Alan Verskin and Abdur-Rahman Abou Almajd on fatwās and Minority Jurisprudence

Alan Verskin and Abdur-Rahman Abou Almajd on fatwās and Minority Jurisprudence

We have a fresh opportunity to reflect about Oppressed in the Land? Fatwas on Muslims Living under Non-Muslim Rule. Alan Verskin will not only speak about Oppressed in the Land, but he will also speak about fatwas.

 Alan Verskin.

Alan Verskin specializes in pre-modern Islamic history. His research interests include, Islamic law, the intellectual and social interaction between Muslims, Christians and Jews in the pre-modern Middle East; women, gender, and family dynamics; and the connections between theological and neo-classical philosophical activity in the medieval Islamic world. His main regional areas of interest are medieval Spain, the Maghreb, and Yemen.

 Q: In your work, Oppressed in the Land? Fatwas on Muslims Living under Non-Muslim Rule from the Middle Ages to the Present, you showcases diverse fatwas by major Muslim thinkers on the political, social, and theological ramifications of living in places with non-Muslim governments. First of all, what made you take up fatwas?

  A V: I like studying fatwas because it is in fatwas that you see jurists seriously grappling with the question of how theory meets practice. This is because the authors of fatwas are consciously trying to apply what they see to be the universal truths of religion to concrete and specific situations. I first became interested in fatwas when reading the twelve-volume anthology of fatwas, al-Mi‘yar al-Mu‘rib, by Ahmad al-Wansharisi (d. 1508) of Fez. I was struck by how, when reading it, I gained not only a knowledge of Islamic law, but also a fascinating window into the everyday life of Muslims living in medieval Spain and the Maghrib. Western readers have little exposure to fatwas as very few are available in English translation.  My volume is intended both to give them an opportunity to read real fatwas in English as well as to show how diverse Islamic legal thinking can be.

 Q: Why was there a debate on whether or not Muslims are allowed to live under non-Muslim rule?

A V: There are a number of reasons for this of which I will mention only two. The fact that the Prophet Muhammad chose to leave pagan Mecca in order to form a Muslim polity suggested to many that living under Muslim rule was to be preferred. The debate was also concerned with the issue of social welfare (maslaha) of the Muslim community. Accordingly, the jurists needed to determine whether living under non-Muslim rule was a net benefit or a net loss to the Muslim community as a whole. For example, some jurists debated whether living under non-Muslim rule would have the effect of expanding the Abode of Islam or whether it would have the effect of corrupting Islam through exposure to foreign influences.

 Q: Rashid Rida was an influential Islamic thinker of late 19th to early 20th centuries. What was his approach to the question of whether Muslims can live under non-Muslim rule?

 A V: Rashid Rida was perhaps the first Muslim to be globally famous during his own lifetime. He received requests for fatwas from all over the Middle East and Europe, and even from the United States and China. His knowledge of the global Muslim world put him in a good position to write fatwas about the issue of Muslims living in non-Muslim lands. His answer was complicated. He counselled Muslims against accepting French citizenship in French colonial Tunisia because he was informed that the acceptance of citizenship also involved denying the laws of the Shari‘a. However, he permitted Muslims to remain in Austro-Hungarian Bosnia on the grounds that they were still able to openly practice their religion.

 Q: You mention in your book that Ibn Taymiyya had a new approach regarding whether Muslims can live under non-Muslim rule, could you elaborate on that?

A V: Ibn Taymiyya was called upon to decide whether the town of Mardin, which had been occupied by the Mongols, was an Abode of Islam or an Abode of War. He did not want to say that it was an Abode of Islam, because this would give religious justification to the Mongols whom he did not believe to be true Muslims. However, he also did not want to call it the Abode of War because, according to his understanding of the Shari’a, under such circumstances the Muslims of Mardin would be compelled to leave it. Instead, he said that Mardin was in a new, intermediate category which was neither the Abode of Islam nor the Abode of War. Accordingly, he allowed Muslims to remain in the city, but said that they still needed to act against those who violated Islamic law. You can read more about the details of Ibn Taymiyya’s position in my book.

Q: What about fatwās in response to territorial losses to Spanish Christians, such as Al-Wansharisi on the Muslims of Marbella.

 A V: Al-Wansharisi argued that it was not permitted for Muslims to live in Christian Spain. In al-Wansharisi’s view, even a Muslim who stayed in Marbella exclusively for the purpose of giving religious guidance to its remaining Muslims committed a sin by living there. I have argued that al-Wansharisi’s response was shaped by the politics of his day. Muslims who remained in Christian Spain paid taxes to its rulers and even fought in Christian armies. He therefore viewed them as a tangible threat to the Abode of Islam and banned their living in Christian territory. Not all Muslims agreed with al-Wansharisi but his prominence as a jurist made him a powerful voice.

 Q: Did al-Wansharisi’s fatwas affect the Muslims of al-Andalus?

A V: Many Muslims left al-Andalus when it was conquered by Christian armies. It is impossible to know, however, whether or not they left because of fatwas like those of al-Wansharisi. Many Muslims did not need a fatwa to encourage them to leave. War and discriminatory policies could well have been enough to persuade them to make their homes elsewhere.

 Q: What about fatwās addressed to Muslims living in the United States at the end of the twentieth century.

 A V: In the United States, a number of Muslim leaders have suggested that Islamic law be adapted to make it easier for American Muslims to follow. One such leader, Taha Jabir al-Alwani, dedicated a new branch of Islamic law to this purpose which he called “fiqh al-aqalliyyat” or “minority jurisprudence.” Other jurists, like the late Syrian jurist, Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, objected to fiqh al-aqalliyyat on the grounds that it unacceptably modified Islamic law by effectively remaking it in a Western image.

 Q: How do you see the future of these fatwas on Muslims in West and Minority Jurisprudence in the twentieth first century?

A V: It is very difficult to predict the future. While it is clear that opposition to fiqh al-aqalliyyat will always exist, it seems equally clear that, regardless of the opinion of the muftis, Muslims in the West will adapt their Islam to the unique circumstances of their lives. It therefore seems likely that there will also be a substantial number of muftis who, seeing this, will be persuaded to tailor Islamic law to their needs. I think that my book shows that contemporary Muslims who are living as minorities actually do have texts and traditions to draw upon. These texts do not all agree with each other, but they are in dialogue with one another, and many are written by people who are knowledgeable and dedicated to the Islamic legal tradition.

Abdur-Rahman Abou Almajd: Thank you again for giving me this fresh opportunity.

Alan Verskin: Thank you again for inviting me to give this interview.