bs_bs_banner
Permission to Stay in “Enemy” Territory? H ¯ juristic thinking on whether Muslims must emigrate · anbalı from non-Muslim lands Steven Gertz University of Exeter
Abstract Muslim scholars writing about the legal situation of Muslims living under non-Muslim rule rul e dur during ing the sev sevent enth/t h/thir hirtee teenth nth and eig eighth hth/fo /fourt urteen eenth th cen centur turies ies wer were e pri prima maril rily y concerned with whether Muslims should be allowed to live under non-Muslim rule or whether they should emigrate (or go on hijra ) from it. Two H· anbalı¯ legis l egists, ts, Ibn Quda¯ ma (d. 620/1223) and Ibn Muflih· (d. 763/1362), both of whom lived and wrote in Damascus (Ayyu¯ bid and a nd Mamlu¯ k, respectiv r espectively), ely), address this issue in their t heir legal works ( fiqh ). ). Their scho sc hola lars rshi hip, p, wh when en co comp mpar ared ed wi with th th that at of th the e H· anbalı¯ sc scho hola larr Ib Ibn n Ta Taym ymiy iyya ya (d (d.. 728/1328), is instructive, particularly when one considers differences between these scholars’ experiences of non-Muslim rule. A guiding question is how experience may shape (or fail to shape) a jurist’s position on hijra , since the events of the time (the Crusades and, later, the Mongol invasions) forced Muslims living under non-Muslim control to decide whether they must leave such lands. Loyalty to one’s school ( taqlı ¯d ) appears to have influenced the jurists most in their thinking, but experience shaped how they justified their positions on whether a Muslim must emigrate from lands under non-Muslim control.
I
n his Uni Univer versit sity y of Man Manche cheste sterr dis disser sertat tation ion,, Abo Abooba obaker ker M. Asm Asmal al lam lament entss tha thatt if a scholar wants to look for material about Muslims living under non-Muslim rule in legal works ( fiqh ), ) , he or she will be hard-pressed to find much on the topic. Muslims under non-Muslim rule, as a specific issue, does not seem to be dealt with by Fiqh works. Even a detailed look at the sections which usually deal with matters covered by today’s “international law” like ji jiha ha¯d, hij hijra, ra, ama¯ n or siyar revealed revealed very little. On the contrary, one gets the impression on reading through such works that such a scenario was hardly contemplated or catered for. It is almost as if the © 2013 Hartford Seminary.
P S E T “
”
jurists never anticipated Muslims living under non-Muslim rule once the Islamic state or da¯r al-Isla¯m had come into existence. 1
What concerned the jurists, Asmal continues, was whether Muslims should be allowed to live under non-Muslim rule, or whether they must emigrate from non-Muslim lands. In his important article on emigration ( hijra ) from non-Muslim lands, Khaled Abou El-Fadl identifies the various positions taken by Sunnı¯ jurists on the matter. Among the classical jurists, he observes, al-Sha¯fi ¯ı (d. 206/820) demonstrated the most accommodating spirit, arguing that if Muslims could practice Islam openly, without fear of conversion, they should feel no obligation to emigrate. By contrast, Ma¯lik b. Anas (d. 179/795) advised Muslims not to live in non-Muslim lands because they would be forced to submit to non-Muslim law; he went so far as to discourage Muslims from even traveling in those lands. 2 The Crusader invasion of Palestine and Syria at the end of the fifth/eleventh century (and later, the Mongol invasion of Iran and Iraq in the seventh/thirteenth century) lent practical urgency to this question. 3 Three notable Syrian jurists from the H· anbalı¯ law school (madhhab ) addressed this issue: Taqı¯ al-Dı¯n Ah·mad b. Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), Muwaffaq b. Quda¯ma (541–620/1147–1223) and Muh·ammad b. Muflih· al-Qa¯qu¯nı¯ (710–763/1310–1362). These scholars are particularly interesting to compare because two of them, Ibn Quda¯ ma and Ibn Taymiyya, had direct experience of non-Muslim rule, whereas Ibn Muflih· did not. As Yahya Michot has extensively analyzed the writings of Ibn Taymiyya on the subject of hijra , this article will not give as much attention to him but will give more space to two lesser-known jurists. 4 ‘
Muslims Under Mongol Rule: Ibn Taymiyya Ibn Taymiyya was born in H· arra¯n in what is today Turkey. In 667/1269, at the age of six, he fled to Damascus with his family as the Mongol armies of Abaqa Khan were advancing on H· arra¯n, thereby making a kind of hijra. Ibn Taymiyya spent a significant part of his life in Damascus (by then under Mamlu¯k control), where he studied and taught at the Sukkariyya madrasa or law school and then later at the H· anbaliyya madrasa, the oldest in Damascus. After Baghdad surrendered to the Mongols in 656/1258, Damascus replaced Baghdad in prominence as a place of learning.5
1
Aboobaker M. Asmal, “Muslims Under Non-Muslim Rule: the fiqhi (legal) views of Ibn Nujaym and al-Wansharisi” (PhD diss., University of Manchester, 1998), 11. 2 Khaled Abou El Fadl, “Islamic Law and Muslim Minorities: The Juristic Discourse on Muslim Minorities from the Second/Eighth to the Eleventh/Seventeenth Centuries,” Islamic Law and Society 1/2 (1994), 146–7. 3 The Reconquista of al-Andalus, which accelerated after the Christian conquest of Toledo in 478/1085, also brought this question to the fore. 4 Yahya Michot, Muslims Under Non-Muslim Rule (Oxford: Interface, 2006).
