austrian society.

We can only appreciate these decisions as they contribute to the promotion of world peace and to the spread of love and tolerance in the world. They certainly represent rational judicial and legal precedents (case law) that the courts of the West will have to take into account in this type of cases.

Likewise what should be noted is the UAE’s policy of consolidating the principles of citizenship which is marked by being realistic in taking into account the specificity of the local context and by clarity of purpose. This is clearly reflected in its enactment of Federal Law No. 2 of 2015, which deals with combating discrimination, hate speech and showing contempt for religions, and works to immunize the society and protect it from hate speech and incitement to violence and disturbing the tranquility, calmness and social peace.

In conclusion,

This is a series of ideas in which I have tried to read quickly some of what appeared in the Marrakesh Declaration and to stress and insist on the special concern for security and social and societal peace without which citizenship will not be happy nor right. The country may become an arena for conflict and strife and perhaps even a battlefield for blood and bones. Indeed, the lofty morals, the spirit of tolerance, affection, harmony, generosity, broad-mindedness and the breadth of thought are what have fortified the homeland and made citizenship worthy of honor and charity.

Therefore, we hope that your hearts and chests will expand to allow for opinions that some of you may not agree with, but which certainly seek peace.

Wassalamu ‘alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh (may Allah’s Peace, mercy and blessings be upon all of you)