There is a lingering suspicion and fear that exist between the “Western” World (secular) and the world of Islam. Because of some “extremist” groups, there are places and cultures where suspicion and fear have actually become antagonism and hostility. The depressing fact, nay tragedy, is that, despite globalization and the rapid advances of technology and mass communications, the misunderstanding between the Western world and the World of Islam continues. Distrust, fear and even hostility continue to persist.

The many and varying peace processes as well as “democratization” in many hot spots are very remarkable and encouraging events. A new man in the White House has given peace processes in the Middle East hope for new life. The “return” to democracy of Indonesia, considered the “largest Islamic” country, is a positive development in a new and growing perception about Islam. The surge of the protest movement in Iran over what is perceived as a blatant poll manipulation victory of the entrenched hardliners is also seen as a ‘refreshing new wind’ of moderate Islam versus its extremist and ugly face.

The suspicion and fear, even hostility, are deeply rooted in history. People claim that the “rootedness” of misunderstanding is also to be found in the very “psyche” of the two cultures and two worlds. The history is marred by conflict. The history of the relationship between the Western World and the World of Islam has given rise to that enduring tradition of fear, distrust and hostility, because the two worlds have so often charted collision and contradictory courses. The history of crusades, the Spanish re-conquista, the fall of Constantinople, the Ottoman expansion to Europe in 1529 and 1683, Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt in 1798, the Western colonial expansion embracing almost the entire world of Islam, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire are few examples of the historical “rootedness” of the fear, distrust and hostilities.

Yet, for all the fear, distrust and hostilities between the two worlds, there are interesting, nay wonderful convergences or “kindredness” between the Western world and the world of Islam. First and foremost, Christians, Muslims and Jews are all “Peoples of the Book.” Judaism, Christianity and Islam share a common monotheistic vision. In the language of Vatican II: “They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to people” (Vat. II, NA, No. 3). In fact, the same Council recognizes the quarrels and dissensions between Christians and Muslims over the centuries and (it) “now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values” (ibid.).

Moreover, Christians and Muslims share many key values in common like respect for knowledge, justice, compassion towards the poor and underprivileged, the importance of family life, respect for parents and elders and consensus in the determination of societal/community affairs.

These days, there is a growing myopia not only in our common attitude towards each other, but also in the way we understand the roles of religions and the religious in society. It is a tragedy that our attitudes and understanding have been temporarily hijacked by the extreme and the superficial versions of Christianity and Islam. Many Christians view Islam in terms of the tragic wars in the Balkans, the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and the extreme developments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. No doubt, the extremes exist in both Islam and Christianity, and they must be dealt with. But when used as a basis to judge a people and society, they lead to distortion and unfairness.

Oftentimes, our judgment of each other has been grossly distorted by taking the extremes to be the norm. This is a serious mistake! It is like judging the quality of life in a community by the existence of murder, rape, drug addiction, etc. We have to school ourselves to see that the extremes are rarely practiced and the extremists are, indeed, a very small minority. By highlighting the extremes, we are actually engaged in peddling those thoughtless prejudices. The truth is, of course, different and always more complex.

Moreover, in the cases of the world of Islam, there is the urgent need to distinguish the religion of Islam from the practices of some Islamic States. We do not judge Islam by the practices of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the “fundamentalists” in many countries today. We must not succumb to the temptation to believe that extremism is in some way the hallmark and essence of Islam and/or Muslims. In the first place, extremism is not the monopoly of Islam. Religions and ideologies including Christianity have their share of extremism. The good news is the fact that the vast majority of Christians and Muslims are moderates in their politics. Theirs is the religion of the “middle way” or moderation. Thus, if we are to understand each other, we must learn to distinguish clearly between the vast majority of believers who are moderates and the terrible violence of a small minority who are known as “Extremists”.

The challenge to us today is to learn to understand each other, and to educate our children – a new generation, whose attitudes and cultural outlook may be different from ours – so that they understand too. We have to show trust, mutual respect, and tolerance, if we are to find the common ground between us and work together to find solutions to the many and varied issues that divide us. We can no longer afford the absence of a common effort to solve our common problems of “unpeace” and lack of development.

Understanding and movement towards peace has to be two-way. Each of us needs to understand the importance of peace, reconciliation, development, and reflection. There is the necessity to open our minds and unlock our hearts to each other. The Arabic word for this is “TADABBAR”!

This write up is meant to contextualize the debates on the status of non-Muslims living under “Islamic rule.” In the world today, there are few claimants to Islamic rule and governance. And in the few countries that claim Islamic rule, there are degrees of differences on the interpretation of the Shari’a, particularly on the applications of some of the “medieval” practices related to criminal offenses. To begin with, Islamic rule is, often, understood as the complete implementation of the Shari’a on both individuals and society as well. Any group or Liberation Front that insists on Islamic rule and government, need to spell out in clear terms the status of non-Muslims in such a situation.

The articulated MILF position is that the Islamic government shall ensure that the citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims, enjoy freedom, justice, equality and democracy and their human rights. The MILF points to the fact that the people of the book are considered “protected people” (ahl-dhimma). But a simple reference to the concept of dhimma does not capture the essence of the concept and the praxis of the dhimma through the centuries.