T M W
•
V 103
•
J AN UA RY 2013
Ibn Taymiyya’s reputation there made him a notable scholar throughout the Mamlu¯k empire. When Ibn Taymiyya considered whether Muslims must emigrate from non-Muslim lands, he did so in the context of the Mongol conquests. He was asked to give a fatwa¯ (opinion) as to whether Muslims should emigrate to Mamlu¯k lands from the Mongol city of Mardin, located on the edge of the Mongol I¯ lkha¯nate. Is land conquered by the Mongols considered the land of war ( balad al-h · arb ), his questioners asked, or is it a land of peace (balad al-silm) ? Are Muslims in the Mongol realms free to assist the Mamlu¯ks in their wars against the Mongols, or do they sin by doing so? Ibn Taymiyya responded that if Muslims are unable to freely observe their religion, they must emigrate. He adds that anyone who departs from Islamic law ( sharı ¯ a ) must not be assisted by a Muslim. However, he states that the status of Mardin is composite (murakkab ) — although inhabited by believing Muslims, the government was not sufficiently Islamic.6 Clearly, Ibn Taymiyya felt that the juristic division of the world into the abode of war and the abode of Islam no longer sufficed to describe the situation of Muslims living under Mongol rule. Yahya Michot has pointed out that it is difficult to know exactly what was happening at the time Ibn Taymiyya was writing this fatwa¯.7 He no doubt was writing after the conversion to Islam of the Mongol ruler Gha¯za¯n in 694/1295. But one must remember that this conversion did not mean that Mongol government officials had all converted to Islam. Based on her analysis of the names of Mongol officers preceding the rule of Gha¯za¯n, Judith Pfeiffer concluded that during Gha¯za¯n’s reign, 21 percent of these had Perso-Muslim names, a number that actually represented a decline from the number of Muslim officers under his non-Muslim predecessor. Even by the end of Gha¯za¯n’s rule, many, if not most, Mongol leaders had still not embraced Islam.8 Ibn Taymiyya, then, was right to distinguish between the non-Muslim government and the Muslim subjects who lived under Mongol rule. When he writes that “every land whose inhabitants are believers who fear [God] is a domain of the friends of God at that time,” 9 he is saying that if Muslims might live in obedience to Islam in Mardin, then it was not necessary to emigrate from the city. Much depended on the willingness of Mardin’s Mongol rulers to allow the public practice of Islam and to refrain from imposing laws that would compromise that practice. One other noteworthy item of interest in this fatwa¯ is that Ibn Taymiyya says little about the subject of jiha¯d in it, even though he was engaged in jiha¯d against the ‘
6
¯ al-Fata¯wa¯ , ed. Abd al-Rah·ma¯n b. Muh· ammad b. Qa¯sim, 37 vols. (al-Riya¯ d·: Da¯r Ibn Taymiyya. Majmu ¯ Alam al-Kutub, 1991), 28: 240–1; see also Michot, Muslims Under Non-Muslim Rule , 24–5, 65. 7 Michot, Muslims Under Non-Muslim Rule , 8. 8 Judith Pfeiffer, “Reflections on a ‘Double Rapprochement’: Conversion to Islam among the Mongol Elite during the Early Ilkha¯nate,” in Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan , ed. Linda Komaroff (Leiden: ‘
‘
‘
P S E T “
”
Crusaders and the Mongols at various times in his life.10 Michot draws out this point when he quotes the Lebanese shaykh Sa d al-Dı¯n al-Kibbı¯ as giving the opinion that “if fighting had been an [unconditional] obligation” for Ibn Taymiyya, “it would have been made obligatory or preferable for the weak, and not emigration.”11 Indeed, Michot places great significance on the relative unimportance of jiha¯d to Ibn Taymiyya in this fatwa¯ , since the jurist is often quoted for support by Muslims enjaged in jiha¯d . He writes: ‘
“Any wolf eager to pounce on Mardin will certainly have been disappointed by Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa¯ . . . the Damascene shaykh refuses to accord to it the status of domain of war. . . . His fatwa¯ is thus quite the opposite of a green light to the unleashing of general hostilities.”12
Emigrants from the Holy Land: Ibn Quda ¯ma Unlike Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Quda¯ma (d. 620/1223) wrote about hijra in the context of Crusader Palestine. He was born in the town of Jama¯ ¯ı l, less than ten miles southwest of Nablus. When Ibn Quda¯ma was nine years old, his father, a local shaykh named Ah·mad, left on hijra for Damascus, reportedly because the Franks “were harming and imprisoning them, and were taking from them things like the jizya (poll tax).” Ah·mad was unsurprisingly “not pleased with his residence under the rule of the unbelievers, [and he resolved to go to Damascus, fearing for his life] and his inability to display his religion .”13 Ibn Quda¯ma emigrated from Palestine one year after his father. Although born in Palestine, he spent most of his life in Damascus as a jurist and theologian. Ibn Quda¯ ma figures prominently in the history of the H· anbalı¯ madhhab as a man of extraordinary piety, religion, and scholarship. He wrote in numerous areas of study: ¯r ), the science of h ¯th , fiqh , us ¯ l al-fiqh , Arabic grammar, Qur anic exegesis (tafsı · adı ·u arithmetic, astronomy, and virtue. Distinguished scholars in the H· anbalı¯ school attended Ibn Quda¯ma’s lectures. According to the shaykh Abu¯ Bakr Muh· ammad b. Ma a¯lı¯ b. ‘
