Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah on religious loyalty vs.

citizenship1
Translation & commentary by Dr Usama Hasan – Quilliam International

[This text is an extract from Usama Hasan, “From Dhimmitude to Democracy,” Quilliam, 2015]

Ibn Bayyah, one of the foremost traditional jurists of today, discusses this issue in relation to the modern
extremist discourse around loyalty (wala’) and disavowal (bara’), since many extremist Muslim clerics
argue that all Muslims must give their total loyalty to Islam and Muslims, and disavow all non-Muslims
as well as their creeds and religions.

As Ibn Bayyah shows, the Qur’anic theme of loyalty is multi-layered and diverse: it is linked to
allegiances of faith, family ties and structure, social ties and structure, and so forth. He then goes on to
quote two hadiths or teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in support of a more
universal idea of loyalty:

(i) “The land belongs to God; the people are servants of God: so wherever you find goodness,
settle there.”

(ii) Addressing one of his disciples: “Establish prayer, give alms, shun evil and live wherever you
wish in the land of your people.”

He further refers to both the Medinan Covenant and Hilf al-Fudul, the pre-Islamic treaty safeguarding
social justice and welfare in Mecca in which Muhammad participated before his prophethood, later saying
that “If I were invited to participate in such a venture again, I would do so.”

Ibn Bayyah then criticises the puritan view of loyalty that leads to the extremism described above:
ironically, the puritanical Muslims claim to eschew innovated practices and terms in religion (bid’ah), yet
their own exclusivist use of the Qur’anic terms of loyalty and disavowal is in itself a harmful, heretical
innovation. This heretical tendency was known in early Islam, and Ibn Bayyah quotes from early
authorities who condemned it as a harmful innovation, such as Ali and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (disciples of
the Prophet) and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (founder of one of the four main Sunni schools of
jurisprudence). Ash’ari, the leading Sunni theologian, even described two heretical sects that expressed
disavowal of children until they confirmed orthodox Muslim faith.

Most Qur’anic verses and hadiths mentioning “disavowal” apply this to actions, not individual people.
Ibn Bayyah gives several examples of these, and explains that this is because “a person may have hateful
as well as lovable qualities, so he is to be loved in one aspect and hated in another. This is why, in most
cases, the disavowal is from the action, not the person. And God knows best.”

The Prophets of God are part of “their people” in the Qur’an, expressing approval of their considering
themselves part of a nation, even though the latter were often unbelievers. The Prophet himself is told
“You may not be able to guide whomever you love” (Q. 28:56), with no disapproval of his familial love

1
Shaykh ‘Abdullah bin Shaykh Mahfuz bin Bayyah, Sina’at al-Fatwa [The Crafting of Jurisprudential Rulings],
Dar al-Minhaj / Global Centre for Renewal and Guidance, 1428/2007, pp. 287-302
for unbelieving relatives2, and various hadiths speak of the love for one’s homeland. Ibn Bayyah
comments, “This attribution to peoples, and the love of homes and homelands, is a type of loyalty.”

Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah on citizenship

It is worth reproducing this long discussion, with an original translation: 3

As for citizenship [literally in Arabic, “adopting a homeland”], it now has a new meaning: a mutual
relationship amongst the individuals of a human group settled in one land, and not necessarily attributed
to one ancestor, unified historical memory or single religion; underpinnded by a constitution, framework
and laws that define the obligations and rights of the individuals. It is a quasi-mutual society to which its
individuals attribute themselves voluntarily in the form of a mutual contract, such that someone joining
today has the same rights as those of the oldest member.

The values of this group in the modern understanding is opposite to the historical understanding that was
based on race, religion or a shared history. The modern understanding is premised on the notion that
diversity itself has become a major value, through which cohesion may be attained by mutual interaction
of different specialisations in order to arrive at greater public benefit by activating shared humanity,
neutralising elements of marginalisation and rejection of striving for racial purity that leads to the
division of residents into [unequal] levels, as was the case with the Romans or Arabs in [pre-Islamic]
times of ignorance.

Citizenship is a voluntary tie binding you to a homeland, ruled by a constitution, or what the German
philosopher Habermas calls constitutional citizenship, i.e. the individual’s sense of belonging to a civic
society founded on the sharing of basic values.

Citizenship rises above group dynamics but does not cancel them: the aim is to blend and coexist with
them successfully.

The above is perhaps the most important development in the understanding of citizenship in the modern
age. It is also perhaps the most important bridge by which the religious values of all human groupings
may be respected and accepted. This accords with the understanding of Islam about human coexistence:
a Muslim finds no harm in it, but rather may co-operate in it.