What we attempt to do is to look at the concept of dhimma as understood and practiced through the centuries and codified in variety of caliphal decrees and legal texts that contribute to the present corpus on the concept and praxis of dhimma.

The concept of dhimma evoked the idea of protection/covenant during the time of the prophet. The prophet took upon himself and the Islamic government the “protection” of the people of the book beginning with the Christians of Najran.

The people of the book (ahl - al – kitab) are the Christians, Jews and Sabaeans. They are guaranteed life, liberty and, in a modified sense, property. They are called dhimmi (ahl dhimma) or protected/covenant people.

In return for the “protection” accorded the people of the book, they have to accomplish
the following:
1. Each adult sane male must pay a poll-tax (djizya);
2. Non-Muslims must distinguish themselves from believers by dress, not riding on horseback or carrying weapons;
3. Non-Muslims are not allowed to join the Islamic armies but they pay for the maintenance of Islamic armies;
4. They must always have a respectful attitude towards Muslims; and
5. They are also under certain legal disabilities with regards to testimony in courts.

On the praxis of dhimma, one can look at the praxis during the times of the Caliphs and
Sultans from the 7th century to the time of the Ottomans. The 1st example of dhimma
praxis is handed over by “Umar ibn Khattab, the 2nd Caliph and companion of the prophet
after Abu Bakr. The 7th Century Pact of Umar is still extant.

The 7th Century Pact of Umar shows what the non-Muslims should do in exchange for the
“protection” to be accorded to them by the Islamic State. This consists in the following:

1. They must not build new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks’ cells. No repairs in the existing ones if they fall in ruins;
2. There shall be no public manifestation of religion nor convert anyone to it;
3. They must have always respect towards the Muslims and seats must be given to the Muslims;
4. They shall not mount on horseback, nor they shall gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on their persons;
5. There shall be no selling of fermented drinks or forbidden food; and
6. There shall be no public display of crosses.

This pact was further refined in the 8th and 9th centuries as written in al-Shafi ‘ i ’s Kitab al Umm. Briefly the refinements are summarized in the following principles:

1. The non-Muslims shall be subject to the authority of Islam and to no contrary authority;
2. They shall not refuse to carry out any obligation that the Islamic State sees fit to impose upon them by virtue of this authority;
3. If anyone of them speaks improperly of Muhammad. My God bless and save him, the Book of God or of his religion, he forfeits the dhimma (note: This is the basis of the Blasphemy Law of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran)


The status of non-Muslim in Islamic State have remained the same until the coming of
Modern Islamic political thought during the 18th and 19th centuries reform by the so-
called “Young Turks” Revolution of 1908. The idea of freedom came into the scene in
the 18th and early 19th century Ottoman Empire patently due to European influence.

Similarly, General Napoleon Bonaparte upon his arrival in Egypt introduced the French
understanding of freedom on the basis of French revolution’s slogan “Liberty, Equality
and Fraternity”.

All these movements led to the reform edict of 1839, the 1st Ottoman Constitution in
1878 and the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. Freedom took roots during that period.
This referred to individual freedom as well as societal political, social, economic and
religious freedom. The people of the land, Muslims and non-Muslims, became co-
citizens enjoying the same rights and privileges. Nationality became the basis of unity
and nationhood. Practically the entire Muslim world adopted this model with few
exceptions. The dhimma was totally rejected since its concept and praxis put the non
Muslims in inferior positions. As a matter of fact, the dhimmis were never considered
citizens. The reform and the subsequent struggles for national freedom participated by all
citizens (Muslims and non-Muslim alike) gave birth to a new nation of citizens on the
basis constitution or charter.

There is an often-repeated Qur’anic obligation imposed on Muslims “to enjoin good and
forbid evil” (al-amr bi’l - ma’ruf wa’l ‘an al-munkar). By this injunction, a Muslim is
required not merely to do good and avoid evil but also to enjoin good and forbid evil. To
fulfill this obligation, it requires the exercise of authority. And this has become the basis
of the necessity that a Muslim has to be the head/chief of a community/state and the
enforcement of Islamic Law. In short, it has to be in order to qualify as an Islamic State!
This movement is popularly labeled as “Fundamentalism”. Adherents of this movement
struggle for the restoration of a truly Islamic society governed by Islamic Law and ruled
by a Muslim leader. To them, this is the only true path to salvation and God.

The Islamic State is a community of believers. Allah is the Sovereign of the state, the
Qur’an is the Constitution and the Shari’a is the law of the land. The political and
religious leadership is vested in God’s “anointed” who serves as political and religious
leader of the Islamic community/state.

The “return” to Islam movement is the paramount “cry” of the ‘Islamists‘. This
movement holds that Islam is the ultimate norm in regulating public, social and
individual life of both the individuals and community. The Qur’an and the Shari’a shall,
once again (as in Medina), be the organizing principles of society. How this is to be done
remains to be seen, since the ‘Islamists’ do not give “model” of what they want as an
Islamic State. There are two elements/ingredients in their version of Islamic State. First
is the rule of Shari’a in all things and second is the principle that leadership in Islamic
State is in the hands of Muslims. What needs to be discussed in the said Islamic agenda
are the role and status of non-Muslims in governance, civil society and the religious
freedom and practices.