’
‘
10
Carole Hillenbrand has commented that the Mamlu¯k period was one of “greater fanaticism,” and that Ibn Taymiyya led the way as a religious leader for Sunnı¯s more generally (not just H· anbalı¯s) in waging war against Islam’s enemies (Christians and Mongols) and against those who allegedly allied with them, such as the Shı¯ ¯ı of the Lebanese mountains. Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspective (New York: Routledge, 2000), 241–3. 11 Michot, Muslims Under Non-Muslim Rule , 45, 122. 12 Ibid., 26. 13 ı and h This account was related by the H· anbalı¯ qa¯d ·¯ · a¯fiz · D · iya¯ al-Dı¯n (d. 642/1245). Diya¯’ al-Dı¯n writes that Ah·mad was preaching to large gatherings and that Ibn Barza¯n became angry with this public display of Islam because it was “distracting the peasants from their work.” See Muh· ammad b. Alı¯ b. ¯ya fı ¯ Ta¯ rı ¯kh al-S a¯lih iya , ed. Muhammad Ahmad Duhma¯n (Damascus: Tulu¯n, Al-Qala¯ id al-Jawharı ’
’
‘
’
T M W
•
V 103
J AN UA RY 2013
•
Ghanı¯ma, no-one reached a level of ijtiha¯d as high as that of Ibn Quda¯ma, who is 14 especially known for his works of law: al-Mughnı ¯ , al- Umda , and Rawd at al-Na ¯zir . · In his al-Mughnı ¯ Ibn Quda ¯ma discusses whether Muslims must emigrate from non-Muslim lands in his chapter on jiha¯d (he also addresses the subject briefly in his 15 chapter on h · ajj ). He begins by asking whether hijra is still relevant to Muslims. He presents the textual basis for emigrating from non-Muslim lands by quoting Qur a¯n 4 (al-Nisa¯ ):97–100, which suggest that some regimes on the earth are so evil that Muslims must emigrate from them: ‘
’
’
97. When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls, they say,
‘In what plight were ye?’ They reply: ‘Weak and oppressed were we in the earth’. They say: ‘Was not the earth of Alla¯h spacious enough for you to move (tuha¯jiru ¯ ) yourselves away (from evil)?’ Such men will find their abode in Hell—what an evil Refuge! 98. Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed—men, women, and children who have no means in their power, nor a (guide post) to direct their way. 99. For these, there is hope that Alla¯h will forgive, for Alla¯h doth blot out (sins) and forgive again and again. 100. He who forsakes ( yuha¯jir ) his home in the cause of Alla¯h , finds in the earth many a refuge wide and spacious. Should he die as a refugee (muha¯jir ) from home for Alla¯h and His Messenger, his reward becomes due and sure with Alla¯h , and Alla¯h is oft-forgiving, most merciful.16 17 Ibn Quda¯ma then cites part of a h adı ¯th from Muh ammad: “I am absolved [of · · obligations] to every Muslim who takes up residence among the polytheists. One should not [be so close as] to see their fire .” Ibn Quda¯ma offers his interpretation: “Its meaning
14
See Abd al-Rah·ma¯ n b. Ah· mad b. Rajab (d. 795/1393), Kita¯b al-Dhayl ala¯ T · abaqa¯t al-Hana¯bila , 2 vols. (Beirut: Da¯r al-Ma rifa, 1980), 2:133–49. Ibn Quda¯ma’s entry is listed as number 272. 15 ¯ , ed. Abd Alla¯h b. Abd al-Muh·sin Muwaffaq al-Dı¯n Abd Alla¯h b. Ah·mad b. Quda¯ma, al-Mughnı al-Turkı¯ and Abd al-Fatta¯h· Muh·ammad al-H · ulw, 15 vols. (Cairo: Hajr, 1990), 13:149–52. 16 The Meaning of the Holy Qur a¯n , ed. Abd Alla¯h Yu¯suf Alı¯, (Beltsville, Maryland: Amana: 1997). 17 See Abu¯ Da¯ u¯d, Kita¯b al-Sunan , ed. Muh·ammad Awwa¯ma, 6 vols. (Beirut: al-Rayya¯n Publishing, 2004), 6:284; al-Nasa¯ ¯ı , al-Mujtaba¯ , 9 vols. (Beirut: Da¯r al-Basha¯ ir al-Isla¯miyya, 1994), 8:36; and ¯r , ed. Bashsha¯r Awwad, 6 vols. (Beirut: Da¯r al-Gharb al-Islamı¯, 1998), al-Tirmidhı¯, al-Ja¯mi al-Kabı ¯th in full. See 3:252. The North African Ma¯lik ¯ı jurist al-Wansharı¯sı¯ (d. 914/1508) related this h · adı al-Wansharı¯sı¯, al-Mi ya¯r , 13 vols. (Beirut: Da¯r al-Maghrib al-Isla¯mı¯, 1981), 2:125, and Asmal, 159, for his ¯th cited by Ibn Quda¯ma is a tradition in which Muh·ammad sends out a military unit translation. The h · adı to fight the polytheistic Arab tribe of Khath am in southern Arabia. When the polytheists saw the Muslim soldiers, “they sought refuge in prostration, but the killing was too fast,” and Muh· ammad ordered that only half of the blood-money needed to be paid. Al-Wansharı¯sı¯ then relates the part of the tradition cited by Ibn Quda¯ma: “I am absolved [of obligations] to every Muslim who takes up residence among ¯th are easier to see than it is in Ibn Quda¯ma s the polytheists.” In context, the implications of the h · adı ¯th in clipped form because he was not clipped citation. Ibn Quda¯ma probably presented the h · adı principally concerned with whether or not hijra had come to an end; rather, he was considering the conditions under which Muslims might not need to emigrate. By contrast, al-Wansharı¯sı¯ had good ‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