In this historical context of the formation of western society, of which Muslims, like others, are a part,
and through the wider European Union, it is a duty upon Muslims to participate in realising the
understanding of citizenship that accommodates different identities. This must be done through a correct
understanding and sound evaluation of the European historical heritage and world developments, so that
they grasp their countries’ problems as well as the causes and nature of these. Thus, they may interact
with the majority and together create new standards of citizenship. This requires some degree of moving
away from self-centredness. It also requires taking the important steps, for minorities, of respecting the
other and recognising the existence of different religions and cultures, living various freedoms and

2
This verse is traditionally said to have been revealed about Abu Talib, a paternal uncle of the Prophet.
3
Shaykh ‘Abdullah bin Shaykh Mahfuz bin Bayyah, Sina’at al-Fatwa [The Crafting of Jurisprudential Rulings],
Dar al-Minhaj / Global Centre for Renewal and Guidance, 1428/2007, pp. 302-8
partnering in the running of political, economic and social life, far-removed from violence. Thus,
citizenship will become a melting-pot in which all identities are blended. The degree of cohesion and
knitting amongst all these factors within society determines how the citizen and society find their places.

Identity is a personal, social and philosophical understanding, a product of a mutual dialectical process
between an individual and society or the group he or she favours, in the sense that identity has an
individual-cum-social nature: the existence of a society or group is very important as a world to which
the individual belongs. Identity and belonging thus need grouping and individual desire to be linked to,
or in the presence of, others. This need appears to be widespread amongst humanity.

Thus, loyalty may be considered as circles or ranks, having the possibility of interconnecting and
interacting rather than clashing and fighting. Loyalty to religion is non-controversial to every Muslim, or
indeed to every religious person: it is the highest point of the pyramid of loyalties. However, it does not
interfere with loyalty to homeland according to the understanding of citizenship that we have indicated.
The two do not contradict as long as the contract of citizenship does not comprise leaving religion,
abandoning its symbols or obstructing a Muslim’s freedom to live his or her faith.

The relationship between the contract of citizenship and religion may be conceptualised as circles,
including matters that are sought by religion and desired naturally, such as: the right to life, justice,
equality, freedoms and protection of property; the right not to be subject to arbitrary imprisonment and
torture; the right to social insurance for the poor, elderly and sick; mutual co-operation amongst the
individuals of society for the common good. The relationship also includes resultant duties such as the
paying of taxes, defending the homeland against aggression, and following the laws [of the land] as part
of fulfilling the contract of citizenship. In reality, this falls under fulfilling covenants and respecting their
consequences, which falls under loyalty to religion: “O you who believe! Fulfil your covenants.” [Qur’an
5:1]

Means have the same religious rulings as their objectives, as is established in the books of the
foundations of jurisprudence, especially according to [the great scholars] ‘Izz al-Din bin ‘Abd al-Salam,
Qarafi and others. Such means include participating in elections and joining parties and groups [and are
thus encouraged by Islam as part of citizenship], and fall under helping each other towards piety and
righteousness: the Exalted said, “Let not the hatred of a people, who prevented you from the Sacred
Mosque, lead you to transgress. Help each other towards piety and righteousness. Do not help each
other towards sin and enmity.” [Qur’an 5:2] This principle was revealed about relations with polytheists
who were at war [with the Muslims], so how can it not apply to fellow, peaceful citizens?! For relations
with the latter are governed by the verse, “God does not forbid you, regarding those who neither fought
you over religion nor expelled you from your homes, that you treat them with kindness and justice. Truly,
God loves those who deal justly.” [Qur’an 60:8]

The major values of neutral secularism are to be considered positive values, such as:

(i) Respect for beliefs

(ii) Neutrality or impartiality between different religions
(iii) Recognition of individual and social human rights that the state vigilantly protects
(iv) The right to disagreement, diversity and change for individuals and organisations in private
matters
 (v) The right of referring to courts of natural law to extract rights and impose individual duties to
respect laws and pay taxes to share in the national effort to enable infrastructure and defend
against external aggression

None of this negates the major values to which the heavenly religions invite people, especially the Islamic
religion that calls for kindness, love and human brotherhood. However, as is the nature of things, the
devil is in the detail, as the saying goes. For example, some proponents of secularism explain it in such a
way as to take it away from neutrality such that it interferes in the private matters of people and polices
their beliefs: this is a deviation from the basic meaning of secularism.

All groups should remain holding on to secularism as a means to liberation that springs from personal
fulfilment, not as a totalitarian ideology wishing to impose specific concepts based on personal whims.
On the other hand, all sides must resist groups who attempt to diabolically exploit aspirations such as
national, social, economic and security concerns, leading to some of their foolish members carrying out
destructive or terrorist actions: thus, they become natural allies of extremists on the other side who thrive
in such conditions.

