The preceding analysis should help us to deal with the problem of Muslim residents and citizens in Europe and in North America and to respond to questions related to that nature and integrity of loyalty. We have explained the kind of attachment that is linked to the notion of umma and how it should be realized in the light of the principle of justice and respect for treaties. This explanation is of great interest when it comes to the question of citizenship insofar as it structures the various levels of belonging.
Before starting this study, it is perhaps important to pay attention to an essential point that recurs constantly in discussions about the status of Muslims in the West: do they consider themselves first Muslims or Westerners? Behind this apparently simply question we see a series of concerns in which are mixed doubts and suspicions about these residents or new citizens. And, even if at first sight it seems to be a legitimate question, deeper consideration shows that it really centers on a false problem, for faith and nationality, as they are embodied in actual national constitutions, are not of the same order. To be Muslim means to be entrusted with a pledge (amana) that gives a meaning to life: it is to be indwelt and pregnant with a comprehensive perception of life, death, and destiny, guided by faith in one Creator. Philosophically speaking, “Muslim identity” responds to the question of being and as such is essential, fundamental, primal, and primordial, because it contains the justification for life itself. The concept of nationality, as it is understood in the industrialized countries, is of a completely different order: as an element of identity, it organizes, from within both a given constitution and a given space, the way in which a man or woman is related to his or her fellow-citizens and to other human beings. Muslim identity is a response to the question: “Why?,” while national identity is a response to the question: “How?,” and it would be absurd and stupid to expect geographical attachment to resolve the question of being. In short, it all depends what one is talking about: if it is a question of a philosophical debate, the individual is a Muslim of American, British, French, or Belgian nationality, as is the case with any humanist or Christian involved in explaining his or her ideas about life. If the discussion is of legal, social, and/or political questions, the individual is an American, English, French, or Belgian person of the Muslim faith, as others are of the Jewish or Christian faith. In fact, the terminological dispute about whether to say, for example, “Muslim American” or “American Muslim” is, properly speaking, void of meaning.
The real question is not, from the Muslim point of view, about justifying the primary attachment of believers—which is naturally that which they have to God and their faith—but rather, more specifically, to clarify the nature of the connection that exists between Islamic requirements and the concrete reality of citizenship in Western countries. Do the Islamic sources allow a Muslim to be a true American or European citizen, or does a contradiction exist such that the notion of “Western Muslim” cannot be realized? A few points in response to this have already been made in our discussion of the umma, but we must push our thinking further, particularly on the question of the “social contract.”
To begin with, the first principle is that one expects Muslims, in whatever context, to struggle to promote justice and try to reform and improve the situation, according to the saying of the Prophet: “If one of you sees an abhorrent action, let him correct it with his hand; if he cannot, let him do it in words; if he cannot, let him do it in his heart—which is the weakest degree of faith.” However, in the social, political, and even financial domains, human affairs are based on agreements and contracts, which, as we have said, Muslims are bound to respect and which must take priority in their eyes. Faysal al-Mawlawi rightly underlines the fact that, according to the majority of the ulama, Muslims are bound by the decisions and actions of an unjust ruler or dictator “as long as he does not commit a sin or an action that goes against the teachings of Islam.” In such a situation, they are not bound to his actions, because by so acting he has broken the tacit agreement between him and his people with respect to the authority of the Islamic sources. Consequently, they have the right, and the duty, to abandon him and to take power from him within the framework of the legislation in force, that is to say “by all legal means.”
Following on from this first observation, which has already emphasized the importance of contracts, we must note that Muslims today, even if they do not recognize the corrupt leaders or totalitarian political systems in their country of origin, are bound by agreements that these governments may have signed with other countries as long as the agreements do not force them to accept anything contrary to their religion. Consequently, these international agreements, as well as the visas Muslims obtain in order to travel to a country, are legally binding on Muslim residents, as they are on citizens under the authority of the national constitution. The general rule here is that Muslims are bound by the terms of their contract,53 except in a specific case where they would be forced to act against their conscience. This precise use of terms is necessary because some radical Islamic groups state that a Muslim cannot be bound by a constitution that authorizes bank interest (riba), consumption of alcohol (khamr), and other types of behavior that contradict the teachings of Islam.
Now, even if in practice European constitutions do authorize such transactions and behaviors, they do not compel Muslims to use them or do them. Consequently, they are able both on the one hand to respect the law in force—because their presence in the country is based on a tacit or explicit agreement—and on the other hand to abstain from all activity and all involvement that would contradict their faith. Thus, we see that it is clearly in the name of respect for the Islamic teachings of the Sharia that Muslims are able to live in the West and that they should respect the law of the country. So, in other words, Islamic law and jurisprudence command Muslim individuals to submit to the body of positive law enforced in their country of residence in the name of the tacit moral agreement that already supports their very presence. Put in yet another way, to apply the Sharia for Muslim citizens or residents in the West means explicitly to respect the legal and constitutional framework of the country of which they are citizens.
When this is understood, it is the responsibility of Muslims to study with legal scholars every situation in which difficulties could arise, for example in matters concerning obligatory insurance, inheritance, and marriage. Rules would have to be formulated—as they already have been on numerous points—taking into account the legislation of the country, the teachings of Islam (in the light of its five essential rules, already noted), and needs arising from the environment Muslims are faced with. This requires meticulous legal work: the legislation in the various Western countries is not the same and is not closed; it provides scope for interpretation and application. Moreover, there are legally recognized procedures to which Muslims may revert to deal with their situation in a way that accords closely with their conscience. This requires that they work within the limits of what the law allows in order to find an adaptation as close as possible to the teachings of Islam.
One often finds that only an apparent contradiction exists and that working toward adaptation within the margins allowed by the law provides some interesting solutions (in the areas of legal interpretation and strict jurisprudence). It is for Muslim jurists to consider how these arrangements can be managed by working in phases and in various areas of law—from marriage contracts and inheritance to the area of finance and commerce. At the end of this stage in our reflection, three principles can be explicitly formulated: first, the Islamic sources allow Muslims to live in the West. second, they are under the authority of an agreement whose terms must be respected as long as they do not force Muslims to act against their conscience. Third, if a clear conflict of terms of reference occurs, which is very rare, a specific study should be carried out by Muslim jurists to determine, by formulating a legal opinion (fatwa), the types of adaptation that may be possible and that might provide the Muslim with a satisfying solution, both as a practicing believer and as a resident and/or citizen. It is clear, from the preceding observations and in the light of the Islamic sources, that it is illegitimate for a Muslim living in the West to act against the law, or to commit acts of abuse, embezzlement or fraud. Once an agreement is concluded, to act according to the law is in itself a way of worshipping God. Even Abu Hanifa, who went a long way toward allowing Muslims, under certain conditions, to practice interest (riba) when they were trading in non-Muslim countries (dar al-harb, to use binary terminology), clearly indicated that it was permissible to trade with nonMuslims according to the rules in force in their countries, but not in any way to deceive or defraud them. For Muslim citizens and residents [in non-Muslim countries], to act with honesty, rectitude, and dignity is the best way of protecting and affirming their identity as Muslims and of bearing witness to the Islamic message of justice among their fellowcitizens and neighbors.