’
‘
’
‘
’
’
‘
‘
‘
‘
P S E T “
”
is that he [viz., the Muslim] does not see the place of their fire [viz. the polytheists’ fire], but they see his fire when the fire is lit .” In other words, Muh·ammad seems to be warning Muslims to stay far away from unbelievers, like viewing a campfire from afar, and ¯th to motivating them to go on hijra . It seems clear that Ibn Quda¯ma includes the h · adı emphasize that Muh·ammad put a premium on keeping his distance from unbelievers and that Muslims should follow his example. ¯th from Muh·ammad that appears to question the Ibn Quda¯ma relates a h · adı relevance of hijra to the legist’s time: “There is no emigration after the conquests . . . Emigration came to an end, but jiha¯d and intention ( niyya ) have not [come to an end].” He quotes the tradition without attribution, referring only to the “people of knowledge” 18 (ahl al- ilm ), though the h adı ¯th is reported by al-Bukha ¯ r ¯ ı . He then relates another · tradition as further evidence for this position: ‘
It is related that S· afwa¯n b. Umayya, after he became a Muslim, was told: “He has no religion who does not emigrate.” He came to Madı¯na, and the Prophet (may God pray for him and give him peace) said to him: “What brought you [here], Abu¯ Wahb?” He said: “It was said: ‘He has no religion who does not emigrate’.” [The Prophet said:] “Return, Abu¯ Wahb, to the valleys of Mecca, settle [your people] in your dwellings, for indeed emigration has come to an end, but there is jiha¯d and niyya .”19
Ibn Quda¯ma later explains that emigration has come to an end from Mecca in particular “because emigration is the leaving of the land of the unbelievers, and when it [viz., Mecca] was conquered, it did not remain as the land of the unbelievers. In this way, in every land that is conquered, [the concept of] emigration is no longer relevant.” Returning to the argument that hijra is still relevant to Muslims after the conquest of Mecca, Ibn Quda¯ma cites various h ¯ths including one well known on the · adı authority of Mu a¯wiya: “Emigration will not come to an end until repentance comes to an end, and repentance will not come to an end until the sun rises in the West.” 20 He finishes this section by quoting another h ¯th, which presents the view that emigra· adı tion does not come to an end as long as there is jiha¯d. Ibn Quda¯ma appears to be ¯th with the one reported by al-Bukha¯r ¯ı , which suggests juxtaposing this last h · adı rather that hijra remains significant to Muslims along with jiha¯d and niyya following the conquest of Mecca. ‘
18
ı · , ed. Ra¯ id b. Sabrı¯ b. Abı¯ Alfa, 2 vols. (Riyad: Maktabat al-Rushd, 2005), 1:285. See al-Bukha¯rı¯, S · ah · ¯h ¯th goes on to say that S· afwa¯n returned to Mecca and resided there until he died. The h ¯th The h · adı · adı may be found in al-Nisa¯ ¯ı ’s Mujtaba¯ , 7/131. For more information on S· afwa¯n b. Umayya, see Yu¯suf b. ¯b al-Kama¯l f ¯ı Asma¯ al-Rija¯l , 35 vols. (Beirut: al-Zakı¯ Abd al-Rahma¯n al-Mizz ¯ı (d. 741/1341), Tahdhı ’
‘
19
’
‘
’
T M W
V 103
•
J AN UA RY 2013
•
¯th that details the story At the end of his section on hijra , Ibn Quda¯ma relates a h · adı 21 ofNu aym al-Nah·h·a¯m’s hijra to Madı¯na. Nu aym wishes to emigrate, but his people, the Banu¯ Adiyy, come to him and plead with him to stay, reminding him how much he had helped the community by looking after widows and orphans. Nu aym decides to emigrate anyway. When Muh·ammad encounters Nu aym in Madı¯ na, he remarks that “your people were better to you than my people were to me [because] they [viz., the Meccans] expelled me and wanted to kill me, but your people protect you and guard you.” Muh· ammad seems to wonder why Nu aym would emigrate when he was treated so well. Nu aym responds that “your people expelled you into obedience to God [and] jiha¯d [against] His enemy. My people prevented me from emigrating and obeying God.” Ibn Quda¯ma appears to give Nu aym the final word: hijra is a matter of obedience to God. 22 Ibn Quda¯ma also discusses hijra in his Kita¯b al-H · ajj. He begins by quoting the ¯th from eponym of his school, Ah· mad b. H· anbal (d. 241/855), who in turn relates a hadı al-Tirmidhı¯ in which Muh· ammad reflects on his “beloved” Mecca, saying that he would not have left it, except that he was expelled from it, and that there is no harm in Muslims living in Mecca if they were not part of the original emigration to Madı¯na. Next, Ibn Quda¯ ma quotes Ibn Umar (d. 73/693): “Residing in Madı¯na is more beloved to me than staying in Mecca, for those who have the ability to do it.” 23 Ibn Quda¯ma ends with a h ¯th in which Muh· ammad assures Muslims,” No-one shall endure its hardships [i.e. · adı the hardships of