We are searching for mutual assistance and solidarity amongst our values, not conflict and tension.
Therefore, the bearers of these values must forge alliances for their homelands to become better: “Why
then were there not, among the generations before you, persons possessed of balanced good sense,
prohibiting (people) from mischief in the earth?” [Qur’an 11:116]

Conclusion

Loyalty is belonging to, and relationships with, people, ideas and values. It is appropriate when
discussing this matter in the context of western countries to establish that loyalty to one’s homeland
within the parameters of religious law does not negate loyalty to religion, and that loyalty is also to
values. Honouring the homeland and its citizens is a value sanctified by religious law as well as by
reason, and a Muslim must “shun the evil” as the Prophetic teaching instructs. Evil is of different levels
and ranks, so [for a believer] loyalty does not mean changing one’s religion, for this would be the highest
level of evil; rather, he must hold on to his faith, “even if he has to gnaw at tree roots until death,” as in
the agreed-upon tradition about trials and tribulations.4

This is a matter of no compromise: if it were supposed that a particular loyalty or belonging opposed and
clashed with it, and the gradation of ranks of loyalty led to prohibited acts that are impermissible for a
Muslim to partake in or support unless there is a desperate necessity that cannot be avoided. It is
impermissible to transgress regarding the blood and property of people, or to participate in prohibited
matters that vary in rank from those prohibited in principle to those prohibited as means towards ends.

Loyalty to fellow-believers is not an exclusive barrier rejecting any worldly relations with people, even if
these do not harm the basics of faith. Such loyalty does not replace love [of non-Muslims] with hatred,
nor subordination with rejection. Rather, it works with people to promote goodness and prevent mischief,
with mutual love and affection. It works with them according to moral law, good character, wholesome

4
Bukhari 3606, Muslim 1847
speech and beneficial action, as in God’s saying, “Speak goodness to people” [Qur’an 2:83] and the
Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him, “Behave with people with good character.”5

Thus, friendships may form, deals and covenants may be concluded: all of this is sanctified by the
intellect, and the life of the Prophet bears witness to its manifestation. Thus, the Muslims were delighted
at the victory of the [Christian] Negus [during an internal conflict] and by the victory of the [Byzantine]
Christians over the [Zoroastrian] Persians, as mentioned in the Qur’an.

Ibn Bayyah on modern nation-states

Ibn Bayyah says, “The land of Islam (dar al-Islam) is every state having a Muslim majority or Muslim
rulers, even if they do not implement some Sharia rulings. The land of non-Muslims is every state having
a non-Muslim majority and non-Muslim rulers. Compound or composite lands (murakkab) are
exemplified by federal states comprising Muslims and others, where each province has the power to make
laws, such as in Nigeria.”6

1.1.1 Remarks on Ibn Bayyah’s discussion

The above discussion is obviously an enlightening one from a leading Muslim jurist who is also familiar
with Western society and thought. The following remarks may be made about this discussion from a
purely citizenship-based perspective:

(i) Ibn Bayyah occasionally speaks about “minorities.” Indeed, the full title of his book includes
the phrase, “Jurisprudence of Minorities” (fiqh al-aqalliyat). Strictly-speaking, the idea of
minorities is incompatible with equal citizenship. The idea of minorities only occurs under
sub-primary categorisations in his hierarchy of identities or loyalties.

(ii) The exhortation to a believing Muslim not to “change one’s religion” is a pastoral one, in Ibn
Bayyah’s capacity as a traditional shaykh. However, it may be misinterpreted by some as an
argument against freedom of religion or belief. This may need to be clarified.

(iii) The “highest loyalty” belonging to faith, i.e. a believer’s relationship with God, may be
misinterpreted by some to justify divisive, faith- or religion-based identity politics, and to
argue for a return to classical Islamic law based on jizya and dhimma. This too may need to
be clarified.

1.1.2 A suggested solution to the dilemma

The dilemma between the highest loyalty being to God or land is an unsolved problem, illuminated by Ibn
Bayyah’s enlightening contribution above, and is the same issue that Indian Muslim scholars grappled

5
Tirmidhi
6
Shaykh ‘Abdullah bin Shaykh Mahfuz bin Bayyah, Sina’at al-Fatwa [The Crafting of Jurisprudential Rulings],
Dar al-Minhaj / Global Centre for Renewal and Guidance, 1428/2007, pp. 280-1
with from the 19th century, as discussed earlier. The following is an attempt to articulate a solution
concisely:

A modern-day citizen owes loyalty to their country as part of their “social contract.” If the values
underpinning that contract are sufficiently universal and inclusive, people of all faiths and none are able
to participate without compromising their integrity, although “the devil is in the detail,” as Ibn Bayyah
remarks. However, if a fundamental value or human right is at stake, e.g. if an electorate democratically
elects a fascist government that enacts racism and discrimination, many people will take a stand against
their nation, even if it involves being prosecuted for treachery, based upon an appeal to higher values such
as truth, justice and fairness. For many believers, such higher values are rooted in the divine. In that
sense, God comes before country, but only in exceptional circumstances for a free society. The opposite
may be the case if one is living under tyranny, i.e. God usually comes before country. In another sense,
there is never a clash of loyalty since adhering to the highest values is always best for the country. This
requires an inclusive understanding and manifestation of both state and religion.