hijra ] and its adversity, except that I will be for him an intercessor on the Day of Resurrection.”24 Ibn Quda¯ma then comforts his reader by saying that Muh·ammad himself will advocate for the emigrant on Judgment Day as his or her reward for emigrating. What does Ibn Quda¯ma’s choice of traditions and transmitters say about his position ı · ) traditions in support of hijra from Muslim, Abu¯ on hijra ? By quoting sound (s ·ah · ¯h Da¯ u¯d, al-Tirmidhı¯, al-Nasa¯ ¯ı , and, especially, Ibn H· anbal, he appears to declare his support for the position that Muslims may continue to emigrate from non-Muslim lands. ¯th He cites sound traditions to the contrary, but he curiously neglects to attribute the h · adı 25 to al-Bukharı¯, possibly because he wishes to weaken the position that hijra has come to an end (though it is equally possible he simply assumes the reader will recognize the ‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
’
’
21
¯ ma rifa¯t al-as ·h Yu¯suf b. Abd al-Barr, al-Isti ab fı · a¯b , 2 vols. (Beirut: Da¯r al Kutub al- Ilmiyya, n.d.), 1:476. Nu aym al-Nah·h·a¯m was a companion of Muh·ammad and an early convert who hid his Islam due to the religious persecution of Muslims in the Meccan period. He died in the year 13/634. 22 ¯ , 15 vols., ed. Abd Alla¯h b. Abd al-Muh·sin al-Turkı¯ and Abd al-Fatta¯h· Ibn Quda¯ma, al-Mughnı Muh·ammad al-H · ulw (Cairo: Hajr, 1990), 5:464–5. 23 Ibn Umar, son of the second caliph, is regarded as “the most scrupulous in neither adding to nor ¯th s narrated by him.” See EI 2 , s.v. Abd Alla¯h b. Umar b. al-Khat·t·a¯b omitting anything from the h · adı (L. Veccia Vaglieri). 24 ı · , 8 vols. (Cairo: Da¯r al-Tah·rı¯r, 1964), 4:118; al-Tirmidhı¯ al-Ja¯mi al-Kabı ¯r , ed., See Muslim, al-S · ah · ¯h Bashsha¯r Awwad, 6 vols. (Beirut: Da¯r al-Gharb al-Islam ¯ı , 1998), 6:203, 7; Ibn H anbal, Musnad , ed. ‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
P S E T “
”
¯th from al-Bukharı¯’s collection). Ibn Quda¯ma also does not appear to well known h · adı accept pronouncements like those given to S· afwa¯n b. Umayya as applying to all Muslims in all lands. Rather he acknowledges that if the land was conquered, as Mecca was, “it is no longer the land of the unbelievers” and hijra is no longer relevant. This implies that this is not the case in lands where unbelief reigns. Hijra continues to be relevant to Muslims living in lands where Islam is not dominant. In short, Ibn Quda¯ma appears to be affirming that hijra from non-Muslim lands to Muslim lands is always desirable, if not obligatory. It is in Ibn Quda¯ ma’s Kita¯b al-Jiha¯d that one finds his direct advice for those Muslims who wish to remain under non-Muslim rule. Muslims unable to practice Islam in a non-Muslim land must emigrate, Ibn Quda¯ma writes, citing as support for this ruling Qur a¯n 4:97, which rebukes Muslims for not emigrating from an evil plight. Islamic law assumes that five “universal” human interests (mas ·a¯lı ¯h · ) must be protected for Muslims to remain in a particular location: the ability to observe one’s religion, the sanctity of life, the preservation of lineage, the protection of property, and the safeguarding of rationality.26 The inability to practice Islam violates one of these fundamental interests, giving Muslims a legitimate reason to emigrate. However, Ibn Quda¯ma affirms that Muslims may have good reasons not to emigrate. Those incapable of travel or escape (including the ill, women, and children) may be excused from hijra, as Qur a¯n 4:98–9 gives them permission to stay. Then he adds another reason for not going on hijra : ’
’
But he [who] has the ability to [publicly] show his religion may stay in the land of the unbelievers. This is preferable for him [that he stay in the land so] that he may have the capability of waging jiha¯d against them [viz., the unbelievers], and [aiding] the increase of the Muslims, supporting them, and that he will be able to free them from the increase of the unbelievers and mingling with them and seeing what is [ethically] objectionable among them. It is not incumbent upon him [to emigrate] if it is possible for him to perform his religious duties. 27
With this, Ibn Quda¯ma at first appears to agree with the Sha¯fi ¯ı s in allowing Muslims to stay in non-Muslim lands. However, Ibn Quda¯ma clarifies this point in a way that seems to undermine any kind of harmonious relationship between Muslims and their non-Muslim rulers. He appears particularly concerned that Muslims not mix with non-Muslims, for fear that they might be exposed to people or experiences that would ‘
26
See Bernard Weiss, The Spirit of Islamic Law (Atlanta: University of Georgia Press, 1998), 78. The principle of human interests ( mas ·a¯lih · ) as a basis for law was formalized by al-Sha¯t·ibı¯ (d. 790/1388), a Ma¯likı¯ scholar from Nas·rid Granada who undoubtedly would have been familiar with the situation of Muslims living under Castilian and Aragonese rule. He accepted not only mas · a¯lih · that had a textual basis in the Qur a¯n or h adı ¯th , but also those that did not. In this he demonstrated flexibility in his ’
T M W
•
V 103
•
J AN UA RY 2013
compromise them, and he argues that a large Muslim community would insulate members from compromising encounters with non-Muslims. Why does Ibn Quda¯ma mention jiha¯d as a primary rationale for Muslims remaining in non-Muslim lands? Although Ibn Quda¯ma does not elaborate on this point, his mention of jiha¯d is not surprising, as this discussion takes place within his Kita¯b al-Jiha¯d. Moreover, the traditions observed earlier mention jiha¯d in the context of hijra — of particular significance is Nu aym’s point that in migrating to Madı¯na, Muh·ammad was thereby able to engage in jiha¯d against the enemy. Ibn Quda¯ ma’s biography also sheds some light on this matter. He joined the Kurdish sult·a¯n S·ala¯h· al-Dı¯n in his campaigns against the Crusaders. On the evening before the decisive battle at the Horns of Hattin in 583/1187, Ibn Quda¯ma read aloud Ibn Bat·t·a’s “Profession of Faith”28 to encourage the soldiers in their jiha¯d . The following day, S· ala¯h· al-Dı¯n destroyed the bulk of the Crusader army, and over the next few years went on to capture (or liberate) most of the cities and fortresses of Palestine, including the town of Jama¯ ¯ı l.29 While the Crusaders were later able to make temporary contracts with Muslim rulers, for a time controlling even Jerusalem itself, they were never able to recapture the majority of the territory they lost to S·ala¯h· al-Dı¯n. Ibn Quda¯ma appreciated that Muslims living under Crusader rule could be of assistance to S·ala¯h· al-Dı¯n by staying in Palestine and not leaving, as his father had done. When Ibn Quda¯ma’s family emigrated from Palestine, they encountered Muslims along the way to Damascus who, emboldened by their arrival, refused to pay their taxes to the Franks, and killed the ruler of the town. (The rebellion was short-lived.) 30 Carole Hillenbrand argues that such rebellions did not occur often, but the possibility of aid from subject Muslim populations must have been considered by S· ala¯h· al-Dı¯n and Ibn Quda¯ma as they campaigned together against the Franks. Why did Ibn Quda¯ma choose to discuss hijra in his Kita¯b al-H · ajj ? Daoud Casewit has pointed out that the ziya¯ra to Muh·ammad’s tomb at Madı¯na is a kind of “temporary” hijra that seeks to “reaffirm and deepen” Muslims’ love for Muh· ammad. This in turn strengthens the resolve of Muslims to “live according to Islamic norms and prescriptions.”31 It is perhaps for these reasons that Ibn Quda¯ma encourages Muslims to emigrate from non-Muslim lands, even if they are not encountering persecution there. As Ibn Quda¯ma hints, there is eternal merit in enduring the hardships involved in emigration (as there was with the hijra to Madı¯na). In addition, hijra to Muslim lands, while not ‘
‘
28
Ibn Bat·t·a (d. 387/997) was a H· anbalı¯ theologian and jurist trained in Baghdad and Mecca. He lived during the Shı¯ ¯ı Buyid takeover of Baghdad, and became a critic of Shı¯ ism, and to a lesser extent of Mu tazilism and philosophy ( falsafa ). Two centuries later, Abd al-Ghan ¯ı al-Maqdisı¯ and Ibn Quda¯ma revived interest in Ibn Bat·t·a among the H· anbalı¯s. See EI 2 , s.v. Ibn Bat·t·a (H. Laoust). 29 See C. Hillenbrand, The Crusades , 179, and EI 2 , s.v. Ibn Quda¯ma al-Maqdisı¯ (G. Makdisi). 30 ¯ya fı ¯ Ta¯rı ¯kh al-S a¯lih iya , 29. Ibn Tulu¯n, al-Qala¯ id al-Jawharı ‘
‘
‘
‘
’
P S E T “
”
obligatory, is always recommended because a Muslim will be more likely to live according to the sharı ¯ a if he or she is surrounded by Muslims who are doing the same. One cannot err by emigrating, whereas it is possible to be corrupted by one’s non-Muslim ruler and neighbor. Ibn Quda¯ma’s justifications for staying in non-Muslim lands, when viewed in this light, would appear to be more concessionary (and in the case of jiha¯d , intended to undermine the non-Muslim ruler) and less an encouragement to harmonious co-existence. ‘
Loyalty to the Madhhab: Ibn Muflih ·
The much less well-known but nevertheless important H· anbalı¯ jurist Muh·ammad b. Muflih· al-Qa¯qu¯nı¯ (d. 763/1362) presents an interesting point of comparison to Ibn Quda¯ma and Ibn Taymiyya. Unlike the other two jurists, Ibn Muflih· did not live under the threat of Mongol or Crusader attack; like Ibn Taymiyya, he enjoyed the prosperity of Mamlu¯k rule. Over the course of his lifetime, he witnessed the breakup of the Mongol Ilkha¯nate into smaller states, effectively ending Mongol rivalry with the Mamlu¯ks. Other long-time enemies were weakened as well. The Crusaders from Cyprus could at best make raids only along the coast, and in 696/1297, the Christian kingdom of Cilician Armenia, which lay just to the north of Syria, and which had allied itself with the Mongols during its assaults on Damascus in the seventh/thirteenth century, was reduced to paying a tribute of 500,000 dirhams each year to the Mamlu¯k sult ·a¯n . This figure was doubled in 715/1315.32 Little is known about Ibn Muflih· ’s life. Like Ibn Quda¯ma, he was born in Palestine (in Jerusalem), then moved to Damascus, where he served as a judge under the chief judge ¯ t ) and gave formal legal opinions according to the H· anbalı¯ madhhab . His (qa¯d ·¯ı al-qud ·a loyalty to the school was such that he insisted that he be buried in the same graveyard as Ibn Quda¯ ma, in the district of S· a¯lih·iyya, where Ibn Quda¯ma had lived and worked. 33 In Damascus, Ibn Muflih· was a student of Ibn Taymiyya’s — reportedly his best student in jurisprudence. His four-volume Kita¯b al-Furu¯ has become an important treatise in H · anbalı¯ law. Ibn Muflih· discusses hijra in his chapter on jiha¯d in his Kita¯b al-Furu¯ .34 Like Ibn Quda¯ma, he raises the question of whether or not hijra has come to an end. He begins with the view that it has come to an end, citing a tradition related by Ibn Hubayra 35 ¯r and scholar of H ¯th , the (d. 560/1165), an Abba¯sid wazı · anbalı¯ fiqh. In this h · adı ‘
‘
‘
32
Robert Irwin, The Middle East in the Middle Ages: The Early Mamluk Sultanate, 1250–1382 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 1986), 120. 33 ¯n: tara ¯ jim For a short biography of Ibn Muflih· , see Umar Rid·a¯ al-Kah·h·a¯la, Mu jam al-Mu allifı mus ¯ al-kutub al- Arabiyya (Beirut: Maktabat al-Muthanna¯; Da¯r Ih· ya¯ al-Tura¯th al- Arabı¯, 1983), · annifı ¯ School of 44. On Ibn Muflih·’s relationship with his teacher Ibn Taymiyya, see al-Matroudi, The H · anbalı Law and Ibn Taymiyya: Conflict or Conciliation , 136–41. ‘
‘
‘
’
’
‘
T M W
V 103
•
•
J AN UA RY 2013
Companion Ibn Mas u¯d36 gives an oath to go on hijra to Madı¯na. Muh·ammad declares, “There is no emigration after Mecca was conquered, but I make a covenant with him on Islam and the faith and jiha¯d.” Ibn Muflih· then quotes from two traditions found in the collections of al-Bukharı¯ and Muslim respectively: “Hijra came to an end for her people,” and, “Indeed emigration came to an end for her people, but Islam and jiha¯d and [what is] good [remain].” Ibn Muflih· seems to be repeating versions of h ¯ths seen · adı before. Ibn Muflih· goes on to explain by way of a h ¯th transmitted by Ibn Hubayra why · adı hijra had to come to an end. He states that hijra was made to Madı¯na so that “God can be worshipped in peace.” He takes an approach not taken by either Ibn Quda¯ma or Ibn Taymiyya: “Had space been made after the conquest of Mecca for hijra to the cramped [situation] in Madı¯na, the lands of its inhabitants [viz. Mecca’s inhabitants] would empty.” Here Ibn Muflih· is putting forward a practical reason for why hijra is no longer necessary, i.e. that too many people would be living in Madı¯na when they could be living elsewhere. Interestingly, he does not follow this up with the opposing viewpoint that hijra has not come to an end. Instead, Ibn Muflih· narrates a h adı ¯th transmitted by Sa ¯ı d b. Jubayr · (d. 95/712)37 on the authority of Ibn Abba¯s (d. 68/687–8)38 — citing Qur a¯n 29:56 as support: “Emigration is not obligatory from among the people of the sinners/rebels.” Ibn Muflih·’s explanation of this tradition is confusing; he says that if “sins [are] being committed in the land,” then Muslims must leave it. By this, he seems to insist against the force of the tradition by saying that people should leave such lands, even if leaving is not obligatory. He admits that this tradition goes against the teaching of Muh· ammad: “He who sees from among you something reprehensible, let him change it by his hand.” While Ibn Muflih· does not clarify what he means by this statement, the context would seem to indicate that Muh·ammad intended Muslims to address sins where they find them rather than running from the situation. Ibn Muflih·, however, holds that emigration is preferable to staying in the land. How is one to make sense of Ibn Muflih·’s use of h ¯ths, and what do these choices, · adı if anything, say about him? He seems to support Muslims who wish to emigrate, but his ‘
‘
‘
’
36
Ibn Mas u¯d, one of the earliest converts to Islam, took part in the hijras to both Abyssinia and Madı¯na. He is said to have received the Qur a¯n directly from the mouth of Muh·ammad. See EI 2 , s.v. Ibn Mas u¯d ( Jean Claude Vadet). 37 ¯th. He Sa ¯ı d b. Jubayr was a Ku¯fan scholar accomplished in Qur a¯nic exegesis, jurisprudence and h · adı took part in a revolt in Ku¯fa against al-H· ajja¯j, the Umayyad governor of Iraq. When that failed, he fled to Mecca, where he taught for several years. He later was apprehended by the governor of Mecca, and handed over to al-H· ajja¯j for execution. See EI 2 , s.v. Sa ¯ı d b. Jubayr (Harald Motzki). 38 Ibn Abba¯s is regarded as one of the greatest scholars of the first generation of Muslims. Born ten years before the hijra to Madı¯na, he acquired a reputation as a teacher of Qur a¯nic exegesis, juridical issues, ‘
’
‘
‘
’
‘
‘
’
P S E T “
”
h ¯ths focus on why emigration has come to an end, and they declare that Muslims · adı need not emigrate. Fortunately, Ibn Muflih· clarifies his thinking about hijra from lands
of unbelief. Like Ibn Quda¯ma and Ibn Taymiyya before him, Ibn Muflih· holds that if a Muslim “is incapable of observing his religion in the abode of war in which the rule of the unbelievers prevails,” and he is able to emigrate, it is incumbent upon him to do so. Curiously, he mentions that “some of them” (presumably other scholars) liken “a land of immorality or innovation such as [that of] the Refusers [Shı¯ ¯ı s]39 and the Mu tazila” to the land of unbelievers. By including these groups, Ibn Muflih· implies that Muslims may be unable to practice Islam even inside da¯r al-Isla¯m, in which case they still have the obligation to emigrate to a part of the da¯r al-Isla¯m where Islam is rightly practiced. To his argument that Muslims unable to practice Islam must emigrate, Ibn Muflih· adds that even if he “has no riding animal, and is not in a state of muh · ram (purity) [viz. ih ¯ m ],” he nevertheless must still flee. On the other hand, if a Muslim is able to practice · ra Islam openly in this land of “unbelief,” hijra may be made only if the emigrant is in a 40 state of purity, as in the h ajj. Compared to Ibn Quda¯ma, Ibn Muflih· shows more · concern that Muslims undertaking hijra take care not to break Islamic law in the process of emigration, unless their plight is truly desperate. His discussion of hijra appears to be theoretical, since by his day, neither the Crusaders nor the Mongols posed much of a threat to Damascus. Yet Ibn Muflih· felt compelled to address the subject of hijra because he was writing in a tradition, and taqlı ¯d , or loyalty to his madhhab , meant that he should imitate his predecessors, regardless of the subject’s direct relevance to the writer’s life. What Ibn Muflih· chose not to discuss in his fiqh is also instructive. Even though he follows juristic tradition and locates his discussion of hijra within his Kita¯b al-Jiha¯d , Ibn Muflih· does not trouble, as Ibn Quda¯ma did, to list jiha¯d as one of the valid reasons a Muslim may claim for emigrating from a non-Muslim land. (Indeed, he gives few reasons at all for emigrating, mentioning only the customary point that a Muslim must leave if he or she cannot observe his or her religion.) For Ibn Muflih· , hijra was more a matter of theory than it was one of practice, and there was no need to go into detail on an issue that few Muslims would have been concerned about at the time. ‘
‘
Conclusion Of the three jurists studied here, Ibn Quda¯ma and Ibn Taymiyya had either personal experience of non-Muslim rule or lived during a time when fellow Muslims lived under non-Muslim rulers. Neither of these jurists appears to have diverged from his school’s
39
The term ra¯fid · a , pl. rawa¯fid · (refusers) is a pejorative name that Sunnı¯s used for the Shı¯ ¯ı s, who refused to recognise the first three caliphs Abu¯ Bakr, Umar, and Uthma¯n. A contemporary of Ibn Muflih·, the Moroccan traveller Ibn Bat·t·u¯t·a (d. 770/1369), in his Rih · la repeatedly refers to the Shı¯ ¯ı s as rawa¯fid . See H.A.R. Gibb’s comments on this subject in Ibn Bat tu¯ta, Travels in Asia and Africa , trans. ‘
‘
‘
‘
T M W
•
V 103
J AN UA RY 2013
•
position on hijra . Ibn Taymiyya wrestled with concrete problems of Muslims living under non-Muslim rule in a way that neither Ibn Quda¯ma nor Ibn Muflih· did, but he still followed the majority positions in his school. This demonstrates the power of taqlı ¯d over adherents of the schools — even a scholar as dynamic as Ibn Taymiyya. Personal experience played a significant role in how jurists articulated their ideas within the confines of the madhhab . Recall Ibn Quda¯ma’s inclusion of jiha¯d in his reasons for remaining in a non-Muslim land. The fact that Ibn Quda¯ma rode in battle alongside S·ala¯h· al-Dı¯n assuredly played a part in his articulation of jiha¯d as one reason for remaining under non-Muslim rule. By contrast, Ibn Muflih· has no obvious connection with jiha¯d, and does not write about it. Rather, he turned his attention to troublemakers (as perceived by H· anbalı¯s) within Islam, namely the Shı¯ ¯ı s and Mu tazilı¯s. This is not to say that such experience was determinative; while Ibn Taymiyya neglected jiha¯d in his fatwa¯ about Mardin, he engaged in jiha ¯ d against the Mongols and Crusaders at other times in his life. Yet while practical experience of non-Muslim rule did not determine the position on hijra adopted by the jurists studied here, its influence should nevertheless not be underestimated. It always had the potential of influencing one’s fiqh , despite any pressure the jurist might feel from his school to conform to its majority opinion. ‘
‘
Copyright of Muslim World is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual u se.
